the text of the resolution 18-74 could not be clearer. let me quote it. "the security council demands that the dprk not conduct any further nuclear tests or any launch using ballistic missile technology." there is no doubt that this satellite would be launched using ballistic missile technology. they face pressure and isolation. if pyon yang goes forward, we will be back in the security

council to take further action. it is regrettable because, as you know, we had worked through an agreement that would have benefited the north korean people with the provision of food aid but in the current atmosphere, we would not be able to go forward with that and other actions that other countries had been considering. >> last question? >> madam secretary, on the last bit of jill's question, can you support nato protecting the border between syria and turkey? iran says it is bringing new initiatives to these talks in turkey are the p-5 +1 running more to these talks and does russia share your view that time is running out for a diplomatic solution to the iranian nuclear

issue? >> there is nothing of that nature pending. i will not comment on hypothetical. with respect to iran, as the g8 statement makes clear, we are united in our results and expectations that iran will come to the talks prepared and we are receiving signals that they are bringing ideas to the table. they assert their program is purely peaceful. they point to a fatwa that the supreme leader has issued against the pursuit of nuclear weapons. we want them to demonstrate clearly in the actions they propose that they have truly abandoned any nuclear weapons ambitions. i will not get into the details of what we expected we have worked very closely inside our own government and with our p-5 +1 and colleagues.

i have been in close touch with kathy ashton who will be leading our efforts in istanbul. we are looking for concrete results and in a negotiation, we understand that the iranians will be asking for assurances or accents from us and we will certainly take those under consideration. i do think it is clear to everyone, certainly in the p-5 +1 and far beyond, that the diplomatic window for negotiations is open but will not remain open forever. therefore, time is a matter to be taken into account her. we want to get started this weekend. "we will certainly proceed in a very expeditious and diligent

manner in a sustained way to determine whether there is the potential for an agreement. thank you all. >> thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> that adds of the eight leading industrial nations will be meeting may 18 and 19th at camp david in maryland from the country include britain, canada, japan, france, and the united states. in about an hour-and-a-half, we will be live once again here on c-span at 2:30 eastern as afghanistan's defense and interior ministers, talk about efforts to create a police force in their country. it will take a center for strategic and international studies. >> i walked out after the iowa caucus victory and said game on and many folks will write a game

over. this game as long, long way from over. we will continue to go out there and fight to make sure we defeat president barack obama, that we when the house back, and that we take the united states senate and we stand for the values that make us americans, that make us the greatest country in the history of the world, that shining city on the hill to be a beacon for everyone for freedom around the world. >> with that announcement, >> santorum and his 2012 presidential bid. he began in 2009. you can follow the road to the white house on line at the cspan video library with every cspan program since 1987. by the way, rick santorum will be speaking at the national rifle association gathering in st. louis tomorrow. mitt romney and new gingrich are the headliners and all other speakers will include eric cantor and governors rick perry

of texas and scott walker of wisconsin. we will have live coverage on cspan and cspan radio and c- span.org tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. eastern. next up, and indiana senate republican debate between six times incumbent richard lugar and the challenger richard murdock. it is their only debate before the indiana senate primary on may 8. the candidates talked about economic and foreign-policy issues. a one hour debate was organized by the indiana debate commission and took place yesterday at w. fyi studios in st. louis.

but welcome to the u.s. senate candidates. this is by the indiana debate commission pictures i am from the department of telecommunications. i will be our moderator. >> they will ask questions. immediately next to me is a richard mourdock and next to him is richard lugar. have agreed to the rules. here are the highlights. our plan is to give them two minutes for every answer. we may need to shorten that for a bit. after that, i will announce the shorter time window. i make that up the candidates

who goes past the allotted time. a committee of the debate commission reviews the questions. it is thought of by more than a dozen non-partisan groups in 2007. they have agreed not to use props. after this began, we break our studios on the governing rules. there's to listen quietly. they will each have 30 seconds to introduce themselves. >> good evening. it is great to be with you. thank you for turning in. it is an equally good in the marketplace. in this debate, they you will hear that while we are both republicans, we will agree and disagree on much. >> i think the committee for the opportunity to talk about the new farm bill. we will work to make sure we have the keystone pipeline. thank you. >> just a word about the picture you're seeing. this is the traditional format. it'll make it accessible to every television station in indiana. there is nothing wrong with your television set. the commission has divided upperall are directly related to

jobs. we will begin with jobs. poll after poll, voters tell what it is still an issue. let's go to our first voter. he is a real-estate agent from indianapolis. >> the last time gas prices reached current levels, oil was close to $150 a barrel. why is the price at the pump so high? can anything be done about it? >> first thank you for the question. i happen to have spent 31 years in the private sector before i got into politics. i love any question about it. it is a great question. a lot of these prices of crude oil went up faster than gasoline when it hit $150 a carol.

-- per barrelthe bigger reason is because of government -- a barrel. the bigger reason is because of government regulation. there have been refinery shutdown in the united states. did the demand for gasoline continues to go up even as demand for crude oil has stabilized. what we also did not notice was last year at the end of the year, the price of ethanol went away. they mandated that more at about the added to regular gasoline. for most of us, we certainly object to it in the health-care area. more ethanol is the mandated into their gasoline. to get the price of gasoline

back down, we certainly have to do more to get the epa off the backs of the refineries so we can increase. >> mr. lugar. >> the price of gasoline is much lower than the cost of ethanol. $3.4 billion worth of business -- essentially, the price of gasoline is not going to go down. tensions in the middle east, the straits in particular, have been going down. as a result, there are adequate supplies right now in united

states. there is the logistics of moving the refined product. i am grateful that is the case. in the markets today, oil was closer to $101 instead of $150. i agree that the regulation by government is the problem in terms of logistics as well as the entire energy business. we really have to have been drilling in the united states, a drilling off our coasts. the pipeline will give $20,000 and lots of the product in the

united states. >>if you have a rebuttal, you have 30 seconds. >> the price of gasoline has gone up the center says because of ethanol going down. the price of ethanol is to dollars and 40 cents a gallon. as a mandate it, -- is $2.40 a gallon. as the mandate, it goes up. >> mr. lugar. >> economics the overall price go down. who's years -- hoosiers are producing it on farms here. it gives higher value for corn and land values in this state. >> national polls tell us that voters' top concern is the economy and job growth.

they want to know what you would do as a senator, what would you propose about what congress to to increase the number of available jobs? >> there is overregulation by the federal government. it is a burden placed upon businesses that want to raise money from new capital sources. it is a very tough battle. overregulation is everywhere. during the obama administration, i get the feeling that folks are trying to control business. after that is done, businesses are beginning to dry. -- thrivemanufacturing is coming back. the jobs that are available -- i applaud the work of a bridging

the gap between those who want the jobs in the companies want to employ them. i have seen this wonderful medical device. plant near warsaw, caterpillar and lafayette andthese are companies hiring people. they have the foresight to be able to train people on the job. as well as to work with iv tech in the classrooms. this is absolutely critical in terms of actually getting people into the jobs and to get the job done. fundamentally, our entire educational system in indiana is the heart of the matter, getting students prepared now in math and science, these are things that will make a big difference in the future of hoosier businesses.

>> mr. murdoch -- >> the most import thing we can do to start the economy is to roll back the size of government. the regulatory environment is out of control. we have to do several things as a nation. we have to do them in a hurry. we have to reduce the level of debt we're caring in this country. we are pulling money out of the economy that otherwise could be going back in am bringing new products into line with 21st century demands. we have to get better regulations of the necks of small businesses. they think they have met all the roles. -- people go into measuring -- manufacturing and they think they have met all the rules andthen the government changes the rules on them again. it is not fair to them. it is causing more than to leave our shore.

that is a bad sign for america. a few weeks ago, it is reported the net inflow of investment capital and now could united states went negative. from the beginning of our country, there has been more money coming in from businesses and going out. for the first time, there's more going out. we have to roll back the size of the government. we have to be aggressive. enough -- congress has not done nearly enough. they will not roll it back. they will complain about the over to a record letters individually from the banking community to the environmental to the energy industry and health care industry and yetthey are not going forward. they are not expressing the oversight we need to get our economy rolling again. >> those of us who are now serving tried to do the

rollbacks and the protests. they have limited success. they called for additional comments by voters. and they actually get some traction in the congress to roll back some of the regulations. quacks' mr. murdoch? >> i do not hear nearly enough of that except the campaign -- in campaign speeches. it and do not think we're doing that. i more frustrated with republicans today than democrats. i want to see republicans out making the fight in going back to their district and making the argument why we need to roll back government. >> our next question is from a voter here from harlem. -- in the studio. >> you both state you're for cutting spending.

and balancing the budget. in this regard, be as positive as you can aboutwhat would you do, particularly in the areas of taxation and entitlement spending? and defense spending. >> the answer goes to>> i lost my place. mr. murdoch. >> thank you for the question. we have to start rolling back the size of government. your question comes at the heart of it. it is about the dollars. during this debate, the government will spend $167 million more than it takes in. that much more goes into our debt in this hour. we have to roll back those costs throughout government. every administration talks about it. they seem to do very little about it. in november when the super committee was arguing about the finest way to cut $1.20 trillion.

i put out a budget plan that i admit is rudimentary. i not have all the budget tools they have. i found ways to reduce 7.6 million over the next 10 years. -- trillion dollars over the next 10 years. that is draconian. i do not think so. they cannot find a way to cut. it represents less than 10% of spending. -- less than 3% over the next 10 years. i would eliminate the department of energy, education and commerce. sign. they go back to the defense department. we have to take a broad stance in the government. let's not forget the biggest issue out there is entitlement. we have to get a handle on that. we have to tell people they have a different set of expectations. those are the aged 55 -- over the age of 55 have made a promise -- have been made a promise by government.

we need to honor that promise. it is immoral for the united states government to do that. -- to make promises it cannot keep and we are doing that today, unfortunately. >> there has been no budget in the federal government. during the obama administration. invade because of the enthusiasm for doing this. in large republican majority came in 2010. this brought about the possibility to become chairman for paul ryan of the budget committee in house. andthey have the support of the majority of republicans. to pass the ball ryan plan. this was a remarkable plan was spending cuts over the course of time. $6.50 trillion of cuts.

they go back toward responsible government. senator harry reid, a democratic leader, said we got you republicans because he talks about medicare. he talks about medicare. he is going to have medicare. all the democrats voted against it. we had a vote in the senate. i voted for the paul ryan plan. all the democrats voted against it. our leader mitch mcconnell said let a vote on the obama budget. people said what in the world is that? all republicans and democrats voted against it. thank goodness ryan had his back. i commend him purity as set forth how the cuts can score predicament him. he has set forth how the cat can -- i commend him. he has set forth how the cuts can occur.

it is very important that we get a budget this year despite democratic opposition. i will continue to fight to do so. >> mr. murdoch. >> i am glad to have the rebuttal for this question. it is so important. we agree it is a travesty that the president cannot present a budget. we do have a chance to grow this economy. that has to be our goal. we have to be growing our gdp 3.5% a year. as horrible as our debt is today, we can pay that off. we have to be looking to reduce the size of government now so we can grow the economy to get the job done. >> and mr. lugar -- >> we need to make sure that these so-called bush tax cuts remain. the democrats are pushing back into the post-election session. i want to cut corporate taxes so they are in line

competitively with the rest of the world. that would be important with people offering more jobs right now. >> our next question is in the area of foreign affairs. we turn to a physician who speaks to us from greenwood. >> please explain what steps you feel need to be done to stop nuclear weapon proliferation by recognized countries and the terrorist groups. >> that goes to senator lugar. >> it has been my privilege for the last 20 years with the reduction act to a first of all work with people in russia to take warheads off of missiles and get the missiles down and then to work for the weapons of mass destruction in the chemical and biological area. we're destroying the nerve gas cells.

in siberia. we have about 5000 warheads to go in russia. beyond that, we have all the nuclear out of the ukraine and khazistkan. and belarus. we are on a trip to africa to work with kenya wherewe of trying to get some inoculation against potential plague. al qaeda could have scooped it up. we're working with those governments to try to bring security there so it does not come to the united states. we have a very strong foreign- policy position with stations in iran. -- sanctions in iran reportedwe're working hard to get this with north korea. we're trying to work with the pakistani so there is security for their weapons.

india and pakistan both have weapons. now the difficulties are obvious. all over the world there are problems. i worked with my former colleagues with representatives in many countries to make sure all of us are alert to this possibilities and that we're doing the things properly in our department of defense and department of energy that are required to bring about maximum security for americans in the world. >> mr. murdock, 12 minutes. >> i mentioned at the beginning of my statement that when i was asked by a state committee members to run for this office i was somewhat surprised. one reason why is all of us have great respect for senator lugar's time, especially in this area. i do not have nearly the access to the in-depth information he has. we do have to understand that what has been going on as a result of lugar, we're also

sending money into russia and the nations of the old soviet union. today some of that money is going from russia to syria. syria has been helping iran. iran is developing nuclear weapons. it is a proliferation problem. it is a greater problem than simply trying to come back from where we were with the nations of the old soviet union. the first thing we have to do to be effective is to be information that leads, not trying to lead from behind like the obama administration is doing. if we want a place at the world table where there are so many rogue states trying to get nuclear weapons, and when we see iran with the weapons, we cannot withdraw from the world. we have to deal from a position of strength. we must be verifying what is out there. we need to do more to bring

those weapons under control. it has been sad that the sanctions that sinister kyle has tried to bring forward had unilateral sanctions against iran and syria to something senator lugar was still opposing. i think there times when need to act unilaterally to put the pressure on the nation's to make sure we care about world peace and we do not want to see the nations develop nuclear arms. >> rebuttal mr. lugar -- >> i work every day with jon kyl. he is a partner with regard to all of this. the united states have sanctions. we are the one guy eating iran and european rights coming into it. -- -aiding iran and european rights coming into it. others are undercutting those efforts. that will require some strong diplomacy.

>> that is right. the russian and chinese are undercutting. we're hearing from nations like vietnam and the philippines, looking for more support like us. they see china's influence setting. that is why we need to not leave from behind. >> america has been at war for more than 10 years because of our involvement in iraq and afghanistan. given that we have a plan for leaving afghanistan, is it time to further decrease our overall military presence abroad? are there other areas where our military presence is needed now or might be needed in the near future? mr. murdoch? >> to the first part of that question, there was an inexcusable foreign policy failure in our withdraw from iraq. we put into iraq winning the

freedom for the country hundreds of billions of dollars and over 4400 american lives. when we withdrew, we did not make a name for ourselves. we did not maintain any type of air space user any type of bases in a volatile part of the world. this is an oversight that they should have been insisting from the obama administration. in afghanistan, people are tired of having our troops there. i to family members there tonight. we cannot just -- have two family members there tonight. we cannot just turn tail and run. it to become a more dangerous place. weapons. we cannot leave from behind. the united states is in its

finest role. i appreciate than trying to get the obama administration to move forward to bring some sense of peace in a vital area of the world. >> it is important to say that our strategy as a country is undergoing a turn that is important. we wall tried to secure it afghanistan with the help of afghans that are going to have to secure their own territory. as a result we are going to use covert means and the ability to send rockets into particular areas and knock out al qaeda or the taliban.

we're going to use intelligence resources more skillfully. the problem of al qaeda is not simply that now in afghanistan or in iraq or throughout the middle east we are fortifying. we trying to look at the whole picture. it is a very vigorous effort. it is one that is going to require a great deal of thoughtful consideration by the congress as well as the administration. the logistic support of our people in afghanistan is difficult given the pakistani opposition. it was impossible to get support into iraq in the amounts we used to. we have to devise other strategies. i look forward to working with our military services to try to

support this in a sophisticated way how they will be able to do this with your american boots on the ground and more success with intelligence and drone be strike. >> we'll move on to the next questions. where does russia fit these days? is it a friend or a kodak >> russia is neither a friend or foe -- friend or foe? >> rest is neither friend nor foe. we have come a long way. the russians were bankrupt. russians came and said officers are not getting paid. there are deserting us.

they may be taking weapons out. it is a total counterintuitive position that we would disarm it. that is what we have been doing. i would like to continue to work on it. i believe the job needs to be done. that continues on with in and out of vladimir putin and various others you still have an authoritarian government. many russians are now in the streets. they're demonstrating that they really what some liberalization of all of this. i think they're going to obtain it. we ought to be working very closely with those groups in in russia and with the communication system there to inform people in russia what the possibilities are working with us for democracy and human rights. there are great possibilities. we're going to have a tough

negotiating situation with folks that still have weapons of mass destruction and to do not wish as well. i would simply say that this is going to call for very strong diplomacy. likewise, armed forces that are adequate to be impressive to our russian friends. >> he said that most as they do not work with us. in the beginning he said they were neither friend nor foe. i think they are more friends. it is russia right now. they're having some influence working with the chinese and vietnamese. in iran and syria they are problematic. did the money is we put into russia are fungible and thing go into part of the world -- the monies we put into russia are fungible and go into that part of the world. when the treaty was signed a

year and a half ago, there with a sense of a new era with the russians. the ins and outs of vladimir putin make it a variable question. is this the same russia that not many years ago decided to turn off the pipeline into georgia, and the country of the old soviet bloc. did they went in and occupied it. they said they were going to leave. they have not left. when the treaty was being negotiated, the russian said it had to be signed december 31, 2010 or they were going to walk away. i have negotiated a lot of contracts. anytime someone says it has to be done by that date is always a better deal from the -- for them than us. we have to be a strong nation.

we cannot withdraw from the world. the senate foreign relations committee have got to present more oversight to an administration should the obama administration continue past 2013. >> i managed the start treaty. thank goodness it past when it did. we had no american boots on the -- star treaty. they goodness -- thank goodness it passed when it did. we have no american but on the ground. we have full control of what we are doing in disarming the russians. we need to maintain that. >> the very definition of a fungible means money can go other places. it offsets money. all money is fungible. that is a fact. to a broader point, one of the things the obama administration

did to win republican votes was to say if they would vote for it, there would be more money to upgrade our weapons system. they have reneged on that. what our next question comes from a retired accountant from indianapolis. what is your question? >> do you believe reform the medicare and medicaid is necessary for future deficit reduction? if you do, how would you propose to do it? >> that question was first to mr. mourdock. >> from the medicaid perspective, and the medicaid program that is out there today is something that is problematic given its huge cost. i support something a feller hoosier has presented to the house of representatives, a new bill that would allow states to have flexibility. it would freeze medicaid

spending for 10 years and give the states greater flexibility in administering those funds. it would save $1.40 trillion over the next 10 years. to medicare, i absolutely believe there is a fundamental social contract that government makes with its citizens. those citizens to have worked most of our working lives in knowing what it would be, that has to be honored for those over the age of 55. i do believe we have to start setting a different set of expectations. it is immoral to deliver promises you cannot keep. the government is taking a larger and larger role. what we have to do is provide a way that americans have greater access to health care savings

accounts. they need wider contribution limits. we also need a health care system that allows for crossing of lines by insurance companies. we need systems that will have more pulls for insurance purposes so there are greater economies of scale. we must repeal obamacare. it would be disastrous for health care in this country. >> mitch daniels has felt the state of indiana could better administer medicaid for a variety of reasons. i agree with regard to medicare and the ryan plan brought this to the florid that the 55 and

over situation is probably a reasonable division line and that the planning for those under 55 knees to begin immediately. -- needs to begin immediately because we cannot afford the escalating cost of medicare. when you consider that social security, medicare, medicaid, and the defense budget are a 70%-75% of the whole picture, there has to be reaction taken. this is a good time to consider the medicare situation. i agree completely that obamacare should be repealed so we do not have interlocking problems with the rest of that. we then move toward the markets. we move toward insurance that can be offered across state lines in a much more competitive insurance market. these are important situations

that lie before us. we can move on this much more rapidly. >> do you have a rebuttal? >> i would like to add a couple of things. i have talked to dozens of doctors. the thing i hear is how the regulatory environment is keeping them from seeing patients. we need to make sure the electronic data base that let the most private health care records of every american go into a national data base, that must never go into a database. >> i am very hopeful in addition to all of that that we will begin to think about preventable -- preventative medicine and exercise and quality of life that makes a big difference in terms of our needs

for health care later on. >> our next question comes from a semi retired pharmacist from lafayette. she could not be a tonight. social security will continue to be dependent upon by many middle and low-income citizens. some sensible adjustments are to increase the age at which full benefits can be received. do you support these changes? >> i think those are changes that are going to be required very definitely. the question is how rapidly to escalate the situation? the plans i have seen to work through this would suggest that we ought to move to increase the amount be on $110,000 of wages on which so security is now figured.

to do so incrementally and in various ways of this is not a great shock to those that are above 110,000. at the same time, we are going to have to think through how we change the age of retirement for social security. many suggest maybe a few days or weeks of each year over the course of time so that this is not move rapidly. any movement of either the coverage levels or the age of retirement or other aspects will have huge impact with regard to a very large federal budget. the need to do this is apparent. it was apparent in 1983. i was among those debating the issue. we did save social security at that stage.

it changes were controversial. they always are. it does need to happen. aboutwe're thinking medicare reform, we ought to think about social security reform. we've already discussed medicaid reform. these are huge part of the entitlement picture that make a big difference in balancing the budget and moving from the trillions of debt that we now have a. >> there does need to be more protection offered to the social security system. today it is mathematical and not something that can continue. i do believe the retirement age will be raised. it is a necessity. it will have to happen in a step-by-step process. we need to let younger people know that they have a different set of promises. i think we need to provide them with a different set of promises. they also have an obligation to

stay for themselves. social security was not meant to be a system upon which a person would tell the based their retirement. when this started, there were 66 people paying in. now it is a basically about two-one --- 2 to 1. people need more incentives to save on their own as an option if they choose. this should be something people get to decide as their own choice. social security is something that needs to be protected, not just in the sense of what we do with the mathematical function to make sure enough money is coming in, but we need to make sure that congress is not constantly pulling money out a social security for other things. >> i agree about pulling the money out for other things. that does occur all the time. it is really unconscionable.

it seems important to rejoice in the fact that americans are growing older. the tables have grown from americans are dying at 65 to closer to 85 presently. that requires some very thoughtful work with regard to medicaid, medicare, and social security. >> we need to protect social security. there are at least two boats were he went the other way. -- two votes were he went the other way. i would have voted the other way. we need to provide the funds for older citizens. >> i did not have votes for illegal social security payments. >> next question.

each of you professes to be a political conservative the disagree on many specific issues. how you define what it is to be a conservative? how would that affect your role as the united states senator? >> that is a great question. you'll be glad to provide those vote numbers. i see myself as a conservative. the federal government need to be restricted and limited. we have grown to the point with our government today that i do not think our founding fathers would even begin to recognize this country for what they designed it to be. they expect to have a system where there be more power in the state and lessen the federal government. as every day goes by, we see more of varmints created for those that support washington d.c. is way overstated predict it is way overstated.

there is only one area of where the residential housing values went up. that was in washington, d.c. government is growing ever greater. it is at the cost of conservative values. they had this great genius to understand that they were not giving us freedom. it is something they recognize that god was giving us. they were influencing everyone's day to day life. that is what they set our government up to be. clearly, i want to move us back in the constitutional direction. >> i already have this opportunity.

my voting record has well past 90%. i would say that it is not by chance. i come from a situation in which i volunteered to serve the united states navy. i believe in the strength of united states. i worked with my brother to manage a manufacturing business. my grandfather founded a small business in which we learned how to create new jobs and markets. i've been managing my family farm for over 50 years. thinking about corn and soybean prices every day and try to

think through how we can give greater yields on that land as farmers all over indiana have been doing. it is the work we have been doing in the economy and to bring security to america. i appreciate questions. we understand conservative values. it is from limited government. some of us actually have to vote for these principles. i look forward to these opportunities each day. >> i wonder if you might clarify something. i believe what i have been hearing from you is small government and lower taxes. i've not heard you mention social conservatism. >> i believe that life begins at conception.

i've been endorsed by the indiana right to life. i believe a person's individual faith, especially for those of us in government. i would like to go back to the purpose of government. we hear a lot about businesses interacting. that is ok. businesses should not be depending on government. this thing that has developed, a crony capitalism, where they are depending more on government is the opposite of conservatism. >> i am a social conservative. i believe strongly in marriage and children and family values. i have 100% record with the right to life group. i believe this is part of being a conservative. i appreciate your question of raising that issue. >> we need to shorten your responses just a little bit so we can get everything in.

joanne is a retired perdue university employee. i guess he did not have that tape. how best to you see the nation, state and local communities providing reproductive health care services? >> how best do you see the nation and state and local communities providing reproductive health care services for men and women of all ages? >> i am not certain i understand reproductive health care services. we have been debating in the senate the fact that we do not think the federal government ought to be involved in reproductive health. i take that position. that would be my answer. >> i think i will do a ditto. that is not an area where the federal government should be involved.

they need to be part of individual responsibility and initiative. >> let me go back to foreign affairs. you were in such agreement on this matter. there are a couple of issues here. israel is threatening to strike iran which is perceived by the world to develop nuclear weapons capability. north korea already has nuclear weapons capabilities and are on the verge of firing a long-range rocket. what do you do about those folks? >> to the first part of your question, we have a fundamental packed with the state of israel that we must honor. they are certainly are most important ally in the middle east. the fact that they are talking up attacking iran is a matter of self-defense.

i certainly want to see a stand with israel. i want to see more sanctions against iran. they believe that is our best way to roll back that threat. iran continues. the obama administration sat on their hands and not get involved. we have a chance to seek a more friendly nation come up and to see off mended rishaad replaced. --, did rishaad -- ahmadinajas replaced. >> we're discussing is real situation and hours. the israeli aircraft will depend on refueling as they get there and refueling on the way back. by us. this has to be a joint effort.

he understands very fairly the sanctions being placed on the economy. we really have to respect the fact that our alliance with israel is at stake at this point. that will be critical. we really are at a point where we're trying to get the chinese involved. it is critical that we have some success there. there is no stopping for the moment. >> we are down to one minute, and no rebuttal. our last question consummate guest in the studio.

-- comes from the guest in the studio. the interests of the citizens of indiana and be a contributing political leader on domestic global politics? >> for many years i've attempted to do all the above in response to your very good question. >> you have two minutes for this. >> i will rebuttal. we have opportunities each day to think through our domestic politics in the sense of national politics. the implications of that come from the fact that we are leaders in the world. the only country that has a fleet to keep the high seas opened for everyone to have trade. we want the season opened. we are a country that trades

back and forth much into the dynamics of our being able to export our ideas. and likewise to bring people to the united states that have new ideas to reinforce all the vigor that we have here. these are exciting opportunities to visit the people in this country and around the world and trying to fashion ways in which our country can be more effective in which hoosiers can be better served. >> this is the final question. >> is this the final question? >> it is. >> thank you for joining us. the first thing i'm going to do

is to represent -- i'm going to do to represent hoosiers is to be them. i look forward to traveling the state. i moved here back in 1973. it is a place that i am not moving from i would always call it home. -- i'm not moving from. i will always call it home. 100 years ago, a great ship was heading across the atlantic. it had an experienced crew. they were prepared. they did not see the danger of coming. the crew was not paying attention. they thought the crossing would be like the dozens of others they made. a few days later, they ended

that jean forever. i bring you that story because in the last 30 years, they have gone on a dangerous course and journey. there are icebergs ahead. they are labeled a growing entitlement society. they're all these things that take away our freedom and limit the ability of hoosiers and americans to respond to freedom in a way they can prosper and grow. i got in this race not because i ever had a lifelong ambition to be a senator, because i didn't and still do not, this is not the start of a career. i am richard mourdock and ask for your vote because what we have great respect for mr. lugar, we have differences. competition is a good thing. i do believe it is time. thank you. >> thank you both for sharing or thoughts with us this evening on the u.s. senate race.

this has been sponsored by the indiana debate commission. our thanks also to the candidates staffs and to our hosts for this broadcast, wfyi. thank you thanks to the voters to ask the questions. the primary election is coming up tuesday may 8. the commission plans to hold 3 debate in the race for governor this fall. one each in northern, central and southern indiana. for more information on the indian and debate commission, log onto www.indianadebatecommission.com. thanks for checking in. thank you to our audience for being beautifully quiet. you will have a chance to make some noise in just a moment if you want.

from indianapolis, good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> more coverage coming up tomorrow afternoon about this time here on c-span with republican presidential candidates mitt romney and newt gingrich speaking at the national rifle association meeting. other speakers include rick

santorum, eric cantor, rick perry and scott walker. that is live on c-span, c- span.org, and c-span radio. we will hear from afghanistan's defense and interior ministers talking about efforts to create a military police force in their country. that is live at 2:30 p.m.. >> our specific mission is to work with the human rights component of american foreign policy. when we are evaluating our foreign policy needs globally, human rights can never be the only consideration, but it has to be part of the dialogue. >> the president and ceo of the foundation for human rights and justice. >> when we abandon our deepest values, whether we are talking about torture as it relates to

the war on terror or the recent policy with russia and the upcoming issue of whether or not we should have passed the accountability act, whether or not we're going to stay on record as saying human rights matter. it they matter in russia. they matter in china. >> that is sending nine it 8:00 on q&a. -- sunday night at 8:00 on "q and a." now, part of this morning's "washington journal." joining host: us this barry kluger. -- host: joining us this barry kluger. he is an author. who is jericka? -- erica?

guest: erica is my 18-year-old daughter who was killed in a car accident inrina in 2001. actually last friday was the 11th anniversary. she had come out here to live with my wife and i to go to college and it was just one of these freak things. i had been golfing that morning and i called home to see if there were any messages and there was a call from scott still hospital saying your daughter has been in a car accident, please call. i called back and i said, how bad is it? they said, it is bad. they did not tell me that she had been dead for anour. they are not about to tell a father that before he is about to get into a car and drive5 minutes to a hospital. perhaps even a radically. so, a did not tell me en i had

called them. when i showed up at a hospital, they asked me to sit in a room, which is another one of those the summer moments of silence, something that is going on. and then increase came in. being jewish, i realized that he had something quite serious to tell me. that is when he told me that erica died. host: where did that lead you to today? guest: it is interesting. as i said in a book, it is really is the journey. it is different for everybody. on one hand, i see myself as being a very up person and very gregarious, going out and talking to anyone. that is just me. people read and very different ways. so, over the years, and this is interesting, since i was young, growing up new york and my college days in washington, i

always kept a journal. i always kept things that were going on in my life. my divorce from erica's mother then my marriage. i just put everything in there and i kept zealots -- notes when erica was living with us and the day she died, the days leading up to the funeral, and then the years pass. i would write a number of erica.s about jerick i was also a guest columnist here. i used that opportunity to talk about erica. finally, i decided to write the book in 2010 and what is interesting -- i just want to know how death impacts all of us. the cover notes for the book were written by jefferies as low -- jeffery zazlow.

he and i had spoken. was killed about six weeks ago on his way to a book signing. it i became the go to guy for parents on the internet who would cougar deft -- google death, loss, car accidents. my name which show up and fathers would reach out to me. father's day is very interesting because there is a group of maybe 12 of us to keep in touch around the country. host: first of all, your background, if he would give us your professional background and then, what is the policy initiative that has resulted from erica's death? guest: ok. i am a recovering comport -- corporate communications

executive. i have been in the public relations fieldor 37 years. having been fortunate to work in such places as mtv networks and prodigy and having my own pr firm. that gave me a license to come you look, be aggressive and understand - 2, if you will, the agessive and understand and talk to the media and get publicity for campaign such as this. i think it serd me well. the grieving father from illinois and lost two children. we met on the internet and we discover that there were people who were being fired from jobs for taking too much time off. after they have lost a child. many companies grant two or three days. some companies do not have policies. let me add that i think many companies in america have compassion and -- have to be

compassionate. as we started to reach out and found these ople, we said, we should start aetition. we called it the farley-kluger initiative. we are over 35,000 signatures. we are supported by goldstar, boost our family is, the american institute of health professionals, a student organization for college-age suicides, the american academy of grieving counselors, etc. the family medical leave act grants 12 weeks if you have a child, adopted child, or 46 family member, , you,, or you care -- you are sick, are you care for an injured service member. there is nothing dealing with bereavement. one of the problems of the existing fmla, which was signed

in 1993 by president clinton, is, if you lose a child, you can use mental illness or depression as medical leave. many parents are reluctant to do so because it shows up on their record and could affect future insurance rates. it could cause some bias in the workplace in the future job. an employer was a, you took out six weeks for depression? bereavement is a natural life cycle. a natural death happens far too often. if you will, it is a part of life. there is no halfife. to put the going phone numbers on the screen and his people want to talk to you about the issue of family medical leave act and bereavement leave. you would like to take the existing family and medical leave act, which was enacted in 1993, and amend it. correct?

guest: yes. we would like to amend it. currently, the senator john tester of the montana was courageous enough to respond to petitioners who signed the of initiative. he introduced the parental bereavement act of 2011. it sits in committee in the senate. it has five co-sponsors including center dick durbin who has lost a child. -- center dick durbin, who has lost a child. we visited the hill and mecca over 55 congressional people and staff -- met over 55 congressional people and staff. host: 202 is the area code. the numbers are on the screen.

we are talking with barry kluger, who has not told us of his personal story, talking about his book "a life undone: if father's journey through loss." and how his daughter's untimely death has affected him. the family medical leave act and paid foreeks for unpai the birth of a child, urgent need and demand related to family members on active duty, and 26 work weeks unpaid for a service member with a serious injury or illness. i just want to put that out there. he is looking to modify the family medical leave act to

include bereavement leave. mr. luger, how long were you off work? >> i was fortunate enough to have my own business. my own public relations firm. kelly had worked for a company that had given him the time. that is one of the compassionate companies that i speak about. but, he has a grieving dad's blog and we got comments from people and we said things need to be done. we are fortunate that there are compassionate businesses and i had my own business and i was able to take the time. but, i was looking at the posts before we decided to sit down and, if i may, there was a note someone had posted saying i

needed three months after my daughter's debt by homicide to be able to return to work. i used medical leave, fmla did not cover it, and when i returned, my position had been eliminated. that seems to be the case we are finding in many areas. especially people who are working as civilians and military bases. the interesting thing is that this is revenge, she left the field after she had been fired. shwent back to school and study to be bereavement counselor. today, she is doing. counseling in their hometown. -- she is doing bereavement counseling in her hometown. host: but state some calls. at mountain view, california. go ahead. caller: i appreciate what you are doing. 20 years ago, my mother was

killed in a car accident. guest: i am sorry. host: i work for myself. i stayed with my father to get him on track. then i went home and it hit me and i took a couple -- a month or more. then, i saw counseling and found other people that were going through it, as you are saying. it has helped the process. i really appreciate what you are doing out there. a lot of people have gone through it. if that happens, seek counseling right away. guest: i agree with you. it is interesting. people grievance so many different ways. when erica died, and it is interesting that your name is similar, maybe it is fate, she died on friday.

a friend called and he said, here is a phone number for a grief counselor. see him tomorrow. less than 24 hours after erica died, i was sitting in the office of a grief counselor. people say, you have managed to come through to the other side from grief. as i said, everybody looks at it differently. for me, i had no handbook. i had no idea what to do when a child dies or when a parent dies or is bows. i think getting counseling immediately is the lifeline host: we have this week for you. -- this tweet for you. guest: carries expressing an

opinion felt by many people. here is one of the things. the workplace -- if he fmla did not exist, that might be one thing. starting this from scratch. it does exist. not including parade meant was an oversight. simply an oversight. when we spoke to many republicans and democrats, they had said that this is not part of the fmla and we said no, and they said it was on oversight. there are a couple of things. the business to -- the biness community would be concerned about fraud. people using -- trying to get paid or unpaid sick leave or taking off time. the thing, when you lose a child, you have to issue a death certificate. there is no faking this. this is real. if you look at two people in a company who may be pregnant, ticking off a length of time, and if you look and say, how many people in a company are going to lose a child at the

same time and be out? the numbers are very different. the impact is very small. it is something that i think will create good will. i think companies are compassionate. i understand gary's concern. the fmla affects companies of 50 or more. this needs to be done. i understand his concerns. host: mary, please go ahead with your comment for barry kluger. caller: i would also like to commend you on what you are accomplishing. i volunteered at hospice. i see so many family members struggling with this very issue. they want to be with their loved one at this time but they are so afraid they will lose their job. also, recently in my readis, i have come across some states that are trying to destroy this very act.

they want to do away with the in fmla's. i wonder if you could comment on that. guest: it is interesting. i am not as familiar with the states. i probably should be a lot more up to date on it. here in arizona. i have spoken to representatives at the u.s. chamber of commerce and the federation of independent small businesses and they are concerned that there is more government intervention along the way. i will tell you, both of these organizations listen to -- their parents. they are people. they are compassionate with that. there are things in the marketplace that really limit companies' from doing their business.

this is something -- if you believe that every day at 5:00, the bestssets of the company get on the elevator, keeping a policy or creating a policy like that in your own company makes sense. every company wants to be on that list that comes out every year, the hundred best places to work in america. i think companies need to take care of their employees. unfortunately, many cannot. no one wants to legislate morality. but, this is something, as i said, we think is an oversight. there a movement out there. but we can do is continue to fight on the national level. i would love for you, if you go to our website, you can sign. let me know some of the things going on in your own state because i think after this, the next up will be to see what we

can do on the state level. host: next call comes from tamp rick, you run the air. -- you are on the air. caller: as someone who came back and was terminated because she was a way too long and then went back to college, but she did not become an engineer or a doctor. she became a grief counselor. they do not get paid very much. that is a socialistic type job. these kinds of ideas force -- people need time to get off to recover. two men i know of lost their daughters have to come back to work after six weeks and they probably have not recovered. you never recover. there is alwaysome kind of -- this is the kind of thing that oprah that well before. an example that somebody became a grief counselor.

people should have time off, but this idea is a typical socialistic thing. guest: i have not yet been called a socialist. i have been called many things. i do thank you for calling. i use that as one exampl probably a as an afterthought as to what she did as a business. there are examples of people who came back and were fired from their jobs. you mentioned two of your friends. yes, grief doesot have a half life. what we are trying to do, and there are things out there that say 12 weeks unpaid, which is the fmal. if legislation said, let us make it four riggs, we would say great. we just want to begin the healing process. if your friends took off five weeks for the loss of their daughters, they would be able to

come back. no one is looking for a free ride or to say, take off for weeks, 12 weeks, we continue to pay you. this is unpaged. people awknledge there will be financial impacts if they take the me. it affects the bottom line because at the end of the day, they're going to come back more productive. they are going to be able to focus more on the job and i hate to turn this into an economic issue, with the company is going to benefit becse they will have a more focused employee. host: a couple of tweets for yo guest: the questions.

-- good question. when you are visiting washington, you are talking to democrats and republicans. there are some words that resonate with some and not others. that is why i am proud of the death of the organizations from military groups -- depth of the organization's military groups to child bereavement centers. greece knows no income, race, cultur -- grief knows no income, race, culture. the two the thing is something which is arbitrary. it is not set in stone. that is what companies will do. someone will say, take a few days off. they might say take a week off. that is companies -- those companies that they take as much time as you need. if the fmla was never poured into effect -- since it exists,

you have to go down and say, is fair? if you look and you get time off to adopt a child, but you'll get three days to. that child, that is where there is an inequity. -- you will get three days to buy that child, that is where there is an inequity. caller: thank you for doing this. i lost my son 15 years ago. my company was so wonderful to me. they gave me six months. there was no way i could return to work before that. they kept my job open. they gave me an office. if i wanted to be alone or i wanted to cry. i am sorry, this is very emotional. guest: what is your son's name. caller: enter. he was 28. he worked at mtv. -- andrew. he was 28. he worked at mtv. i want to say how important it

was to have this time off to be able to grieve, to be able to go back and have such support for my company. guest: i would love a world where you do not have to legislate the behavior. your company sounds wonderful. it would be great to all the companies were like that. we a just finding out that there are a lot of people who did not work for those compassionate companies and i think you are very fortunate that you worked for a company li that. host: oklahoma. gary, please go ahead for barry kluger. caller: good morning, sir. i am sorry you have had the tears fell over a lost child. it is unbeevable. i spend my nights from -- my 19th birthday in vietnam. by the time i turn 21, i had my

head used by communists. nothing prepared me to watch my child died of brain cancer. it was having to watch, after leaving vietnam, never having to think i would have to do with somebody losing a piece of their mind. watching my ex-, this woman, when they took the child out of her hands for the last time, i literally watch a piece of her brain falloff. people do not understand the dramatic effect that tak place on an individual when you lose a child. i am here to say that as a libertarian who really does not believe in these types of federal mandates that have been forced upon us, but in this particular instance, i am totally behind you. the death of a child is unlike anything else known to mankind. it is really is. host: all right.

we leave it there. thank you. guest: thank you for your service. host: if people want to purchase your book, where can they find it? guest: they can get it on kinde le, amazon. if they would like a hard copy, they can go to www .alifeundone.com and i will scribe the boo it will be on the web site. that is where they can get it. host: how much time do you spend working on the policy advocacy issue? the bereavement leave. guest: i went to washington for a week and i have been spending a lot of time. as i said, i have an understanding.

over the years, i ll say it has consumed me. it has given me sort of a mission and a motivation. my wife said to me, i have never seen you so motivated. i said, this is something where instead of just getting exposure for my clients, am working on something that is going to change people's lives. kelly has a good job and he does his work and he says, do you ever sleep? i do. i am a happy guy. this is something where not often do you get to affect change in government. we saw on the senate side with an act already introdud. i am not the right track. host: barry kluger has been our guest. wewewewewewewewewewewewewewewewe

>> afghanistan's defense and interior ministers are in washington, d.c. this week meeting with u.s. officials on u.s.-afghan relations. both ministers are taking part in a discussion here at the center for strategic and international studies on moving on a long-term partnership beyond the 2014 u.s. combat withdraw from afghanistan. the defense minister said earlier this week will be needed to "ensure afghanistan's stability." "the washington post" reports that since the invasion, almost 2000 troops have been killed and 15,000 wounded in afghanistan.

>> thank you, everyone. please have a seat. good afternoon. everybody. we have had quite a week. i consider this to be the highlight, because we're talking about probably one of the most important issues in front of the american public right now, and that is the way ahead with our involvement and partnership with afghanistan. this cannot be more timely to have these two ministers, minister wardak and minister mohammadi, with us. a very important. they are making news while they are here. a very important that they are willing to take some of this time to share with the broader community. i ask you to engage in be

respectful of the importance of the day ended their commitment to making this a good session. let me turn to bob lamb, who will be formally introducing these two leaders. >> i am robert lamb, director of the program on prices, conflict, and cooperation at csis. we are today at a very important stage in the u.s.-afghan relationship. as you are aware, the united states and afghanistan have been talking about putting together a strategic partnership agreement over the past month, including in recent days a couple of the key milestones on the road to that agreement including the authority over detainees and authority over night raids. i like to introduce to you two -- probably two of the most

important afghan officials who will be responsible for afghan security. they are minister abdul rahim wardak, minister of defense for afghanistan. he has been minister since 2004, former deputy defense minister. he is a lecturer, author, former mujahedin warrior many years ago. we have as well minister bismellah mohammadi. he is the minister of interior since 2010, former chief of staff to the afghan national army, a member of the northern alliance before the taliban fell. both of these gentlemen are responsible for the afghan national security forces. minister wardak oversees the military side, and minister mohammadi is responsible for all

the afghan police. without further ado, minister wardak, would you like to offer some comments first? >> dignitaries, friends, ladies and gentlemen, it is a privilege to have this prominent audience at this prestigious institution. i would like to begin by expressing profound gratitude and everlasting appreciation of the afghan people and the government up for the assistance, cooperation, and support which u.s. supported by nato and its partners have provided to my war-torn country. they are all playing a vital role in shaping the destiny of my devastated nation. progress has been made over the last 10 years, but giant

accomplishments have been secured with a cost measured in lives. the debt of gratitude we owe it to soldiers and citizens can .ever be fully repaid t we mourn those who have given their lives and pray for the families of the fallen and wounded. we suffered in the 1990's when we were left isolated, and as a consequence, the whole world was affected by the tragedy of the 9/11 attack. we fully appreciate the value and significance of the enduring support in that assistance. from 2002, afghans were emphatically of the view that only sustainability --

[unintelligible] can enable afghans themselves to this approach would have been much more cost-effective, politically less complex, and would have saved the lives of our friends and allies. for many years, we failed to develop sufficient afghan national security forces, and the threat assessment was unrealistically low. the initial size was far little by any historic trip analysis. at the scale of the challenge of rebuilding the devastated nation was underestimated. in 2006, when the enemy escalated the attacks, we did not respond effectively until 2009. in afghanistan remains a country -- a window of opportunity was wasted. in 2009, we pay a clear way ahead -- paved a clear way

ahead with comment and shared objectives. it was based on a comprehensive strategy to defeat the radical ideology and give us an enduring strategic victory. it has provided proper vision and had all the elements which we have longed for since 2002. in regard to that security situation, the animate -- enemy has been losing support among the people, and there is a significant risk in their leadership. with a measure of the secure -- measure of improved security, violence has decreased, all categories, and i'm confident that our sacrifices will lessen. the enemy works through

indiscriminating and in human activities of employing a suicide bombers, laying mines and ied's. many enemy attacks have been foiled. they have lost ground and suffered badly. but unofficially, due to the way the media operates, the perception -- but unfortunately, due to the way the media operates, the perception of security has not improved commensurate with the realities on the ground. the measure of progress since 2002 in different sectors, and the achievements, including effectively securing several national high-profile events in the face of repeated and make threats and actions, -- repeated enemy threats and actions, continue to be totally ignored. there is a success story of the past three years.

it is the potent symbol of reform and the physical manifestation of the new afghanistan, illustrating continuing transformation into a nation which can once again take responsibility for its own destiny. in 2011, a poll showed the ana is perceived by the population to be honest and fair. although we've made significant progress, there remains a challenge to raise a national security force and simultaneously conduct a war. we still remain rely for some enablers -- the afghan national security forces are striving to reduce its reliance on isaf, and i can proudly announce that

we're taking an increasing lead and most of the operations. the operational campaign of 2002 was developed by afghans. we already have over 3000 afghan instructors, and we are turning over 22,000 soldiers and officers everyday. we have doubled the size of the army since 2009, a mere six months ahead of schedule in reaching -- and we are a six months ahead of schedule, and retention is well at acceptable levels, which will allow us to focus more on quality. the most significant entrance to the continued development of the afghan national security forces -- hindrance to the continued development of afghan national

security forces is the economy. rest assured that the afghan government will increase its share as the economy develops [applause] -- the economic prospects are extremely promising and right. bearing this in mind, we ask all troops contributing nations to reinvest some of the dividend to the afghan national security forces sustainment. the burden cannot and should not fall solely on the united states. i appreciate the commitment, especially the proposal in sustaining the presence beyond 2014. it is a clear demonstration of their resolve to preserve their hard-won progress and sustain a free afghanistan for future generations.

while things are looking bright, initially i had reservations about reductions without a sustained improvement in security. significant cuts on the heels of an isaf drawdown and completion of transitions would have presented significant challenges. fortunately, i've been reassured. on the assumption of are gradually degrade it trend, we recognize the need to develop a planning model to serve as a conceptual basis for the government of afghanistan and the international community to decide on the future of funding and the adjustment of the size and structure through the transformation. the size of the force and other planning assumptions will be subject to revision in accordance with conditions on the ground and mutual agreement between the afghan government

and international community. the tireless efforts and her road sacrifices of -- and heroic sacrifices of the u.s. and the international community, and the generosity, has made possible the transition to become a reality. on that momentous day back in july 2011, we started it a giant in never to allow afghans to fulfill their historic responsibility to defend and secure their nation. we successfully completed tranche one. tranche two is almost completed, which will place half the afghan population under the protection of their own countrymen. tranche three is now in detailed

planning. rest assured, we afghans are fully committed to the process and will spare no sacrifices to eight ensure its success. clearly, the challenge in the long term is the need to develop a force for counterinsurgency operations to force capable of defending and nation. we must strive to build our enabling capabilities provided by isaf as quickly as possible. we should accomplish this task while developing the ability for afghans to achieve the giant endeavor, to believe that nato completely from the brunt of fighting and prepare the ana for an irreversible transition. as we look to the future, 2014 and beyond, we have operational

and strategic imperatives which require consideration. we need to look to the coming years as the systems we need to embed to combat the drawdown of isaf forces, and the capability gap that will be presented post 2014. strategically, it is in our collective interest to not view and define afghanistan through the narrow prism of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, but rather, in the much wider global and regional security context. it is in this expectation that our allies revise strategic evaluation, appreciating afghanistan's geographic proximity and protect them for their future role in the region and beyond and to take into account afghanistan's position

as in making bridge for all stakeholders -- as a linking bridge for all stakeholders with the considerable potential to affect global markets from our minerals and natural resources. moreover, you should count on us for reliable anally international peacekeeping operations and activities of mutual interests, and the framework of forging a collective regional and global security arrangements to curb the negative impact of al qaeda and other radical and destructive powers. afghanistan is located in the most volatile region of the world and lies within an extremely dangerous neighborhood. there are significant threats in the region, including conventional warfare between states, nuclear proliferation, territorial disputes, economic under-development, radical

islam, transnational terrorism, and organized crime, including narcotics and i didn't trafficking. afghanistan has -- narcotics and weapons trafficking could afghanistan has been involved on the international stage as the proxy battleground for competing interests. a weak, fragmented, and failed afghanistan quickly and by its external interference -- interferenceexternal and on will come and destructive attention. many nations are pursuing their own narrow interests at the expense of the afghan people. there is no better alternative than self-reliance, the tumultuous neighborhood and the nature of the threats and making partnership and close security cooperation with our friends and allies and inevitable requirement.

even when we are all capable of taking over critical security, it will still be vital for our national survival in this volatile region to maintain enduring strategic partnerships. this is why we are signing and seeking a long-term partnership agreements. these partnerships help us look beyond 2014 to secure afghanistan in the years ahead and provide stability for both afghanistan and the region and also to prevent the recurrence of the catastrophic disaster of the 1990's. in order to realize a stable and secure afghanistan, we need national unity and inclusiveness of its entire people. this can only be possible with the continued implementation of reconciliation and reintegration program. we are seeking a genuine peace that makes life worth living,

enables men and nations to grow, and hopes to build a better life for children. over recent months, there has been a visible increase in the pace of people we integrating. for those in 14 in surgeons at reintegrated since the program's inception. 1658 are under negotiation. as far as reconciliation is concerned, we will continue our quest for peace despite the hundreds from an external players -- hindrance from external players spurred as for the enemies of up levity, those who are trying to implement revolutionary changes worldwide and seek to transform islamic works and reporter relationships with other countries and regions, they will not succeed. we will negotiate, sacrifice for

it, but we will never surrender for it, now or ever. we're definitely at a critical juncture, a defining moment in our giant country. although the serious efforts only began in 2009, i am well aware the war has been prolonged beyond expectations. i know economic reality on a global scale as constrain the ability to support this nation. i recognize that elections with local and political agendas may not favor this continued effort. above all, i am acutely aware that the growing number of casualties is becoming unbearable. we must not let these challenges manage our resolve, and the hopes of 30 million

afghans, the harmony of mankind. for the sake of our giant shared objectives, and to ensure that sacrifices of thousands of brave soldiers were not in vain, we must adhere to our enduring commitment that we will never allow afghanistan to be a safe haven or an unguarded area where tourists can hide, train, and threatened the rest of the -- terrorists can hide, train, and threat to the rest of the world. to paraphrase gen. allen, the international call money int -- the international community's support for afghan security forces will be the most important determinant in finally achieving our shared objectives for the future of afghanistan.

we are all confident that the campaign in afghanistan is -- [unintelligible] only afghans are able to defend their homeland as they have done throughout history. our march to victory is inevitable and we have come through the worst. it is time to begin the effort to secure the future. one day we will have a celebration of the victory and witness the triumph of good over evil, right over wrong, just as over tyranny. we will be proud that we were all part of this noble endeavor. thank you, and god bless you. [applause] >> thank you so much, minister wardak. i know a lot of american defense officials have appreciated your leadership of the ministry of defense, and a minute to continue this partnership between our countries.

i would like to ask the minister mohammadi, head of the ministry of interior, to offer his remarks. he will offer his remarks through an interpreter. >> [speaking foreign language] >> in the name of god, most gracious and merciful, i welcome the presence of all those gathered here today. ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon to all of you. i welcome all of you and i appreciate your presence here this afternoon. i would also like to extend my appreciation to the center for

strategic and international studies for having given us such an opportunity to be in such a distinguished gathering this afternoon. first of all, i like to extend my deepest gratitude and appreciation to the government of the united states and the people of the united states for their undying support and the long-term support they have extended and continue to extend to the people and nation of afghanistan. the security situation during the past two years has seen considerable progress.

in result of the concentrated efforts of the international community, led by the united states of america, we have made a great deal progress and can be proud of many accomplishments. in result of partnering in operations, we have inflicted heavy damage on the taliban in the southern and eastern provinces of afghanistan, and many areas and strongholds in helmand, kandahar, and other provinces have been lost. despite all of their destructive efforts, they have not been able to recapture the ground that we took away from them and the refuge we deny them. dear friends, we do have information that shows a great

weakening of the taliban's strength during the past two years, and this group, in order to continue war and violence, is facing a great threat to its war-witching hours. i firmly believe that during the next year, alongside the concentration and focus given to the transition process, we must redouble our efforts on military pressure and focus our efforts on the reintegration process, and also worked very hard on the road to a long lasting peace. a great deal of pressure must also be brought to bear on the sources and resources given to the taliban.

and we must redouble our efforts and focus on fighting against the institutionalize crime, as well as the rule of law and good governance. and given all of these efforts, if we are successful, the taliban will see a great weakening of their popular support that has been a weekend during the past few years. dear friends, the afghan national security forces are increasing their professionalism and effectiveness day by day. our security forces, in particular the afghan national police, with collaboration with international forces, has been concentrating on the reduction of threats and securing security

throughout afghanistan. on this path, they, making daily sacrifices and are hard at work. these sacrifices will lead to an enduring democracy and a bright future for afghanistan and south asia.and will be to a decrease n extremism throughout the region. which, in an of itself, has a direct affect on the national security of the west, in particular, the united states. dear friends, the greatest part of our concentration and efforts have been and are focused upon an increasing level of professionalism of the afghan national police. a great deal of focus on

training, a great deal of attention given to good leadership skills and the development of those skills, as well as a fight of corruption within the ranks of the police force. in result of these mutual efforts, and the attention and focus of the international community, particularly that of the united states, today we are proud to have a police force that, according to the latest polls taken, at 85% of the people are satisfied with the service rendered by that police force. 86% of those polled respect that national police force, and 80% of those polled give a great deal of credibility to the afghan national police.

even though there are many obstacles still to overcome and many challenges on the road ahead for the afghan national police. ladies and gentlemen, we are hard at work and will spare no efforts to change the essential mission of the afghan national police from a war-fighting force, to a law enforcement force. a force that will concentrate on the enforcing of the rule of law throughout the country and the protection of every afghan. and the effectiveness of our forces will therefore thereby increase. and also we are hard at work and focused on decreasing its gaps and capabilities. as i mentioned earlier, our most fundamental focus is being given

to increasing leadership skills, fighting corruption, institutionalized corruption in the ranks of the police, and training. we will also continue our efforts to increase the presence of women and within the ranks of the police force. and on this path we have had many accomplishments and successes. most of our attention has been focused on attracting more and more women into the afghan national police force. respected participants, with the end of the transition process, the importance of the police force in law enforcement efforts, the fighting against criminal activities, and an increase in law enforcement and the rule of law will increase as

well. a continuing support for an afghan police will be one of the key needs for future success. we are determined, with support, with the support of a properly equipped afghan national police, and properly trained afghan national police, increased operational capabilities and increased intelligence capabilities and increased communication capabilities, as well as a closure in the gap of their equipment needs, they will steadfastly withstand any enemy attack and be a key tool in the continuing prosperity and peace in afghanistan. as you are all aware, two phases

of the transition process have thus far gone successfully. in areas where the two phases of the transition process have been completed, people are living in stability and peace. in our opinion, the transition process must be an irreversible process, and one aimed at giving and increasing final independence to afghanistan. we are quite hopeful, during the next few weeks, the third and final phase of the transition will start to take place, but we must bring a lot of care to bear on the finalization of this effort. dear friends, respective friends, as you are all aware,

the government of afghanistan concluded and finally signed various strategic partnerships with a few countries, as well as andfinal signing of mou's, night operations have brought us closer to the united states on the path to final agreement. and it gives us the security that a strategic partnership between the united states and afghanistan, which the people of afghanistan, through their representatives in parliament have already announced their full support for, will be signed prior to the upcoming chicago conference. we see the signing of these agreements as a full

declaration of support by many countries from the international community over the long term security and prosperity of afghanistan. dear friends, as you know, the government of afghanistan, with the support of the international community, as spare no efforts during the last few years alongside the direction of the international community, to bring about a reconciliation process. until today, we have enjoyed many successes and we have had many achievements, during which thousands who were formally opposed to the central government and afghan independence are now part of an afghan society. the may conference to be held in

chicago, in which the entire international community will openly announce its long-term commitment to the security of afghanistan is of utmost importance because it will be a determining for, that will specify the long term commitments of the community to afghanistan security. we are quite hopeful any decision to be taken vis-a-vis the gradual reduction -- and eventual gradual reduction of the afghan national security forces will take into consideration the security situation at that time in afghanistan as well undergo close consultation with afghan leadership so as not to sacrifice all of the successes and accomplishments which have been gained in blood and treasure of thousands of people during the last decade. dear participants, last but not

least, i would like to express my gratitude for all of these selfless sacrifice of the international community, in particular, the united states of america, and their long term commitment to build a prosperous and stable afghan national police force. i thank you for all of your sacrifices. ladies and gentlemen, our assessment, our take, a visa be the feedback we have received from the people in afghanistan, we can thereby assure you that we are not that far away from final victory. therefore, we ask the people and the leadership of our greatest friend, the united states of

america, and other countries who are members of the international community, we ask them to practice more patients, and be more patient with this process, and do not forget all the sacrifices we have made together. so that we avoid a return to the bitter experiences that afghanistan shared with the world over 10 years ago. all of these accomplishments and successes that have been obtained with the sacrifices and the blood of many of our young people's should never be forgotten. i thank all of you for your attention. [applause] >> thank you so much, minister mohammadi, and thank you for your leadership at the ministry of the interior.

we recognize your efforts within the ministry to promote professionalism within the police forces, and in particular, to promote american- based hiring, and ethics in the police force is much appreciated. it speaks well of your leadership. both of you are surely aware that many americans, as evidenced through some recent polls, have decided that the afghan war, perhaps, was not worth the effort. you have heard there was a lot of pressure within the u.s. for the u.s. to withdraw as many troops as possible as quickly as possible. while this suggests the americans are tired of the war in afghanistan, my sense is not that -- it is not that americans do not care about afghanistan

anymore, or as we leave, afghanistan would be fine. most americans want afghanistan to remain a stable and prosperous country where the afghan people can benefit from the progress that hasn't made over the past 10 years, and also where the security forces and afghan people together can ensure the difficulties that take place in your region of the world, including terrorist actors who have been of concern to the united states, will not continue to be a concern. those of you who are at the center of the efforts within afghanistan to be sure of that success. i want to ask both of you, your details about plans in this regard. afghan security forces are clearly key to maintaining stability within afghanistan.

could both of you speak more about the efforts you have made to improve the professionalism and capability of the afghan security force and police, and army, that the american people can be confident that as forces withdraw, there are afghans there who are ready, willing, and able to maintain security in your country. >> i will respond to the first part of your question. the decreasing support for the war in afghanistan. nobody knows more than the afghans what it means to lose a dear one. from the beginning, american policy throughout the 20th

century has always been to defend the united states as far away from its main land as possible. they were the main reason for participation in world war i, world war ii, vietnam, korea, and all of that. right now also, 9/11 has caused you to come and help us, for your security and also to the afghan people. i would like to ask the american people about something else. actually, we afghans, not in the past, and not now, are fighting only for ourselves or for our

own country. we have been fighting for the last three decades for the collective freedom of humanity for what you call today the global village. in the first part, when we were fighting against the soviets, when we were invaded, with our blood and your support and money and logistical support, we managed to trigger the downfall of that empire which was threatening the united states in a great way. we contributed to shatter the invincibility of the red army because the liberation of two

countries we have helped the end of the cold war and we have helped towards the determination of the arms race -- termination of the arms race. in the 1990's the whole world prospered. including the united states, a lot of countries have focused on the money which we were spending on defense, they focused it on the welfare of their country. but what the afghans have achieved, they have ended up with 2 million dead, millions of widows, orphans, and handicapped, and close to $200

billion worth of destruction, based on estimates from the world bank and imf, while afghanistan was also the poorest country in the world. i think we have always raised this slogan spatially and in the developed world, we talk about liberty, equality, justice for all. all of these are hollow slogans. now also this threat of international terrorism is not only directed to us. it has already caused damages here in the united states, in

europe, and many, many other countries. and it is a type of trait that no country alone can overcome by itself. it means a concerted and coordinated effort of a community of nations with a strategic global response. the people and the government of the united states, then you have come with us on an long way on a difficult journey. the final destination is now within reach, so please help us to reach the final destination. on the second part of your question, i think we are trying

wholeheartedly to build up afghan security forces which are nationally-oriented, professionally skillful, morally disciplined, ethnically balanced, and they are operationally cohesive, and their democratically accountable. -- they are democratically accountable. that is our aim and our goal. we express our profound appreciation for all the help which we have gone from a nato training missions in afghanistan, as well as those helping us to improve professionalism and capability of the afghan security forces.

in my opening remarks, i think i have talked about some of our other achievements at the moment. we do hope, in the near future, we will be able to relieve you of the burden of even training us, as we mentioned, and we will focus more on the leadership, capacity, capabilities -- some of the capabilities and capacities -- and it will depend on the help of the international community. i could go on, but i think i have talked enough. [applause] >> of course, one of the difficulties is, what americans see of afghanistan generally has to do with war and politics.

in any society, including the united states, if all you knew was the politics and violence, you would be getting a very partial picture of the situation. americans do not see news from afghanistan about some of the hard efforts, the great number of peaceful afghans. what they hear about are a lot of the difficulties with the security forces, when americans are killed, questions about sustainability. they do not see a lot of the details and the professionalism that is taking place inside. >> the problem is the strategic communication, that we failed and you failed also to convey to the american people, and also the way the media operates. the positive news does not have any bias, so they always focus

on negatives. that is what they're hearing. if we improve our strategic communication, i think we can do better in this field. >> minister mohammadi? >> i wholeheartedly agree with everything his excellency has said. my opinion is, in afghanistan, we need the collaboration of the people with the government, with the international community, and in result of this, we have had many successes in the past decade to look upon. during the dark ages of the taliban, all schools were closed. girls' schools for boys schools. education was not in reach. but the greatest majority of our young ladies and young men today and receive primary education.

we have witnessed many advances in the field of agriculture in various fields. unfortunately, more often than not, we hear about bad news coming out of afghanistan. but to today, a great deal of reconstruction has taken place in afghanistan, and even though it is not quite enough, we have many needs and gets too close. 150,000 strong force is, in an of itself, a big accomplishment in afghanistan today. his excellency the minister of defense, we founded a part of the afghan national army which we are proud of. they are sacrificing every day, suffering every day, and the same can be said for the afghan national police.

during the past years, we had the greatest number of independent operations -- combat operations -- just as we had the greatest number of operations alongside nato forces. and we are extremely proud of the fact that in the greatest parts of afghanistan, the afghan national police and afghan national army are enforcing the rule of law. we are at a very delicate crossroad point in history, of afghanistan. the whole nation of afghanistan wants to decrease the weight that we have placed on the shoulders of the international community, but we must have the capabilities to assume that heavy responsibility, to provide security for the entire nation

of afghanistan. we are extremely grateful and appreciative of the international community's efforts, led by the united states of america, in the fields of increasing professional capabilities, and we are continuing to increase those capabilities. as i touched upon earlier, we have placed a great deal of focus and concentration on increasing leadership capabilities over all, training from basic to highly specialized. until 2014, we do have plans set up for the continuous improvement of the capabilities of the afghan national police force, and all of our efforts are aimed at gaining the trust, the hearts and minds, of every

afghan. fortunately, with the passing of everyday, the credibility and the trust put into the afghan national security forces by afghan citizens is increasing, but unfortunately, naturally, we still face challenges on this past -- path, but we will spare no effort in overcoming those challenges. but we need each other's help in order to overcome these issues. >> thank you very much, sir. there are a lot of questions. i would make a couple of requests. as i call on you, please wait for the microphone. we are being broadcast live, so we need to be able to hear your question. please identify yourself and please ask your question in the form of a question, not a speech.

and if you could limit yourself to one question, that would be great, so we can get as many voices as possible. let's begin on the right here, please. >> thank you very much. josh with foreign policy magazine. for many months, the obama administration had been negotiating with the taliban on and deal that would include the release of five senior taliban commanders from the u.s. prison in guantanamo bay. for the obama administration, this is seen as a confidence- building measure with the taliban. with the taliban, they see it as a straight prisoner swap for a western soldier they have been their country. how do you view the potential release of five senior taliban commanders from guantanamo bay? do you see this as a good idea, doesn't pose added risk for complications in your efforts to win the war? could this be a confidence-

building measure that could lead to a greater peace deal with the taliban? >> if i give you a short answer, definitely, any more eventually ends up with peace. any effort to facilitate that process would be welcome. but before any deal, we have to make sure that the other side is sincere in their efforts. >> as his excellency the minister of defence said, we welcome any action that would take us even an inch closer to the realization of peace. at the end of the day, we must

have a target point to reach, and address to which we refer to, but folks inqatar wanted to set up an office -- in qatar wanted to set up an office. we hope that will be a point of reference for the continuing process of peace talks and negotiations. the people of afghanistan are tired of war. any people at war for over three decades would grow tired of it very quickly. so again to summarize, we welcome any steps taken on the path to a sustainable peace and long-term stability. >> thank you. human rights watch.

today, they have not seen the need to detain a -- the u.s. seems to contemplate such a regime. is afghanistan adopting a regime of withholding people without trial? >> afghanistan is subject to the treaty of 1949 and 1977, the second addition to the protocol, too. for two years, i think the process has become a part of the law. it has gone through both houses of the parliament. it has been signed by the president. and it has been printed in the

official government. so it is now part of the law and we will implement it. we have already developed a procedure. at the moment, it is a temporary procedure been how to implemented together those procedures with the international community. when that was the reason that we were able to sign that mou, that we were able to sign the protocol. so it will be implemented it will -- it will be implemented and practiced in the future.

>> much of the external investment, the u.s. investment, has been in your two ministries. are the other ministries, energy, water, health care, transportation, ready for transportation? if not, what needs to be done? >> there is no doubt that we have received the bulk of the assistance. but all the other ministries have received aid in the past 10 years. but the reason for that is that is a prerequisite for a rule of government and infrastructure.

i think there is good rationale for what has happened. initially, when we have developed a plan for transition, i think we have already made a precondition for an area to be transitioned. one was that there should be decreasing violence, as far as the security. second of all, there should be a good number of the national security process. and the third one was that there should be good governance in these activities of building infrastructure and economic development. but there is no doubt that we are a little bit more head of the of the sectors.

>> there is no doubt that your information is quite precise. we have been the main consumers of that investment. as that, i think any defense ministry and a similar conditions would have the same level of consumption. but you do understand that an afghan national army and an afghan national police which was completely destroyed and wiped out prior to the efforts started during the last decade is a big task. i had the honor to fight against the soviet invasion and resist against the taliban invasion. i am still proud to be a soldier for my country. so i have seen all of this for many years. my assessment is that, during the past 10 years, perhaps i was afraid that we would not reach

the number of security forces to the tune of 150,000. but it is a tremendously big deal because we had to stand up from the ground up and the afghan national army and a national afghan police, this monumental task required an equally monumental investment. but we're quite optimistic that this will decrease as time goes on. now we are in a phase of sustaining the capabilities and those numbers in our security forces. we still have enablers. but we are at the point of sustainment. and as his excellency the minister defense mentioned, in the field of agriculture, in the field of health services, the field of energy, possible water, many great steps have been taken, strides have been made,

and in the field of education. frankly, those are not enough. we still have a long path to travel in order to obtain those goals. >> was talking a little bit about the question of sustainability. obviously, security forces are enormously expensive and the capacity that the afghan government has to raise revenue with in afghanistan is limited. some of that gap will be filled by the international community. how confident are you that the resources will be available to sustain both the police and the army? >> actually, at the moment, i think we're through the negotiations for the last month or so on this question of sustainability. from the beginning, i think it was quite obvious that the afghan economy was not able to

sustain the troops. but in the meantime, we were telling the international community from 2002 that the only sustainable way to secure afghanistan is to enable the afghans themselves because, as far as sustainability is concerned, it was almost 70 times cheaper than the deployment of large formation of international forces. as i mentioned before, unfortunately, i think, from 2002 to almost 2009, i think there was not much investment as far as the afghan security forces were concerned. we have always argued with the international community that it would be much cheaper and

political less complex, as i stated before. and it would save the lives of our friends and allies. the reason was that coming in our history, this is the first time in our history that our friends and allies are shedding their blood on our side to defend our security. that goes against our honor because, throughout the history, the only thing that we were the most proud of was that we had been a country against overwhelming odds. so right now, with the transition, the dividend at the moment, the international community is spending about $150 billion a year roughly to do that. we just wanted to wish for 5% of the money to sustain our security forces. as a mentioned before, the

future prospect for the afghans , if we pull it through and we get it right, i think we can be one of the richest countries in that part of the world because of all that has been discovered and the great potential in different sectors, primarily the ground resources. we can harness the water for agriculture and hydroelectric. and i think we also need improvement on how to collect revenue and taxes. >> minister. >> thank you. the afghans are very proud of their security forces and both the minister of interior and

the minister of defense, you are not only longstanding fighters for afghanistan, but also the founding fathers of the new afghan secret forces. i will be very specific about my questions. both of you have mentioned the issue of mentors, enablers, and trainers. what are your needs as far as enablers and mentors in the long run considering all the discussion that is going on in the reduction of the troops and others? and what is the role of the -- what is the role the trainers are playing in enabling you and your ministry? and how crucial is it that they're missing continue, especially in the face of the recent challenges in afghanistan? and also from discussions here in washington? >> good question. thank you. >> thank you for your compliment. as we go to 2013, the role of

nato will change, including the u.s. forces. it will change from actually fighting. they will be just training, advising, and assisting. and how we get the enablers, i think they will have a role in enabling, too. but the question of the neighbor is one of the most crucial questions -- of the enablers is one of the most crucial questions all of these years, that the afghans should be able to conduct independent operation with less reliance on international forces. that is the only way that we can relieve the international forces from the brunt of fighting with the infrastructure that has been developed, there are some enablers and some are needed to

make us capable of conducting independent operations. the most serious ones needed for transportation, reconnaissance, the support of the ground troops, and also in the absence of the ice the forces -- of the isa forces and the afghan air space. that is the biggest one. the others need improvement, as far as fire support is considered and the ability with integrated fire power. since the enemy is also relying heavily in itt's and mines --

es, more focusinds on that area will also be required. >> i do thank you, sir. you touched on a valid point and i do thank you for your compliments, but also for all of the efforts that have been brought to bear by the international community. undoubtedly, they have gone to a great deal of trouble during the last 10 + years. the conversations we have had in the past two days with the secretary of defense of the united states and the chief of joint staff has only reiterated the information they previously had, which is the need for continuity anin the number of

enablers and an increase in the number of trainers and advisers. in the process of transition, it does not mean a complete exit from the picture. it only means a supportive role. of course, the minister of defence touched upon what falls under the jurisdiction under the umbrella of a mod. within the ministry of interior, we have had many of our personnel come to the united states and receive training for counter-narcotics efforts. we have also had some intelligence training exchanges. as far as budgeting, the age that will be brought to bear after 2014, that will be part of the afghan budget. i do wish to reiterate my gratitude and appreciation for all the help of the international community. >> thank you for your question, a master. this gentleman here.

>> my question has to do with a news item that came out of cobblkabul today where president karzai indicated that he is thinking about probably holding elections prior to 2014. from a security point of view, can both of you tell us whether the army and the police will be ready to handle the elections ahead of scheduled time on the one hand? secondly, what is your overall view of what you consider as being a peaceful and successful political transition in afghanistan in the couple of years ahead? >> you heard -- we heard the

news also as you heard it today in the morning. [laughter] and then we made some telephone calls. [laughter] the result was, even before the news came, in the past, i think we did discuss that there was so much to be done in a 2014 and then there's the political transition, which is the election. it was just an opinion and something called discussion. will it be more feasible to ?ring it forward fro from the security point of view, since the transition will not be completed if it comes a year ahead, we will have some support from the isa countries. so it will be much more easier

as security is concerned, as far as the security of the elections is concerned. but as far as the army and the police will secure the elections, it will depend on the level of violence and threat in that span of time. we do hope that we will be able to do that this year and part of next year, to be able to further degrade the capabilities of our opponent. then it will make it much more easier to secure the elections. we do hope that, based on our constitution and based on the principle of democracy, which has been wholeheartedly accepted by the afghan nation,

that there will be a very peaceful transition of political power when the time comes for the elections. but the whole thing will be dependent on the level of violence. if it is degraded and is less and is manageable, then everything will bgo positively. >> is the elections are held in 2013 incentive 2014, will the police here? >> i think you, sir, for your question. his excellency, the minister of defense, touched upon that we heard about this when you did.

we inquired with our ambassador. he clarified that it was not an end all and be all statement that the president issued from cobblkabul. it was only a point of discussion to gather feedback. in any way, it is irresponsibility, the responsibility of the afghan national police, to provide security at all times, not just during elections, whether they take place in 2013 or in 2014. we're proud that, during the past, a great events in afghanistan, whether they were parliamentary elections, presidential elections, we brought a lot -- we contributed a great deal to the security of those elections and to the successful voting process in

afghanistan. up to today, thank god, all of these historic occasions have taken place very successfully. even though in the past, let's keep in mind, we were much weaker from a security standpoint. but we have gained much more experience in the meantime. we have become much better equipped. but to the point that i can say, based on what i know, what i have come to understand and know and a screen which of our secret forces, i am -- and distinguished of are secure forces, i am optimistic that our security -- we will provide proper security for any election .urin during the previous elections, you don't see as having gone to the nato forces for back up because there was lack of self sufficiency in providing

security. we are in the process, as you know, of going to the third phase of the transition process. we will take the place of the nato forces, the isa forces, but we must move on the path quite carefully. again, it must be an irreversible process. we plan very carefully so that, with the gradual withdrawal, we will not take too long to fill in those vacuum's professionally. altogether, we seek to avoid the creation of any security vacuum's. >> i would like also to add that the actual fielding of the 360 two thousand army and police forces will be completed sometime in the middle of 2013. that is according to the plan.

>> high and with the embassy of poland. thank you for being here with us -- i am with the embassy of pollen. thank you for being here with us. you stated that it is very possible that the strategy partnership with the u.s. will be signed before the nato summit. are there any other things that you have to carefully worked on nex? >> what are the final hurdles, when you said nato conference -- >> i meant nato.

yes. i had in mind the need to a summit in may. the partnership will be signed by that time. >> actually, the two main issues concerning the strategic partnership, which was the detention and also the special operations, those have been solved. so we cannot foresee some major impediment to conclude signing it. and the second thing is, yes, there is talk and negotiations that we will have as a strategic partnership with nato. we have already made arrangements with nato, which we have signed several years ago. but at the moment, i think we are negotiating and they're

going through the details of that nato partnership with afghanistan, which i think part of it will be discussed in this coming week. i think it has been the intention of the afghans and nato to have an enduring relationship for the future. >> these are the points that you touched upon in your question, .pecifically the two mou's those issues are no longer issues. they're not as it -- they are

nonexistent. from now on, until chicago, if we do reach a point where there is some finalization and a signature on these documents, we certainly -- you will certainly be amongst the first to know. >> we have time for two more questions. right here in the front. >> you spoke a little bit in your remarks about the conceptual planning model. the recently announced that the afghan securities number would be reduced from the pete size of 350,000 to about -- from the peak size of to a 50,000 to about two hundred thousand some.

you will be laying off about 80,000 soldiers. that is a big number. can you talk a little bit about what will happen to them and what will they do? >> actually, i think the downsizing will take place gradually. it will not be very immediate. and then i think we will also take into consideration those people be taken care. some of them will get reduced to the normal process of -- and the contracts will be over. so the majority of the numbers you are talking about, all of

them will not be a burden on us to take care. thattill, you're thinking we will come up with ways and means to transfer them and give a lot of them vocational training so they can have a job to make a living. >> final question right in the back. >> a question for the minister of interior. about two months ago, two u.s. officers were shot in the back of the head, murdered, inside the ministry building in afghanistan. i was wondering if you could update us on the search for the person responsible and if you believe anyone will ever be brought to justice for these crimes.

>> the incident, the bitter incident that led up to the brutal murder of two u.s. officers inside the ministry of interior is building was the source of great sadness and i did give my condolences and sentiments to the government of the united states and the family tyrs, thosethose marker who had come here with a great deal of sacrifice for the development of the afghan police force did not deserve this at all. again, i would like to reiterate my condolences and prayers to the families of those who were martyred. that is something that should not have taken place. you have to understand that it was an accident.

you do recall the incident prior to that of the koran burning inside blogger airbase -- inside bagram air base. forget that, as a result of the corps on burning during the demonstrations that ensued -- as a result of the burning, during the demonstrations that ensued, 250 people were injured. again, the afghan national security forces were able to gain control and the afghan national army and the afghan national police were shoulder to shoulder. this incident was related to

those brutal murders inside the ministry of the interior. there were a direct result of the koran burning. we started a serious investigation and inquiry into these murders. three-four people who were -- three to four people who were shown to be accomplices into these brutal murders were apprehended. but the main culprit is -- but the main culprit is building in sued. we have not arrested him yet. this preoccupies all of us. we spoke to nato and it is important we learned lessons from every one of these bitter events, and from the supreme commander in afghanistan we all

agreed we must draw lessons for future use. and i am certain these incidents or any other types of events or misunderstandings will not succeed in driving a wedge between the french and partnership that afghanistan has with the international -- friendship and partnership that afghanistan has with the international community. there is an investigation into these murders, as well as pursuit of the main culprit until he is brought to justice. >> any final thoughts? >> i would just like to give a final message to the u.s. government, and also to the --

after years of struggle, tomorrow's goal is in sight. the costs have been high, the stakes even higher. but the good news is that hope has been replaced by real progress, and it has been dearly bought. please bear with us so that we can go to that part of our final quest to bring stability and prosperity to afghanistan, as well as to the region and to

the security for the entire world. >> please remain seated as the ministers at the stage. [applause] thank you. on behalf of the center for strategic and international studies, i would like to thank you for coming today. >> thank you very much. it was a pleasure to be here. a lot of friends we have met in these last years at separate times. [inaudible] >> thank you. please, remained seated. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> our specific mission is to work to make sure that human rights remained in an essential component of foreign policy and that when we are evaluating our foreign policy moves globally, human rights can never be the only consideration, but it has to be part of the dialogue. >> katrina lantos sweat is the president and ceo of the lantos foundation for justice. >> when we abandon those values -- and whether we are talking about torture as it relates to the war on terror, or the recent policy with russia and the upcoming issue of whether or not

the u.s. congress should pass the accountability act, which we do not need to go into the details of that policy, but whether we are going to stay on record as saying human rights matter in russia, the matter in china. >> more on this -- on c-span's q and a sunday at 8:00 p.m. >> this year studentcam competition asked students to create a video of telling them what part of the constitution was most important to them and why. today, we go to madison, conn to talk to a junior at daniel hale high school. why did you choose the first amendment? >> i chose the first of them and because it outlines what america is and it has all of our basic freedoms in it. >> what are the five rights associated with the first amendment? >> the five rights are the freedom to petition, the freedom of assembly, the freedom of religion above the freedom of

the press, and the freedom of speech. >> you interview to a group of pope -- protesters for your documentary. how does this apply to the first amendment? rex the group occupy wall street would not be around if it were not for the first amendment because they are using public property. they would not be allowed to be there if it were not for the freedom of assembly. they would not be able to say what they are saying if not for the freedom of speech. >> he interviewed a state senator who compared both the tea party movement and the caucus by wall street's movements. what similarities did he find between -- and the occupied wall street movement. what similarities did you find between the groups? >> it was not a similarity of views, but the way to express them. they express them to freedom of speech -- speech and assembly. >> why you think the founding fathers included freedom of religion in the first amendment? >> i think it was because when the pilgrims first came over to

america, they were being oppressed religiously and they were hoping america would be a country like it is today, and everybody would be able to practice whatever religion without oppression from the government or other religions. >> you talked about the freedom of the press. what does that mean to you? >> that is the right that all americans have to basically print whatever they want, whether newspapers or magazines, and it can be against the government. it is great, because here in america, we can do that. it is 100% legal, which as deferred from other countries where you could maybe be prosecuted -- is different from other countries where you could maybe be prosecuted for something like that. >> you also mention the internet's world. how has that changed people's access to information? >> you can go on facebook, twitter, and find out anything about anybody. it keeps government officials more liable because today more

than ever, we can find out anything about them. they would not want to do something that would put their careers at risk. i think it keeps it honest because you can find anything about them. >> which of the five rights associated with the first amendment do you think is the most important? >> idp freedom of speech is the most important. everybody has a certain religion that they want to follow or everybody is assembling peacefully, but with freedom of speech, i think every american wants that freedom, because they can speak their words and say whatever they are thinking without fear of government interference or anybody saying anything. >> thank you for joining us today and congratulations on your way in. >> thank you. here is a brief portion of his

documentary. >> [inaudible] and consequently, freedom of the press is in danger, not just in connecticut, but as a whole. information is power, and is a powerful, powerful weapon in hands of a free people. it unmasks allies, rips off the bandage of deceit for all -- it unmasks the lies, rips off the baggage of deceit for all to see. we are able to see how they are unmasking the allies of tyrants. >> documents in the freedom of information act can now be uploaded on to the internet and

not just available to the person requesting it, but the whole world to see. >> you can watch all of the winning documentary's @ studentcam.org. and continue the conversation on facebook and twitter pages. >> on the campaign trail, mitt romney taking the day off. no public events today. newt gingrich was up in delaware this morning at an appearance at 8 over diner. ron paul is in texas this evening for a town hall meeting. we will bring you white house coverage tomorrow -- road to the white house coverage tomorrow. mitt romney will be in st. louis as well as newt gingrich. also, house republican leader eric cantor and gov. rick perry of texas, wisconsin gov. scott walker, all beginning at 2:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span, c- span radio and c-span.org.

the next round of primaries is coming up april 24 when connecticut, delaware, new york, pa., and ryland -- voters will go to -- rhode island, voters will go to the polls in those states. texas congressman ron paul told supporters on wednesday with bricks and warm dropping out of their race, the republican field is now -- rick santorum dropping out of the race, the republican field is now down to three candidates. he is at the will rogers memorial center in fort worth, texas. this is about 50 minutes. [crowd cheering] >> thank you. [cheers]

>> it sounds to me like the revolution is alive and well in texas. thank you for that very nice welcome. i want to thank stacy and amanda for the introduction. i want to thank my family for being here, and my son, robert for giving us this very nice introduction, and jeremy kicking it off with details about how you can win delegates. that is pretty important. tobben reckitt cheers] . it looks like to me like freedom is still very popular. i'm glad of that. i think one of the candidates cannot remember his name, but i think he -- one of the

candidates, i cannot remember his name, but i think he dropped out of the race yesterday. [cheers] that day i was asked quite frequently by the media what it means. i said, out there were 12 lead one time. we are down to three. it looks like we are cutting the field down. [cheers] and then they say, when are you going to quit? and i say, i thought we were just getting started. [cheers] we have a revolution to fight, a country to change. we need to change what is going on. we might as well get our balanced budget before we quit that kind of stuff. there is a lot of enthusiasm, and i welcome the enthusiasm and the encouragement, because there were a few years when i would go

around the country talking about the same issues. the crowds were a little smaller than they were always polite, but the crowds now, when people ask now about what i'm going to drop out, i say, when nobody wants to support the cause of liberty. [cheers] but i say, in our case, we do not have a $4 million deficit in our campaign. our numbers are growing. [cheers] and the money is coming in, so i take that as a stamp of approval. there are a lot of people who care about freedom, and freedom is still popular. we will keep going until we have victory. [cheers] but it is great to see the

enthusiasm and so much support from the young people. there was one time in 1960's they would talk about the young people and they would say if he were 20 years old and you were not a liberal, you did not have a heart. but they also said if you're 40 and were not a conservative, you did not have a brain. i say, why can't you have both and believe in freedom and the constitution? [cheers] something rather amazing is going on, especially in the last several years. things have changed quietly and steadily in a positive way. although, over the last 100 years is pretty much down to the cause of the republic. in the last four years, something dramatic has happened.

many of the things we had been talking about and warning about, the austrians had been talking about the danger of printing out money and running of debt and all of the things with crises and watch out for the housing bubble. the one that came about, the people suddenly started saying that is what the austrian free- market economists had been talking about let's talk more to them and people were paying attention. who would have dreamed that five or 10 years ago that we would ever make the federal reserve an issue in a presidential campaign. a [cheers] ok, that is simple. when the election and we will

end the fed. how about that? [cheers] actually, next year would be an appropriate year. the fed has been around for nearly 100 years. 1913. and they destroyed nearly 100% of the 1913 dollar. let's not let them do it to the 2% left. let's have a repeal of the federal reserve act as a celebration. [cheers] but it has impressed me very much going to the college campuses and talking to people and seeing how many people understand exactly what the monetary issue is all about. and they understand by looking at a little bit of history and why the fourth -- the founders warned us about the money issue and why they put in the constitution that congress could not print money. if they could only use gold and silver as legal tender.

and that is what we should do. only gold and silver. [cheers] but we did not follow those rules and the fact that the federal reserve can print money and create money at will, and a buyout debt, what do the politicians do when they can accommodate the big spenders? they spend a lot of money, run up the dead, tax to the maximum, bar to the maximum, and they still do not have enough. and they have this ravenous appetite for federal government and then the federal reserve comes in and accommodates the big spenders and a print the money and, lo and behold, it destroyed the value of the money. some people say that is difficult to understand, but more and more i talk to people in eighth grade, ninth grade and they say, you print a lot of money and is going to lose its value. [cheers]

but it is also the mischief that occurs. government spending money is one issue. but there are two problems. one, they take the money from us. they may take it directly to taxation. they may put the burden on a later generation by borrowing. they may just print money. but it is always a burden because they take it out of the economy and our ability to produce wealth. but when we really get punished is when they spend the money. what good do they do when they are spending the money? [applause] they might feel compelled to go start a war that we do not need and get us into trouble that we do not need. [boos] that has been a big problem. as a matter of fact, the problem

as i see it, whether it is financial, foreign policy, an attack on our civil liberties, we have lost in the last 70 or 80 years is a respect for our constitution, a respect for our rule of law. [applause] if we got into trouble by allowing our representatives and residents to ignore the constitution, and we get in trouble, why wouldn't the solution be only sending people to washington who read the constitution, understand it, and live up to their oath of office? [cheers] very simply, that means we would not have a federal reserve system because it is not

authorized under the constitution and it destroys the value of our money. think about how many wars we have been in since world war ii. none of them have been declared, not one. how many trillions of dollars have been consumed? how long do we stay in the country and not wake up and say enough is enough? right now, the american people have awakened and not only are they looking at the federal reserve and saying, we have been in afghanistan long enough and it is time, all. -- time to come home. [cheers] war in defense of one's country is proper and necessary and the president has a responsibility to be commander in chief. but the president does not have the authority to star wars without the proper permission coming from congress. [applause]

and even today, we have a president -- he sends his secretary of defense over to the hill, and secretary panetta explained that we do not have to do that. we do not have to get permission from the congress. [boos] he said, we can get legal permission from the united nations. [boos] and of course, this is how we have gotten ourselves into a way to much trouble. but great nations are generally not destroyed by mittal -- military means. if we did not -- fortunately, we did not have to have a nuclear exchange with the soviet union. i was drafted in 1962. there were missiles in cuba. [cheers] i served five years in the military. but even under those

circumstances, with how dangerous it was, at least our president at the time called a kershaw of and said, may we talk this out -- called thiskruschev and said, may we talk this out and have an agreement so we couldid not have to have a nuclr war. [cheers] my humble suggestion is, why can't we have a country that isn't even building a nuclear weapon? [applause] this is what the founders of advice in order to get along in the world. you should offer friendship and trade. just think how much better off we are doing with vietnam. how many people did we lose?

60,000, and hundreds of thousands, if not a million, vietnamese died. the french were there for years out of fear that the country might go communist. what happened? we lost the war and left. they did not go communist. they have been weather -- westernized and we invest over there and others do as well. just think what could be achieved -- what has been achieved with peace that could not be achieved with war. [cheers] war is always a drain and there are explicit ways to go to war. we should never get the principle of preemptive war. preemptive war means we start them. we do not have the right to start wars. [cheers] we have an obligation to make our country safe and secure and

have the fence, but you do not do that by starting wars. we have talked too long of the status court and the conventional wisdom is that war can get you out of a depression. [boos] that is exactly right. it is not right. it is wrong. even if it did do that, it never justify that type of killing, but it does not work. wars are always of economic cost to a society. a [cheers] not only do i look to the constitution for decisionmaking when you go to war, but also to the christian job core principles. if we followed those, we would see a lot less fighting and killing in the world and we would be much richer. in the last 10 years, we have accumulated $4 trillion worth of debt due to the wars we are fighting. think of how much that money

could have gone into society here, how much better off we could be. today, we are a poor nation and we have the greatest debt in the history of the world, both foreign and domestic. it is the foreign policy that brings people down so often. the soviets went down not because we had war, but because they finally went bankrupt and had to go home. this is the day our greatest threat -- the one thing i can assure you of with my experience in service and in washington and knowing a little bit about military power, we do not have to worry about people touching us militarily. we have the strongest military defense in the world. [cheers] but i wish i could assure you with that much confidence that we have nothing to worry about. when we take an oath in office,

we take an oath to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. i am more worried right now about the domestic problems we have than the -- and the lack of following the constitution. [applause] think of how our civil loyalties -- liberties have been under attack in the past 10 years. there has been fear and you can understand, but it does not justify it. and we have this notion that it is okay to sacrifice some of our liberties to be safe. [boos] that is correct, it is never necessary to sacrifice liberty for safety. and the founders said if you do, you will not be safe and you will lose everything and you will lose your liberties as well that is what happened. immediately after 9/11, within a week or two if we pass this thing called the patriot [patriot [boos]

i know some -- the patriot act. [b faughoos] i know some members of congress, who said it sounded good. it just came up an hour ago, and i said you had no time to read it. he said, i know. i said, what are you voting for it? and he said, i cannot go home and explain to market -- constituents why i voted against the patriots act. and i said, that is your job. go home and explain it to them. [cheers and applause] i know what -- i bet is the patriot act had been called the repeal the fourth amendment act, a lot of your people would have voted for it. next year, we will also put on the list of repeal the pay trade act and get your civil liberties

back. [cheers] we will call it restore the fourth amendment act and maybe people will vote for it under those conditions. our liberties are being systematically undermined. we have essentially lost our privacy and it has been eroding for a long time, but it is essentially gone. it also gives the authority to this agency of government, which i hope is not a friend of yours because it is not a friend of mine, that is the my tsa at the airport and how they treat people. the purpose of the members of congress and the president is not to make a save. the second amendment is to make us safe. [applause] but the oath of office is --

and we do not take an oath of allegiance to our political party. the oath of office is to obey the law and obey the constitution. there has been a bit of an uproar in the last couple of weeks, and it is justified, to a large degree, about the president lecturing the supreme court about what they should do with obamacare. the easy answer there is to repeal the whole thing and start all over. [applause] as an ad as it was, the president interfering with -- as bad as it was, the president interfering with the supreme

court, what about the president declaring unilaterally with executive order that he could be the prosecutor, the judge, jury and executioner, and that the law of the land says that the president should make the decision to assassinate an american citizen? [boos] if we are not an allied enough about what we see at the airport, with our military being able to arrest people, with the president deciding who can be assassinated, i will tell you what, we are not deserving much. but i will give you some good news. the people of this country are not going to put up with it and they are going to make up their minds and get some change. [applause] you know, when i think about economic policy, monetary

policy, civil liberties, i think about individual liberties and the importance of individuals. i think that is what makes america great, the individual. the declaration of independence is very clear about where our liberties come from. they come from our creator, not from our government. [applause] of course, the founders understood what the consequence of that would be. if you have the right to your life, let your liberty, the right to take care of yourself, -- the right to your liberty, the right to take care of yourself, you ought to have the rights to the fruits of your labor. the income tax came in the progressive era of 1913 along with the federal reserve. we will add that to the list

too, repeal the 16th amendment. you know, there is always an excuse. you know, for all the laws. this january 1st, we have 40,000 new laws placed on the books. once again, i would really enjoy being the first president that eliminated 40,000 laws. that is what i would enjoy. [applause] [chanting] thank you. you know, the theory behind all the laws is that those in

charge, the bureaucrats and politicians, believe it is for your own good. that is what they are cleaning. and i have had members, when i say, why are you voting on this? you are in trading on the decision making of the people. they say, well, the people are too dumb to do it. they truly believe they do it for your own good. if governments believe they can improve personal behavior by regulating you, believe me, we are in big trouble. that is where we are. that is why we have some in laws and regulations and the courts now are so out of control as well as the executive branch. think about all the regulations. they are not legal. executive orders, almost all of those are illegal, from the president. a couple of weeks ago, the president wrote an executive order and he took the defense

production act of 1950 and renewed it with an executive order. he changed a few words. the emergency powers, which should never be granted, grant that if there is a war, the president can take over industry. he changed a word so that not only in times of war, but in times of peace the president can do that as well. i have a simple solution. let's have a constitutional president who understands that executive orders can be used in a very limited fashion. one thing you can do is use an executive order to repeal of the executive orders that are illegal. [applause] so often, those who oppose what we are talking about, what we do, say you guys want to go back

to the dark ages. you know what the dark ages is? big government, and tyranny. that is the dark ages. the future is a free society and looking to improve upon it. [applause] and of course, that is why we live in a very fortunate time in our history. we live and still enjoy the blessings of liberty. the big question is, how long are they going to last? we live in probably the freest country ever and the wealthiest country ever, but in the last 75-80 years, there has been a steady erosion. just recently was recognize that we are not producing enough and it is difficult borrowing, difficult just printing money. therefore, for the first time in our history, our middle class is

shrinking and getting poorer. the people know about it. they talk about the 99% and 1%. that is a mixed bag. you have to be careful about that. i talk about it, but we should not be resentful of the people in the 1% if they made an honest living without the government. we shall expand as numbers. -- we should expand those numbers. but if somebody is in that tax bracket, that income bracket making millions if not billions of dollars and they do it because they get bailed out and work the system and they get their contracts and special privileges, that should not be tolerated. but this is what has happened. the powerful special interests have been benefiting by the pretense that we are helping poor people. the housing program is the best example of this in recent times. it was designed to help poor

people. everybody deserves a house. you do not have a right to what you want or desire or demand. you have a right here liberty. you do not have a right to somebody else's property. you do not have a right to a free house, free food, or anything free. nothing is free. the government cannot provide it. they have to steal it from somebody. and that is fine. that is fine for a while as long as we are wealthy and can borrow, as long as the trust our money, but eventually it all changes, and that is what we're witnessing today is the change, the change in attitude because we know we cannot continue. we're living off the fact that people still trust our dollar are around the world. but it is fast fading. there are plans being made to have an alternative world currency. this will be very damaging.

and we can work on an as so many of us have in this country to restore the constitution unsound money in commodity money, but the other side -- and sound money and commodity money, but the other side is talking about creating a restoration of the imf. what we need is a restoration of the concept of liberty. it does work. that is where we have come up short. we have lost our confidence in ourselves and we have allowed this idea that we can become dependent on government, that now the productivity has gone way down and we are a much poorer nation. one of thing that is really bothersome in another way, if people become dependent -- and it seems like we save them and

take care of them -- actually, when they become totally dependent, they lose their sense of growth. i think that is what happens so often. [applause] we lose the idea of what freedom is all about. for me, it is seeking excellence and virtue. whether it is in caring for ourselves and our family, caring for our intellectual pursuits, caring about our spiritual life, it is up to us. our creative energy comes from liberty. when we lose our liberty and the government curtails us, we destroy that and destroy the sense of worth. i think it is a lot of anger out there. right now, they're fighting and screaming up in washington, why don't you guys get along together?

one side spends money on one thing, as the other side wants to spend it on something else. they compromise and spend it on both. it is not compromise we need. it is a definition of what truth and minuses. and then bring people together on these issues -- truth and rightness is. and then bring people together on these issues. if you bring people together because of freedom, everybody might come together for a different reason. everybody may want to use their freedom in a different way, but we should all join in supporting freedom. we except this all the time. we set this all the time on our -- we accept this all the time on our religious values. if we believe in freedom, we allow people to do that. it should be that way in social affairs as well.

for so long, we have had this concept of freedom divided into pieces. the founders had it right. personal liberty, social liberty, economic liberty was all one in the same period now we have a group that says, economic -- economic liberty to a degree, and we put a limit on that. it is one and the same. when you see this come about, it is not going to be a republican revolution or a democratic revolution. it is going to be all of the people coming together and saying freedom is the issue. [applause] for those who say that this is going to the past, going backwards, only the beginning,

the understanding of liberty is only a couple hundred years of a real test. if they are the past, we are the future, as far as i'm concerned. [applause] but good things are happening in the country, and one is that people like you are very numerous and growing in numbers. they are all over the country. you know, last week and continuing this week, we have been talking on the campuses and bringing people out, and we get usually these small crowns of 3000-8000 people. -- crowds of 3000-a thousand people. -- 8000 people. one day when we had a very nice rally in california, i looked at the internet the next morning, and the article, the headline

was, where has ron paul gone? where is he? well, sometimes they would like to ignore us, but i think they are going to hear from us loud and clear. [applause] [chanting] and i think you all know the quotation i use a lot, and that is, "an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army ci."

ideas are powerful and they have consequences. bad ideas have bad consequences. we put up with a lot of bad ideas in the 20th-century, a lot of fighting and killing needlessly. we need a new century where we can talk more about peace and prosperity and the rule of law. that is what we need to be talking about. so many are coming to this conclusion that these ideas are alive and well on college campuses. but there are a lot of people who come now, and even at the media is recognizing, it is not only teenagers and young college kids. it is a lot of people coming together now. a lot of people worry about it because they take a vote and

they say, we do not have 51% to pursue these beliefs. the founders knew this and they understood that may be 7%-8% of the people really knew and understood what freedom was all about, what the revolution was all about. but today, our numbers are growing. benjamin franklin said that what you need is an irate, tireless minority to burn the brush fires of freedom in the minds of men. that is what we need. good ideas are becoming pervasive. they have been around now for 30 years or so. i get a lot of credit, but many

more individuals have done a lot more work in the intellectual community. it has to happen. just as keynesian azzam was an intellectual revolution that reet -- keynesianism was an intellectual revolution that wreaked havoc for 100 years, behind the scenes, the intellectual community was saying no, it is fascism, communism, socialism, interventionism, welfare, inflation at the central bank's. but they're losing out because their system is obviously failing in the people know it. -- and the people know it. [applause] but we do need to change our policies. we need to change the spending. i am for cutting a lot of spending, as i said.

but even under those conditions, i still have priorities. if we work our way out, if we could have priorities and take care of those who need to -- who have to have been taught to be so dependent. i do not think you need to start with food stamps. i think you need to start with foreign spending and cut all of that first. there are still a lot of people that think we have a necessity to go about the world spreading our goodness. they call it spreading our exceptional azzam. this has been going on since woodrow wilson, make the world safe for democracy. this idea that we can force people to be good. well, i will tell you what. we have an exceptional nation. we understand property rights, monetary policy, limited government. today, we have lost that.

but if you are in exceptional nation, if we are to be an exceptional nation, people will want to emulate as. they will want to copy yes. you cannot go overseas and say to this and we will give you money. if you do not do it, we will bomb you. that is not the way to change the world. so often the argument is used against legalizing the freedom of choice in society. when people heard each other and damage each other, that is the purpose of government to take care of those problems. but when people have a lifestyle you do not approve of and you say the government has to come in and change it, all of a sudden, what we do is just getting into more and more trouble. people say, i cannot allow people to spend their money.

they may not do it wisely. they may become a gambler. it will be all my fault. but you know, by legalizing freedom of choice, you do not endorse it. because people use their religion in a way you do not want to, you do not endorse their religion. probably the most important thing for me personally is thinking about striving for excellence and dealing with spiritual life. that should not be in the business of government. under those conditions though, government should just a out of it. if we can except that for our -- accept that for our spiritual life, why do we think we need the fda to tell us everything we will ever do about what we put into our own body. i have talked for a long time

about the war on drugs. i think the war on drugs has been a total failure. [applause] i think drugs are horrible. i think the addiction to prescription drugs is a lot worse than the addiction to illegal drugs. i also know that addiction should be a crime -- should not be a crime and we should not throw people into prison who did not commit a violent crime and turn them into violent criminals. [applause] our country tried prohibition back when they passed the 18th amendment. just think of the difference in that period of time. they amended the constitution to give the power to the

government. it was a total failure. people woke up and said we have to repeal prohibition. today though, i think we are making great progress. when you see pat roberts in coming out and saying, hey, let's look at this more carefully. and he, like i, was very reserved. drugs are dangerous. but who is responsible for changing you against yourself? when the government thinks they can do that, they will tell you how much all you can put on your food, how much exercise you've -- salty been put on your food. how much exercise you can get. it is one of the excuses for the violation of our civil liberties. guess what? guess who is against a change in the drug laws? alcohol companies. drug companies.

what if you started using something you could grow in your backyard in did not by all those expensive drugs? all thosed not bomb expensive drugs. the issue for me is not the drugs. the issue for me is liberty and who makes the decision. one thing leads to another. today, if i decided i wanted to drink rondel, i would be prohibited by the federal government -- drink raw milk, i would be prohibited by the federal government. today, there is a commercial product that we used during world war ii, but today, we are prohibited from growing hemp.

they say it looks like marijuana. but if somebody wants to get hot i -- high on hand, as they would have to smoke a cigar as big as a -- high on hemp, they would have to smoke a cigar as big as a phone pole. if we assume, just like in economics, that the government is always the lender of last resort, if the government is the protector of last resort, if you do something that makes no sense, you should not be able to coerce your neighbor to take care of you. freedom doesn't bar responsibility.

john adams argued the case that if we became an immoral society -- and in moral society cannot have liberty because we abuse it. i think a lot about the abortion issue and the problems we have there. abortions were done in the 1960's illegally. the law was not changed. what happened is the attitude changed and then the law changed. so often, the laws are a reflection of our moral behavior. there is a lot of responsibility on individuals. assuming the responsibility is crucial, but to assume that the government is always going to be there for is to take care of us, it does not work. the more the government is involved, well, if you do such and such, that will be a cost to government.

the government is nothing more than a thief in the night that comes to redistribute wealth. [applause] think the most important thing we do to carry on this revolution is to recognize that we live in dangerous times and recognize that there is a larger number than ever who now are joining in the freedom movement and believe in individual liberty, believe in the rule of law. therefore, we have a responsibility. individuals like you that would come out and listen to talk like this are different than the average person. the average person is home doing something else. they may vote, and if they do, they may not decide until the day before they vote. but individuals like you to become knowledgeable and understand the problems, i believe you have a great responsibility. if you have your head in the sand, you can i get blamed for a whole lot. if it cannot -- cannot get

blamed for a whole lot. i think the most important thing is to become knowledgeable, believe in it, and if you are prepared to understand what liberty is all about and you want to participate, people ask me, what should i do? where should i go? if you are prepared and you have credible evidence that you are convinced, somebody will make use of your talent. we all have different talents. we all have different responsibilities. if nothing else, we all have responsibility for ourselves. if everybody took care of themselves, think what a wonderful place this world would be. we have responsibility. we have responsibility for ourselves, our families, our neighbors. local government is permissible under the constitution. we have responsibility in our churches. there is a lot that can be done. there is a much goodness out there that we really want a healthy economy where there are

more rich people. what are they going to do with their money? they are going to help people. the money will be there but there will be a greater amount of wealth. we have destroyed the wealth machine in this country. i do not think there are very many people i know in washington who understand how serious it is. they think they can borrow and spend and print money and it will last forever. i think you know differently. i think you know how desperately whinnied a change, and i thank you very much for -- we need a change, and i thank you very much for participating. thank you for coming here. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]