>> our guest are the democratic and republican senatorial campaign committee executive directors. news makers air this afternoon at 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> our specific mission is to work to see that human rights remain a central component of american foreign policy and that's when we are evaluating our foreign policy moves globally >> she's the president and ceo of the lantos foundation of human rights and justice. >> when we abandon our deepest values. we talk about torture as it relates to the war or terror or the policy with russia and the upcoming issue of whether or not the u.s. congress should pay the

accountability act, which we don't need to go into the detail of that policy issue, but wheather or not we will stay on record and say human rights matter. they matter in russia and china. >> more on lantos tonight at 8:00 on c-span q and a. >> a speech calling for the u.s. to play a leadership role. former secretary of state condolezza rice suggest making a confident at home. speaking at the heritage foundation in washington, the secretary spoke with the resolute -- role of the united states and international affair. this is just under an hour. >> good afternoon everyone. ladies and gentlemen i'm pleased to welcome you to the heritage foundation, for this timely and

important event, it is timely because of events overseas are constantly raising questions about our national security as we saw yesterday, with north korean test of launch of ballistic missile. timely because foreign policy has been topic of great interest during the presidential debates. it's important because americans are debating how we respond to events not only in north korea but in afghanistan, iran, syria and other hot spots. there are many questions raised by the actions of the obama administrations, actions that suggest that the president wants to change the way the united states engages the world. there's the pivot to asia, now the troops are coming home from afghanistan and there's president famous request that certain countries should be patient and wait until after the elections to see what he will do. foreign policy, often takes a backseat to domestic problems

and that are plague in our country. problems like debt, jobs and healthcare. surely these issues are vitally important. but as several of the recent presidential debate have shown, foreign policy also matters to americans. americans want to know how our leader, today's leaders and those we elect in november, will protect our nation and safeguard our liberty in an increasingly threatened world. we have someone here with us today qualified to talk about american values and america leadership on world stage. i had the honor of working with dr. condolezza rice when she serveds a secretary of state of president george w. bush. during both of these presidency, america face particularly grave threats from knew clear

proliferation, to terrorism and middle eastern elsewhere. in both presidency dr. rice helped 3000 people from tyranny and set them on the road to freedom and to prosperity. today, dr. rice is teaching new generations about american values, about american interest. she's a professor of political economy and political science at stanford university senior fellow at the hoover institution. i recall the words of heritage presentation on occasion of one of dr. rice previous visit on the heritage foundation. he called her a woman of many talent, a writer, a musician, teacher, scholar, a leader and a secretary of state and representative of american values and american entrees here and abroad. and frankly the best america has

to offer. i couldn't agree more. ladies and gentlemen it is my personal honor to welcome america's 66th secretary of state, dr. condolezza rice to the auditorium of the heritage foundation to talk about leadership america's critical role in foreign policy. please welcome dr. rice. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. well it's a pleasure to join so many friends and thank you very much ken for that wonderful introduction and for your service to our country. i enjoy our time working together. it's now been a while since i left government. there's a question that i'm asked all the time. that question is it different being outside of government. well, yes, it's different being outside of government. in fact, one of the big differences i get up everyday and i get my cup of coffee and i

go online to read my newspapers. i read them and i say, isn't that interesting? i'm able to go on to other things because i no longer have responsibility for what's in the newspaper. you like you, am concerned about the state of our country and the state of our world. i'm concerned because it's been quite a decade or so. it's been a decade in which the international system experienced three great shocks. first the shock of september 11th. a day that none of us will forget. those of us who were in a position of authority remember september 11th as a day everyday after became september 12th because as we fought to keep the country safe against terrorist who would try and do it again, we recognize that it was fortune and not perhaps skill but fortune that led us to to be able to protect

the country. there were those who were skilled, our intelligence officers, homeland security people and perhaps most importantly our men and women in uniform who volunteer to defend us and we owe them our gratitude for going so. [applause] after 9/11, we suddenly confronted the fact that it was failed state and ungoverned and potential nexus between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction that threatened our very country. the fact that a stateless group of terrorist to come from a failed state, one of the poorest countries in the world, afghanistan, to attack us do bring down the twin towers, perhaps they paid $300,000 to do it.

after that, your conception of physical security was never quite the same. of course in 2008, there is another shock, there was the shock of economic crisis that was a shock that underline tendencies in the economy and called into question whether or not democratic capitalism which has been at the core of the economic systems since at least the collapse of the soviet union was indeed itself in trouble. it exacerbated the internal contradictions of the european union. it exacerbated the contradictions in russia that it has not made the transition from an oil, gas and minerals syndicate to a real economy based on the potential of its people. it raised the profile of brazil and india and china.

but brazil and india remind us of something that is very important, the strength that they have. something that is going to them we should not under estimate, that is they are multiethic democracies that are stable. unless you underestimate that, remember, that these are countries that do it with huge multiethnic population. especially india. somewhat a miracle that a billion people who don't speak the same language and don't worship the same god can still somehow manage the peaceful transfer the power. they remind us the essence of the third great shock. the arab spring and what is unfolding in the streets of the middle east. that itself is a reminder that authoritarianism just isn't stable in the long run. but those who for 60 years

looked to stability not democracy have been demonstrated to have been wrong. authoritarianism is not stable what i come to call the moment. in 1989 with revolution spreading all over eastern europe, poland, hungry, he went into a square in bucharest to comport the romannian people who he done for him. as he stood there, one old lady yelled liar. then 10 people and then 1000 people and then 100,000 people yelling liar. he was realizing that something had gone run decides to run. of course the young military officer who suppose to deliver him to safety, delivers him instead to the revolution. the moment is what when what

separates authoritarian from his people, fear breaks down. an old woman yells liar. a soldier refuses to fire on the crowd, a general turns his tank away from the protesters or a policeman gives way at the berlin wall. at that point, the only thing that stands between the authoritarian and his people is anger. and anger is a terrible way to make political reform. we are watching in the middle east what happened when reform comes too late and it is replaced instead by anger and revolution and it's going to be a rocky ride in the middle east. but all of these shocks together, taken together, protend fundamental shifts in the underlying balance of power in the international system. and the question that i like us to consider today is as those shifts are taking place, will

there be an american imprint on that new balance of power? after all, the united states has been willing to imprint on the international system. we have believed that free markets and free people will ultimately result in a more peaceful and prosperous world. we have had a view of how human history ought to unfold. since world war ii in particular, we have actively promoted that view of human rights, religious freedom, the rights of disdense, the rights of women. not because it's a moral case but because there is also a practical case for those rights. because we have learned many times the hard way that states that do not respect their own people are indeed dangerous states. now that has helped reduce that view of human history remarkable

changes over the last several decades. europe, freed of soviet power that it hold and at peace and free. it has produced in asia powerful democratic lives in japan and in south korea and parts of southeast asia. a state that we, the united states of america over two administrations of two different parties helped to pull back from the brink of state failure. and, even in africa where sometimes people are so patronizing to say africa is too tribal for democracy, we have seen the rise of a norm for

democratic governance. we've seen in places like ghana a commitment to free elections so that those who would govern have to ask for their people's consent. oh yes, there's been decades, there have been setbacks. but it's been a remarkable strength in favor of those believe that free markets and free people will ultimately triumph. that indeed, the value of freedom is a universal one. not an american one, not a western one but a universal one. there are many challenges ahead. yes, there's china. to be fair china challenges the concept, challenges the idea that authoritarianism is not stable. there are some who say, it's more efficient this authoritarian capitalism. but let's not forget the strings

and stresses that are emerging now in china. as it makes the greatest socioeconomic leap in human history and does it with a billion people. i was first in china in 1988 and the streets of beijing were a competition of few cars and a lot of bicycles. that's not beijing today. they have listed hundreds of millions of -- they have lifted hundreds of people out of poverty but they got many more to go. it is labor unrest that is driving wages up to product safety problems, bullet trains that fall off the tracks or baby mill formulas that is poisoned and the first impulse to execute the guy in product safety. but also, in the stresses and strains that one sees and

reported riots over 180,000, perhaps most importantly and the stresses and strains one sees in kind of a lack of confidence perhaps in the china leadership about where they're going. i'm not suggesting there's going to be a revolution in china, if you were to go to the chinese interpret in the revolution, there were three words you would not seen, egypt, and revolution. it suggest the information age is indeed to the china revolution. some chinese leaders are suggesting that maybe legitimate based on prosperity. it's difficult to maintain because people expectations keep growing. and some, seem to suggest that maybe looks more like legitimacy based on consent might be necessary. now, the idea that leaders and

perhaps could elect local leaders, people elect their local leaders pretty soon, they will want to elect national leaders. authoritarianism isn't ultimately stable and it is not consistent with the development of human potential. now, it is also true that china is a challenge for us in strategic terms but only if we see that ground, can china really challenge us. we are specific military power unmatched in human history and we should remain so. if we pay attention, not just to being bigger and more expensive but being better in cyber and in space with missile defense, then indeed, we will be able to sustain our dominance in the specific. if we pay attention to the wonderful strong alliance we have with other democratic states with japan and south korea and the philippines and

australia. , we have a basis for american leadership. there's a relationship with india, the other great multiethnic democracy, which is rising as a tower in the region. we have, nonetheless ceded the ground in one important air that is asia. the last three trade agreement that was ratified in congress, south korean agreement, panama were negotiated in the bush administration. in 2003 china has secured 9 ftas and five more are in negotiations. indeed trade is the one place that we have not tilted toward asia, latin-america or any place else. free trade is one of america's greatest assets in helping both

free markets and free people. now, asia then, we have an infrastructure for dealing with the challenges there. the immediately is -- middle east is much more chaotic. it lacks infrastructure, many of the pillars have been rattled by the events of the arab string. sometimes i wonder if the so called pivot to asia is because the middle east is too hard. we can't afford to pull back from that middle east that is so hard. it's fashionable to talk about insulating ourselves about an energy policy. we should do that anyway. we should do everything we can to build north american platforms from oil and gas to transportation to new

technologies. we should build north american platforms for energy security. but we know that we will not be insulated from the middle east. one way or another, the middle east as they did on 9/11 will come back to haunt us. and so, we need to move from what has been a series of tactical responses since 2009 to how we want the middle east to unfold. without a strategic view, either the regional powers will exacerbate already strong sectarian regions. we have to remember when british friends drew a line in the middle east, they obliterated any notion of sectarian divide. therefore you had a circumstance in which one has had to dominate the other so that in iraq, the

population dominated the 65% or so shia promise and in saudi arabia there are shia and so on. this sunni shia divide will be worse without a strategic view how the middle east might unfold differently. we need to look to build knew clear stability. -- nuclear stability. we need two, to press reforms among our other friends. the mubarak situation didn't have to work out the way it did. i remember going to egypt in june of 2005 and urging mubarak and the egyptians to undertake reform before people were in the street. we need to do the same with our other friendses with the monarchs who have some personal

authority and make make a move toward greater constitutionalism and greater representation for their people. for those republics that are emerging, tunisia, which is place potentially seem to be on the right course or egypt where there is great issues to press for institutions. we need to have a relationship with turkey, a complex but critically important country that after all, we forget once really wanted to be a part of europe and was rebuffed by a european union that was more concerned about what turkey would do it than what it might be able to do with turkey. so the reaffirmation of relationship with a democratic turkey is key. also, to recommit to iraq. i know that it's complicated in iraq and i know that sometimes

it feels like the iraqis gone off course. you know, if you look at iraq today, at least we're not talking about a nuclear arms race between automatic -- hussein. iraq needs our free engagement. we have to challenge iran not just because of its nuclear ambition, but because iran is a revision to power. iran is not satisfied with the balance in the middle east and will seek to undo it. it is why they have supported the terrorist shia groups in southern iraq.

while they have stirred up trouble in the eastern province of saudi arabia, why they use -- they start problems. this is critical. it's a strategic opportunity coming from a strategic challenge. because the collapse of the regime of bashar assad with iran of handmading in the middle east and launch a path for hezbollah in that region. it's a pretty big agenda to react to this changing world that's undergone these shocks. there are those who ask can we handle this challenge and still pursue our values. i would suggest we can handle this challenge only if we pursue our values. this is what has ahead the u.s.

exceptional. this belief in free markets and free people, a willingness to try and promote them abroad and a belief that the world will be more stable and more prosperous as freedom winds out. that exceptionalism is critical for another reason. we cannot ask the american people to make the sacrifices for leadership if we have nothing special to say about how human history ought to unfold. if we are just one among many representing the lowest common denominator collective will of the so called international community, rather than leading a common cause, with like-minded states and long time lives who share our values in europe, asia, latin america and beyond, why should we make sacrifice of leadership? in that way american exceptionalism and leadership is

linked. it's reasonable that the american people are tired and i take some responsibility for that. i told president bush as we were leaving office, i said mr. president, think they're just tired. it's been terrorism and war and it's been challenged and it's been -- been -- people are tired. but i want to suggest to you, there's another side to that coin, that perhaps it is our lack of confidence at home that is stopping our desire and our will to lead abroad. the confusion at home becomes an excuse not to engage the world. it's directly related to our willingness and our ability to

lead. there's something deeper going on. now human potential is so key today. and america has been better at tapping human potential than any country ever in human history. in the 19th century, it was the resources that you could dig out of the ground that made you powerful. in the 20th century the resource and industrial processes to make a better widget. now in the 21st century it is human potential, creativity and innovation that is at the power. as secretary of state i got to travel around the world and got to see what people admired about the united states and what worried them. one thing i saw as a source of admiration what i call our great

american national myth. a myth is something necessarily true but it's something outside of your thinking. you can come from humble circumstances and you can do great things. and that belief has been the key to unleashing human potential. because we have never believed that the human potential comes as a result of class or circumstances. but rather as a result of opportunity. that belief has led us to be a magnet for people from all over the world, the most ambitious people in the world have wanted to come here. and whether it's the guy who came here to make $5 or not 5 cents came here as a 7-year-old from russia and founded google. united states has been enriched by immigrants, it has been made stronger by immigrants and it has been concept from the

demographics of japan, europe and russia. we must reaffirm ourselves as a country of immigrants and find a way to have a systematic set of laws and set of practices that allow us to continue to have the human potential come here. but it's not enough to have people come here. it also has to be true for people who are here. there, the educational crisis that we face, particularly in k12 education, may well be the great rest threat to our national security. the educational crisis threaten to continue to produce weak links. and actually a democracy is only as strong as its weakest link. the crises in k12 is producing unemployable people and who so

many of them are unfit for military service, let alone for jobs in other sectors. we can't continue to tolerate circumstances and look at your zip code and determine whether or not you will get a good education. that is indeed, the key to understanding another aspect of american exceptionalism. this is the most successful experiment in self-governance in human history. built on the responsibility of the individual, yet with the communetarian impulse not from government but from civil society and philanthropy and faith-based people who just wish to do good. that belief it doesn't matter where you came from, it matters where you're going. has given america a narrative but it is not a narrative of a

agreement and class conflict and entitlement. it is not a distributive narrative that somehow finds fault for your challenges in someone else's success. it is indeed, a narrative that says i may not be able to control my circumstances but i can control my response to my circumstances. that is a narrative of opportunity. that is perhaps more than anything else, the key to american exceptionalism. it is perhaps, the key that is most under assault today here at home. it may explain in part why we lack the confidence and the optimism and the strength to continue to advocate for free markets and free people abroad. without that advocacy, without

that leadership, without the willingness to sacrifice an imprint, one of two things will happen in this international system that is rapidly shifting. either there will be chaos but of course chaos won't last because history reports a vacuum. it is more likely that vacuum will be filled by some who do not believe in a balance of power that favors freedom. at that time, we would find ourselves in the worst of circumstances where we cannot protect our values and cannot protect our interest either. i'm optimistic though. i believe that we will lead because i've seen the united states do it so many times before. in 2006, which was actually a pretty bad year for the bush administration, things were going wrong in a lot of places.

i read the biographies of the founding fathers and when you read them, you realize by all rights united states of america probably never should have come into being. but we did. then in the year of civil war, brother against brother, hundred thousand americans dead on both sides but we became a more perfect union. then of course, little girl from birmingham, alabama, the boast segregated big city in america where her parents can't take her to a restaurant or movie theaters, they are convinced that she may not be able to have a hamburger but she can become president of the united states or become secretary of state. america has a way make the

possible seeing. i think we will do it again because it is critical that the freest and the most compassionate and the most generous, this extraordinary place, this exceptional country called the united states of america, also continues to be the most powerful. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. that was truly inspiring. a deep look in our history and where we are today and what we

need to do in the future. that's exactly what the country needs to hear. thank you very much for that. we now have some time for some questions from the audience. we have some ground rules here. we have two people in the aisles with a microphone. if you could wait until they come to you and give you the microphone. secondly, identify yourself and keep your questions short and to the point. >> secretary rice, a lot of respect to you. i'm with the united -- i thank you for nato enlargement given your time as secretary of state. i do have a question regarding the bucharest summit was blocked from nato membership, so was

georgia. the upcoming nato summit is in chicago. this is the first time a summit is being held in the united states outside of washington and it's not an enlargement summit. in december the international court of justice agreed that greece violated its treaty obligations. i wanted to know your perspective on masanodian. >> i long remain that nato must remain open wishes to join its ranks. nato was not a exclusive club, it was to be a security mechanism for democracies. in this regard, we pressed. very hard. as a matter of fact, integrated a number of eastern european

states. i worked very hard to try and resolve the massadonian issue. i think favor very much the integration of any european state that's ready. it seems that they are ready. the nato said that these countries will become members of nato. so, that was an affirmative statement of their rightness of them coming in. the timing i'm very far from this now. i would never be one to suggest that i know all in thes and outs of what's going on. i would hope that nato keeps remembering not just what it is meant to have states in nato, what it has meant for states to be in nato. nato and the european union

together have managed to make really relatively smooth the transition from the collapse of communism in central and eastern europe to the integration of those states and into europe. >> thank you so much for coming in and speaking today. your story is truly inspiring. i wanted to thank you also for your part and representation of documentary i had the opportunity to view a couple weeks ago. on those lines, what advice would you give young women in a time where even though enormous strides have been made, women are severely under represented and media and the government and in high ranking jobs? what would be advice you would give to young women what do you think it would take in this country to finally receive full equality for women in

government? >> well, i believe that we are indeed going to achieve full equality. but you know, it's going to happen one person at a time when brick at a time. glass ceilings are going to be broken not by some announcement that we wish to break glass ceilings but there are people who are willing to break them. i would remind, we had three of the last four women, secretary of state have been women. collin powell was in there. some will start to wonder what is going on there. we are indeed, making these strides. i would say to young women, to define yourself not in terms of the ceilings that you might meet but in terms of what you want to do, how you will get good enough at it to really make a case that you ought to do it and then go for it. it helps to have mentors, it

helps to have people who have been through these stretches. i don't actually have to have role models or mentors that look like you. had i been waiting for a black soviet specialist mentor, i would still be waiting. in fact, most of my mentors have been white men and maybe even old white men because they are the one who dominated my field. find people who take interest in you and take interest in your career. i think you will find it is more open to you than you might imagine. most importantly, never, ever let anybody define what you will be how you look. that is something that you see somebody trying to do that, you challenge right back because they have no right to do it and you can't let them. >> thank you very much.

i'm the second youngest member in the parliament in turkey. i like to ask you how do you approach things happening against syria. how do you see turkey's role and china and russia direct support. can we say u.s.a. is still the leading power. there are less countries who are now trying to follow the u.s.a. can we say this is a debate in my region especially in my country? >> thank you, first of all let me say in terms of turkey's role, i think it can be quite beneficial to have turkey which is a democratic country that is coming to terms with the relationship between islam and democratic values and democracy and does not see them as contradicting one another. i know there's a lot of struggle in turkey and it makes people little unnerved about some of

the things going on there. i know your leaders. these are people i believe who are going to build a new democratic basis in turkey. from that democratic basis, i think turkey has begun to advocate for the rights of others to live in freedom as well. which is why it's very important to see how strong turkey has been in support of change in syria. change in syria is important because if we were willing to say that we would not allow moammar gadhafi to mow down his people. we have a problem. i think there are many things that you can do. some would say on the opposition, if we're going to do that, i would hope that it would be a broad policy not just the regional powers arming the opposition because you're then likely to get something looks

like proxy warfare in syria. i worry that if we just contemplate the situation in which bashar assad sort of half reestablishes his power but there continue to be all of these challenges. you will spill over into turkey and ultimately into iraq. there's a lot at stake in syria. i think it comes to trying to bring the opposition together as turkey has done, trying to get the opposition to agree to a certain set of institutional reforms that would be made that would protect the rights of all the minorities in syria as well as the majority because it's a real malong in syria. i think you have to say to the chinese and the russians if we can't do it through the u.n., then we will do it as a

coalition of the willing. i'm not suggesting united states need ground forces in that region, quite the opposite. we have to remember that this is not just a threat to our values, although it is that. it is also a strategic threat and we got to find a way to bring together those who are willing in the arab lead and turkey to deal with bashar assad. without america leadership, i'm fearful that it will a tactical decisions. >> back over here. >> thank you. good morning. i'm with voice of america. you said united states needs to challenge iran, representatives of the u.n. security council plus germany will be sitting down tomorrow in istanbul. what does iran need to agree to make negotiations successful? if they are not successful,

negotiations have been in iran, what should united states do next? >> first of all, i think it is a tactical decision whether anyone talks to iranians. what's strategic what you say once you're talking to them. there are a couple things that have to be said. the world has to be reliably confident that the iranians have been shut off from a pathway to a nuclear weapon. the problem with enriching and reprocessing to a lower percentage is that it is basically the same process that you can pursue higher person of percent -- percentages later on. there are great dangers in saying, you can enrich to this level and no further because you leave the path to enrich higher levels in place. secondly, i think the iranians

have to be told they're going to have to shut down the sites that are undeclared sites, which i think are a open secret now as to where they are. but we need to be careful not to just focus on the new clear -- nuclear side. one thing we should remember, why iran with a nuclear weapon will be so destabilizing. it's because of what iran is. it is an existential threat to israel. it is trying to remake the balance of power in the middle east. it is a state that is the poster child of state sponsorship of terrorism. whether it is in southern iraq or lebanon and a state like that in volatile middle east with a nuclear weapon would be not just unacceptable, it would be a grave danger. now the good news is, iran i believe that regime is under a

lot of pressure from sanctions that have been mounting since 2006. i do believe that it is a regime that has lost all legitimacy, the clerics are at each other's threat. it is a population that is 70% under the age of 30. putting pressure on the regime itself is also critical because it's hard for me to see how in the long run that region is stable with that regime in power in iran. what if the iranians don't agree whatever it is we like them to agree to? i think if we don't want to president of the united states, to face very hard choice of having to use military force, then the iranian have to believe that he will use military force. that is the only thing that will ultimately change their view. president obama has said that he has the military option and he will use it and he doesn't

bluff. the chatter around him doesn't help him. oh, it will be so hard and the gains leak out the pentagon and how terrible it will be. that sort of undermines of message that we will use military option. let's stand that the united states of america will not tolerate iranian nuclear weapon and will do what is necessary to stop it and see if that will not back the iranians off the ledge. >> thank you so much second rice. i'm wondering if you like to share thoughts with us what's going on in china. the biggest political scandal in decades? >> what is striking to me about the case, i don't think any of us really know what happened

there and the depth of it. it obviously raises some questions about the strength of institutions out in the provinces and the strength of rule of law which i think, raises questions again about how one achieve the rule of law under authoritarianism. this is what it raises. one thing is fascinating to me is how open the discussion of it has been in china. it is lighting up the blogsphear. it is determined to know what is going on in its country. ultimately when people know what's going on and they are interested in what's going on, they start to want to do something about what is going on. that presents a challenge to the

china leadership. we have to say, china has achieved legitimacy based on prosperity at that point. but legitimacy based on prosperity tends not to last very long. people's expectations keeps growing. people become concerned about people drive around in ferrari and grandchildren who suppose to be deads -- dedicated to social equality. i suspect if we were in the halls of the meeting room getting ready for the 2012 party congress people might be asking how the political structures could accommodate some of these pressures, without becoming gorbachev which is everybody's great fear. so, the case is interesting and intriguing. i really think the big question

is, what does it say about china itself, how politics gets done, what the relationship is between leaders and center and how the chinese people will respond to what is in fact one of the biggest political scandals in the country's history. >> we have time for one more question. >> i want to know how you think the relationship is panning out. since there's been a few disappointments, i wonder how you feel it's going. >> i think the relationship with india is one of those key two or three relationships that we need to invest in and we're going to have to continue to invest in. we have some in latin america like brazil for instance. we have turkey where we need to invest.

we need to invest in india. it is not ease because for so many years in india's history it defined itself in the sense of distinction of american power, the not aligned movement and even the tilt toward the soviet union for a long time. that's not going to change overnight. it's not going to change in the indian foreign policy bureaucracy overnight. it is however, fundamentally changing in the indian business community. when you talk to people from bang lalore and mumbai, there is so much free throw for people back and forth from long periods of time between india and the silicon valley that you can't count how many. underneath the governmental relations a lot is happening that will ultimately change the character of the u.s.-indian

engagement. even though there maybe some disappointments, maybe the civil nuclear cooperation will stall a bit as indian looks to other sources. maybe if people evaluate nuclear energy in the wake of fukushima. it was about high technology and the ability to share high technology with one of the most innovative and create states on the globe. obviously, we need to engage in india where it comes to afghanistan and where it comes to pakistan because india lives in that neighborhood and that's not so easy these days. i believe if we stay with it, if we encourage not just governmental engagement but engagement across the population and university community and the like, we're going to find those

barnacles, are going to start to fall away. we will have a good and reliable democratic ally in south asia. we've done some amazing things together. india was the first country to contribute to the democratic fund in the u.n. we did relief for the tsunami with india, australia and japan in the united states enabling engagement. military to military exchanges are going forward. we have to be patient. this is not a relationship that's tomorrow going to produce votes at the u.n. that are always in our favor. but it is a relationship that is worth investing in. it is a relationship i think if we stay the course and push, we're going to continue to make lead with one -- one of the

remarkable multiethnic democracies in the world. [applause] >> i'm sure i'm speaking on behalf of everyone here today that how thankful and appreciative we are that you came to speak to us. it's been a while since you been in this hall. the last time you were here you were secretary of state. we hope this is not the class time you come. you have an open invitation. i have a lot of eager people not only here at heritage and across the nation, very eager to hear what you had to say. we thank you for your service. i thank you for the type that i worked for you. i remember working on india and that democracy fund issue very well. i thank you for once again

coming here. so please join me and thanking her once again for coming. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

the response from the officer was thank you. >> the truth and myth of that night. today at 4:00 p.m. eastern. this weekend on c-span 3. >> state department officials said the u.s. will continue to be involved in securing afghanistan after the 2014 and withdrawal. mr. grossman was part of a discussion hosted on tuesday. he was joined by author and

taliban expert rashid. he said it was not likely that there would be able to secure themselves before the election. the event was moderated by stephen hadley and featured the former afghan ambassador to france. >> good morning. my name is george moose, i'm the vice chair of the board of directors here at the u.s. institute of peace. i'm pleased to welcome you here this morning. before we begin i would like to ask all of you to turn off your cell phones and your pagers. because they interfere with our own electronic systems, including those that are streaming today's session live over the internet to our many listeners in our virtual audience out there. this morning i have the honor to introduce today's session on prospects for peace in afghanistan. as the size of today's audience is evidence enough of the interest in this topic. my dubious claim to this particular honor lies in the fact that i recently returned

from a three-week visit to pakistan on behalf of the state department, which of course naturally qualifies me as an instant expert on the subject. usip as an institution, however, has a much longer and much deeper involvement in afghanistan going back to two -- 2002 with the institute was asked to apply its special expertise in the areas of peace building to the task of promoting peace and stability in afghanistan. for the past two years usip has focused its attentions on the development of a strategy for the country's political transition and transformation. one built around constitution of development, credible elections, and a durable and inclusive peace process. in 2008, usip hosted minister as a jennings randolph resident fellow here. we regret he was not able to

join us for this session but we look forward to his participation in future sessions. his research helped inform the afghan peace and reintegration program which in turn has become the blueprint for usip's own reconciliation and reintegration work. as is abundantly evidence to all concern pakistan is also a critical element in any calculation of the prospects for peace in afghanistan. which is why usip also has a presence and a program there. some would question whether dick holbrook's original rand vision of a strategic partnership between u.s. and pakistan was ever realistic and viable, but i think there is widespread agreement whatever hopes there might have been for such a partnership have been shattered by the multiple shocks of 2011, the most significant of which was the raid almost a year ago on osama bin laden's

compound. just when one thought the u.s.- pakistan relationship couldn't get any rockier, we have the announcement by the u.s. government last week regarding lakshar leader, said, which was made on the eve of a long awaited visit by the pars to india and the eve of pakistan's parliament debate of a long awaited report on the future of the pakistan-u.s. relationship. and if that were not enough, we have the op-ed piece over the weekend by representative dana rohrabacher vigorously defending the resolution he had introduced in february calling for self-determination. which seems certain to reignite the passionate reactions of pakistani officials. now, these developments and others inevitably give rise to a series of questions.

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

about every major post one can hold in the department of state. ambassador to turkey, assistant secretary of state for european affairs, director general of the foreign service, and undersecretary of state for political affairs, the department's third highest position. since february, 2011, he has served as special representative of afghanistan -- for afghanistan and pakistan with all of the challenges pertaining. and i think it's important to note that marc's diplomatic career was launched in pakistan. that was his first posting. in essence he has come full circle in his career. nilofer sakhi has written extensively. she is founder and chairperson of women's and activities of women's service association where she established the association for peace building and conflict resolution.

she served as a country director at the open foundations, afghanistan program, where she also worked as a senior consultant on rule of law, transitional justice, and human rights. ahmed rashid is pakistan's pre- eminent journalist and author. his writings are required reading for anyone seeking to understand the realities of afghanistan and pakistan. his publications which include "taliban, jihad, and descent into chaos" has sold millions of copies. his newly published work, pakistan on the brink is already being described by viewers as a must-read. where and how that rand design went awry. i will add living as he does in lapur and writing as he does with unrestrained honesty and candor also qualifies him as a man of considerable personal courage.

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

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

like a bit of a softball question, but it's kind of a framing question so each of them can take three or four minutes in turn to sort of set out sort of a general approach to the problem. what we'll then do after that first round is i will then ask questions to the various panelists and i will try to see if i can broker a bit of a conversation between and among the panelists on the various issues of the day. i suspect when all that is done we will be basically an hour into this hour and a half which we have. and we will then go to questions and answers from the audience. you should have received as you came in or once you got seated a card. we would ask you to write your question on that card. if you don't have a card you can raise your hand and people will come and get you one. and we would ask that you would pass those cards then to the

aisles and someone from usip will come down each aisle and collect them and they will then be passed to me. and that last 30 minutes i will ask your questions to the members of the panel. we will try to end promptly at 12:00 noon, and ask you then to let the panelists have a moment to depart the hall before the rest of us exit. that's what we'll try to do this morning. and i think we could not have a better panel here to debate this important question about how to get to peace and stability in afghanistan and pakistan. so, without further ado, let me begin, ambassador grossman, i'd like to begin with you if i might. ambassador moose talked about political strategy. i think if you read the press on afghanistan there is a lot

of talk about security, security situation in afghanistan, the transition to afghanistan lead security responsibility in 2014. but under the constitution president karzai's term expires in 2014, which means there will be a presidential election. and one question is, will that presidential election result in a president with authority and support throughout the country, or could it be a repeat of the last couple elections which were contested and a source of division? accompanying the security transition strategy, could you say a little word about the political transition strategy and how the administration sees on the political side getting between where we are now and 2014 and beyond? let me just add my thanks to all my thanks to usip and all the people who organized this wonderful event. it's an honor to be on this panel. i might if i could say a special word of thanks to steve hadley,

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

very important part of explaining the story of how we are going to go forward in afghanistan to get to 2014. security transition a very important thing. steve's right, i think we ought to be spending a considerable more time thinking about what is the other transition that's happening in 2014. there are two transitions we ought to be considering. lisbon, then obviously the political transition as called for by the constitution of afghanistan. an election, change in leadership, and they very importantly getting to the transformational decade which was called for at the very important conference in bonn. i'll say three things about that. first, there is obviously a huge amount of work for afghans to do to get ready for 2014. because this election, how they

want to run their own country, what their life will be like in that transformational decade 2014 to 2024 i think fundamentally is a question for afghans. we can talk about this and encourage and work with the election commission and consider questions going forward for 2014, this is first and foremost i believe an afghan question. i know that they will focus on it and focus on it successfully. second, as steve said, there are two or three other pieces of getting ready for that transition that are extremely important. one, i believe, is the regional context in which that second transition will take place. i take you back if i could to the very important meeting in istanbul last november, the very important international conference in bonn last december which set a framework for secure, stable and pros fuss afghanistan inside of a secure, stable, and prosperous region. regional component of this, support of this transition in afghanistan is extremely important. second, let's not forget also the economic aspects of this. here steve and others have been particularly helpful to me which is to say that going forward to 2014 and after 2014 there's also

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

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

trying to reflect, i think, what the afghan people are feeling in terms of the political transition that is about to take place, if and when it takes place and how it will take place, and what to feel first of all i think connected to a transition. you want to feel inclusive and included in the process that not only takes into account their aspirations, but also deals and offers them certain solutions and answers to questions that are really tough in terms of what are we doing with the taliban? which taliban? where and what context? these are questions that i think are on the minds of many people not only in afghanistan but also across the world, especially the main contributors and main stakeholders as to what exactly are we going to get out of a reconciliation. a political process is the way to end the conflict and we hope that that will be the case for afghanistan. but there are many questions as to what kind of reconciliation. is it going to be narrow? is it going to be one where we bargain over certain gains that we have had, afghans have had over the past decade?

what are we going to give up? what are we getting in return for it? if we are going to end up with a political sentiment, which is a bad word being used, what does it mean? what does a political settlement mean in terms of incorporating certain elements within the after began rooting structures, giving away certain positions. does it mean that this will guarantee the end of conflict. that everyone who is on today will actually sign on to this? so there are many questions lingering in people's minds. i think that that's what's caused a certain amount of uncertainty and angst within the afghan population.

and especially within political circles. civil society, and especially the parliament. i think we keep ignoring this body called the legislature or parliament, whether we like it or not, an elected body in afghanistan, elections are not perfect. but we cannot ignore their views and their input. so i think that it's important that as we move forward with the political process, we keep in mind that afghans have certain questions. they would like to have some transparency as part of this process. and they are really also worried about the regional context. as mr. grossman said, afghans

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

reconciliation, which is thought of as an outreach to the taliban, and a broader political settlement, which is making the afghan political structure more inclusive of both the opposition, women's groups, a sense that many view the afghan government now is narrow with a sense of entitlement, fair amount of corruption, so we have talked about outreach to the taliban or reconciliation with the taliban and political sell settlement in terms of broadening and opening up the afghan political structure. we might have that distinction in mind.

>> the elrich to the taliban but also this broader prospect -- outreach to the taliban. >> for pell stand to discuss the peace prospects -- for pakistan to discuss the peace prospects. among women groups, on the issue of the transition, especially on the issue of the reconciliation. they have good memories of the taliban regimes. it was not because of that. people were tired of the instability in the country and they wanted a solution where everybody could have a stake. then we started working with the different stakeholders. all the bad memories that they had from the taliban regime -- with the passage of time and the changes that happened during the last two years, optimism does not exist anymore. they are afraid of -- there's been a lack of transparency in the process. there has been a lack of -- the

private sectors, education and many other sectors. there were all part of a society and they were not consulted initially. it worked at the level that the international community just had been at the table to discuss the substance. the presentation of women's groups has been very symbolic in the process. it does not contain any substantive talks. women are concerned that the taliban has not released a document or published anything that would except the constitution of afghanistan. has undermined the last 10 years of achievement. the support of the international committee has been focusing on this. now there is the level of pessimism that exists. there is no solution to the

sentiment and reconciliation is not a solution. wait for more -- we think there's more need for a division in neighboring countries. let's talk about their interest because their interest matters a lot. otherwise the foreign countries will not cooperate in the process. there will not discuss their interests at the negotiating table. the solution doesn't rely will talking to the taliban alone. >> thank you. you have indicated some reservations about where the reconciliation and the

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

what are they willing to do to bring that about? >> i wish i knew. i wish more people in this room new and i do not think they do. i think marc outlined a very comprehensive vision. i think part of the vision that must emerge in the chicago summit has to be the fact that the aim has to be an end to the war before you leave.

if the nato forces will leave afghanistan in a state of civil war, then i think we're looking at total failure at the end of the day. we're looking at the collapse of the entire political system as it has evolved over the past 10 years. i would like to see eight u.s. vision articulated. our aim is to end the war before we leave. i think that will carry weight in the international community. we can talk about each of these things individually but i think that has to be an overarching policy. maybe we do not get that but i think the aim has to be expressed. if we look at the areas, the international situation is in a crisis. a lot of the europeans want to pull out early. the law long-term funding of afghanistan and the funding of

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

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

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

patient? i think that is important. two things pakistan has to do. the time has long passed that pakistan can continue giving physical support for extremist and fundamentalists. i think this is going to require -- there has to be a deadline given to the outgoing taliban and to the fellow groups to move out of pakistan in order to speed up its reconciliation. pakistan has to play a more positive role then it is done so far. it is critical for the international community to know that pakistan is given a certain time period. i think that is very important. there has to be a major effort at de radicalization. this does not mean confrontation in a military way. this is the kind of thing the international committee would give money to if pakistan did not have the resources itself.

we have reached a certain stage improving relations with india but they cannot go any further. there's a limit to how far you can go in afghanistan with karzai. we can knock move forward -- we cannot move forward on last pakistan is prepared to offer a program for d radicalization -- de-radicalization. >> the notion that the game needs to be to end the war before the united states leaves. i was there in october. if the goal is a peaceful afghanistan, it will take a long time and that is not something that can be accomplished between now and 2014.

i would like your comment on the suggestion that that is a goal. there has been an announcement in the last weekend that there is now an agreement on the issue of night raids, which has been standing in the way of a strategic partnership agreement between the united states and pakistan. is that agreement liable to be concluded? what will it say about a post- 2014 presence of the united states in the event we cannot

get it all done? will it say about a u.s. commitment in afghanistan post- 2014? >> thank you very much. when i heard it had to be done by 2014 -- the bars are high but it cannot be that high. on the question of special military operations, at night raids. it does open the door for the strategic partnership documents. i think that is something important to get signed an hopefully it will be done soon. i do not know how long it will take but we would like to have a good document. i think it is important because

it starts to answer some of the questions. it also starts to answer some of the other questions that we have heard. let me just say to both of you and to everyone in this room, i think the idea that reconciliation and the process of reconciliation has to be done with any more inclusive manner around in afghanistan with the united states of america is right. reconciliation is not an issue between the government of afghanistan and the insurgents. it is about afghan society. when you think about the questions that you asked -- what does it mean? one evanish i have had is that -- one advantage i have is that we set out in 2011 -- they answer some of your questions. people have to break with al qaeda. they have to live inside of the constitution in afghanistan with the rights of women and minorities and other groups. i want to repeat the point i

made in my opening. the role of the united states in talking to the taliban is to open the door to a conversation among afghans about the future. the questions you ask are questions that afghans have to answer about how they wish to live. all of us have said that regional to publish it has to go forward. i would like to tie my interest in the question of economic development to the empowerment of women in afghanistan. the most interesting people you meet in afghanistan are female entrepreneurs. i think there is a power to be unleashed there. women and other groups could help stand for themselves. the point about before we leave. i think we should not detract in the proposition that on december 31, 2014, we're gone. if that was our policy, i do not think we could accomplish any of the tasks that we set out to do. there will be an american engagement that will be military, economic, political.

will have to do with governments and democracy. it is not possible to say end this way before december, 2014. we have to continue on. i think about chicago, you have these lines of operation now. you have the military line which is very important and needs to continue. you have the question of enduring presence. you have a question of reconciliation. the job in chicago was to bring all these things together. if we're successful, you take chicago, tokyo, kabaul, istanbul, and people have to understand. >> thank you, marc. some concerns about the reconciliation process. marc has begun to give the u.s. government's framework.

marc talked about a broader conversation among all elements of afghanistan. not so easy to do. talk a little bit about what kind of conversation should there be within afghan society and how does a get structured? can the election in 2014 it be a vehicle for having that kind of conversation and advancing the prospects for a broader

reconciliation? i'll ask you to pull your policy maker -- put your policy maker hats on. if we could begin with miss sakhi. >> sure. to follow up about the achievement in afghanistan, i think i've been through a series of changes from the provincial level to the capital. we want to make sure that the

image we get from media -- the country is going -- i did not believe in that. i see the changes in the private sector. they are marvelous. we have been through the changes. it needs more structure and the systematic strategist to put in place. otherwise the achievement opens a great range of opportunities. we need to be further engage in our country. thank you very much, ambassador grossman. i wanted to follow on that. it is a different picture of what we hear from the media. with the reconciliation of afghanistan, i think there was a lack of structure from the beginning in the process.

for more structure, it has to be more transparent. there are issues that we cannot disclose. if the issues remain closed and transparency does not exist, how do we know as a nation that what are the discussions

happening -- between countries and regions -- even the afghan government is not in the picture. they are complaining about the process. that is damaging the sovereignty of the country. inclusiveness is not only to include women's groups. that is very important. i know the taliban does not recognize the afghanistan government. how do we see the future? it is hard to predict a successful outcome. the taliban are not legitimizing or considering the government. this is a huge talk line. inclusive is not just about women's group. it is about the pakistan -- afghanistan government also. a broader process. we were expecting the peace process -- they were not able to reach the distant elements of the society which is education, which we did not name at the beginning and we have had several talks. you have to have outreach and a member of them. they should at least -- i know that time is limited. we have to have outreach. they have started that. to have outreach. civil society was only -- they are not just society only. you want them to be included in the process. if we do not include them, you will not be able to legitimize the peace process.

they have to legitimize it at the end of the day. as we give structure to the entire process. the media should cover the hope. there is an extreme level of pessimism right now. we have to show the people that something is happening in the positive. otherwise, people think negatively about the entire process. if you don't have the support, it will affect the legitimacy of the process. need a negotiator -- we need a negotiator. we have not started the process yet. there has not been talk about the substance. we've done the logistics. that according to peace building procedure -- this process has shortcomings. the process has not started yet. how are we sure that in another two years we will be able to create another outcome? work should be a little bit out of the logistical efforts and should be focused more on the process, to bring -- talk about

the substance. sepsis is where the interests of pakistan -- absence means what are the interests of pakistan? not only pakistan is involved. iran is another player. there are other stakeholders. they have to come to the table. and the third thing, mediator role is an important part of the process. right now the process is under question. the united states initiated and it is run and only happening, the taliban and the united states, the process. this has to be moved out of the mind of the people.

international partners are a strong supporter for afghanistan. there are good points and bad points. this will undermine the neutrality of the process. >> interesting. what i would like to do is i would like to turn to ambassador samad and heavy focus on the 2014 election.

we have a good description of the kind of process to be seen. if you could talk about the 2014 election and what afghans need to do to make sure that gives a free and fair election. i will ask mr. rashid to talk about what more should be done with the regional players and give you a chance to respond to the comments we made here and then we will go to the questions from the audience. >> i just wanted to say that what needs to be done is to consolidate these gains. afghanistan is a much better place than it used to be. we're discussing what might happen if the taliban returns or what might happen if afghanistan collapses. nobody 10 years ago thought we

would have been at this point in afghanistan, -- this level of fertility -- fragililty. there's a certain level of fragilility. we just sort of agreed that there is a component that needs to be brought back into the

process. are putting our house in order in afghanistan. elements are coming under this big tend to -- elements are

coming under this big tent. there's a taliban that is radicalized. it was not going to judge --

budge or change. we think this taliban is willing to come under the tent. we're trying to push him and encourage him and inside him to

come under the tent. know that cousin is outside of the borders and that pakistan can have probably the definitive --provide the help that is needed in order to push the cousin back into afghanistan. then we can enter into talks with them. this is the picture we're facing right now. the international committee can create a role.

there needs to be assurances. we had the kabul process. chicago is important and tokyo will give us the financial commitment that is required. what is the missing is the messaging to the afghan people and to the region. the international committee means business. they are serious about ending

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

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

and helped along, and forces of radicalism. so we have to make that choice. the election will be a critical testing ground. we need to make sure we stay within the bounds of the constitution. if the constitution needs to be reformed, there will be a discussion and debate in the country to reform it. that has to be inclusive. democracy has to stay within the bounds of the constitution in afghanistan.

human rights and gender rights falls within that. the taliban have to fall within the bounds of the constitution. they need to become something. they need to be shown they have a voice and that their voice counts. not more, not less than anybody else. they will have equal rights under the constitution. how do we do this? how do we convince the taliban? that is the trick that needs to be answered. >> does pakistan have the will ability to pressure these cousins that are outside of pakistan to return and take part of this process? what else needs to be done on a regional basis to support this process? >> there is hardly any

discussion in washington about elections. how are you going to withdraw these troops and also have elections? who will stand by? one idea is if president karzai brings the elections forward so that the international presence can be there and can play a role in protecting the elections. during the elections forward -- bringing the elections for would be an enormous help to the international community. you would like to include the taliban in this process, too. that is a big question mark. would they take a decision to stand in the elections or not? it is probably vital that the transition to the next president should take place well before the final -- large-scale

withdrawal takes place in 2014. on this reconciliation, i think president karzai has made enormous mistakes. he is not put forth a comprehensive team talk with the taliban. they are reenergize the ethnic issue. there is open talk of civil war in afghanistan. let's be realistic. between the north and the south. whether the army or military can stand those kinds of strains

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

completely taking, etc. we do not know how it will perform. thirdly, in washington and i do not thinkthat's been a major cause for negotiation. talks. the u.s. has to talk from one page also. the more divisions that there creates problems for the u.s. and for these negotiations.

these other countries have an angle on which to build their own defense on. diplomatic effort. did the state department is unable to do on their own. they have no relationship with iran. you need someone else to talk settlements. it is tragic to with the u.n. they cannot take up a positioni think the americans can resolve

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

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

as long as that is not resolved, we are not going to see a reconciliation with the united states. kind of rhetoric that's coming out of the media and these extremist groups. i hope they can come out of it sooner than later. certainly this year. but, turning the chip around -- ship around, nobody seems to have the will to do it. perhaps the next election should be brought forward in pakistan, too, so we could have a new government which could

tackle some of these issues that need to be looked at. >> thank you. marc, you have the last word. you have a broad canvas. i will ask for questions to be brought up. we will then go to the q&a. >> i felt that the stage is tilting in these last few minutes. that is all right. i want to make sure there's a lot of room for questions. if i could, to take a couple of the themes that have emerged, first, i would like to go back to the question of reconciliation. it is important to emphasize this reconciliation process is about society in afghanistan. nor is it about the united

states of america talking to the insurgents. there is one purpose and one purpose only and that is the point that you made. at the moment, the taliban does not want to talk to the government of afghanistan. somebody has to break through and open that door. our goal is to open that door. our porpoises to open that door -- our purpose is to open that door. so the afghans can talk to other afghans. important role to play here. as a more inclusive body. i make a point to go and visit with the high peace council. it has to be more inclusive. talk to the people around the

country. the final thing i think is worth saying is the question that both of you raised, which is, do not forget thei take one lesson. for the taliban, it is not for afghan society to accommodate the taliban. it is the reverse. it is the job of the taliban to recognize what is happening in afghanistan over these past 10 years. how did the president --how did the president's make their own decisions? and i think a very powerful decision has been made nile -- now. we have talked about reconciliation.

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

pakistan is the place to start. they need to work on this issue. when you say nobody is thinking of how to structure our forces in afghanistan for an election in 2014, that is part of the importance of an event like this and started to talk about these transitions. indeed, wheni was in europe a few weeks ago and this was very much on people's minds. because people are starting to recognize two transitions are happening and they need to happen successfully. secondly, i go back to the question of, "we are leaving." the taliban has to realize some things. the afghan national security forces are going to grow to 350,000 people and that number will stay consistent till the

end of 2015. if circumstances are right, then it will slope down. they can fight and do the kinds of jobs that are important. i come back to the point that this panel is all about. teat not just a peace process -- it is not just a peace process, it is and afghan peace process. if they will not take ownership of peace, it will be lowered. i believe the prospects are good. it is an afghan peace process. >> i have six questions which i've turned into four questions.

we will go through them and see how much time we have at thedo you think the taliban have moderate any of their views on women, or do they want to go 1990's? their views are on women today? >> that is a good question. we do not know if they have moderated their views. they are -- they want women's roles. there's interpretation about the sharia that as a perfect model.

i do not think we have reformed. the other think they are saying -- there are many issues relevant to women's participation in public, women praying outside, a traveling with someone else. these are issues that show us the women's role. if it is islamic, we do not say women's right. it is good. we respect that.

>> mr. rashid. two figures, as we say. important is that the tell about have been locked up in safe houses in pakistan for the last 10 years -- the taliban has been locked up in safe houses inthey need exposure to these thing that would happen is you take delegations from all walks taliban. and the taliban working with people, all sorts of members of the afghan elite. presumably, an office in qatar, this would give the taliban the kind of exposure to moderate

afghan society that has come up since 9/11, more than ever before. >> the burden is on the taliban that would be an opportunity for the taliban to reassure women on this point. next question. for the ambassador. how you assess the ability of the loyal opposition to mobilize afghans to participate in the country's politics? north and the south, in the direction of democracy and development? questions. i think it would be good for the position to create their

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

legitimate elections. how to deal with certain constitutional questions. how to make sure we don't go off track with elections overall and the process that it needs. believe the 2010 elections did -- the 2009 elections, with all of its flaws, did demonstrate one of positive change. the ability of the top candidates to cross values and boundaries that existed in afghanistan prior to 2009. there they were an ethnic orthe main candidates were able to tap into committees that were seen as a possible to tap into prior to these elections.

society is maturing and seeing beyond the committal interests and this goes beyond that. this is a good outcome of what has been going on over the years. achievement. and i think that's -- that the media in afghanistan has played an incredible role along people to express themselves about all of the issues. and listen to these discussions, i am amazed at what we had in 2001 and will we have today. -- and what we have today. it is so important to make sure that we protect this. all of the different groups. for the afghans. whether you have access to tv

and media or whether you're in the city, you are bound to be impacted by all of these changes and i think this is good news for the political process. issue. >> interesting. have stated perhaps the biggest effort has been the inability to establish a viable economy in afghanistan. now and 2014? transition. what are the two high-leverage things that you would like the team to focus on between now and 2014 on the economic side? >> i think this administration has tried very hard to improve the economic situation right

from the start. the war has intensified. it is difficult to get out and to improve the economy and the agriculture. this should have been the main focus from 2001. this was the intention of this administration but they were not able to fulfil it. going to -- this is a generation in favor of democracy and reform and change. and is modern. when they leave.

no one is talking about setting up a computer chip factory in kabul. agriculture. i think the only way that can be achieved if there was to be regional reduction of violence at the regional level. and, you know, there are some that i am sure have very good ideas. being done in the next 18 months or so? probably not, but what i think should be done by the ambassador and others, i hope that the tokyo conference will come out, that i think the seeds should be laid about how we are going to develop the afghan economy, and what kind of things are needed. they are already taking up options. this is, of course, going to be

hugely beneficial. are they going to be capable of looking after such enormous sudden wealth coming in. we do not want copper and iron ore were loads -- warlords, like we have right now. there are the questions of a share, which are talked about a lot by the secretary of state, hillary clinton. south asia is starved for energy right now. they desperately need pipelines to provide electricity to india and pakistan. afghanistan is a roadway, so there are all of these ideas. the fallout i believe is going to be very dangerous and very precarious. dumping tens of thousands of

them on the job market when there are no jobs. >> two things. >> yes. >> we need the specialization, and for that, to focus on one of the important things, more education facilities, in the long term if you're thinking about a sustainable situation, right now, we do not have any more focused on the economy, and that is why we have few people that can do this with the government also. to support the economic development also. and the private sector, they have done a marvelous job.

for the technicality and professionalism. >> thank you. last question. the first part of it is something you may not want to answer, but i will give you this at that half of it which will allow you to avoid it if you so choose. what would be the optimum u.s. europe -- u.s. military presence in afghanistan post 2014, and then a related question, how do you balance what is needed to meet afghan and u.s. interests from a force present standpoint? again, the afghan neighbors, the demand of the taliban that there be a withdrawal of all international forces. how you balance those factors in terms of setting up what they situation should be.

>> i am just going to dig one second to go over this economic question. i think the reasonable -- regional aspect is right. to support the afghan private- sector. first, there are opportunities in the extractive industries, like minerals, that are available now, so i do not think this solves all problems between now and 2014. does not. but there are opportunities that can be taken advantage of. the other thing is we talk to american companies that are interested. but do you know what they say? for commercial law. how do i resolve the disputes? i think the government of afghanistan has got some work to

do to encourage some of that foreign direct investment. finally, i think you can see in 2011, what is the biggest thing going between india and pakistan? that number is going up. why is that? the central asian economies connected to other economies. there is an advantage there, and pakistan and afghanistan are in the center of that. the first question, obviously no one can answer that today. on the second question though on how do you balance, we can consider this naïve i suppose. so far, the lack of nspd is part of the problem. hopefully signing that will be soon. and they will have to realize

that there is going to be an american presence in afghanistan for some time to come. the taliban, the region, iran. how do i react to that? at the one problem has been the lack of information rather than the decision. to take some steps for having everybody said their own policies to see them a secure and prosperous inside a secure and prosperous region. >> thank you. i want to thank them for their contributions and for attending, and i want to thank the panestvery mh [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> on "newsmakers" this week, we take a look at some of the key 2012 senate races. 21 seats are up on the democratic side, and there are two independent seats. bernie sanders of vermont and joe lieberman is retiring. we have a campaign executive director. "newsmakers" is this afternoon on c-span. >> our specific mission is to work to see to it that human- rights remain an essential component of american foreign policy. when we are evaluating our foreign policy globally, human rights can never be the only consideration, but it has to be part of the dialogue. >> the president and ceo from a

foundation for human rights and justice. >> when we abandon our deepest values, whether we are talking about this as it relates to the war on terror, or the reset policy with russia and the upcoming issue of whether or not the u.s. congress -- there has to be an accountability act. we do not need to go into details about policy issue, but whether or not we are going to be on record to say that human rights matters. they matter in russia. a matter in china. >> more tonight at 8:00 on c- span's "q&a." >> the aspen institute recently held a daylong symposium on the state of race relations in america. minority rights advocates during this session and examine racial problems and their impact on the 2012 elections. this event was held at the newseum in washington, d.c.

[applause] >> good morning. i hope my microphone is working and that you can hear me. thank you for that kind introduction. it is a pleasure to for that kid introduction. it is a pleasure to be here this morning with all of you for this very important discussion. professor, thank you for that introduction to this difficult topic because i think that age and generational divide, as the professor was explaining, are absolutely critical to our understanding of race here early in the 21st century. as david cohen noted, the context for our discussion this morning is really set by the bruising political race that is about to begin, a race that features the nation's first african-american president seeking reelection, a race that also comes at a time of

tremendous racial shift in terms of attitudes and ideas in our country. and to help us go through this scenario, this landscape, we have some expert guidance this morning. let me introduce our panelists. all my left, your right, charles below, editorial columnist for "the new york times." he is also the author of the blog "by the numbers." he began as a graphics editor and became graphics director appeared he then became the paper's design and director for news before going on to "national geographic magazine." then he returned to "new york times" to do his column. he has been in a number of tv shows. he is a graduate -- please help

blow.lcome charles belo to my immediate left is karen narasaki she. is a member of the asian- american center for the advancement and justice. she's the chair of the rights working group, a coalition of women against -- a coalition of immigrants' rights groups. she has served on the board of common cause in the sector, lawyers committee on civil- rights and she currently serves on the advisory councils of wal- mart, news and media research and comcast. to my right, resident scholar at the enterprise institute, he was

the co-director of brookings election reform project and electiontes in aei's watch series. we have so much money in the political system that you should know that mr. oren steen helped to shape the mccain-feingold finance law that was really overturned in the citizens united decision. i think the title says it all. it is even worse than it looks, how the american constitutional system collided with the new politics of extremism. [applause]

let me begin with you. he was bounced from office because of his extreme views. he said if you did ago that mitt romney's position on immigration is the same as his own. now we see mitt romney pushing the reset button a bit on this

issue. it changed the focus by exploring barack obama for not pushing hard for a conflict paired has receive services show romney support among hispanics has been hovering around 14%, about a third of what george w. bush had. it is a little bit less than half of what john mccain had. if you look at the presentation that we had on the distribution of votes, this is a huge problem and a huge burden. what it tells us is that you have a set of forces in the country now, which is primary voters and the base of the party that pull candidates in a direction which is inevitable

with the direction they have to go to toward the center and a group of voters were critical of a whole series of swing states. it will raise the issue of race with hispanic voters to a different level and it will require a different kind of dialogue. what everyone feels about the specifics about immigration law or other immigration bills, a message out there, which is in effect that we don't want your kind here, moves to a different level. it is not clear to me that made you pick a cuban-american to put on the ticket, that that will necessarily mitigate against those views for the mexican americans were part ricans are salvadoran americans or others who will be critical voters among others. there are other choices that mitt romney will clearly look

at. when a republican campaign figure raised that name a week ago, i said, that is a great template. did the governor from a small state. [laughter] >> when you were speaking a moment ago about the potential for the hispanic population to change the racial conversation in the 2012 election, i was struck by the idea that the assumption is that the black vote goes totally to president obama appeared >> and i do think that the black vote will go in the same percentages and numbers that it did the last time, which was something like 96-3. the question is turnout. that is portrayed on martin comes up.

did where trayvon martin came up. young voters, african-americans, hispanics and asians who went with the african-american population, 96-3, it was too-1 for the other groups. who will turn out? now that we see a sharper focus on some of those racial issues, today, "the washington post" had a front-page piece that moved beyond trayvon martin into communities that had a sharp rise on racial issues. it may have an impact on turnout and may change the degree to some -- and may change to some degree the dialogue we have in

this election. >> you look at areas of expertise, and areas where you are working all of us know that there is a tremendous vote in the latino community. but also in the asian population, there has been tremendous growth. where do you see these populations? it is kind of obvious, that everyone is battling over the hispanic population. but what is going on with the asian population? >> i think it is the sleeping giant that the latino vote was talked about 20 years ago. the asian but not only has grown, but it has grown faster than the latino population. it is spreading out. we're no longer just in the gateways of california, new york, or illinois appeared we are one of the -- or illinois. we are one of the fastest-

growing populations in nevada, which is a battleground state. they greatly contributed to senator reid's reelection and he knows that. he relied on that boat very heavily. in close elections, this community will really matter. there is now half a million nations in virginia. virginia went for obama. that is where asians are strongly held together with but he knows of african summit -- african-americans. they won by a couple hundred votes. in places like florida, pennsylvania, ohio, it is no longer smoke and mirrors. they're attending that haitians can -- they are no longer pretending that agents can make a difference.

they really are the difference. even though the white boat went republican, it was latinos, asians, and african-americans lacks the reelected the senator and the governor in the states. i think the republicans are making a big mistake. the latino and asian are still groups that are very much up for grabs. in the "l.a. times" in the 2010 vote, but he knows are soft democrats, leaning democrats. a lot of the asian boat is still independent. they are being pushed theire. it is the anti-immigrant vote. it is so harsh that, even african-americans who i think are so struck by how extreme the party has gone in places like

alabama, they have access to join forces and they are forging alliances. it will be interesting to see not just where each ethnic group and racial group goes, but now the coalitions that are being formed in this new election. >> listening to you, i was struck -- excuse me -- that everyone focused so heavily on the hispanic vote. you said the smoke and mirrors is gone with the asian community, that it is a substantial vote. you mentioned nevada with a substantial asian population. are there others that you would pick up? >> we're looking at virginia, which the democrats are hoping to hold. we're looking at florida, pennsylvania, ohio. but the the thing that is really important is that obama and democrats to not have a lot of the immigrant vote. they are hoping that the

republicans continue to be so anti-immigrant that they go with the democratic party. but latinos are not that happy with president obama either. he has deported record numbers of immigrants and has enforced much more effectively than bush did all of the immigration law. and there's much more concern about the racial profiling that is happening in all of these communities. which is forging new alliances for the african-american community because the latinos and asians are feeling the impact. these are voters to vote on the issue. they're not promising yet. they look at the issues that affect them. the latinos are looking at the african-american community and say we need to send a message. in the short run, we need to send a message to the democrats

that you cannot take us for granted peter. >> but i thought you were saying that, given the immediate political climate, there is no question that the asian vote is leaning more is being forced toward the democratic column. >> but what will the turnout be? will there be the excitement? i think the majority of the asian vote will continue to trend democrat because that it is where republicans are pushing them, but how many of them will actually turn out to vote. in these immigrant communities, the challenge has been to keep the registration numbers up and get them out the door and boating. >> you have recently done some ground-breaking reporting on trayvon martin as a potential trigger on the black turnout and could excite critical base for the obama campaign that otherwise might be somewhat

nonplussed by his performance in office. >> if every african american voter had stayed home in 2008, barack obama would still be president of the united states. barack obama did not need the record turnout that he got. this time around, he will need those voters. his support among the white population has gotten so soft and there is a portion of that group that is so hostile to him that, to make the numbers add up, there are a few states where

critical. trillioreally it is virginia and florida for you only win by three percentage points and you have new voter out comes or vote for laws that can basically shave off 1%, 2%, 3%, 5% of the vote were you already have a soft white boat. that shows that you actually need heavy turnout from the african-american population. that said, i believe that you will have a high african- american turnout regardless. when the obama machine, which is an enormously efficient and enthusiastic machine, when it kicks into gear and they paint

a portrait of a president under siege, you will have a circling the wagons among african- americans. people say that is just because he is a black guy. not necessarily. black people always vote democratic. they hate republicans. it is a problem. even though, on virtually every social issue they are pretty much in line with republican views, their conservative. but because of what they see as a racially campaign push back against them, ever since reagan -- reagan was the last person who had a decent percentage of the african-american vote. i think he had 15% of the

african-american vote. no one else has come close. id that's was the last time could recall a push to include african-americans in the dialogue in the republican process. and the national republican platform that goes to the floor the convention. so you will have that rally. after that, what i always see in obama's numbers is about 10% depression amongst whites and appreciation of 10% amongst blacks. >> there are two things that everyone would be interested in the you said. there was laughter for a moment when you said that blacks it republicans. i could go back to goldwater in 1964 and the civil rights act. i could go through all of that.

but then you come forward in time and i think george h.w. bush did pretty well. i think colin powell and condoleezza rice and the tremendous attacks on george w. bush by the naacp in terms of the james bird act to make sure that black voters did not go to him -- he has done very well with white voters as governor of texas. but in the current environment, is it wrong to assume that, as you put it, because the incumbent is a black guy, that black voters would not respond to him? i have heard some much from people who say that he has not performed for black voters. do you buy that? that, i don't buy necessarily. you have made president coming to an extraordinary -- this is

just an extraordinary period in american history where the economy was going off a cliff. and have you pulled that back meant you have to make choices and you cannot make choices -- you cannot do everybody's priority. it was just impossible. were there areas where people felt like he should have done better? of course. i am chief among those. but are there places where he did make significant efforts? i think the affordable health care/obamacare is a significant as a piece of legislation to help minorities in particular and of a particular, black people. you have to look at each piece of legislation, each victory from the white house and look at how that thing, even though it does not have a black face on it

or an hispanic face on it or whatever, how it helps minority communities. so people can turn to the black unemployment rate and it is always much higher than the white unemployment rate. but there are few times in history -- at fled do not think there any times in history, i take that back -- the black unemployment rate is always higher than the white unemployment rate. there are few times in history where, when it gets at worst as a possibly gets for what, does it cross the line where if it's as good as it possibly gets for blacks. so when the white point is highest, it rarely crosses the lowest point for blacks. so this idea that he was supposed to rectify hundreds and

hundreds of years of the black recession in america is just ridiculous on some level. what we have to look at -- when it comes to unemployment, the election will be about the trend of a line. is the line moving in the right direction? it won't be. it will be fixed for black people. it will be fixed for white people. it won't be fixed -- it will not be fixed for black people. it will not be fixed for white people. it will not be fixed for anybody. >> what you said about what support for this president is soft. i think he got 43% of the white vote in 2008. what do you think is the cause of the softening of white support for president obama?

>> ok. starting to get me in trouble here. i think you have to look at the tin and support as separate things. -- i think you have to look at and support as separate things. how that translates at the voting booth, i don't exactly know. if it is how you voted before and how you like immediately afterwards, i don't think that would be the case. i think people will line up and say that this is the situation between two people.

is it romney the robot or is it barack obama? i think i will go with obama. some of them will. however, i do believe that race has become such a partisan issue -- somebody said it the of the day. race has always had an underpinning in the political system. politics and laws were used to enforce people's beliefs about race. but there is a moral component to the race in this discussion. the election of barack obama has essentially stripped away the entire moral underpinning of the conversation. so all you are left with is this hyper-partisan discussion of race as an issue. the moment you even bring up the idea of race in america, you

immediately have people fall into partisan positions about who is doing what for whom or who is doing what to home from a political perspective, not a moral perspective. i think that is how a lot of people have come to see this president. --y don't see him overtly their objection is not overtly racist. it is such a loaded word. but i do believe that race its way into their assessment of him in implicit ways about how the country has failed on the racial front altogether and a kind of fatigue with the topic of race.

he starts to become to embody that fatigue. those who want small government, conservative, who believed in a strong military -- that is what you believe in and that has nothing to do with this or not. but at dawn to that 10% for and against. that 10% sneaks in. whether they are articulated or not, i think that part israel. >> norm, i want you to pick up on that. particularly, after you respond to what charles is saying, pick up on this notion of the soft white vote. give us an idea as to why it is white voters look right now to

be disenchanted with the incumbent. >> the problem that barack obama has had with working-class whites and with democrats -- and democrats of had with working- class whites is particular in the house. it brings us back to a century- old set of tensions where you have populist movements in the south going back to reconstruction and even just a little bit after, trying to unite poor people who had a lot in common because they were oppressed by a small group of elites. and the race card was played and created those divisions through the south. and we still have those tensions now. one of the real questions as whether mitt romney can continue the appeal to working-class whites outside the south given his image and the things he has

been saying that certainly make populous celebrate. you can go through the whole litany of driving cadillacs and liking to fire people and not knowing what my net worth is, but i earned a little money on the side from speeches. all of that is not designed to appeal to working-class whites. the question is whether race will play with that group to try to create more of a wedge. if it does, then we will see more of these racial tensions played out. >> try to narrow it because i want to get everybody in the conversation. >> beyond trayvon martin, the supreme court that just heard obamacare, they will rule on what remains as affirmative

action in higher education. they will throw out the fairly delicate balance of sandra day o'connor built-in. the voting rights act, section 5, which is the pre clarence provision, which is very much in the news, both because of the vote for laws that charles mentioned involving id, but also redistricting. there are some pretty clear signals from chief justice roberts from previous decisions that it is a matter of time and this is probably the time when they throw out sections on the voting rights act. if you think that the pressure for african-americans has been high before, just wait until we get up to the election. >> there's also the arizona case. >> just to point out with the asian americans, we had a good lu rejected on a filibuster

by republicans. we have the energy secretary, an asian-american nobel prize winner who has been a punching bag for republicans because of solindra and other issues. because of other issues. we may see of those issues become heightened, with the continued effort to try and focus on the energy department, through a different level of consciousness drawn along partisan lines. >> there was the advertisement that was run. this is for the election. trying to take it over. , the opponent for selling out

america to china, and that is across the asian community. it was not just the chinese community. great offense that people will be against them by using race in that way. it surprises me. i feel that republicans have a death wish in the long term. going after this in a very personal way, gratuitously. you have mitt romney going after, for example, the latina that is on the supreme court. i thought it was grazing until i realized that what it is apparently they have decided to do is they are not going to go after that vote. they're going to try to keep minorities from voting. these are the anti-vote laws

that he was referring to, and these are crazy enough. but cutting back on voter registration, not allowing a vote on sundays, when they know that black churches used to turn out their congregations. all of these things, shutting down, it is so difficult to register people in florida to vote legally the kitchen have to turn in your registrations at a certain hour of the day almost. it is so complicated to understand, that even the league of women voters say they are not going to do voter registration in florida. all of that is very intentional. unions and wisconsin, trying to defund the unions, which said in the financial engine, and quite frankly, the only group that tried -- cared about getting out of this. it has been the unions. the attack on this has been very direct. it seems to me that the decision

has been a, a kick, we are just going to try to keep them. and i also think they are selling white voters short. they are ignoring the amount of interracial -- interracial marriages. this is prior even then in the previous generations. but where is the white vote eventually going to go? families are becoming increasingly multi-cultural. >> so from what i am hearing, you see race as a absolutely driving much of the politics of this campaign season, that there is no getting away from racial discussions, even though we

already have a black president to pick up again on something david said about a paradox that the more progress we make, the further we have to go. so race is absolutely at the forefront of this, and let me shift for a second to say in response to you, karen, is it not the case that the front runner right now, but it looks to be in debt -- inevitable nominee, is responding to what an overwhelmingly white republican party wants from their candidate? they are in fact angry over high levels of immigration. they are in fact concerned about spending. they are concerned about china owning american debt and playing a larger role in the economy, as well as a military power accounted to america's dominance.

so isn't romney responding, the generational divide. older america is largely white. so isn't he responding appropriately to represent what his party's base once? >> i think he is responding to a segment of the republican party.there is the south and everybody else. if you look at intermarriage rates, the south is still the south. to go into marriage rates are highest in the south. -- >> intermarriage rates are highest in the south. >> for blacks. you have a few outposts that are more international. you can see that in the incredibly crazy local immigration laws that got passed. right? an alabama they were trying to

keep kids from going to school. they are trying to keep people from getting utilities. they are supposedly aggravating and a contract to make. this out as the south. governors. they are being forced in a box. when the dream act was voted on in the house, the only republican to voted with the house, guess what? but asian american, vietnam and -- the american and asian american. and the two cuban americans. they are becoming a lonely voice. the question is, do they want to go back to the big tent party ofif i were them, that is what

i would do. they could still get them, or increasingly narrow part of their base. >> hang on, hang on. >> more than the narrow part of their base. >> charles, let me come to you and say that i think there are people who feel under siege by immigrants in this country who big crew of income and they feel for them, and much of that has come from the tea party. saying this is not racist to say. we have too many immigrants of all kinds come up a specifically undocumented immigrants. why does this invite the racial backlash?

from blacks, asians, and hispanics? >> take a first of all, it is never want to be the country you grew up in ever again. the census bureau report him look at projections come and that is never want to become and that scares people to death. republicans are banking on us for system politics, which is the only way to preserve your way of life is circle the wagons. that means that it is anti- everything. anti-immigrant, anti-policy. our money, tax money, everything is being taken from us and given to them, and we want to reverse that trend. whether or not that works is the question in the short-term. there is no fighting the map.

you cannot look at the numbers and believe that as a long-term >> you are saying this is a naked racial appeal -- >> no. look at republican primary voters, that is the last amount of white voting in america. >> that is true, but so what? legitimate interests. >> let me finish. what they are doing is playing to the worst fears among the population. and i think that part is naked.

the fear of the bogeyman out there, and the only way you could have what you have when you grow up is for us to keep this country as close to that ideal as possible, which is an map, but you can look it ways to reverse emigration trends or look at ways to try to diminish in panama programs or whatever. if that is the path they want to take, they can take it. what the gamble is, can you grow the resentment that existed among the poorest of the less educated of the white population into the working class, and even higher into the electric? if you look at appellation vote.

that is the closest, poorest boat that more closely resembles immigrant population because they are also getting started, therefore poor whites. immigrants to starting. a lot of them are poor. they voted very differently in 2008. 410 at counties in appellation new york, western parts of new york. barack obama 1 like 44 i think-- won like 44 i think of those. i am just not in for it. i am not voting for this guy for whatever reasons. figure out how to we growth that fear and take advantage of it?

republic hinch -- republicans? >> yes. >> yes. >> to get back to your question, a few points. we saw a bipartisan bill pass about 20 years ago. the idea was you will have some form of amnesty that people come in illegally before, and then we work very well. we have 12 million or so people who are here with their families illegally, most of them have pay taxes. in dealing with them is not an second, many of the fears you mentioned are heightened whenever you have a lousy economic situation and high unemployment, and people with illegal immigrants.

it is jobs that nobody else will take or want. what we are seeing is a crackdown. we are finding gaps. workers to come in and do things, backbreaking jobs for very little money that no one else wants to do. i have been waiting for someone to do a movie like "it is a wonderful life" we're it looks at what life would be like with all 12 million left. that is one part of it. a second part of this is to look at how far the republican party has gone. it was john mccain and lindsey gramm who led an effort to find a bipartisan approach that was along the same lines. we will find a way to take those that are here in act in a humane and practical fashion, and we're for to find ways to tighten up on the borders. we're also going to enhance legal immigration, because that

has been the basic reason this country is as great as it is today. you look at rick perry, basically thrown at totally on tried to come up with some way texas. it drove him down from a strong position in the race. even the attacks that newt gingrich got when he talked find a way not to give them talking about self deportation. it tells you what was a

bipartisan approach to the issue no longer exists, and there are legitimate concerns. this is the real and important issue. a vexing problem. there is no doubt about it. the base. this is a short-term concern in winning the nomination, how that is so far over, to one that prodigious about the election dynamics, we have to solve this as a society. if we get into a situation where you are not even have a breeding -- where you are not even looking it on who is deported, where you will start to see cracking down on employers because they have hired illegals and do not have much other option, and we may things happening. it will create an explosiveit is

another issue where we what is required, which is a act was thoroughly bipartisan and now it is not. polarization of politics as it plays out with the polarization along racial lines. >> is the polarization among parties. that is the thing that is interesting me. when we were take students on the hill, republicans were sympathetic to the issue, who afraid to go forward, not because it would hurt them in the general election, but because they were afraid that someone would be run to their right. >> let me stop as here, because we have gone so strong that race will be a defining factor in this campaign. questions. if you could be pointed, not a lecture role.

a pointed question, we would be delighted to take it and consider it. >> why is it illegitimate for anybody to represent that point of view? of view. one, is it going to be colossally stupid politically to represent that you so strongly that you, both in the short run lose votes, but in the long run, given the demographics, you're going to force yourself into a position of a minority party for winning now.

by applying to those anxieties, resolve these issues, mitt romney could become president of united states. >> he could. but what we see right now, among the swing voters, he has appealed so much to that base that any support among swing voters has eroded. a starter with women among the contraception issue. it moves to other swing voters to make them uneasy. short-run. >> you'd have to be careful how you present that. is it us versus them? or are you going to presented as we can find a solution together?

that is the challenge. >> the challenge in general is a slippery slope. immigration and then you take a hard line. you lead to, we want to cut the things that help to feed poor children who cannot feed themselves. you keep going and that leads to things like women should not be able to access contraception when they want it. it leads us so far in the wrong direction that you start to alienate some pockets of of voters that you only have a few left. that is not a winning strategy. winning a national presidential election is always about winning the metal. -- medal. you're always went to have your partisans lined up on either side. you have to be able to swing the middle. and if which were doing is

setting up a situation where the middle and make everybody forget and say, i never said all that stuff. i said it, but i did not mean it. you cannot win the middle. that is the problem that i think republicans will have. one that i can except, the anxiety there has to be expressed. what troubles is the consequence. how do you act on that. if somebody has a legitimate concern about their livelihood being taken away and the solution is to put them in a pickup truck and drive them 3 miles down the road, i'm not sure that as a proper response. my question, is there any way to restore stability to the differences we have? nobody is testifying racism. what has become so distressing is the lack of civility. i watched you in south carolina during that debate when the audience was, you know, let's

kill him, let the guy died without medical insurance. that kind of vitriol is so damaging to our country. is there any hope we can have a [laughter] >> throw that to me. here is the thing. the idea of discussing race requires a preset that we do not necessarily always employ, which is that it takes being able to look at the same set of factors from different points of view. what we choose to do is look at them from our own points of view. if i looked at race only as immigrants coming into my neighborhood, or at least i

perceive it that way, taking away jobs we would otherwise have, the other side of that start small businesses. people you want in the country. these are people who generally have more families. these are exactly the kinds of country.

being able to look at one set of facts and say, i can understand your side of this issue, will you allow for mine and that both things can exist. then we can start having a conversation about how much doit is a kind of civility that i think has evaporated. now, we cannot even -- everything is entitlements. that kind of slip of the tongue, very poor children. we know you're talking about, do not have a habit of going to work unless it is something criminal and there is nobody in their neighborhoods who work. who says this kind of stuff because there is no way to look at that set of facts and objectively. that is the only reason anybody would let that come out of your mouth. >> it worked. he won south carolina. >> i look at as one of the changing demographics of the

u.s.. globalization. the reality is you cannot even keep agriculture in this country. a response to shutting down immigration was four than to serve buy land in mexico. follow the cheap labor. i would love to see the business leaders stepped up and say the money that goes into the pacts, -- the pacs, say, enough. stepping up and say, this is not good for america. this is not good for our business. we're going to stand up and call for a rational conversation to solve these problems and we're accountable. they're not going to get our money if they go down this road. >> charlie? >> i wondered if you had evidence or research on whether particularly asians a vote --

asians vote because of their ethnicity or other economic issues. f. in other words, do we know what triggers the asian vote and then other minority group double boats? >> thank you for the question. there's a little but a study summit from the academics. -- some of it from academics. it shows that the challenge for asians is that we have a lot of immigrants. 60% of our community is foreign born. what we are seeing, though, 30% of the asians of voting are actually voting for the first

time and they are newlywhat gets them to vote is the outrage. investment in the average were they hear from leaders. whether it is their church leaders, their temple leaders, whoever. explain to them how the elected officials connects to whether they get a youth center, or senior center, or sufficient funding. that is what gets asian- americans' out to vote. retired from will be out to ask that question to see how asians are looking at this election and what will motivate them. >> we have another question. my name is paul. question about the trends that i hear you talking about and if you look at the makeup of state legislatures, that if you look at the makeup of congress, that there is a different trend that seems to be occurring.

that is that republicans are winning all over the place and that the whole question of whether we are going to have a continuation, if the trends you for the foreseeable future, related to the differences, the turnout, intensity, all the voting as opposed to the national vote. >> there is a couple of answers to that. republicans are winning ever were, but a large part of that is a sweep in 2010 where they had unprecedented gains at the state legislature level and pick up seats in the house of representatives which was the

whether that continues remains to be seen. what is also clear is we have an and large. democrats have a little bit of an edge that has been given died -- it is not even divided across the country. it is very across states and regions. but what we also see is something that charles mentioned. in many states now we are seeing where republicans have all the reins of power, to tilt the voting population in the direction that will give them a otherwise win these elections. part of this that we are unique in this world that we have partisan election officials. no other country does this. everybody else has independent career people who handle these things. that makes a difference. we also see changes in laws

designed to suppress some kinds of boats and others. that may provide a level of leverage that provides a difference down the road. that the polarization that we have seen in congress, the kind of tribal politics here, have clearly metastasized across to ayou see these divisions in wisconsin, but they play out in my native minnesota. the kind of confrontation that we had over the debt limit here in the 90's. you sit here in state after state after state. this for some period of time. amplified by a media that make a lot of money off of dramatic

news and others. fasten your seatbelts. this bumpy ride will continue for some time. >> off but also, national -- >> but also, national politics for the president, and to some degree, senate elections, are a little bit different from the house elections and from state- wide assembly elections because the way the boundaries have been redrawn with redistricting, it will benefit republicans in the house, not necessarily in the sand at because it is still -- in at the senate because it is still a state-wide election. the other thing to remember is that even though democrats hold a slight advantage nationally in terms of party identification, republicans -- conservatives consistently hold a two-one advantage over liberals when it

comes to how people feel. i think that still has to be taken into account. the country is much more conservative, that is social issues. >> it is still vital to the country as a whole, it is just not of vital in our politics. the senate elections, look at what happened to the summer -- senator caskey. delaware. orrin hatch and the senate race in indiana. we are seeing basically an electromagnet force that is pulling our representatives, including senators, further and especially to the right on the republican side, even if the electorate does not feel that way. >> i think that means our time has come to an end.

icy charlie standing there. this has really been an eye- role that race will play in the 2012 race. thank you you all. charles, karen, norm. thank you very much. national captioning institute] cable satellite corp. 2012] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> there were the wounding of students at a high school, and to honor these, the brady campaign is holding a news conference monday outside the capital to call on lawmakers to enact stricter gun control laws. you can watch live coverage on c-span beginning at noon eastern.

on monday, grover norquist. there is a rule that would apply to all americans earning more than $1 million per year, requiring them to pay at least 30% of their income in taxes. you can watch this beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. the health and human secretary kathleen sebelius spoke about the health-care law at the national action network annual convention. every year, they will the conference focusing on the most important civil-rights issues that year. they were founded in 1991 by reverend al sharpton. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. well, i want to start by thanking reverend sharpton not

only for his terrific leadership of this incredibly important organization but for his leadership across the country for his voice that continues to call on all of us to form a more perfect union, and we are still a work in process, but thank you, reverend sharpton, for reminding us that we have a lot of work to do, and as we watch communities across this country deal with very difficult issues. it is really wonderful to have your voice and your courage and your leadership out front. and stand up if you would just a second. does this guy not look good? let's talk about a let's move agenda. i am telling you. [applause] it is impressive. so i am really delighted to be

back here, and i am here in part because this administration is definitely committed to the health of all americans. we are committed to building a nation where every american has a fair shot to achieve his or her dreams, and i do not think there is anything more central to that goal than improving our nation's health. now, on a national level, you can look get any of the biggest goals that we have in the country, creating jobs, helping our children succeed in school, building stronger and more prosperous communities. improving health contributes to improve in all of those goals in a very important way. on an individual level, there is no question that health is fundamental to opportunity. the healthier we are, the more freedom we have to pursue our own dream, contribute to our own families, and contribute to our

own community and country. a healthier country is one in which many more americans get a chance to reach their full potential. and that is why our country's persistent racial and ethnic health disparities are so harmful. now, we know that minority americans today are more likely to go without preventive care they need to stay healthy. they are more likely to suffer from serious illnesses, like diabetes and heart disease, and when they do get sick, they are more likely to have limited access to the treatments and medicines they need to get better, so as a result, we have way too many minority americans living sicker and dying younger than they should, and those inequalities built over into other areas.

it is hard when you have a chronic condition that is not being managed and hard to take care of your family when you have a stack of unpaid medical bills sitting on your kitchen table, so if we can begin to close the disparities and health, we begin to close the disparities and the other areas, too, does the one year ago, when i accepted the reverence invitation to come to the action conference in new york, i spoke about some of these challenges. there was an action plan to reduce racial and ethnic health disparities, and it really is an effort in the department of

health and human services to use all of these to close the gaps. and secondly, we have a law that was on a couple of years ago, the affordable care act. so today, we do not have to speculate about the differences these two tools can make periods this afternoon, i just want to give you a couple of highlights. because of the steps we have taken, there are 410,000 african-american young adults across the country who were uninsured but now have insurance coverage under their parents' health plan things to the new law. 410,000 young men and women. [applause]

ashley me to have renewed faith in the future of this country. she is bright and dedicated, working on her law degree. she wants to devote her career to working on social justice issues which is why she is going to law school. she can pursue that dream now because she no longer has to worry about getting health care coverage. she does not have to choose a job to get health care coverage in the future, but now that she can stay on her parents planishing goes through law school but also have affordable coverage and can pursue the job of her dreams and release of her community. there are an estimated 5.5 million african-americans with private insurance who now are getting recommended preventive care without paying any co-pay or deductible. think about that. [applause]

i have to tell you, i have met people lowbrow and over again across the years to have cut off a mammogram or do not go and get a checkup because they really do not have the co pay or deductible. they are not sure rare they're going to get it. they do not have the extra cash in their pockets. we think it is better to keep people healthy in the first place than wait until you get sick and come through emergency room doors or end up in the hospital. making sure people catch things early is a part of the new health care law. there are 4.5 million african- american men -- african- americans on health care. they have access to three preventive health care when they hit the coverage gap known as the doe not hold. that is real money in senior's pockets and that is a huge step

forward. -- the coverage gap known as the donuthole. again, i see these folks were really worried about what would happen when their coverage would run out and how they're going to choose between groceries and rent. he was going to get to take the pills every week when a husband and wife have the same situation and pay 100% out of pocket? this year, it is a 50% discount and that accounts for over $600,000 per beneficiary back in their pockets. that's a lot of money that people are able to save. there are new common-sense rules of the road for insurance companies. it is illegal now, thanks to the affordable health care act, for insurance coverage to be denied to children because of pre- existing health conditions like asthma or diabetes.

that will never happen again in the united states. a couple of years ago, i was at the congressional black caucus dinner and a woman sitting in a nearby table came over and a woman tapped me on the shoulder and said she just wanted to tell me what the law meant to me. her son had a liver transplant when he was 10-years old. i did not have any idea how old her son was or where he was and i asked how he was, hoping that he was still alive and healthy. she says that he is fine, now 23. she said she had been terrified royal hole like that -- her whole life that he would not have insurance coverage of that there be no coverage for him or his family. if he recovered from a very serious ella's as a child, we

have the peace of mind to know that his life will have health security and that is a really big step forward. that is a big deal, not only for that woman but for millions of parents around a country. we have funding for our nation's 1100 community health centers to allow them to build additions, added dental and mental health services, stay open longer, and serve millions more patience. today, i am pleased to tell you that we have a record number of children in the united states with health insurance, the highest number ever in the history of our country. [applause] it down hard to believe that even in these tough economic times when we usually see in insurance and roll drop, we've taken another step thanks to the president's commitment over the last couple of years that the highest number of kids ever have

health insurance and we will continue that effort. [applause] you heard reverend sharpton talk about our wonderful first lady and i know how many -- i do not know how many of you are stephen colbert fans? she was terrific. anyone who can give him a run for his money, i'm all for. shined a light on a child and academic -- epidemic that is killing our future leaders come childhood obesity. it takes an especially large toll in the african-american community. thanks in part to a first lady who stands up and not only shines a light on this but brings people together to mobilize a national effort. thanks to the let's move

campaign, and has gone on to something with no action in the past to where we are having to manufacturers reprocess. we have mayor's across this country using resources 4 sabre playgrounds, by areas, places where kids can play outside, sports teams, all of joints effort. for a first time in a long time, we have changed the rules around to that our children are served. what an irony is that, the government funding that provides for kids in school was often beaten to death. we have actually taken some important steps. ketchup is no longer a vegetable coming you will be pleased to

know and that is good news for our kids. part of this is helping people make healthier choices easier. it should not be hard to be healthy in this country. it should not require it to take two buses to get to restore where there are fresh fruits and vegetables. you should not have to worry about where to get exercise. there should be safe places to stay and what. that effort is finally under way. we continue to take steps to lay the groundwork for an improved insurance market that comes on line in 2014 that will dramatically expand access to health coverage. we are releasing a report today that says the changes that are underway in the changes that are coming in the next year and a half will allow just under four million african-americans to

gain a coverage in the next few years and that is very good news for them and their families. that is just a star. when you add all of these pieces together, and this is by far the most ambitious agenda for improving health and reducing disparities may be ever in my lifetime, but what is disturbing -- thank you. and i am an old lady. i've been looking at this for a long time. what is disturbing and very important that you all are here is that we are already seeing attempts to roll back almost every one of these efforts i am talking about. the enemy is at the door and we know that they would like to dismantle these initiatives and that is really where you come in. we are at a make or break a moment.

we are of the most important agenda when medicare and medicaid were first passed. we have people that are committed to undoing not only the initial estimate last few years but frankly when to go back and undo medicare and medicaid. they want to enroll as back years and years. we know the best way to do it is to get the best facts. there are a lot of people benefiting that do not even know why they are benefiting. when they get a free check up, that is because of the affordable care act. they do not know that the discount is automatically put in place with their prescription drug is because of the affordable care act. they do not know that getting no

charge for a mammogram or colon cancer screening for medicare is because of the affordable health care act. there was a recent article about a woman in jackson, mississippi, who went to the doctor had a few tests including a colonoscopy and a mammogram that had been recommended. she was on private insurance coverage and the final balance said zero. she is so confused that she went to the clerk of the doctor's office feeling like she wanted to be responsible to pay her bills. they said, no, no. the new law says preventative screenings are now free. she had no idea that had changed. that is a new really good news. news.t's good we want to reject the people and remind them that there is a new insurance market coming but

there is a lot in place already that is benefiting people day in and day out. we know we need to reject people who could benefit but are not. people who were still thinking that they have to have a copiague in their pockets before they get a mammogram. people who do are really understand that they are in an insurance plan and that the young adult could be included in the family insurance plan. seniors to may be looking at skipping a prescription because that is what they have done and they do not really know that the law has changed and they can get help with prescription drugs. i am here to ask you to help. you are community leaders, health advocates, faith leaders throughout this country. you have powerful voices that

are listened to in your communities. you work in communities that have suffered the most from health disparities and have the most to gain by reducing and eliminating those disparities. we need to build on the progress that came before the affordable health care act, reaching out to parents of kids that now can enroll them but they just have not yet been built on the progress that has already been made with the affordable health care act, but we need you to help. we need your voices in your own communities helping to get people the facts and explaining just what the improvements over the last two years mean to people. one great new resources the consumer web site, healthcare.gov. it is a pretty easy to use description about what benefits are in place, what is coming. it has the information for

people who want to check on certain health conditions and it gives information about what kind of insurance is available in individual markets and what it costs right now, and what is coming down the road. so healthcare.gov can really be helpful. many of you know that one of the things dr. martin luther king, jr., used to talk about a lot was health. he used to call, among the inequalities, that the lack of health care was the most shocking and inhumane form of justice. in our country, of what we know is that health care inequalities have been one of the most persistent forms of injustice, but over the past three years as reverend sharpton reminded us, we have begun to turn the tide. now without the time to turn

back. we need to keep moving forward toward the day when every child in america, no matter where they are, what their background is, where they live, what there is a code is, have a chance to live a healthy and productive life and can contribute to their family, their community, and their country. i'm your did tell you we are committed to doing just that. we need your help, but i'm delighted to be your partner in that effort. thank you for having me here today. thank you for what you do. [applause] >> secretary kathleen sibelius. give her a hand. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tonight, on "q&a," katrina lantos swett.

then comments by christine lagarde. then calls from former president bill clinton to reopen the import-export bank. >> this year's competition asked the student across the country, what part of the constitution was important to you and why? this year's entry -- this will entreat was the 26 amendment. >> schools are not teaching about six, so how will they become responsible voters? do you know who the president is? >> barack obama. >> barack obama. >> i do not know. >> barack obama. >> do you never the vice- president is it? >> something biden, i think. >> joe? mr. joe? >> no. >> no.

>> i don't know. >> do you know the five of freedoms? >> 5 or freedoms? >> we can do what we want. no? >> 8i don't know. >> justice sandra day o'connor notice this issue and came up with a plan called icivics. is a fun way for students to learn about government. her goal is to revise the teaching of civics in american schools to help prepare the next generation of kids to participate as citizens in a democracy. >> we want to be able to say, "yes, this is my government. this is how it works. i am able to communicate with them and make it what i wanted to be." that is why it's important. we need to start learning that in school, i think. >> would you rather be

remembered as the first person -- the first woman on the supreme court? >> both. do i have to do one or the other? the good. i think it is so important that young people learn how our government works. when i grew up, i wanted to be a part of my community. i wanted to be a part of what happened in the plays, the city, the town, the area in which i lived. to do that, i had to know how it worked. each of us needs to know that and it is more fun for you to know how things work and that there is something you think that needs to be changed in your city to know how to go about what to do, that matters, don't you think? >> also got to meet former gov. bob graham. here is what he had to stay.

>> when i was in school, we've had 31-year courses in civics from the seventh until the 12th grade starting -- we had three 1-year courses starting with american government, the role of the citizen in democracy, and the public issues of the time. those were three very important segments to understand what it means to be a citizen in our democracy. today, i am involved with the gramm center at the cintas -- university of florida graham center to take an interest in citizenship and the civic life they live in. i am also working with the board a center for citizenship which has come as a primary goal, encouraging more civics and more

active citizen civics to be taught in the primary and secondary schools in florida. i have written a book called, "america -- the owners manual," which is meant to be a guide to citizenship. >> most seventh graders do not know much about politics, so that is probably a good time to teach them. >> i do not have to take it. >> when it is time to vote, they can be irresponsible voters. >> not just politicians think civics are important. here is richard dreyfuss. >> if our society is a river, we look to the headwaters, our children, as the beginning of tomorrow. if they are taught the principles for which washington

fought, our children would lead us away from here, hopefully, before it is too late. we must teach these civic principles or say goodbye to the society we want held dear. what is technology without wisdom? what is strength of arms without moral character and restraint? what is economic might without prudence and forbearance? what is the ability to read, writ calculate without the knowledge and will to avoid the mistakes in our history. or what is the ability to read and write and calculated we do not understand the civic actions that will secure our future