have to adjust to would not meet the needs of the nation in 2012. it is getting increasingly unstable for the reason we're talking about. adding we have done as much recanted given what i know about the future. >> this is the they dividend. -- this is not a peace dividend. the world movement is so dangerous. i am very concerned about the national guard. the administration has been proposing a reduction on the ground forces. fortunately, that is active duty. i see a threat to the guard. if there was sequestration,the

concern i have are a reduction in the side of the air guard. how large will these cuts be d? $50,000 reduction fax 100,000? -- how large will these cuts$50,000 reductions? $100,000? >> our goal is to keep the balance. and to have a portion of a ready to go to night anda different amount of it is ready to go in six days or a year. that is how we balance the force. the reason we cannot take any of this reduction out of the garden is that we had growing the active force over the last 10 years by about 65,000. we had about 8000. when we absorb the cuts, we did not take many of them off of the guard. we have not grown them.

if you are asking me with a further reduction in our budget at 30 results in an effect on the army national guard? ps. -- yes,i cannot tell you how deeply because it would depend on the depth of the cuts. if we have to make more cuts andif they keep it in balance, it will affect both active guard and reserve. >> thank you. i see cuts of dramatic effect affecting the american family. >> thank you for your answer on the sequestration. i think this is one of the most difficult issues facing our defense andwe understand that the defense has to be on the table. we have been there. these cut we're going there is enormous.

defense accounts for 20% of the budget andyou take 50% out of the defense. it is something that cannot be overlooked. what we need to understand is that we cannot solve our nation's financial difficulties on the backs of the military. the thing that we really need to keep the mind is if we eliminated the whole discretionary budget. defense, all discretionary budget,we would still be running a half dollar trillion deficit. what really need to do is fix the mandatory spending side of the budget. mr. kissell. >> thank you. thank you for being here with us today. we have talked about the differences between syria and libya. we have talked about trying to identify the different

influences of the different folks within syria and how tough it is to predict an outcome. and when to pick you on the spot. -- i will put you a little bit on the spot. we have seen that democracy, when you get people the choice, they cannot always use what we buy for them to choose. -- they don't always choose what we would like them to choose anddemocracy can be unpredictable as we have seen. this is not a matter of this. -- this is not a matter ofthis is made the best case/worst case. what kind of relationships with in syria, what would be summoned the things with a book for? -- what would be some of the things we can look for?

>> this happen in a good way and bad way. you should sit down with our intelligence analysis to pursue those options. if we can do this pursuant to the cease-fire and the reforms that he is suggesting and is done in a politically careful way in terms of implementing what needs to be done, we can have them moved out. you can develop a government that would be able to take its place that is then subject to a vote of the people andit implements the kind of democratic reforms that the people deserve. , that would be the best way for it to play out andit could be done in a way that recognizes that there are divided populations in syria that can be brought into this government.

that would be the best way for this to move forward. it comes down to the various tribes. which is the worst way. they began to assert themselves -- they begin to assert themselves and have the beginning as some kind this civil war that takes place within their to try to assert who should take charge. that would probably be the course development. -- worst development. somewhere in between hopefully you could get some of the reforms that need to be taken place. it could take as an a better direction. -- take us and a better direction. there is a range of possibilities there but, the bottom line is that na fang that takes the assad regime down is

positive. if that happens,this happens in the context of legitimate reforms. >> thank you. we mentioned that the relationship between the government and the military is strong. is there a basis for that relationship being strong in terms and may be just the -- of may be just the general saying that we will stay where we can come out on top? is there a situation where that might change in the military -- and the military might withdraw some of that support and make some things possible? >> i think there are conditions. i would like to think that the military leaders in syria --i think they would recognize that using the violence they are using against their insistence is a fool's errand. -- against their citizens is a fool's errand andat some point that will jeopardize them as an

institution. that could be a reason why they are holding on tighter is that they have used as the violence and ifnow they returned to the referendum. , i think they will feel themselves to be at great risk. this is best solved by the regional actors with our support. there is this an area where at -- a scenario where at the end of this that those were arraigned around beside the -- around assad become a press. -- the oppressed. we end up in a situation that could be a civil war. yes,i think there is reason to believe that the military could come to understand that they are on a path to their own destruction as an institution. i think that case has to me made by regional players and less so by us. >> thank you.

>> i want to thank you for your strong statements on the issue of addressing sexual assault in the military. your leadership as well needed. but -- is well needed andwe appreciate your strong statements. and strong action. we had a meeting yesterday andwe understand that general dempsey is echoing your strong commitment. we appreciate the efforts of both of you and it makes a big difference for the men and women and our service. you have recently said every day we are within an inch of war. as a look to the issue of syria, we know that russia and china have blocked two resolutions with respect to syria. i think that texas to an issue -- that takes us to an issue of when we look to a world -- --

russia and china. that looks to an issue of when we look at the world in regard to russia. they have sent russian advisers to syria and deployed naval forces. how would you say that russia is supporting syria posed a military today? secondly, let me switch to china which takes it to the issue ofnorth korea's recent missile failed. i think this is probably misplaced really. -- relief. we know that north korea continues its quest for missile technology. most recently the hundredth anniversary of the founder of the dictatorship that brought four of their mobile missile. secretary gates -- for word of their mobile missile. secretary gates spoke of this. he said north korea is becoming a direct threat to the allied states. i ask that my letter be committed to part of the record.

>> without objection, so ordered. >> my second question is tell me of your concerns of china's supporting north korea's missiles. is it a direct threat to the united states, something we are witnessing? >> there is no question that north korea's capabilities and their developing nuclear capabilities represent a threat to the united states. for that reason we take north korea and their provocative actions very seriously. regardless to the success of a failure, it is a huge failure.

it is a provocation. this should have been condemned. our hope is that they do not take any provocative actions. they usually turn somewhere else to try to do something provocative andwe hope they do not do this. we are prepared from a defense department pointed you to deal -- point of view to deal with any contingency. there is growing concern aboutthere are multiple capabilities. it was on display in the parade in north korea recently. tweaking a better intelligence -- we need better intelligence and see what these capabilities are and what is real and not real in order to determine exactly what this represents.

the bottom line is,if they have mobile capability to be able have icbm's deployed, that reduces the threat. -- that increases the threat coming from north korea. thee're able to make support for the systems. >> we have made very clear to china that china has a responsibility to make sure that north korea, if they want to improve the situation with their people and become part of the international family and want to deal with the terrible issues that are confronting north korea, there is a way to do that. china ought to be urging them to engage in those kind of diplomatic negotiations. we thought we were making progress and suddenly we are back at provocation. >> the concern is that if the

equipment itself has technology exchanges -- >> i'm sure there has been help coming from china. i think you have to do with this and another context in terms of the sensitivity of that information. there has been assistance along those lines. russia has a long history of having provided military assistance. and economic assistance to syria. the good news is thatrussia is working with us to try to get a cease-fire. and hopefully put that in place thanthey are working with the international community. right now. the reality is thatrussia could have a much more a significant impact on syria. greg thank you. -- >> thank you. >> let me ask secretary panetta

-- silence has not abated. violence has not abated. the special actionsthis has been undertaken. when do we determine that they are not successful and move on to plan b? >>but i think that is what secretary clinton is still within paris as we speak. we're looking at this situation to determine what the net steps are with regard to the initiative. we try to deploy monitors that can go in and determine whether these violations are taking place. that perhaps a peacekeeper initiative to back it up with peacekeepers. what the final decisions are international community. >> do we have credible on on

what is flowing from iran and to syria? -- estimates on what is flowing from iran into syria? >> we really ought to do it in the context of an intelligence briefing. >> all right. general dempsey,i am concerned about reports that nato's assessment of the libyan air campaign has numerous problems and operations. -- with cooperation when it came to sharing target information and analytical capabilities. how're we incorporating this. >> i was encouraged that the lessons learned were transparent. i was afraid that there would be this euphoria about libya for a temple for future actions andit will take us down a path that probably would be ill- advised. i am a buyer to that.

-- i am alert to that. i'm going to brussels next week. one of the agenda items is operation unified protection. what we have to do is be candid with each other. i can assure you i will be banned need to provide. in terms of isr, the infusion of intelligence operations and investments they need to make to close some caps we're here to fourthey relied exclusively on us to provide. i see this as a positive. >> what you think are the states? >> on vacation i've been -- on occasion i've been hard. that is not the case.

it has to do something, and we absolutely have the capability. i have to be clear about the military objective is that i was being asked to achieve. i have to be clear about how these were contributing to some outcomes that we would all understand and agree upon. what is the outcome? but the dishes stopping the if it is just stopping the violence, that is one outcome. i can build from that outcome. i can build military options andthe other responsibility is to balance the rest to the mission. what would be the cost of doing this? the risk to the forest is a zero sum game. -- to the forcewe are deployed all over the world. if i am asked to do something in syria and the secretary says i need this option, my response

ability is to make sure i understand this and that by articulate the risks not to the mission where talking about but to our global responsibilities. it is all part of my advice. >> thank you. thank you for joining us. thank you for your service to our nation. i want to follow up on your scenarios of looking at u.s. engagement in syria. he spoke about looking at nato partners and making a decision about a particular engagement. do you envision a scenario or the u.s. would act unilaterally? to also look at a situation where in any scenario with the u.s. look at a broader combat perspective on that?

in other words, would we have boots on the ground into a peacekeeping operation? i want to get your perspective on that? >> at this point in time, the decision is that we will not have any boots on the ground and that we will not act unilaterally. >> a want to make sure we're looking at these particular scenarios. general dempsey,to be your perspective, we see what is happening in syria. we also see the arab spring. efforts by assad in syria? maybe moving to other areas in the middle east --what is your perspective on what potentially

this holds this effort continues? >> i do not see this body. -- i don't seethe assad model spreading, quite the opposite. i think the model is that it was privily suppress populations was them. -- seeing what is happening around them are beginning to rebel against the traditional strong man who, in many cases, have been from the minority side of the demographic occasion. i agree that change in syria is inevitable. long it willhow take to occur but it will occur. i have concerns about that

becausei think we are all eager to see these populations that have long not been a reaping the benefits and have been suppressed. in some cases, they have been suppressed in terms of their religious freedoms and women's rights. i think that long term this will become a stabilizing influence. i think getting from here to there will be a wild ride. i think we're in for 10 or 15 years of instability in a region that has already been characterized by instability. >> general alum was testifying -- general allan was testifying before us, talking about operations and that afghanistan. -- in afghanistan. i want to be your perspective. -- i want to get your perspective. he said that he saw the use of u.s. power there extending past 2013.

i want to get your perspective on that. do you agree? are you looking to him as far as his thought about we utilize our current forces there as we are drawing down? i think all these parts of what happened not only in the middle east but in afghanistan our efforts there and are intertwined. i want to get your perspective. >> you bet we are listening to general allan. he is the best. he has exercised tremendous leadership out there and tremendous dedication. he has put together a very good plan for the future with regard to afghanistan. 2011 was a turning point. we have seen the taliban and weekend. -- to weaken. they have not organize an effort to regain any area that they have lost.

they are engaged in the sporadic ones. -- hit. we expect they will continue. they are resilient. i have been weekend. -- they have been weakened. the afghan people rejected it. the afghan army is beginning to operate on its own. these events in kabul said there becoming an effective force to achieve security in afghanistan. the transitions are working. there are two transitions that have occurred. the desert of the population is -- 50% of the population is under afghan security control. and the third crunch will put 75% of the people under afghan security control. this tragedy that general allen -- the plan and strategy that general allan has developed and that nato's support is to

proceed with that plan to take us to 2013 and be able to complete the final to the end it 2014. and beyond that, to happen during presence there that represents a continuing effort to provide support to the afghans on counterterrorism, on training advice and assisting in other areas. >> thank you. mr. larsen. >> thank you. thank you for being here. general dempsey,you're asking questions about chemical and biological weapons. i do not want to read characterize your comments. i will say what i thought i heard. did you say you thought we had sufficient transparency/

>> we have sufficient halogens on their facilities. -- intelligence on their facilities related to chemical and biological weapons in consultation with our close allies in the region. >> this is the so what question. the that mean we're in position to do something about rise? -- if a circumstance arises? who makes that call? >> if you are talking about our vital national interests, it seems to me that the potential proliferation of chemical and

biological weapons would be at the top of the list. >> in terms of the discussions we're having about syria and resistance to the violence in syria, and we thought there are going to use these biological weapons, what do we do? >> let me begin again with this because of a classification. it is updating constantly. the planning is being done with our allies in the region. >> i wanted to assure you that we have made plans to try to deal with any contingency involved in those areas. we think it does represent the most serious concerns with regard to our security.

>> understanding classification is important to explore this later. i wanted to change the focus of a bid to afghanistan and china and russia. i heard a story this morning about yemen. two years ago,the current director was sitting about where you are sitting. he was telling us thatthere is a difference between a civil war and what is a counter terrorism mess that the u.s. is trying to be supportive of in yemen. a loss of changes the arab spring. -- a lot has changed since then with the arabs spring buti do not know that a lot has changed in terms of usa out to the civil war purses' the u.s. -- versus the u.s. continue to pursue it.

this story this morning about drone they're working at changing the strikes, strategy. i will put it out see. is the cia to tell wagging the dod dog on this issue? we need to have that answer it. he cannot leave it there. >> >> thank you. first of all with regard to a story in the paper, a think those operations, i guess i would urge you to go what is behind that. with regard to the larger issue, i understand the implications of what you're asking. our target represents those al

qaeda terrorists that involve a threat to this country. this is not broad base. d. not becoming any part of a civil war. we are very precise andwe're very targeted. we will remain pursuant to those kinds of operations. >> without going into specific details here comment the position of the administration is that our interest in yemen is the same interest we have had in somalia, which is to go after those terrorists who are involved and planning attacks of this country. >> can i add?

that is not what we're doing a genetically. -- that is what we are doing fanatically butwe're working very closely with -- can medically -- kinetically but we're working very closely with the military in yemen to increase their capability. it is important not to see this as we are only doing one thing and not the other. we're trying to round it off. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you were being here today. real briefly,of the next three months, it can you explain how you see the opposition? d.c. fragmenting? -- do you see it fragmenting? do you see it coalescing? how do you see this playing out?

in syria,back to the topic. >> you know, if i could give you a firm answer as to what we saw happening, i probably would not be in this job. i would be somewhere else. this is a tough thing to try to look at the elements that play here and try to determine how this will play out. intelligence has provided its perspective on this. the best thing that we is a -- that we can see is that has a result of the international community's unified approach to applying the sanctions. we now have the support of russia and china. am this will continue to play

out. assad will continue to play out. it'll be a matter of time. he will continue to reduce these efforts but it will be a matter of time before he is brought down. >> i have nothing to add, congressman. >> the department of defense has our plans involved over the last year since we have lasting the syrian revolution. >> what we do and what general dempsey does with the chiefs is to develop all of the planes necessary for any contingency. -- the plan is necessary for any contingency. whatever the president decides we will be prepared to implement.

>> we are in nato partner with turkey. we have a strong relationship with jordan. we are to-300 military urge the 200-300 military strong. a piece's and they have of this on their western border. we have been meeting with leaders throughout the region. we met with the president from various regions. they had a huge interest. there are huge populations. these issues are often intertwined. we're in the business of sharing information and building capacity where we can. we're having the threat of military capability.

to underscore our diplomatic efforts. >> these are comments that have been made from my colleagues as it related to what happened in libya and the concerns with how we perceive them -- proceeded in that action. of all the conflicts we have dealt with, the one lesson learned is endgame. it is my hope that we move through this to share information with us. we act in our role that there will be clear lines of communication on behalf of our military family.

and the american people. >> i appreciate that concern. i want to assure you that general dempsey and i are unified with regard to not proceeding with any military action unless there is a clear objection only know what it will -- a clear objective and we know what it will take to achieve that objective, how long it'll take an do you have the legal authority to accomplish what we're being asked to accomplish? consultation. >> thank you. i yelled that. -- i yield back. >> thank you for being here. what you think will be there if it occurs? -- general dempsey, it looks

like a real possibility that a post-assad government might be dominated by the muslim brotherhood. it seems to be coming to pass in egypt. what you think the likely impact will be on israel and other u.s. interests in the region if that occurs? >> what we do know for a fact demographically is 7 the firm of the syrian population is of the suny -- 70% of the population is of the sunni population appeared government to the majority in power. -- you would have a pretty dramatic shift from a minority government to a majority in power. i think there will be some combination of conservative islamic parties. syria has quite a tradition of secular isn't that i would not discount among the minorities,

the kurds, the druidsthe jews and the christians have been supported by be assad party. i think they can be persuaded to be part of the government. this is the point i think. in terms of looking toward helping identify the opposition, and also holding them accountable before we support them to committing themselves. to rep shared government at the end of this thing so we end up creating the conditions for a civil war. >> that sounds good. my concern is in egypt. it was a fairly moderate government those. -- as far as the arab world goes andthey brought about 40% muslim brotherhood. in their parliamentary elections. coalition. i suppose the question should be what are we doing and what more can we do to ensure it

encourages the population. should be reaching the overthrown? -- should the assad regime eventually be overthrown? would try to do that in iraq. purging oferrible the christian population in iraq which is frightening. many of us were concerned about religious freedom. that was not achieved. it is a frightening thing. i direct this to either of you. what can be due to prevent this? >> then she pointed out are -- the things you pointed out are truly legitimate concerns. if we can build democratic institutions and to these

countries, and to some extent we see it in iraq. inre beginning to see it egypt and libya. want to build some of these -- one to build some of these institutions were parties have to participate in have to look at how they can try to meet their responsibilities to the people. it does have some kind of moderating the impact. whether they like it or not. even in egypt were understand your concerns. the fact is,i understand there are various segments of the brotherhood that are trying to understand they have the bigger responsibility. they'll have to exercise leadership in regard to every aspect. in iraq, every time in looks like it is headed toward one direction, we're seeing some of

that in libya. , the kurds and others continue to bring pressure on the government to stay on the right path. it does not always work. it does impact on that. there are a lot of forces as a result of the era of spring. -- the average spring, we have unleashed a lot of forces here butone thing we do not want to lose sight of is as a result, we can help redirect those countries. >> you're on the right track. i am hoping we might be able to involve some of the religious and ethnic minorities. at least in southern -- at least in northern syria becauseit seems the we have the chance and mentoring the issue. -- l ameliorating the issue.

any other thoughts you have? >> i agree with what you just said. >> thank you. congressman chris gibsonit is very great that this is a distinguished veteran. >> thank you. i appreciate the strong leadership. i will talk about syria and a second. -- in may 2 buti'm curious to hear the feedback. i am recently back from fort bragg and visiting with when the support commands. -- this aboard the commands of special operations. in previous work with the intelligence community,it is remarkable the level of team work that goes on. i feel that we are lacking in terms of systemic codification of some of the very encouraging development of the past decade.

it can happen that the intelligence committee may be working the line of operations. figure to become a they will -- figuratively bump into each other. welland their efforts to bring stronger collaboration in terms of information sharing. given your recent history, i would be curious to know what your thoughts are in terms of reform to bring it closer cooperation to the intelligence committee. and the department of defense. >> i have been in this town. , as director of the cia, in the history that i have been in this town,i do not think there is a

better relationship between the intelligence and the military operation forces then there is today. they are surely working together. whether those operations are taking place in pakistanin afghanistan in yemen and or other parts of the world, they are unified in the approach. they are working off strong intelligence resources letter being shared. -- that are being shared. the operations are basically worked out within the operations centers. there is very close coordination this is not involve the participation. -- there is not a target taken on that does not involve the participation of intelligence and military operationsthey're doing a very and effectively. i do think we need to lessons.

-- learn the lessonsi think we are right. . -- i think you are right. when need to put in place the lessons learned. we can make sure the cooperation is one that continues. that is my biggest concern. it is working well now atwe are facing al qaeda in terrorism. -- and terrorism byas we're able to achieve some success, there may be a danger the both of these make often tried to do their own thing. -- may go off and try to do their own thing. that is where we need to pay attention. >> the game changing lessons learned are the integration of cyber. i think you're seeing a global network approach. most of our adversaries are not confronting us directly. to defeat a network, we have to be a network.

and have to find a way to a network our capabilities. these are ways that have not had to do before. >> i concur with the assessment. as the go forward, we do not want to over codify to the point that would stifle initiative. am also concern that much of this is based on relationships. it is forged in the crucible and to extend we could codify thatthis would not come to the end in the event that two individuals may not get along. they still need this to work. i see my time is getting short here. but one specific question --with regard to the unrest in syria, have there been any adverse

implications and ramifications in the province? >> not coming from syria. one of the biggest tribesthis runs from saudi arabia, through western iraq into syria. there is assistance been provided on tribal relationships flowing into syria. it is another complication i have mentioned awe have not seen any backwash but coming. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you for being here today. thank you for your service. chairman didn't say, of thank -- chairman dempsey, a you for your commitment to our bank troops and veterans. we shall be adjourned.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> on "washington journal" will focus on the role of the secret service and misconduct among its agents. our guest is a national security correspondent for "the los angeles times." the federal affairs director of the u.s. sportsmen's alliance will take questions about the sports and heritage act which recently passed the house. we will discuss trends in wages and benefits from the bureau of labor statistics.

"washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> from: l pierre, prohibition 3 today, and drinking for better or worse has always been part of the american landscape. we will have tales of beer and spirits in america, saturday night at 8:00 eastern, part of american history tv this weekend on cspan 3. this year's studentcam competition ast students across the country were part of the constitution was important to them and why. the second prize winner selected the 10th amendment -- >> my favre class would

probably history. >> my favorite class would be arterial awhile >> it would probably have to be electronics. >> i am doing pretty poorly. >> i'm doing pretty well except for math and science. >> probably not as well as i should be guarded i don't really put in a whole lot of effort into my other glasses. i think it is because i feel is a waste of time. i'm not motivated to work for it. >> when it is not something i am interested in, and i don't feel it is applicable to live, i don't see a point. >> i think it is because i am not a mathematical person. and some of my class is, i work -- i like them so i work hard and in others i take naps. >> i do my homework --

>> as students, we often find ourselves asking -- about calculus. teachers say we learn what we learn so we can be more successful but sometimes it seems the only reason this will help us be successful is because it is things the state requires pretty 10th amendment states that the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibited by the state's currently, the education system is included in those rights. >> i think the writers of the constitution wanted to define that some things should be governed at a national level by the constitution but some things are better served through the states and the government of

the individual states. >> the debate is that the u.s. government should take more control over education. from the perspective of many students, a standardized curriculum does not leave them as much divided as the debate. as a student, i think there are many benefits. the benefits of standardized curriculum are it forces you to take classes that would increase your general knowledge. it encourages students to expand out and try different things such as marta or theater and music and it's a xl and those areas, they can do that in college. >> a benefit is that students are learning influences on today's curriculum on accountability. the implications might be federal and state mandates but they are good for kids. i think we are holding ourselves more accountable.

i think it should all be required. i think we need to focus on the whole child. they need to have the arts, graphic arts, visual arts, band, music, choir. they need a taste of all of us. they need to have math, science, english, social studies. if we only focus on four main things, kids will be deprived. they need to make choices and make decisions within discipline. as educators, we have a responsibility to provide choices for them and the kids can make the decisions that the that. >> the movement toward standardization of curriculum began back in 1983 when the u.s. department of education released a report that was controversial. it was called "a nation at risk" and it said - >> we have a tradition of local

control of schools and that is a tradition that has served us well but i do think it is important for the federal government to step up and help the school districts do some of the things they need to do. >> i have to agree. i think the education got where was today for a reason. it is important for the edges to have some control over the students and give them a taste for every subject. however, the government could step up and take more control and national level. >> society and american needed loads of people to run factories but now, the united states could have expansion into areas they xl the most part we took a survey out of 100 high school students and 76 of them said they would rather work under the non-standardized education system which meant that 77 students are not feeling

motivated to work under the current system. >> motivation plays a big part for students as they go through high school. if a student does not see a need for school, it is hard to be motivated. if they don't see motivation for the class, they get tired quicker. >> according to the alliance for excellent education, 69% of all high-school dropouts said they dropped out because they were not motivated to work hard. we talk about a standardized curriculum but what about the benefits of a non-standardized curriculum? >> what the benefits of a non- standardized curriculum is allows for more individuality in a person's education. my responsibility as an educator is i try to make as much relevance to my subject to the kids as possible. it is not relevant to you, why should i try? if we got kids more motivated

where one half of their day as basic academics and part of the day they get a hands-on experience and they get a chance to do that and get excited about it, they see what the basic math and english and courses like that apply to that particular job field. that is the answer to get the kids motivated. >> the debate is that the government should have more of control of content in schools but this is contradicting the 10th amendment. >> to the educators and officials, i have a question for you -- wouldn't you rather students of america be the most successful they can be? the 10th amendment mentions that the rights should be installed to the state or to the people. i'm speaking for the students of america when i say, don't standardized curriculum and a further. let's keep the variety we have

because variety is what makes as individuals and it is our individualism that motivates this and you would be surprised with students can do when they're motivated. >> cut. >> thanks, guys. >> go to studentcam,org to see all the winning videos. you can continue the conversation at our facebook and twitter pages. >> un secretary-general ban ki- moon but will be one of the keynote speakers this morning at the center for global development forum on renewable and sustainable energy. but former epa administrator william reilly is scheduled to speak as well. live coverage starts on c-span 2 at 8:45 eastern. and [video clip] >> when i was in eastern afghanistan, they said the u.s.

government was wasting tens of millions of dollars on logistics' contracts. >> with all the money and afghanistan and find corruption from top to bottom into the hands of the taliban. >> i was in one meeting where the brigade commander, an notedibly effective guidguy, long after obama took office and they said we will give you development money for counterinsurgency. he said did not send any more money. send a contract officers that could oversee this stuff. we need people. i don't need more money than a douglas wissing on bankrolling the anime on cspan's "q &a."

also look for our interview with robert caro on lyndon johnson. >> in a moment, today's news, your e-mails and phone calls live on "washington journal.' later, a conversation on the housing market and the economy. we will hear from joseph smith who is overseeing a $25 billion mortgage settlement reached between 49 states and five bags. that is live at 1:00 p.m. eastern. presidential candidate mitt romney will be in scottsdale, ariz. speaking at the republican national committee state share meeting. that is live at 3:45 eastern. coming up this hour, we will look at the role of the secret service and allegations of misconduct. our guest is a "los angeles times" correspondent and