has been in decline. those aren't actual dollars going down, that's the share of what we dd -- what we do in washington, d.c. it's this congress that's brought the actual numbers down. over time we had a a shift in this country. discretionary spending has declined a -- as a percent of what we do and auto pilot spending is increasing. there's not enough time tonight to get into the detail bus i encourage all our colleagues, madam speaker, and i hope you'll help me encourage them, to keep an eye out on what's coming down the road because what's coming down the road in this body is a process called recon sill cration. i put to you we haven't had a real successful reconciliation process in this house since 1997. . we came together to pass the biggest spending reduction prior to this point. we can't balance the budget on

the discretionary spending side of the ledger alone. as you know, madam speaker, if we zeroed everything, and i don't mean cut by 5% or 10%, but zero ood out everything and interest on the national debt, the mandatory spending programs that i'm talking about, if we zeroed out everything else, the budget still wouldn't be balanced. that's how far out of whack we are. we are going to do something that hadn't been done since 1997 and that is go through reconciliation when we ask the committees of this house and go back to our communities and ask this town hall meetings, what can we do to tighten our belts, to do better, to provide more bang for their buck. those bills are going to start to come to the floor in the month of may. first time since 1997 in a

serious way. it will be a small process at first. we are talking about just the amount of money to cover some of our necessary defense spending needs, but we are going to start to talk about priorities here. and i say talk about, i mean legislate on. madam speaker, the talking has already been done. every day, families sacrifice to live within their means and deserve a government that does the same. president obama, 2011, families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions and the federal government should do the same. president obama, 2010, it's not who wins the election but whether new jobs and industries take root in this country. if not, we are bankrupting this country. we are bankrupting this country. we have doubled, doubled the annual spending deficits that we

have seen in this country. seen the public debt increase by 50% in the last 3 1/2 years and that was with the efforts of the most conservative u.s. house of representatives we have seen in our lifetime. that was with the efforts of the u.s. house of representatives that has cut spending not one year in a row, not two years in a row, but three years in a row. madam speaker, the good ship, united states of america, is in troubled waters. the president is saying all the right things. i come to the floor here tonight to ask you to encourage him to do the right things. join this u.s. house of representatives, join these 100 new democrat and freshmen members in this body as we try to do something that hasn't been done since 1997 and that's take programs off of auto pilot and make sure that every dollar

leaving this institution is doing the very best that it can for the hard-working american taxpayers that have entrusted us to spend it. i thank you for being here and yielding me time. and i yield back to you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes.

mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. a lot going on in the world these days and interesting trip to afghanistan this weekend. country into which we are pouring billions and billions of dollars. and have military there that is keeping president karzai in office and he is a very grateful man. that was demonstrated when he told our government of our administration that dana

rohrabacher, my greatest friend, would not be allowed into afghanistan as if he had that power, because he had been very critical of president karzai. so we are spending billions and billions of dollars so that a president of afghanistan who is only there because of the lives and treasures that americans have sacrificed, turn around telling americans we don't want members of congress that actually control the purse strings to money flowing into this country, we don't want him here. rather interesting. and as might be expected, president karzai had his facts entirely wrong. he was representing that

representative rohrabacher had a bill that was attempting to partition, divide up afghanistan. entirely wrong. i knew that because i assisted with the bill and co-sponsored it proudly, because it was a resolution that basically was encouraging afghanistan to allow elections of their regional governors. it encouraged elections and somehow president karzai found this very offensive, as a threat to him. and i can see it from his standpoint if one puts oneself in his position, you realize, gee, i'm president karzai, i get to appoint every regional governor, and gee, that would be a system like ancient rome where

you are appointed as governor but had to kickback to ceasar in order to keep your seat. interesting. that is a plan fraught with the potential for corruption. one of the reasons that we think it would be a good idea to help strengthen the country if the people in the various regions were able to elect their governors. president karzai not only appoints the governors, he appoints the mayors. they don't get to elect them, he apoints them. you want to be the mayor of a city, you better suck up to president karzai because he is going to make the appointment. if you would like to be the police chief, don't worry, local city council in afghanistan, don't worry, you will be appointed by president karzai.

we are told by afghans, it goes so much further than that, he apoints many of the teachers. if you want to be a teacher at an upper level, afghans tell me he apoints them as well. president karzai gets to appoint a slate of potential legislators . he has tremendous control of the purse strings in afghanistan. not someone to be countered with , you would think, unless perhaps you are from a government that assists the government of afghanistan in meeting its budget needs.

to understand it, afghanistan has a budget of $12.5 billion. as i understand it, afghanistan provides $1.5 billion of that $12.5 billion budget. that's all the revenue, taxes, fees, all kinds of things. that's the extent of their revenue. gee, what would happen to president karzai if all of a sudden this congress did what the 1974 democratic-controlled congress did when without any regard for those who had fought with us in vietnam and southeast asia, every penny was just completely shut off, every penny being spent in vietnam back in

1974, cut off and what happened after we left was an absolute horrible blood bath. of those who had assisted the united states in any way. so, i don't think this congress will be as abrupt as the democratic congress was in 1974, but it certainly has the ability to do that. the difference is, i think that enough people in this congress that realize that unless we empower those who fought the taliban in late 2001 after 9/11 and in early 2002 when they basically routed the taliban with u.s. support and air support, unless we empower those allies by allowing them to elect their own regional governors, by

allowing them to elect their mayors, taking some of the power away from a central administration where regardless of whether or not reports may or may not be accurate about corruption at the highest level, there is certainly corruption in afghanistan. and it is also interesting that this administration refuses to replace the inspector general who is supposed to supervise and inspect and audit the money that's going into afghanistan. surely that couldn't be because it's an election year. surely that couldn't be because if we let actually monitor where all the billions of dollars we are pouring into afghanistan are going, the report would indicate

widespread corruption, which would reflect poorly on this administration, throwing away billions of dollars to corrupt administrations who are fattening their bank accounts while americans don't have any. many americans struggle to have any money in their bank accounts. and yet, we are propping up an administration over there that thinks on a whim, can say i don't like this congressman because he has been critical of my administration, so we're going to keep him out. now, i realize that secretary clinton inherited a very difficult situation. it was not of her making. but it is important in dealing with matters of foreign policy, dealing with matters of state that we not be duped by people

who have made careers out of duping careers and russians and other nationalities. so we have a great ally in the nation of israel. they believe in freedom, as we do. they have a truly representative government, one in which the prime minister of israel does not forbid elections of other officials so that he is the only one who has the power to appoint. israel allows elections. and as others have pointed out, they are more likely more free than any of the other neighbors immediately surrounding israel.

and even muslims in israel have greater freedom to elect whoever they wish, whomever they wish in fair and free elections. we have an ally in israel. . i realize there are differences of views in whether the old testament, the torah, the tanach have valid legitimacy these days. some of us believe them and are proud to do so, just as the founders of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence, over half of them were ordained christian ministers who believed in the

old testament. i've been looking in the old testament for wisdom, application to our current situation because we know back in earlier this year, "the washington post" was told by this administration that the window during which israel was going to likely attack iran was between two different dates, during a certain period. that's not very helpful to an ally. when we tell the world about when an ally may choose to defend itself. that's more a heads up to an enemy of the united states, a sworn enemy of the united states, led by people who have sworn to the destruction of the united states and israel. so it's a little bit confusing

to see how this administration could be going about betraying our friend israel. it would seem that when this administration leaked to the media that our dear friend and ally, israel, was going to utilize a relationship with azerbaijan to attack that -- to attack, that such a release was not something you'd do for a friend, but rather a betrayal of a friend and ally. it appears that those were efforts to keep israel from doing what it needed to defend itself when this administration is telling israel, hey, just trust us. trust us, we'll take care of your national security.

and yes, there's a window beyond which you can no longer do any good in trying to stop the nuclear proliferation in iran. and beyond which we in the united states could, so if we can just force israel past that window, then they would have to rely completely on the united states to do all in its power to protect israel. if israel looks at what has been happening already this year, couple of betrayals of our friendship that would not bode well that the top in this administration, for this country, will protect israel at whatever cost. that has to be considered by israel. and then we have this report,

this was dated april 19, 2012, from a northeast media research institute, the introduction says, an important element in the renewal of nuclear negotiations with iran and the talks in istanbul, april 13, 14, 2012, was an alleged fatwa attributed to iranian supreme leader khomeini, according to which the stockpiling of nuclear weapons are not allowed under islam and they shall not acquire them. president obama and all the representatives to the talks, the board of governors and even highly respected research institutes considered the fatwa

as an actual fact and examined its significance and implications for the nuclear negotiations with iran that were renewed in istanbul. however, an investigation by the mideast media research institute reveals that no such fat -- ever existed or was ever published and that media reports about it are nothing more than a propaganda ruse on the part of the iranian regime apparatuses in an attempt to deceive the top u.s. administration officials and the others mentioned above. iranian regime officials' presentation of facts on nuclear weapons attributed to supreme leader as a fatwa or religious edict when no such fatwa existed or was issued by him is a propaganda effort to propose to the west a

religiously valid substitute for concrete guarantees of inspectors' access to iran's nuclear facilities. since the west does not consider mere statements by khomeini or other regime officials to be credible, the iranian regime has put forth a fraudulent fatwa that the west would be more inclined to trust. it goings on to talk about, and i'll just read from this, u.s. secretary of state hillary clinton clarified that she had discussed the fatwa with, quote, experts and religious scholars, unquote and also with turkish prime minister at the nato conference in norfolk, virginia, in early april. she stated, quote, the other interesting development which you may have followed was the repetition by the supreme

leader, the itoe la khomeini, that he had issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. against weapons of mass destruction. prime minister erdigan and i discussed this at some length and i've discussed it with a number of experts and religious scholars and if it's indeed a statement of principles and values it's a starting point for being operationalized which means it serves a these entry way into a negotiation as to how you demonstrate that it is indeed a sincere, authentic statement of conviction. so we will test that as well. during his visit to -- unquote. during his visit to tehran in late march, in an interview with iranian state television, prime minister erdigan said, i've shared the leader's state

wment president barack obama and told him in the face of this assertion i do not have a different position and they, iranians, are using nuclear energy peacefully. unquote. on april 7, 2012, cayenne international reported, citing turkish tv, that the turkish prime minister had told the turkish tv station that there's no possibility that, quote, khomeini's fatwa forbidding the possession and use of nuclear weapons might be disobeyed in ian. we can all celebrate. there's been a fraudulent, false report of a fatwa by khomeini so gosh, nobody in iran would violate this fatwa making it against the islamic

religion to develop nuclear weapons. when the truth is, if israel is not going to defend itself by itself as president obama said it absolutely must on more than one occasion, if it is going to rely on the representations of this administration to trust us, we'll take care of you, we've got your back, then israel may wavent to note how easy it is to deceive this administration into believing what it wants that iran would not develop nuclear weapons. and it is important to note that this administration has been praised in messages coming from islamic society of north

america and other groups, actually, named co-conspirators in funding terrorism in the world. they've been praised by these named co-conspirators in funding terrorism for their cleansing of training materials of our f.b.i., of our intelligence, of our state department, we have gone through and eliminated words like jihad. words like islam. words like radical. replaces them with things like violent extremism. when the trouble is, it is so easy to deceive national officials in any country where they refuse to study the enemy

who has sworn to destroy them. if you will not study the enemy who has sworn to destroy you and your country, then you will continue to be easily duped. so we have these named co-conspirators for funding terrorism out there praising this administration and their meetings inside the hearts of this administration at the state department, in the white house, in the justice department, they've been praised for eliminating all these references to such inappropriate things as islam. well this weekend, despite efforts by some in this administration to prevent it, a few of us met with our allies,

members of the national front, one of which could be elected the next president. of afghanistan. these are people who, while we in america were burying americans, they were burying family members who had fought with us against the taliban. these are the enemy of our enemy, the taliban. they should be our friends and they are my friends. therefore when i saw my muslim friends there at the home of my friend ma pseudo, there were -- my friend massud, there were big hugs all around. this administration calls them war criminals because some of them fight as viciously as the taliban that they fight against. but they were friends, they fought with us, they did much

of our fighting for us before we became occupiers in afghanistan. yet, when this administration throws our allies under a bus, it means for them to stay there. well, some of us believe if we ever hope to have other allies, then it is critical that we treat our allies with respect. we don't stab them in the back, we don't throw them under the bus, but that's a lesson hard learned. you know, there are international reports that say president karzai may be willing to resign a year early. that's been heard different places around the world. gee, wow, isn't that wonderful. if karzai would resign a year early. but in meeting with my friends who have talked to some of

karzai's circle, they point out , do you in america not understand, when this president karzai says he's looking at resigning a year early, it's not because he is some big hearted, wonderful, democracy-loving person. if he loved democracy, he'd let us elect our governors, he'd let us elect our mayors. but he wants to appoint them and he's not ready to give up power. but the afghan constitution apparently says that if you served two terms, you cannot run for a third term. so this president karzai is looking at a way, when perhaps if he's resigned a year early, then he could argue, i didn't serve two terms. i served one year short of two terms. therefore i can run for a third term and being as how the president of afghanistan

appoints the governor the mayor the chiefs of police, so many of the positions of power in afghanistan, it's quite conceivable that he could ensure that he got elected again next time if he ran a third time and if he were to be allowed to run a third time and get elected, that puts him beyond 2014, which means the united states will not be around to enforce the promises that president karzai made. . it's a hope and prayer that this administration will quit living on the false promises of people who say they're going to help us , but are sworn publicly and privately to destroy our way of life. and there are those we continue to hear say, look, israel is just occupiers.

they are occupiers in this land. as newt gingrich pointed out, the term palestinian is a very recent word that found usage. and if you go back and as one reporter who ended up being let go, but she marveled that these people ought to go back to poland or wherever they came from, when actually when you look at where they came from, 1600 years before muhammad existed in this city, a king named david ruled for seven years and moved the capital up to jerusalem and a beautiful capital it was. some have said, well, where is the evidence of the israelis being in jerusalem snl muhammad

had a dream and that he had gone there but i never physically went, that's for sure. here's the current city of jerusalem. this is the city of david here, south of the temple mount where abraham went and it's interesting because people have said, gee, where is the evidence? and we see people around the country where jesse, where his tomb is in what i call shiloh, the arc of the covenant and found the location and appears where it was kept for over 300 years, long before there was a muhammad. so people have said, where is the evidence?

it is beginning to show up as the scientists have begun to look, they realize that the city of david may have been south down the hill from where the current temple mount is and they began excavating and they found all kinds of dramatic evidence of israel's existence. it's dramatic. there is no question from the things that are being found and the way they are being dated, the dates that are coming to light that israel existed in the land where it has its country now, not just in part, but throughout the west bank, that was israeli territory. many, many centuries before a man named muhammad lived.

i'm not attempting to push my religious beliefs on anybody else. these are simply the facts of history that we have to look at and understand. and until the federal government, the administration, until we have an administration that stops blinding -- blaming those who are supposed to protect us, we are in big trouble. so it is important that we pay tribute to our dear friend israel, stop the betrayals and say thank god for the nation of israel and the dear friend that they are to the united states. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?

mr. gohmert: i do now rise to move that we do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the motion is adopted and accordingly the house stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.

>> and an hour, vice-president joe biden on foreign policy. after that, the chief prosecutor for the military commissions at guantanamo bay, cuba, talks about the military commission system. >> born in a north korean war camp, it is the only world chin had ever known. he is the only one to it had never escape from camp 143 >> his first memory at the age of four was going with his mom to a place near where he grew up in the camp to watch somebody get shot. shootings, public executions in the camp were held every few

weeks. they were angry white of punishing people who violated camp rules and of terrorizing the 20,000-40,000 people who lived in the camp to obey the rules from then on prairie creek sunday -- from then on. >> at 8:00 on q&a. may 6, look for our q&a interview with robert caro. it coincides with his multivolume biography of the 36th president. >> house budget committee chairman paul ryan on thursday criticized president obama's economic policies and defended his house-passed budget. he spoke at georgetown university in washington. rep ryan has faced criticism from some catholics, including

some of georgetown, who say his budget unfairly affects the poor. this is an hour. [applause] >> good morning and welcome to the 2012 wedding to a lecture. my name is edward montgomery. i'm dean of the georgetown public policy institute. this event honors our friend and colleague, dr. leslie whittington, who died on september 11, 2001, all of their husband charlie and her daughters. leslie, a professor at georgetown public policy institute's and ashley recognized expert on the marriage tax was a beloved member of our community known for high spirits and engaging lectures. while we are fortunate to have many great professors here adores him, is not every day it come across the teacher who

genuinely inspired her students. leslie was one of them. each year, we award a scholarship in leslie's name to a second year student at the georgetown public policy institute in as demonstrated academic excellence and a commitment to smart public policy. among to recognize this year's winner, joseph cox. we stand up? -- will you stand up? [applause] this annual lecture is dedicated to leslie's member into educating the doors down committee on pressing public policies issues of the day. this year we are fortunate to have with us congressman paul ryan. he is serving his seventh term represent wisconsin's first district. he is a graduate from ohio. he is chairman of the budget committee in the u.s. house of

representatives and a senior member of the house ways and means committee. you cannot turn on the tv or log on to facebook or the internet without hearing about the looming fiscal crisis of our country faces in the coming decades. a year ago, our nation nearly defaulted on its debt for the first time in its history. while we may have stepped back from that abyss, the challenge that confronts us is far from over. georgetown public policy institute faculty members serb with congressman ryan on the president of the budget commission and came up with a plan for addressing this crisis. alice rivlin devised a second plan within entered dmitri that also addressed the problem. despite these and other plants, no consensus appears to be on the horizon. government leaders continue to be deadlocked in coming up with an approach to solve this problem. as chief budget writer for the house, congressman-at the center of efforts to resolve these

issues. he has presented a roadmap for america's future that envisions a fundamentally different role for the federal government and our economy in addressing social issues. his plan proposes to tackle the long-term budget deficits by cutting taxes to promote growth and cutting government spending. republicans led his vision for the future. the young age of 42, he is often mentioned as a potential vice presidential nominee. if you want to break some news today, feel free. this plan is not without controversy. in some ways, he is at the center of a debate that our colleague has written is as old as our nation, that quintessential tension between our struggle of the rugged individualist and our strong sense of communal obligation. many democrats and republicans see very different visions for future in the country as they struggle for imbalances between these competing instincts.

please join me in welcoming congressman paul ryan. [applause] >> thank you so much. what a beautiful place, by the way. this is gorgeous. the need for well-informed public discourse has never been greater. i think that is why this lecture series is such a moving tribute to the memory of leslie whittington. i was floating on the house for a couple of days ago and one of the senior leadership staffers pulled me aside and said leslie whittington was the best professor i ever had. she was a student here at georgetown. she spoke so adoring the of the impact he had on her lap. it is just like to see that her memory is still being honored by this, and i am honored to be here as part of this lecture series.

georgetown is america's first catholic universities. the jesuits have done a great job of educating our nation for generations. i appreciate the dialogue. our copy of my budget with me so we could have a fact based conversation on the facts as they are, not as some have reinterpreted. did you ever hear the story about the methodist who went to heaven and at st. peter at the pearly gates? let me get into it, then. this methodist goes to heaven and meets st. peter at the pearly gates. saint peter takes him on a tour like he does for everybody. they go down this beautiful building and this long haul and they come to the first door. they hear laughter and music and singing and the methodists ask st. peter, what is behind that door? he said that is the presbyterians. they keep going down the hallway and come to another door. the year praising and music.

he said that is the baptists. they turned a corner and go down before they gett to the next door, peter says be very, very quiet. that is the catholics, and they think they are the only people up here. [laughter] that takes a minute to sink in, doesn't it? i suppose there are some catholics who, for a long time, thought they had a monopoly of sorts, not exactly in heaven, but on the social teaching of our church. of course there can be differences among the faithful catholics on this. the work i do as a catholic holding office conforms to the social doctrine as best i can make of it. what i have to say about the social doctrine of the church is from the viewpoint of a catholic in politics applying my understanding to the problems of the day. serious problems like those we

face today require terrible conversation. civil public dialogue goes to the heart of solidarity. the virtue that does not divide society into classes but builds up the common good of all. the overarching brett to our whole society today is the exploding federal debt. the holy father himself, pope benedict, has charged governments, communities, and individuals running up high debt levels are "living at the expense of future generations and living an untruth. ." we in this country have a window of time before it gets to economic crisis becomes inevitable. wiggins stupak -- take control before our own needy suffer the same fate of greece. how we do this is a question for provincial judgment about which people of good will can differ. if there was every time for

serious but respectful discussion among catholics as well as those who do not share our faith, that time is now. as the dollar around southern wisconsin and visit with americans across the country, explaining that our debt is on track to cripple the economy, showing people charts and graphs to back it all up, they often ask me, is it too late to save america from a diminished future? is the american experiment over? it is difficult question. it is one that gives me a little pause. the honest answer is the one i am about to give you. nobody ever got rich betting against the united states of america, and i'm not about to start. time and again, when america has been put to the test, when it looked like the era of american exceptional is and was coming to a close, we got back up and got

back to work, advancing our community, advancing our society, and leaving the boundaries of opportunity ever for. churchill put it best. the americans can be counted upon to do the right thing, but only after they have exhausted all the other possibilities. look, we have exhausted the other possibilities. after four straight trillion dollar deficits and very little economic progress to show for it, i think we know what doesn't work. we also have a growing consensus around the ideas that will work. but will not willing partners at the highest levels to lead us, to unite us, and to address our defining talent. the president did not cause the crisis we face. years of empty promises from both political parties brought us to this moment. but regrettably, the president is unwilling to advance credible

solutions to the problem. he has broken a promise he made during his last campaign, to help us "rediscover our bonds to each other and get out of this constant, petty bickering that has come to characterize our politics." it does not seem to understand and cannot promote the common good by setting class against class or group against group. the device of politics e.g. the divisive politics of the last few years have not only undermined social solidarity, they have brought progress and reform to a standstill, at a very time when america is desperate for solutions to this coming crisis. today, we face a fundamental challenge to the american way of life. a gathering storm whose primary manifestation is the shadow of our ever-growing national debt, and whose most troubling consequence is ever shrinking opportunities for americans, young and old, and the shadow

hangs over young people to face a struggling economy and rising probability of greater turmoil ahead. more than half of recent college graduates are unemployed or underemployed in this economy. the shadow hangs over our seniors who have been lied to about their retirement security. it hangs over our parents. we wonder if we will be the first generation in american history to leave our children with fewer opportunities and less prosperous nation than the one we inherited. this storm has already hit europe, where millions are enduring the painful consequences of empty promises turning into broken promises. for too many in washington, instead of learning from europe's mistakes, we are repeating them. our descent down this path was accelerated four years ago when poor decisions and bad policies from wall street to washington

resulted in the crisis that squandered the nation's savings and crippled our economy. what we needed then for policies to strengthen the foundations of our free enterprise economy. what we got was the opposite. we needed single-minded focus on restoring economic growth. after the immediate panic in 2008 that saw, we need to restore real accountability in the financial sector and just clean up the mess. we needed to restore the principle that those who seek to reap the gains in our economy also bear the full risk of the losses. we need policies to control our debt trajectory so that families and businesses were not threatened the the shadow of an ever rising debt. instead, the white house in the last congress enacted an agenda that made matters worse. they miss spent hundreds of billions of dollars on politically connected boondoggles. then when the country's number- one priority remained in getting

the economy back on track, the white house in the last congress made their number one priority a massive, and one expansion in the government's role in health care. they even tried to impose a costly increase in energy prices in the middle of a recession. their idea of wall street reform -- a blank check for fannie mae and freddie mac, and a new law that provided more protection and preferential treatment for the big banks and gave more power to the same regulators who failed to see the last crisis coming. their reliance on government of the heavy hand with more borrowing, more spending, and unprecedented interventions into the private sector were not just bad policy. they created a tremendous uncertainty for businesses and families as job losses continued to mount. we needed solutions to restore the american idea, an

opportunity society in which the government's role is not to read the rules and and for equal outcomes, but in the words of abraham lincoln, to clear the past of laudable pursuit for all so that all may have an opportunity to rise and free pursue their happiness. instead, the white house in the last congress exports to the crisis to advance a government center society, a massively expanded role in the federal government in our lives, higher spending to support this expanded role, and higher taxes to support dyer spending. higher borrowing, too. its report five years, the debt held by the public has grown by $4.5 trillion. that is a 70% increase. our debt is projected to get much worse, spiraling out of control in the years ahead. this bleak outlook is what is paralyzing economic growth today. investors, businesses, and families look at the size of the

debt and help back, for fear that america is heading for a diminished future. should that future arrive, it would mean real pain for all americans. but higher interest rates would make it harder for families to buy homes. for students to go to college, and for businesses to expand and create jobs. it would mean more than economic pain to you and me. if we remain on this path, and bond markets in the state of panic will turn on us, threatening to end the american idea itself. forced to austerity, broken promises and sacrifices from abroad but in into that most fundamental of american aspirations, that in this land, we are responsible for our own destiny. analysts continent will not forever be free from foreign powers to impose their limits on our dreams for ourselves and for children. if our generation fails to meet its defining challenge, we would

see america surrender her independence to an army of foreign creditors who now owns roughly half of our public debt. it pains me to say this, but the president of the policies guarantee that outcome if we don't turn this around soon. the good news is there is a better approach. a budget passed by the house of representatives that would lift the debt and free the nation from the constraints of ever expanding government. if enacted, this budget would promote economic growth and opportunity starting today appeared with bold reforms to the tax code and a credible plan to prevent a debt crisis from ever happening. the president is clearly threatened by this alternative vision. he is hoping to win the next election by attacking our good faith effort to secure opportunity for the next

generation. the president is not only wrong on the policy, but he is wrong on the politics as well. americans resent being told what kind of car to drive or what kind of libel to use. they certainly do not think bureaucrats in washington should be empowered to dictate their personal health care decisions. the hallmarks of the president of the government centered agenda is is that policy after policy takes from hard working americans and give to politically connected companies and privileged special interests. our budget calls this what it is, corporate welfare, and we propose to end it. as we end welfare for those who do not eat, we strengthen welfare programs for those who do. government safety net programs have been stretched to the breaking point in recent years, failing the very citizens who need help most. these are not just practical questions.

these questions have moral implications as well. since we meet here today, and america's first catholic university, i feel it is important to discuss how as a catholic in public life, my own personal thinking on these issues has been guided by my understanding of the church's social teaching. simply put, i don't believe that the preferential option for the poor means at preferential option for big government. just look at the results of the government centered approach to the war on poverty. one in six americans are in poverty today. that is the highest rate in a generation. in this war on poverty, poverty is winning. we need a better approach. to me, this should be based on the twin virtues of solidarity and subsidiarity.

government is one more for things we do together. but it is not the only word. we are a nation that prides itself on looking out for one another. the government has an important role to play in that. but relying on distant government bureaucracies to lead this effort just has not worked. instead, our budget built in historic welfare reforms in the 1990's. we and to empower state and local governments, communities and individuals, those closest to the problem, and we aim to promote opportunity and a probability by strengthening job training programs to help those who have fallen on hard times. my mentor, jack kemp, used to say you cannot help america's poor.y making america's fo the mountain of new debt the

president has helped create, much of that barred from china or simply printed at the federal reserve, has made america poor. those unwilling to lift the debt our complicity in our acceleration toward a debt crisis in which the poor would be hurt the first and the worst. our budget lists the debt, fosters a growing economy, and ensures that a government program makes good on their important promises. instead of letting our critical health retirement programs go bankrupt, our budget saves and strengthens them the that they can fulfill their missions in the 21st century. the president likes to talk about medicare. we welcome the debate. we need this debate. but the president will not tell you that he has already changed medicare forever. his new health care law puts a board of 15 unelected bureaucrats in charge of cutting medicare. we should never turn the fate of our parents and grandparents over to an unaccountable board

and let them make decisions that could deny them access to their care. my mom relies on medicare. we all are and all our seniors a better program, one can actually count on. our budget keeps the protections that make medicare a guarantee promised seniors throughout the years. it makes no changes for people in or near retirement. in order to save medicare for future generations, we propose to put 50 million seniors, not 15 unaccountable bureaucrats, in charge of their personal health care decisions. our budget and our seniors to choose from a list of coverage that works best for them, that is required to offer at least the same benefits as traditional medicare. it says that if a senior months to choose traditional medicare plan, then she should have the right. our idea is to force insurance

companies to compete against each other in order to better service the -- server -- in order to better serve seniors. we disagree with that characterization. our plan offers the best way to guarantee quality, affordable health care for all of our nation's seniors for generations to come. the president the president remains committed to working americans. it is to chase ever higher government spending. we believe there is a better way forward. the tax code should be fair, simple and competitive. we propose a total overhaul. we lower rates across the board. revenue goes up every year under our budget. the economy grows. we propose to close the special

interest loopholes that primarily go to the well- connected and well up here we in washington did not need to micromanage people's decisions to the tax code. this passed the house earlier this spring. they have gone another year of the budget. the president has hunkered down. people are right to look at how polarized it has become. they're wondering if we have ever fix this mess. the political class needs the pessimism. they have given up on american renewal. they say america's time for leading the world as post. the task is to manage the nation's decline. i reject such defeatism. america has been here before. we did not give of then and we

won't give up now. maybe the senate to not remember 1980. so many of washington had given up on the american people. they expect you to tell your children that the american people no longer have the will to cope with their problems. the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities. america did something that we as a people are famous for. we refuse to listen to our betters. we voted for a man, more than that an idea. the idea that if we took power from bureaucrats and return it to the people, americans working together to restore the principles of american exception ellison and build a future that they can be proud of. these principles are not exclusive to one political party. the patient centered medicare programs has a long history of bipartisan support.

medicare reform is based on choice and competition. in recent years, i have worked for democrats to advance the same kind of reforms. tax reform space on lowering rates goes back to the reagan administration. the democrats served as a co- sponsor. more recently, this is the best means to simplify the tax code. it makes sense that these ideas have attracted leaders of both parties. patient centered medicare offers the only guarantee that medicare can keep its promise to seniors for generations to come. progress tax reform of going great wall closing loopholes

that primarily benefit the well off can eliminate fairness and ensure a level playing field. this coalition must attract americans from all walks of life. progress will require the removal of certain partisan roadblocks. a far health care law -- a flawed health care law that must be replaced. only with the right leadership in place can we move forward with ideas that renewed the american promise of leaving our children with a stronger nation than what our parents left us. look. it is rare in american politics to arrive at a moment in which the debate revolves around the fundamental nature of american democracy and social contract. that is exactly where we are

today. one approach gives more power to unelected bureaucrats, it takes more from hard-working taxpayers to fuel the expansion of government and commit our nation to a feature of debt and decline. this approach is proving unworkable. congress and this path fails to do justice to either subsidiary or solidarity. our budget offers a better path. it is consistent with how i understand my catholic faith. we put trust in people. they are returning to power families. this is the belief that all people are born with a god-given

right to human flourishing. protecting this equal rights of all persons is required for solidarity. trusting citizens to determine what is in their best interests. and to make the right choices about the future of our country. the choice before us cannot be more clear. continuing down the path we're on would mean becoming the first generation to break faith with the american generation. but there's one thing you hear me said, this will not be our destiny. americans will not stand for a shrug condition of our future. we will get back on a path to prosperity. it is not too late to get this right.

thank you very much. [applause] >> i like to think the audience members and students to submit it. if you still have questions, and their people from the lecture he will take these questions. where to start off with a couple of questions we ask from students to the congressman. if you have additional questions, please pass into the end of the aisles. you spoke a bit during your speech about the letter from the faculty.

they are clearly concerned about the moral dimension. and whether the tax cut will this for torsion lay the to those who are wealthy. there is a generational issue as well. can you say a few more words? >> to cannot let people out of poverty do not have a growing economy. we have to put the policies to maximize economic growth. we also need to have upward mobility. we want to make sure that our safety net is required to get people from this. you have to have programs that work to do that. , it we saw in the 1990's

have to tell you, in wisconsin and worked really well. we did this to meet the unique needs of the county and city. we got involved. this work so much better than i think you're having before. -- than we were having the four. before. these are levels that are quite unsustainable. food stamps went up. our budget if you just take the top comic it is proposed to grow spending at about 3% a year. hardly draconian i would argue. more to the point, want to get to a system that is fair that makes the same kind of income. when we raise the individual tax rates, we are hitting such small

businesses really hard. eight out of 10 businesses pay their taxes as individuals. in wisconsin, nine of the 10 filed in taxes as individuals. because the partnerships. their top effective tax rate is 48.4% in january. overseas, which in wisconsin and let superior, the canadiens just lower their tax rate. 65% of net new jobs come from the successes of businesses. the driver of wisconsin and look at the industrial park. the odds are it is successful with maybe two and a 15 employees who are paying that. when we think we're hitting the guy in the yacht, where getting a successful small business. we do not want to have revenue

problems. we're saying get rid of the loopholes. every person who them park money in a tax shelter, that its hero. takes away the tax shelter and it is 25%. what we're saying is that there are better policies that make us competitive to help us grow our economy. will we take a look at our poverty fighting strategy is, of what is the objective facts but it to treat the symptoms of poverty to make it easier to live with that or is it to the region to live with that bill -- will we take a look at our party fighting strategies, what is left of the objective? but we treat the symptoms of poverty to make it easier to live with? we are not saying you're stuck in your station in life.

this is antithetical to our american idea. >> the house is dealing with the education funding. there are cuts to the bell program. our students are very concerned about the impact of what it will do to close off access to higher education. what do you have to say? >> this is washington. we keep this at $5,500 but do not have the increase, we keep the award at $5,500. the progress has increased tremendously. we need to look at tuition inflation. when you get the spending on these programs, you will see a direct correlation with this.

rather than have taxpayers subsidize the situation, of let's look at why tuition is growing at such a fast pace relative to anything else we buy. let's not keep paying for a fast increase. let's look at why it is buying up faster. that is a big deal. we keep this. that is the way washington works. if he did not sign up for the proposed increase in to increase it at a slower rate, that is a big cut. that is that the way it works and families and businesses. it seems to be the way it works around here >> we are facing a dollar trillion deficit. the thing is to be done.

you were a member of that committee. you did not vote for the plan. what part of the plan did you vote for? >> i have a great respect for allen. they are great people. it did not fix the problem. i did not want to tell them i just voted for a plan to fix the problem when i know it did not fix the problem. you cannot prevent a debt crisis if you do not deal with the health care entitlement problems. we offered an amended some symbols which was rejected. it tended to deal with medicare reform and medicaid reform. those ideas were rejected. we pass a plan that leave the country to fall into complacency. only to know that we're going to have a debt crisis.

affair going to fix the problem, let's fix the problem. >> this is close to your home. how did these statistics play a role in your vision for the budget? >> we had this issue. >> i was in racine a couple of days ago. it is a manufacturing town. and manufacturers have the greatest skills. look at what they're looking at. they're looking at our energy prices. they are looking at debt hangover.

they're looking at a system that will blow up in their face in january the first. they are holding back. if these increases kick in in january and bring their tax rates up as such tirades that they're paying twice the rate of their competitors, it makes a really hard to compete. when we taxed our competitors hire, they win and we lose. the best things for kenosha and for all of us is to have a system that is really competitiveness. you and i were talking off line. we have the gm plant. this industry just that decimated where we live. a lot of people do not have the career anymore. one of my friends for has all

but they get a job just like their folks did. they had this real awakening. this is what is behind as job- training reforms. we have 49 different job training programs. we did not even measure if they work. how do we get skills to our population so that we can stay out of the curve? right now we have these programs that have all the bureaucracies

and red tape from washington. let's clear that out and have a system that is responsive so when a person is down on their but, they have a shot to getting back on their feet to make something of themselves and be proud. most people believe in the american dream. make yourself what you want to be. make your kids better off. because of the debt crisis, this is where we are. both parties made a budget in the promises that the government cannot keep. the sooner we are honest about that, the better we can have economic policies that make our companies more competitive. these are the things that matter the most.

they raise their individual tax rates. i think this is the number. there back in the debt crisis. these businesses what to know that they stick in wisconsin. the are really sensitive on these things. you have to make sure that you are competitive on your taxes and. that is a key source done -- keycorp son to get this back on pat. >> -- he cornerstone to get this back on track. >> why are spending cuts required? >> i think i get the gist of that. deficits are deficits. we have a big one. what people like me are worried

about is we do not want to chase ever higher spending with ever higher taxes. this is a spending he driven crisis. on the current base line, they are going above the 40 year average rate. spending is projected to literally explode. for the last 60 years, we have taken 20 cents out of every dollar to spend on a federal government. by the time kids are my age, we will take 40 cents out of every dollar. at the end of the time it is 80 cents. we have a spending debt crisis coming. there is no way you can tax your way out of this. the system crashes in the 20 30's. what we want to do is get the spending under control. we have to restructure its so it makes good on the promises.

you want to have tax policies that keep it for the international economies. camera revenues come in? of course they can. -- can new revenues come in? can.ourse they come i >> you mentioned your plan is to raise trillions of dollars by closing loopholes and ending tax breaks. it is a serious and courageous politicians. >> we do not want to do this with a health-care law was written. in a back room where we cut a deal, it is from here. we want to have hearings and the ways and means committee to go through all of the corners of the tax code. we want to put everything on the table. we want to find out what makes the most sense. there is fiscal space left for

tax expenditures. we want to have hearings to decide which ones are the best ones to keep. this is not just what loopholes of the tax tolcode but who gets them. the people in the top two brackets get almost all the tax shelters. that is where you should start right away. this means more of their income is where revenue comes in here. it gives you the ability to bring your rate down. it is not just what but to as well. if we do not have some plan that we're going to hoist, that is the wrong way. we want to tell everyone who cares to make your case. let's have openings basin equity and fairness.

-- based on equity and fairness. >> we navigated for fiscal consolidation. are you concerned what that is going to do to the economy? >> since ron paul started subsiding, i used to get a lot of from paul questions. timmy the foundation -- the foundation is money. i worry about what we are building up with their monetary policy. i believe we should get more toward a monetize policy. that is not a crazy things to say. i think our monetary policy should be focused on a single mandate and price stability. we should stand as necessary signals, because if we do that,

i think that will help us keep interest rates from blowing up in getting away from us. we want to have a monetary policy that is clear and transparent and focus on a single mandate of price stability. i do not think he can help employment if you have a schizophrenic dole mandate. -- dual mandate . if push comes to shove, our fiscal policy is on a collision course, and it can in really ugly. this is why i think the sooner we can have a sound monetary policy focus on price stability, the better we can stabilize the horizons to show that the dollar will be good in stable. there are currency will maintain itself as a reliable thing of

value. one of the most insidious things a government can do is change is currency. it is spanish the purchasing power of people who live on a fixed income. that is what we want to sock from happening. i'm worried that this of the last option if we keep going down the path we're on. >> technology plays a large role in our economy. low-skilled workers have been falling farther and farther behind. do you have a proposal to help those tax hikes you have to get the basics right. as a federal representative, i try not to get deep into micromanaging education reforms. i think we should break those

special interest arrears and making it harder to reform our schools. we can make sure that kids get the best possible education. that is really important. that is the seed of upward mobility. i think the better government has a very good role to play in the job training aspects for a person who is older and life. this is really important. this is where technology comes into play. we need technology to flourish. but got to stop kicking out the really smart people. people get these ph.d. is. there be set and and they leave. what we want to do that tax and

what to have more human capital. immigration policy on this along with better tax policy. if we get those basics right, it to make sure that we can still dominate the world economy like we have in the past. >> somebody said if he could recapture fiscal commancommissin vote, would you change your mind? has deteriorated quite rapidly. how close do you seize the u.s. being to the greek situation? >> no. you think i'm going to give you some data on that? we talked to a lot of experts. the story i get from the folks

that we consult on this, everyone wants to know when it is coming to america. the consensus i get is the reserve currency. that buys as time. that baez's a unique opportunity. year passes issues. -- europe has -- that buy us a unique opportunity. europe has its issues. these are not working in a keep redoing them. we do not have this. we have this divided government. to see they're watching what happens. they see, i want the market snow that fell least one half of the political equation is putting serious ideas on the table on

how we will prevent this debt crisis. we would drive the debt to be venteprevented from happening. we're going to wait and see what happens. in 2013, they will look to see if you get this under control. it will not take much for them to start turning on us if they believe our political system will continue collapsing. s&p downgraded not because of our data but because of a political observation. if we had this gridlock, i believe there is a bipartisan consensus to be had. it is not willing to be this. the ideas they're having broadened the base. there are democrats and

republicans to have historically seen eye to eye. that to me is the basis for help allay a bipartisan consensus and a compromise and 2013 to get this under control and prevent a debt crisis from happening. if we do not do that next year i think the bond markets will start turning on as pretty fast. i have had them run all of these simulations about what happens to the fiscal policy. if rates start losing us it is scary. he will start losing control of our fiscal policy. we want to prevent that from happening. >> with an increasingly interconnected society and an increasingly centralized government, what possibilities d.c. for the american subside. ? >> number one, this is a principle that often gets

overlooked. it is something that is to be connected with solidarity. it's simply means much more distant government. subsidiary without solidarity means much more individualism. these things are in harmony with one another. people of good will can disagree on where the need to be between the two. if you go through all of these things, people of good will can disagree about how you balance the two. subsidiary, it is related to the concept of the application of that social idea. that means government and institutions closest to the people govern and served best. it keeps the human interaction and place. it is not some cold, distant bureaucrats sitting in

washington that sees you as a decimal point on a spreadsheet. it knows you and knows your problems and sees the suffering you are experiencing that has the resources to help you. me is the key to all of this. i worry with the debt we have been having and we have been spending our power out to the federal government, we are doing damage to the principal subsidiary the. so we can better serve the common good. if you have too much government, you displace the civil mediating institutions that we call civil society. the churches, those civic groups, the ways we interact with each other and our communities. you make it harder for the space to be filled and that does damage. to me i think we have gone too far in one direction.

the cultural problems, relic his son and the rest has been manifested by these policies. while at intended as they are the results are not very good. let's go back our roots and see what made the country great. local involvement and control. let's try to reapply the so we can get back to the idea of america. our rights come from nature and got, not before government. the role of government until now is to promote equal opportunity so we can make the most of our lives and pursue happiness however we define that for ourselves as long as we're not infringing on others' rights to do the same. the role of government should not be moved to were trying to equalize the results of our lives. if you believe in equal outcomes -- versus equal

opportunity you have to have a larger government. the problem is you run out of other people close the money to spend did you have a debt crisis. that is what we have to avoid. >> it looks like we are running out of time so i have one last question for you. what about the characteristics of an idea. i do not even want to get into a hypothetical situation. >> i have an important job where i am right now. i feel america is in a unique moment and we have to get it right. do not underestimate the importance of all this. has about these things. quite frankly we have important work to do in the house and i take that very seriously. >> i would hope everybody will join me in thanking you for joining me. [applause]

>> the house of representatives tomorrow will vote on a bill to extend the current interest rates on federal student loans for one year. you can see the debate on c- span at 9 eastern. in a few moments joe biden on foreign policy. the chief prosecutor at guantanamo bay talked-about the military commission system. after that, student camp first prize winner looks at intellectual property. we will breathe air paul ryan at georgetown university. -- we will reach air paul ran at

georgetown university. >> the house ways and means committee will look at medicare premium support proposals. that is at 9:00 a.m. eastern. president obama speaks to the troops in georgia, home of the third infantry division. we are going to air this week's oral arguments on the constitutionality of the immigration law. the court will decide whether arizona has the ability to -- to enforce its on the immigration law or whether that is the role of the government. you can see that tomorrow night at 8:00 eastern. >> you guys are still here. that is good. i cannot remember where we landed on that.

>> this weekend on c-span, the 98th annual white house correspondents' dinner. president obama and jimmy kimmel headline the event. such with the red carpet arrival live and 6:30. watch the entire dinner on c- span. find the celebrity guest list, highlights of past and there is an social media posts at c- span.org/whcd. >> on thursday, vice-president joe biden posted republican presidential candidate mitt romney's experience. he was introduced by accorded

mayor from the universities to banker for you -- barack obama. this is a little less than one hour. >> good morning. it is a privilege to be here with you this morning. i am the campus coordinator of the new york university students for barack obama. [applause] i am also a senior fellow with a campaign in new york. i began volunteering with organizing for america last summer as part of the organizer program in new hampshire. i thought it would be another internship but i was totally wrong. at the fallen -- the opportunity to work with volunteers and began building the neighborhood teams that would be the true heart of the grass-roots campaign. i was so engaged by the work i did i really could not imagine having to stop when i returned

to school. i connected with people here in new york and was tasked with organizing a team of students. i got together with my friends to reach that to their friends to continue to reject your others and glasses and other clubs on campus and we all work together to create a team of motivated students. this year we have made thousands of all calls, registered hundreds of new voters and its several trips to the important battleground state of pennsylvania. we know how important this is not only for our generation but for the entire country. when president obama and vice- president joe biden took office in 2009 the united states was tangled and two boards in the middle east and the animes saw our nation as week after eight years of bad decisions overseas. 142,000 troops were stationed and iraq.

the president and vice president fulfilled their present -- their promise to bring all of the troops home. [applause] osama bin laden was brought to justice almost one year ago. both the president and the vice president have worked tirelessly over the last three and a half years to strengthen our alliances abroad. national-security and foreign- policy are near and dear to vice president's heart. as a senator from delaware he served as the chairman of the foreign relations committee and has continued to display his commitment to the success of our foreign relations as vice- president. i hope you are excited as i get to hear from the vice president himself today. it is without further ado i am honored to say to you the president of the united states, mr. joe biden.

[applause] >> you did a great job. >> thank you. >> hello, how are you? great to be with you. [applause] what a great introduction. i hope to she remembers me when she is president. it is great to be before such a distinguished audience at a great university. i were to start off by doing what they say you should never do, apologizing. now, it is not something you peak -- you students know that the chief of staff was a president here at nyu. that is the only reason he got the job as chief of staff. he figured he can deal with this great university he can deal with the country. it is great to see one of the great, great patriots, one of the finest general said had ever in my 39 years of working

in foreign policy ever met, general clark. [applause] i want to stay parenthetically, i ran for the united states senate when i was 28 years old. nobody in my family or my dad had never been involved in public life. as one of my colleagues said, i am the first united states senator i ever knew. i ran at the time because i thought the policy that we had in vietnam, i thought it did doubt makes sense, the notion of dominoes and so forth. i came to washington as a 29- year-old kid. i was elected before i was eligible to swan. i had to wait until i was sworn in because i was not eligible under the constitution. my image of the military

commanders at the time was, if you ever saw the old movie -- if you ever rented it, slim pickens is on the back of an atom bomb dropping out of a airplane yelling yippie kai yea. dr. strange love was the movie. if you ask me to is the most impressive man and woman i have met in government, six of them would be men, women wearing the uniform. it is a different military. this guy was not only a great warrior, this guy is a diplomat discuss -- described as an incredibly bright man. he understands the role of the military within our system. he understands the constitution. thank god there are other block -- thank god there are others

liken that are still a round today. thank you for being one of the folks who changed my impression from my younger years. it is a pleasure being here. [applause] automobile industry. i have spoken about retirement security in florida and leading the world again in manufacturing and about the tax system and the unfairness of it and how to make a pair up in new hampshire today, this is the fifth in a series of those speeches and i want to talk about an american president was

the single most import responsibility. that is keeping our fellow citizens safe in our nation secure. in a time of such extraordinary challenge and change. he said all is changed. changed utterly. the terrible beauty has been born. the world has utterly changed during your young life and your early adulthood. it is not the world was. the question is, how are we going to deal with this beautiful -- this beautiful. this change that also has with it some of the potential difficulties. i miss fundaments -- on this fundamental issue, the contrast between president obama, his

record and gov. romney and his rhetoric cannot be greater. 3.5 years ago when president obama and i took office, our nation had been engaged in two boards for the better part of a decade al qaeda was resurgent. osama bin laden was at large. the our alliances were dangerously frayed in our economy, the foundation of our national security was in the press a piece of a new depression. president obama began to act immediately. he set in motion a policy to end the war in iraq responsibly. he said a clear strategy and an end date for the war in afghanistan has been going on for less than a decade. he cut in half the number of americans who are serving in harm's way. he decimated al qaeda's senior leadership.

he repaired our alliances and restored our standing in the world. he saved our economy. he saved our economy from collapse with some unpopular but bold decisions that have turned out to be right including the rescue of the automobile industry. all of which has made us much stronger not only at home but abroad. if you are looking for a bumper sticker to sum up how president obama has handled what we have inherited, it is pretty simple. osama bin laden is dead and general motors is alive. [applause] governor mitt romney's national security policy in our view would return us to a past we have worked so hard to move beyond. in this regard there is no difference between what gov. mitt romney says and what he has

proposed for our economy than he has done in foreign policy. and every instance of our view he texas back to the failed policies that got us into the miss that president obama has dug us out of and the mass that we have got ourselves into in the first place. gov. romney is counting on collective amnesia of the american people. americans know -- americans know we cannot go back to the future. back to a foreign policy that would have america go it alone. shout to the world are either a -- you are either with us or against us. lash out first and answer the hard questions later. waste hundreds of billions of dollars and risk thousands of lives on a war that is unnecessary. see the world in a cold war

prison as out of touch in the 21st century. on this and everything else president obama has demonstrated he is in touch with our times. he has acted boldly strengthening the ability to contend with new forces facing this century and to attend the challenges around the world have been neglected over the past or previous eight years. under president obama's leadership our alliances have never been stronger. he returned to europe to its natural place as a partner of first resort in dealing with global threats while reclining america's place in asia as an asian pacific power. a region where exports are producing new jobs and driving our economic recovery. we forge a new relationship based on emerging interests with china, russia, brazil, turkey, south africa, all of which are

helping advance american security. we reduced our reliance on nuclear weapons, achieved agreements with russia and brought the world together to secure nuclear materials from getting in the hands of terrorists. we have isolated countries like iran and north korea. we have taken far more terrorists of the battlefield and the last three years than the previous eight, putting al qaeda on a path to defeat. at the center and the president has said danziger presence overseas, and torture, and in doing so demonstrated that we do not have to choose between protecting our country and living our values. as a consequence of those decisions, enhance the security of our own soldiers abroad and the power of our persuasion around the world.

we plan for conflicts in the future with a new defense strategy, supported by the entire defense department senior leadership. our military will be more agile, flexible, better able to confront aggressors and have strong partnerships to share the burden in smart investments in cutting edge capabilities. we proposed a budget that will fund the strategy and keep faith with our wounded warriors. led the fight to free libya and the libyan people from the -- from gaddafi using our military assets to clear the way for our allies to step up -- stepped up to meet their own responsibility. the result was something of a general and others before him saw time and time again but rarely achieved. general burden sharing and in

and to the gaddafi regime. we are now ratcheting up the pressure on other brutalizes, people are brutalized like assad and syria. putting america firmly on this side of freedom around the world. we made the g-20 in the form recognizing the realities of the 21st century. we refocused our development policy on developing the capacity of our -- other nations and steadily combating climate change. that is the essence of our record. the question is, where does gov. romney stand? how would he keep our citizens safe in our nation secure?

in the face of the challenges that we now understand are ahead of us, what with gov. mitt romney do? the truth is, we do not know for certain. we know where the governor starts. he starts with a profound -- a profound misunderstanding of the responsibilities of a president and the commander in chief. here is what he says. if we want somebody who has a lot of experience in foreign policy, we can simply go to the state department. but, that is not how we choose a president. a president is not a foreign policy expert. in my view, the last thing we need is a president who believes he can subcontract our foreign policy to experts at the state department, or for that matter any other department or agency.

here is how it works. i have been around for eight presidents of the united states. i hate to admit. i know i did not look that old. eight presidents. that is not how it works. president obama has built a great national security team from hillary clinton to betray us to leon panetta to dempsey. -- no matter how experienced the team. no matter how wide the advance of -- advice of counsel. the box literally stops on the oval office. one of the toughest decisions land on the desk. as often as not, his of baez's are in disagreement.

disagreement among themselves. they are all smart people but they disagree. the seldom are completely unified. as another general said rigid i cannot think of any consequential decision where the president had more than 75% of the facts. it never works that way. almost every significant case it falls -- calls for a final judgment call to be made by the president. a call of the vice president can make, the secretary of defense cannot make. only the president can make. i literally get to be the last guy in the room with the president. that is our arrangement. i can give him all the advice that i have and make my case, but when i walked out of the room, he sits there by himself.

the president sits there by himself and has to make the decision. often reconciling conflicting judgments that are made by very smart, honorable, informed and experienced people. the president is all alone at that moment. it is his judgment that will determine the destiny of this country. he must make the hard calls. i suggest president obama has made hard calls with strength and steadiness. he had clear goals and a clear strategy of how to achieve the goal. he has a clear vision for america's place in the world. ultimately he makes the

decision. it seems to me governor mitt romney's fundamental thinking of the foreign-policy is fundamentally wrong. that may work -- that kind of thinking may work for a ceo. i assure you, it will not and cannot work for a president. it will not work for a commander-in-chief. thus far, gov. mitt romney has not made many foreign-policy focus decisions are pronouncements, foreign policy has not been a focus of his campaign. now, if you are -- will excuse me a point of privilege, i can understand why the president -- what governor mitt romney does not want to make it a focus of his campaign. but it is. these are critical issues. how do we fairly assess the use of governor mitt romney on foreign policy? what are they?

a think a fair way to this -- others may disagree on whether or not i am being objective as possible rejecting the fair way to do this is look at the few things we do know about governor mitt romney. we know governor mitt romney criticizes the president was the policy. he never offers and a specific alternative. we know when the governor goes and does venture a position, it is a safe bet that he previously to a core is about to take an exactly opposite position. he will end up landing in the wrong place. we know that when he agrees with the president of the united states says he has done, he then goes on to miss characterize our record to create what is a nonexistent contrast.

most importantly, we know that the extent that gov. mitt romney has shown any policy vision, it is through the loss of a rear view mirror. in my view, he would take us back to a dangerous and discredited policies that would make america less self -- less safe and less secure. to make the points i believe are honest to make is to illustrate propositions and compare president obama's record and gov. mitt romney's rhetoric. let's start with iraq. when president obama ran four years ago he promised to end the war responsibly. he kept his commitment. he brought home all 150,000 of our troops and developed a

strong relationship with the sovereign iraq. last december governor mitt romney initially applauded to withdraw -- he went on to say that the credit should go to president bush. three months later he reversed and saying, and a car he would have led tens of thousands of u.s. troops behind. president obama develop a clear strategy to end the war in 2014. while building the capacity of the afghan security forces and its people. the withdrawal date was the best way to get the afghans to step up and take responsibility for their own country. we know that it does not happen.

why step up attack? we know. it is unlikely to recur. as i have said, we cannot want peace and security in afghanistan more than the afghans. our nato partners embrace the president's strategy. so the governor romney. the transfer their with responsibility. he said this is the right time line. two months later, he was against the president's plan, calling

one of the biggest mistakes. now, and i want to be straight about this. he seems to want to keep american forces in afghanistan indefinitely. i want to quote him "it is my desire of my political parties a desire not to leave." i am not sure the exact context. i am not sure exactly what he meant. he does have responsibility about what he meant. he may have a reasonable explanation. the american people deserve an explanation. where he has expressed a clear point of view, he has been consistently second the past.

in my view, it is wrong. we came to office with president obama. we set our relationship with russia. we had important disagreements with moscow. we will continue to have disagreements with moscow. in the wake of the reset, we negotiated a major nuclear arms reduction treaty that has made this. in addition, president obama convince russia to cancel the cell of russia's very sophisticated s300 radar system. russia joined the united states. it was the toughest ever

sanctions against iran. it is the only other source. now the sole source that hopefully only temporarily. just a month ago he called. without question, our number one geopolitical foe is russia. as my brother would say, "go figure." sometimes, it even refers to russia as soviets which we view as a mindset.

i think it is fair to say when it comes to russia, based on only what we know, governor romney is in a cold war mindset. the governor aggressively attacked a new starts. the treaty that president obama negotiate with moscow. he attacked it. that treaty reduces a number of strategic weapons and russia's arsenal and allows inspection of arsenals to resume. any constraints on this capability. seven of romney was part of a very small group of holdovers. it is way out of the mainstream.

let me tell you why. the entire republican foreign policy establishment disagreed with him starting creme -- starting with henry kissinger. secretary state jim baker. in president george h. w. bush. all support it and strongly support and get passed to some recalcitrant republican senators. gov. romney's apparent determination to take u.s. relations back to the 50's also causes them optimistic the facts. he charges it to appease moscow.

president obama has been complied a missile defense. he's either willfully misinforms are totally and misunderstands. president obama >> asked me to secure allied support for a missile defense system. the first visit i made. who do we asked to host these new componentcomponent? poland. they all said yes.

they approached our new one. this is more effectively than the missile defense program. it also provides better protection for the united states of america. robert gates served in republican administrations said "we are strengthening, not scrapping missile defense in europe." nothing speaks more powerfully to the differences between president obama and governor romney them one of the defining moments of the past four years. the governor romney was as what he would do about o

osama bin laden. he said "there would be very insignificant increase in safety" and then we went on to say if he was brought to justice. he then went on to say "it is not worth moving heaven and earth, spending billions of dollars just to get one person." hear his how candid and obama answered. he said "if i had osama bin laden in our side, i will take him out. i will kill him. we will crush al qaeda. this has to be our biggest national security priority." i said we followed the sob to

the gates of. i was a little more direct. here is the deal. president obama always means what he says. he said it as the candidates. he kept that commitment. just a few months into office, sitting in the oval office, i spent 46 hours a day with this president. that is why i've got to know him so well. he turned to leon panetta who is headed the cia. he made it clear what his priority was. on june 2, 2009, he ordered leon panetta "in order to ensure that we have expended every effort, i

direct you to provide to me within 30 days a detailed operational plan for locating in bringing to justice osama bin laden." it was the president's highest priority. then he made what it the most courageous decisions i have seen the president make in a long time. he authorized a very high-risk mission to capture and kill osama bin laden. even though, and i was one of six people who for four months or so was the only one who knew about the possibility of this location, even though at the end of the day there was no better than a 50/50 chance that osama bin laden was present in the compound. despite the reservation, was the

only full throated throw from moving when we did. myself included. president obama said afterward when he made the decision that this is a very difficult decision. it included an enormous risk. add so much confidence of them to carry out the mission that of the risks were outweighed by the potential benefits -- benefit of us by our man. does anybody doubts had the mission failed it would have written the beginning of the end of the president's term in office? this guy has a backbone like a ramrod. for real.

on this debt issue, we know what president obama did. we cannot say for certain what governor romney would have done. unlike say that lik governor romney comment they felt like it was worth moving heaven and earth to get been lavin. -- osama bin laden. i said before osama bin laden is dead. you have to ask yourself why governor romney them present, could he have used the same slogan? ?- in reverse ta people of going to make that judgment. it is a legitimate thing. look. on a few core issues, there's no real difference between governor romney in president obama. in my view, governor romney

misrepresents the president's approach. let me give you some examples. iran pose a nuclear program is the clearest example. is determineda' to protect it. he has been clear and concise promising that containment is not our policy. when he took office, the effort to pressure iran was second nature. his influence was spreading in the region. american leadership was in doubt. i would argue we are not much respected by our friends and not really feared by enemies. president obama understood that by seeking to engage them, by going the extra diplomatic

mile, we would demonstrate that iran was the problem. the president smart diplomacy turn the tables on pteron and secured the strong is unilateral and international sanctions and history. all the major powers, including russia and china, participated. now iran is more isolated. international community is more united in their effort to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons than ever before. they have deep difficulties acquiring equipment for the nuclear missile program. it is increasingly cut off. there and able to do the most basic business transactions. the economy has been grievously wounded. of the worst is still to come.

in june, a european embargo on imports of oil kicks in. as a result of this unprecedented pressure, iran is back to the negotiating table. you cannot protect what the end result will be. they're back to the table. the governor romney has called for a "very different policy" on iran. for the life of me, it is hard to understand what the governor means by a very different policy. here is what he says. he says we need "crippling sanctions." apparently unaware that through president obama's leadership we achieved just that. he emphasizes his need for a credible military option. apparently, ignorant of the fact that is exactly what our policy

is. the only step we could take that we are not already taking is to launch a war against iran. that is what governor romney means by a very different policy. he should tell the american people. he should say so. otherwise, the governor's tough talk about military action is just that, talk. it is counterproductive talk. folks, talk about a war has consequences. let me tell you why. it unsettles world market. it drives up oil prices. when oil prices go up, the coffers filled up. it undermines the impact of the sanctions as are in existence.

this kind of romney talk is just not smart. president obama has said "now is the time to let our increase pressure sink in and to sustain the international coalition we have built. now is the time to keep the timeless advice from teddy roosevelt, speaks softly and carry a big stick." i promise you the president has that big stick. i promise you. president obama understands what governor romney apparently does not. it is necessary for america to be strong and smart at the same time. no country is more concerned about a nuclear iran than israel. rightfully so. no president since harry truman

has done more for israel's security than barack obama. our administration provided a record level of security assistance. it recently intercepted the rockets coming out of gaza. they saved homes, schools, hospitals, and the men, women and children who inhabit them. we're collaborating right now on longer-range missile defense systems like heroes. in time israel into our radar system. the u.s. is engaged in the most consisting comprehensive consultations ever. you know this better than anybody. we're conducting the largest

joint military operation in the history of their relationship. president obama said that to the gravest threat. the effort of the rest of the world to delegitimize it as a state. often stood up alone. israel leaders have called president obama's supports and cooperation unprecedented. governor romney said relations in 29 states and israel but "hit below." he went on to accuse president obama of "rolling israel under the bus." that is just one list of

untruths. it is repeatedly debunked by reporters. it is most of bunt by israeli leaders. it is more unlikely that the governor is falling back on one of the favorite tricks. distort them as characterize your opponents mission. keep repeating the distortions over and over again. even when every objective observer says you are wrong. keep repeating in the hope that it will eventually stick. president obama has reshaped american foreign policy. to contend with the challenges of the president and also to face the threats of the future. i believe he has done a with strength and wisdom. the governor romney was to take

us back to a world that no longer exists with policies that are dangerously divorced from reality. it is more misguided because of all the peril of our time, america's promise and has never been greater. in the 20th century, the wealth of a nation was judged by the size of the population. to the strength of its army. the abundance of the raw materials in the land-. these measures still matter. america still prevails. more than ever before, you know better than any of us the true wealth of a nation is to be found at human-resources. and there ability to build and

compete. by that measure, america is also uniquely blessed. we believe our job is to help provide our people and environment in which they can cisco the incredible potential. if we do our job, i believe our nation will be more secure. america's strength depends ultimately on the strength of the american dream here at home. it means that advanced research and development will catch up to the rest of the world.

all of these help increase the ability of american businesses to invest in energy and cutting edge manufacturing. no one is better positioned. no nation is better positioned than the united states. it also means welcoming people from around the world which is always been a source of new blood. it means hard work. it treats of urgency for all the citizens. these are the investments that will grow our economy. to keep america strong at home.

it is needed for america's future. like many of you who have traveled, students and incidents, we all have the same kind of feeling when you get home. the same intuitive feeling. there's no country like america. there is no potential like america. i was asked earlier how i would testify in america with a group of high school students. i said one word "possibilities." i am absolutely convinced i am

more certain after serving 40 years in government and i was when i was the idealistic young senator. i am more confident that there is no country better position then to leave the country in the united states of america. only a free state in the course of iran. looking forward and not in the rearview mirror. thank you ladies and gentlemen. they got protect our children. -- may god protect our children.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the house of representatives will vote on a bill to extend the current interest rate on federal student loans for a year. he conceded debate here on c- span beginning at -- you can see that debate here on c-span beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern. in an hour-and-a-half, c-span's sctudencam -- studentcam winner looks at intellectual property. later, we will be air joe

biden's on for policy. >> tomorrow morning, the news wire reporter discusses the practices act of 1977 which bars american companies from bribing officials overseas to obtain business. it is under investigation for suppressing an internal investigation into a mexican bribery in 2005. then american university adjunct professor talks about the history of japanese american internment camps. it is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> born in north korea war camp it is the only work he had ever known. he's the only one to ever escape from camp 14. >> his first memory is going with his mom near where they

grew up to watch someone gets shot. shooting public executions were held every few weeks. it is a wake-up punishing them. today the rules. >> the journey out of north korea. a warning about society and civilization at 8:00 on c-span. may 6, but for our interview with robert caro. it coincides with his multi >> now, the chief prosecutor for the military commissions at

guantanamo cuba, brigadier general mark martins. he spoke about the ongoing cases against terror suspects and how the military commission system has evolved. this is an hour and a half. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen, i'm delighted that you're all here. i'd like to welcome you all to the institute of world politics and we are honored to have a very special guest here today, general m, who is going to be discussing a fascinating issue which deals with actually some of the classic policy questions concerning the conflict between our constitutional liberties and

our national security. and this has to do with the effectiveness and the legitimacy of military tribunals for the prosecution of insurgents and terrorists who have been captured as irregular forces out of uniform on the battlefield. people who, by presenting themselves in such a fashion, have not particularly conformed with the laws -- the international laws of war and therefore who have put themselves in a certain kind of when it comes to the nature of how we go about prosecuting them. nevertheless, there is an abiding interest in the united states in ensuring that there is justice that is meted out for all, including the exoneration

for those who may be innocent. but we also have the challenge of trying to maintain the protection of national security and protection of classified information so this is a policy withovernment has wrestled over the past several years. there's been a supreme court decision about this, there has been legislation and more the president himself has been involved in ensuring that military tribunals indeed a legitimate way to go when it comes to handling insurgents and terrorists of this type. so we have today, really one of the premier authorities in the united states government addressing this issue, general mark martins, who is chief the military commissions. he became -- it was last september that he became the chief prosecutor. in the previous year in

afghanistan, he was commander of the rule of law field force, afghanistan, and had a dual hat role also in the nato rule of law field support mission. the prior year, also in afghanistan, he had served as the first and interim commander of joint task force 435 and then was its first deputy commander upon senate confirmation of vice admiral robert haywood. in these roles, brigadier general mark martins led the effort to reform u.s. detention operations in afghanistan and provided field support to afghan and international civilian rule of law project teams in contested provinces in the country. prior to his deployment to afghanistan, he led -- he co-led the inter-agency detention policy task force created by president obama in january of 2009.

general martins has an extremely distinguished career, background prior to these deployments in the war zone. he graduated first in the order of merit from west point in 1983. he served as a platoon leader and staff officer in the 82nd airborne. he became a judge advocate and served in a number of legal and non-legal positions. he's been deployed to zones of armed conflict for more than five years, including service as chief of staff of the u.s. kosovo force, staff judge advocate for the first armored division and the multinational force, iraq. he was a rhodes scholar, graduating with first honors, a graduate of harvard law school, magna cum laude. he also holds an mlm in military law and masters in military strategy.

he has numerous awards, including the defense superior service medal, the nato meritorious service medal, the department of state meritorious honor award, the legion of merit, the bronze star, twice, the army meritorious service medal and others. so it is a great pleasure and an honor to have you, general, to join us, and to speak with some authority, with great authority, about these masters. matters. welcome to the institute. [applause] >> thank you, john, for those generous remarks. great to be in this historic building this esteemed institute, having a conversation today about reformed military commissions and the challenge and the project of legitimating that institution which i believe is a very important institution for our national security and our entire justice process.

and as john, the president here mentioned, there is a challenge in balancing imperatives of national security and the implementation of the rule of law. he mentioned i was an infantry lieutenant in the 82nd. i just got back from west texas. i was out in texas tech law school, trying to make time to get out to different venues to talk a little bit about military commissions. i was out teaching some classes for a former judge advocate general of the army, walt of texas tech law school now in lubbock, and it brought back to memory my time there as a lieutenant with my platoon sergeant, sergeant first class smily. we were out in a field exercise all day one day in the hot texas sun and it was a little after midnight when we finally got to bed beside our fox holes. had this grizzled two-time

vietnam veteran next to me, airborne sergeant first class and i'm a green infantry lieutenant. we go to sleep, two hours later i'm nudged by sergeant smiley and he says, sir, look up in the sky, tell me what you see. i looked up in the sky and saw a heaven full of west texas sky and i said i see a heaven full of stars, platoon sergeant? he said, sir, what does that tell you? i wasn't sure where he was going with the question so i said -- i did want to impress him, so i said, well, sergeant first class, astronomically it tells me there are billions of stars and hundreds of billions of planets, some of them may have life on them. theologically it tells me that we are but small and god is great.and meteorologically it tells me that with a clear sky we're going to have a great day of training tomorrow -- pause -- thinking i had overwhelmed him

with this profound response -- what does it tell you, sergeant? sir, it tells me that somebody told our tent. that was the last time i set out to try to be profound. it was a good, grounding moment of the kind you can only get in the airborne infantry. let me talk a little bit about military commissions. we are dealing here with an institution that, in its previous two iterations, were flawed. they were flawed. we worked hard on reforms and believe strongly that these military commissions can be fair and can do justice. i'll talk a little bit about some of the procedural protections with some emphasis on the reforms that have come in the 2009 military commissions act and then i'll talk about --

i'll talk about some of the actors in this system, some of the officials, because it's very comparable in a lot of ways to court systems that you know about but worthwhile to talk a little bit about some of the different officials in the system, and then i'll raise several -- just to get you thinking so we can start the conversation and maybe you'll be warmed up, i'll raise some of the criticisms and what i believe are now decisive counters to those criticisms. ok. so military commissions. in military commissions, an accused is presumed innocent. the prosecution must prove the accused guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on specified elements of offenses. the accused is to be provided notice in writing. the charges have to be written

down of what he's charged with. an accused has a right to legal counsel and a choice of counsel. any accused facing an offense for which the death penalty is authorized by congress receives counsel at government expense, and someone who has experience in death penalty matters, so-called learned counsel, under the statute. an accused may not be required to self incriminate, a right against self incrimination. there's a right against the introduction of statements obtained as a result of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the standard of admissibility for statements of an accused is voluntariness under the 2000 -- this is one of the areas that is an important reform of the 2009 act. an accused has the right to see

all of the evidence the government's going to present. this is discovery. you're familiar with this in our criminal, civilian legal system. that's fairness. you got to see what the proof is, you have to be able to confront it meaningfully, confront that and challenge that evidence. you have a right to cross examine the government's witnesses. an accused has the right to compel, using the authority of the government, witnesses on his behalf. they have to appear in order, if the court has jurisdiction, the ability to compel anybody for the government, same is available to the accused to compel witnesses in his behalf. the accused is protected by exclusionary rules of evidence that prohibit the introduction of information that is overly prejudicial or not probative or would otherwise be fruit of a

poisonous tree, different types of exclusionary rules that, again, are similar to those in civilian criminal practice. protection against double jeopardy, can't be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same charges. protection -- has a right to represent himself if he is competent and if he has been very clearly put on notice of the right to counsel and his opportunities. can't be forced to be represented by a lawyer. and the right of appeal upon conviction, to a court of review, military commission court of review that congress established in the act, as well as the federal district -- federal appellate court for the district of columbia circuit, federal circuit court. so it goes through the federal

system, our article 3 federal courts, to the supreme court. so these -- it's a broad, comprehensive body of protections and i've merely just summarized some of them, and with the -- again, the reforms in the 2009 act, prominently including the prohibition on the introduction of cruel inhuman degrading treatment, statements obtained as a result of cruel, inhuman degrading treatment and the modification of hearsay rule. there is a slightly broader aper tour for the introduction of hearsay evidence than in a federal civilian court because the judge is put on notice by the statute to take into consideration operational and intelligence factors that involve the collection of evidence on a battlefield where you may not have the ability to bring all the evidence into

court because the place where the crime occurred or where the individual was captured or arrested is beyond the the court in a far away place. there are hearsay exceptions in our civilian criminal court that allow for exceptions. hearsay, this is an out-of-court statement offered so you don't bring the witness into court but you offer a document or somebody telling you what someone else said. these things are disfavored. they don't tend to be brought into court because you want, again, the accused to be able to confront and cross examine the witnesses against him so our law, anglo american law, disfavors hearsay. many legal systems do. hearsay exceptions exist, though, when you have a type of out-of-court statement that has inherent reliability. there may be indicators within it that make it more reliable. it's a regularly produced business record or it's a dying

declaration of somebody, you know, the declarant is no longer available but he made a comment that has some historical indicators that it may be reliable, and it's introduced for a certain purpose at trial. military commissions allow for a slightly broader aperature of hearsay for the things of operational reasons, battlefield emergencies where evidence tends to disappear would make it in the interest of justice to allow the introduction of probative -- that means it provides proof of something -- relevant, it's material, it deals with the issues at hand in the court, and lawfully obtained. it has to have been obtained through lawful operations of forces. so again, a statement, an out-of-court statement obtained as a result of cruel, inhuman degrading treatment would not be admissible under this rule. the 2009 act narrowed, although

it's still a slightly larger aperature for hearsay than you would find in criminal court, it did narrow the standard that was there in the 2006 military commissions act by requiring the party, either the prosecution or the defense, that was offering the hearsay, to establish its reliability. previously, it had been flipped, so it was the challenging party to establish why something was -- that the moving party, the introducing party was offering was unreliable. and i think that's a significant change, as well, in the direction of fairness. congress, another important reform, is congress wrote in the 2009 military commissions act, the sense of congress, that the resourcing of the defense function in guantanamo was

important to the legitimacy of the tribunals and they should be resourced. it also stated that the opportunity of an accused that obtained witnesses and evidence should be comparable to that of article 3 federal civilian court so the notion of resourcing the defense, ensuring they have the ability and wherewithal to mount a defense and to test the evidence, that was -- and form a relationship with counsel, competent counsel, this was something that the court or that the 2009 military commission's act and congress felt strongly about and then another reform and the president here mentioned this in passing, classified information procedures, the 2009 act incorporated the classified information procedures act that is used in federal court. so very -- and this goes to the balance that he also spoke of

between national security and the insurance of our cherished civil liberties and how we do things as a country and commitment to the rule of law, that we are going to both protect our secrets. there really are secrets. there are sources and methods of intelligence that help protect us from future attacks that could be compromised if they were brought out in open court. troop movements, methods and ways in which these unbe -- ununiformed, irregular forces operating in the shadows of international boundaries disguised as civilians so they're not in a uniform, carrying arms openly and operating in accordance with the law of war, information about how they're operating, how they're using new off-the-shelf that are so

powerful and give them such capabilities that they didn't have before, ways in which to track them down really could harm the public interest and the national security. so the classified information procedures act congress first passed in 1980 for the federal civilian system which gives a judge tools in order to ensure that the accused has the right to challenge the evidence the prosecution is bringing -- this is that discovery right that i talked about -- key to our system, right? you can't be convicted if you haven't had a chance to test the evidence. but to require that either the prosecution or the defense, if it's going to introduce classified evidence, that it put the court on notice in advance and give the court and the parties an opportunity to figure out how to reconcile those

sometimes conflicting interests, that of allowing confrontation, which is necessary in order for us to have a fair trial and get accountability, under law, for crimes. so that law enforcement, if you will, interest, and the national security interest, protect the classified information. and the classified information procedures act, cipa of 1980, says to the judge, figure out how to do both wherever you can and there really are ways to do it. you can summarize the evidence in a way. you can have an excerpt of a document that products the sources and methods but ensures that the accused sees what the part of it that is condemning him or inculpating him gets to be reviewed and tested and this has been in operation in the federal courts since 1980. there are a lot of cases it

gets -- a lot of litigation over it because these balancing things are things that require judgment, but it's a body of law that is now well established. the 2009 military commissions act took advantage of the fact that the federal courts have been using this since 1980 and incorporated it almost entirely. it did, it incorporated it and then codified, enshrined into codified law the judicial to cipa or interpretations to the classified information procedures act of 1980 that have happened since 1980. so we have federal classified information procedures in our military commissions that protect our national secrets but also ensure that we can, with a full, fair trial process, hold people accountable under law. so those are the major reforms. the protection -- let me talk a little bit about who is part of a military commission.

well, i'll start with me. i'm the prosecutor, very much in the tradition of a public prosecutor in the united states legal tradition, represent the government in the prosecution of alleged criminals. has a lot of discretion associated with it. you have to decide what to charge, who to charge, whom to charge within your jurisdiction. you have to figure out, you know, do you perhaps talk to somebody about an offer to plead guilty such that he can cooperate with someone else. you've got to determine which issues on appeal may be raised. there's a large amount of discretion, well tilled soil here in discussion of the prosecutorial function and why we have it in our system, and we have it because you need to --

you need to give judgment calls to particular prosecutors to determine what are the most serious and beneficial prosecutions to bring, what comes with that, though, is a great responsibility with all that discretion. we don't give that kind of discretion out unless it's for the purpose of doing justice. so there's a strong doctrine of public prosecution which means that we're officers of the court, we're not just seeking to win at all costs, we're trying to see that justice is done and that's an important part of our tradition. actually, a couple of hundred years ago in the united states, we had a tradition co-existing with that of private prosecution. private parties, non-governmental, non-state actors would actually prosecute the case before the court and this has been supplanted and through the 19th century and currently with this public

prosecution doctrine which requires that prosecutors turn over excull pattatory evidence. this is another right that accused have. if we find something that makes an accused look less guilty or tends to show that if he is guilty, he's less -- should be punished with lesser punishment, that's something we have an affirmative and continuing obligation to turn over. so that's the prosecutor. in many ways, the engine of the system gets it going, starts it by charging the individual and is subject to this public prosecution ethic that i've talked about. there is an official known as the convening authority and the convening authority has a number of functions. i'll analogize it to federal civilian legal practice and legal practice that you may be familiar with in state courts. the convening authority does serve a grand jury function, a testing function. once i have endorsed charge

against somebody and, say, these are violations of our code of crimes. congress has codified 32 crimes that are violations of the law of war, i see that they are charges and that we have the evidence against all of the the offense, i, then, forward them to the convening authority who is an ghocial has to separately, with legal advice, he has competent counsel, he's supposed to look at them independently and determine if he agrees with that. if he does, he will then refer is the term, he will refer the charges to a military commission for trial. so convening authority in the function i just described functions something like a grand jury, it's oversimplistic to say it is the grand jury for the system because he has other duties which include actually assembling that commission and i'll talk about that in a

minute, and then he has a clemency function on the other end, if there is a conviction, he gets to see whether or not clemency is warranted after the commission has done its sentencing job. so that's the convening authority. this is very similar to any of you in the military, the military justice system, which is under our uniform code of military justice of 1950 and subsequent legislation that created our court's marshal for prosecuting our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines for violating the code of justice, the convening body in that system is a commander. so theonvening o of military commission is not a commander, he's actually retired vice admiral brucecdonald, highly regarded fmer judge advocate general of the navy, is serving in this convening authority function. ok, y have this convening authority.

the convening authority also selects a jury. so there is a jy,, that is the heart of the commission, then,t receives the referred charges. the military commission is pom pom -- composed of army officers -- active duty military officers. so there's a jury pool, if you will, of about 230,000 officers who serve worldwide from all 50 states, impressively diverse, monitored for diversity by our congress because the congress isn't going to let its military become a separate cast, and there's specific attention paid each year to how representative this pool is. it's not perfectly representative but again, i would submit to you, impressively representative. they differ also from a civilian

jury that is chosen under our sixth amendment in a civilian trial randomly out of a jury wheel from the district written a crime will have been committed under the sixth amendment, differs from that jury in that these are -- they tend to be a little younger than a jury in a random juror that would be picked in a location. they are college graduates because they're all officers. they've self selected for service worldwide, but they're not a random jury and a civilian jury and this is an important distinction between the systems. they do the jury function, right? this is a central institution of our criminal justice and our democracy that connects our government to the people, is the jury. and it holds that we have to have an impartial fact-finder that is going to look at this

case, not somebody who deals with these things all the time. an impartial fact finder is going to come essentially cold to the case, not know the not know the charges, can be challenged off if they're too close to the charges or have some kind of bias. so this -- it's the same notion of the jury trial and in fact historians have found that the military jury first arose in britain's first mutiny act in the 17th century and it had 13 was the number, 13 members, and it was modeled after consciously the common law jury of britain, which was 12 jurors and then a judge -- 12 jury men and a judge so this is a tradition that is also part of our anglo american military legal tradition, this notion of the jury, of assembling people to look at the facts of a case and the basic

function of a jury is to test those facts and look at them, find out what happened. you all remember john adams defending the british red coats who were alleged to have massacred bostonians in boston, right? john adams, he's a patriot, featured u.s. patriot, who is now defending britain.facts are. facts are stubborn. whenever your passions our havees might think, facts weight. that is the heart of a jury function. that is very much part of the

military commission process. with these differences. not randomly chosen. they have the obligation to select a jury members. he is required to select them on the basis of age, education, training, experience, link the service, and judicial temperament. having been a for convening authority, i got tagged for jury duty. i have been a trial counsel. i were to allow the military jury is. they are selected with an awareness of diversity. you want to have the american classic. the example list of angry men. yet people who are looking at the facts from a lot of

different ways. there is a lot of power from that model. they wrote some very good articles about this. they are diverse in their life experiences. yet different people coming with the same sort of facts they heard. an important part of our system. that is the heart of the military justice system. there is this case of officers. he studied in cairo. he got a defers group of people. they're testing these facts. his spent a little bit of time on it. the jury is a key piece of this. then there is a presiding judge

over this. this is an experienced attorney. he is practicing before the bar of the states. he is typically an army colonel. who has criminal l eyre lly offirs. otrticle three judg. judgeshoave be nominated theresidents. they are independent. if you look at their decisions and the things they have done to date, i defy you to say they're

rrying outhe will of somebody else. they are experienced in doing this. there the players in the system. they tried the charges. they insure that all of the procedures have been. and looks like a trial you will see and a civilian world. both parties will make opening statements. they will tell the jury what the evidence will show. prosecution presents its case. it provides direct testimony. it brings in different types of evidence. forensic, physical evidence. all those witness testimony, all

those witnesses will cross- examine. prosecution will rest. they will make a motion for finding it not guilty. they have this from cross purposes. if there is enough on particular charges that the motion will be denied as to particular charges. defense presents its entire case. it brings forth all of its witnesses to show that an individual is not guilty. prosecution will cross-examine those witnesses. that is happening in front of this jury.

they will give instructions to the jury. the party is a gift closing arguments to explain why. the tested prosecution's evidence in the most rigorous procedure known to our law. that is what this is intended to do. you have confidence. i trust this. there is a printer challenge of the jury. even if he did not have because a a challenge, there's peremptory challenge. he did not have to give your

reason. they do use doctrines in civilian juries with regard to printery challenges. this is the doctrine where if someone is challenging a member for a discriminatory reason comment, because an individual is black, it is the doctrine. that is also a surge in military courts as well. printers challenges are part of assembling this. the jury deliberates in the wind of getting a verdict and then sentencing happens if there is a finding of guilt on the accounts. that is a process whereby a sides are presenting witnesses as to aggravation or

extenuation in mitigation. and wanted to spend a little bit of time on that. let me trigger some questions by criticisms and the counters are persuasive. i call them the five " uns." they are unsettled, unfair, unnecessary, unknown, and/or unbounded. let me go through the five of them. i believe that although some of them had aspects that were

sounds criticisms, and now they are either untrue or misleading. to continue to oppose a military commission that i have summarized, after two different ministrations in the executive branch, the supreme court that invalidated the 2001 commissions make clear that congress had the ability to make commissions. no less than five acts of congress have established a strong basis for these.

to continue to oppose the framework of the rule of law, which ist finalun "un" unwise. let me go back. the argument that military commissions are unsettled is that you happen to make the step up as you go along. there is so much litigation risk. people will be challenging it forever. you'll never get to where you are going. there have been seven convictions the military. there have been here in why use these unsettled ta? there are well established laws

that are providing. i would ask you to try to view these. . they are a judge operating in the system. they have sources of law. he is to look here with minor differences. i spoke about this here say thing. there is no requirement for warnings to be read. with some very isolated differences the code of justice and all of the judicial decisions are applicable. the judge will also look to federal law. there is classified procedures. there are others. this area of what have they been given the opportunity tax there

is a place to go. i submit to you a court is about applying law to individual case. there are issues that arise. judges are having to have individual cases. this is no different than the have and any other system picture this idea that there is enormous litigation rest is anticipating -- is dissipating. there are issues in every

system, issues and conspiracy pay they are going to be heard by the d.c. court of appeals here very soon. there's going to be an oral arguments. it is unsettled. it is a settled body of law. they are unfair. this is a body of procedure and law that will produce fair trials. those latest reforms is an

important one. these are fair trials. they are administered by independent people. they're not waking up in the morning. they are not tenured positions. they're sworn to uphold the constitution. we have a system. i have trials for international terrorism systems. this is in a number of districts. they have done a great job. most cases where you have an overlap in jurisdiction, this is

the key of this unnecessary arguments. alleged violators must have jurisdiction three different ways. there has to be a lot of work. the cannot try someone in the military commission for violating this. some of these are similar us hostility. some of them look like crimes in the criminal code. some of them duct.

hiding behind the protection, they get on the battlefield. that is an act of treachery. using your enemies reverence. this is a perfidious crime under the law of armed conflict. you have this body of 32. you have to have jurisdiction. you can only charge of those. he had to do that over someone who's the right person. someone who's not comply with the laws of war. you cannot try an enemy prisoner of war in a military commission. congress as said there limited to an underprivileged belligerence. it has to be in the context of

an associated with hostilities. this is a narrowed jurisdiction. there is protracted armed violence of its scope and intensity that justified the use of armed forces. this is a narrow jurisdiction. if a look at some of these, these other things that happen in the context, if you look at that and say that looks like a civilian crime, you have hijacking in terrorism. it can be characterized as a

violation of civil law. and a violation of armed conflict. 1 and the key indicators is congress 2001. it passed an authorization for the use of military force which made it very clear that associated forces our enemies. you have this overlapping jurisdiction. why did you just try all those people by civilian courts? the response is that although i believe that is in our interest most of the time to do it, there is a narrow category of cases where the best choice is a military commission. there is a variety of different argument i will give you on that basis. some of them boil down to have the crime ought to be characterized, what is the best

way to characterize that criminal conduct. sometimes it is better to characterize it as a violation of law. sometimes it is an offense that on the books, because there has been a war crimes act that allows courts to punish it, it has never been tried. the have not tried these kinds of cases. others might emphasize the jury. we want our juries to handle international terrorism cases. the jury is one of the ways our society gets in the game. it causes the people to have to consider a crime.

sometimes a military commission is the better choice. they are using the jury that i described in an area that maybe is in a downtown area. i believe our cities can handle this. there are situations in which to put these factors together. another happens to be whether or not miranda warnings were given. is that the right role? miranda makes aa lot of sense. it makes sense to give the miranda warnings. that complaint in state in question of whether or not be good to the military issue. i mention this before.

sometimes the islamic military commissions the wiser choice. that is the counter to the unnecessary arguments. there is a different order of magnitude. when are faced with a serious threat that defines us they will be coming at us. they cynically invoke the law. when you're telling with threats like that, why would any government take an institution

or a tool off the table ducts this is the counter to the unnecessary arguments. why we take that off the table. this has been around since before the constitution. they have said it ought to be part of our national security apparatus. it is a start of the counter. it made me want to follow up on it. anon. thesersuading that there can be fair. and and i know anything about them. have not seen anything about it. they are unknown. isn't that is part of being perceived to be fair and been known to be fair deaths we made

important strides. because these are taking place right now, if they do not have to be. they are not specific to any particular site. they could be convened elsewhere. in order to sure people understand, they have this to the television for observation. the same role applies to the military commission as a does the court martial of a service member. the media can go in and watch the proceedings. the cannot record them. you can have a sketch artist. this is a row we are familiar with. it is our way of balancing fair trial.

this is how we balance that in our criminal-justice system. you can observe this. thbecause it is hard to get to guantanamo, they can have this transmitted to a certainty. this has been happening since last fall. there is also a web site where you can see all of the motions that have been filed in the court rulings. they counter the motion that a party has made. then there is a transcript. a very quick transcript is produced. it is put up on the web verbatim so you can follow. eking go on the web and see what happens.

these are important. this is the criticism of being concerned about expanded military jurisdiction. we embraced this military chivvying and is to undercut that. we need to have our civilian juries to get this in the game. the government to the people.

there is a long line of distinguished places and are supreme court' opinions going back. there is a distinguished line of thinking against military jurisdiction. irresponsive that is we have not saw this out. -- the response to that is we out.not saw this outcomsought s he said you are on order. you go do your job. we did not lobby for permission. if we are given a, we are going to do it with integrity. we're going to do it with skill. use across the government every bit of expertise we can get.

the investigation has mobilized. we are using the whole of government. we will use this authority and military courts. it fit certain kinds of cases. our jurisdiction is this unbounded thing. look at our jurisdiction. congress has circumscribe did to the hostility. that is an element of every offense that i have to prove. ofs a place in the context an associated with hostilities. it is not an area of peace that you use this. it is circumscribed to this. it does not apply to other types of individuals and two uniformed soldiers.

it does not apply to u.s. citizens. it has to be one of those 32 offenses picture can find it involving officers and personnel. they are trying to do a job that may have become too political for whatever reason and it is not able to be done in civilian courts. it cannot be done because congress has blocked it. congress has set no detainee from guantanamo can be transported to the united states with any federal appropriations. i would say in that context this is not an unbounded project at

all. it is intended to implement the rule of law. to not see that cannot support it, i am actually asking you. i am because unlikely spokesman. here i am trying to explain to folks that we're going to do this. doing itommitting to i fair. there has been this resounding branch of our government having weighed in. given the threat that we face. this is to stimulate a little discussion. i think we have half an hour for questions.

>> i will start here and go clockwise. when did the big criticisms is that although it is wonderful that we would give protection of detainees, this only applies to those who are live. you're asking military to reach 10 to an impossible standard and the response has been to kill, not capture. i just wondered what that kids do. >> i think you raise an important point. i with fischbach understatement of what our policy is.

-- i think that is an understatement of what our policy is. the call this an incident of war. you can use different tools. this makes sense from a military theory. you can target your enemy. you can target them. he can survey them and listen in to what they are doing. you can detain them. and a porn incident of war is the current complex. they said even though you do not see the word detain detention is an important incident of war. an incident of war is to hold

someone accountable under the law of war. to agree with the thrust of your statement, and thank you for asking a question, if you take away one of these methods of trying to subdue an enemy, you can only be righteously add more if you're doing it under a rubric of self-defense. we're defending ourselves against a threat. if you take away one of these ways of prosecuting the conflict to bring it to a swift and and as possible, you create distortions. if you deprive a soldier of the option of detention, think about it.

yet a soldier or a marine. he does not have a system of humane detention. we are encouraging people not to have our doubts. i am not here to talk about other policies. i am high on trials. i believe trowels are important to vindicate our daddy. it is most sensible and lawfully sustainable that we know.

although you can defend it, the most sustainable legal form of detention is incarceration after you have defended someone of -- convicted somewhat of a crime. they are punished. this is a form of detention. it will withstand the test of time. once the complex are is going away, the authority to call them will unravel. does that make sense of? it will not happen if the convicted under a crime. i believe that trials are important.

they insure this balance that have to be relentlessly pragmatic about using. with in that space, we ought to be using all the tools available to us. we are dealing with an enemy that is fighting in on covered terrain. it is a strike by drone into an area where the local government may be unwilling or unable to do so. we are dealing with an asymmetric threats. i would propose that holding somebody accountable under law is maybe they must effectively thrust.ic counter threat

you are using all affected methods. there asymmetric. engagement is happening in a way that the other side does not see. the air asymmetric even if you are surrounding with a bunch of different ways. the law overmatches. if provide a legitimacy that they cannot match. that is why we cannot ever depart on values. we have got to use this. that is a great question. >> i am a student here. i'm wondering if the pataki but a bit more about the defense teams for the detainees. i know a lot of them have civilian lawyers as well.

i was wondering in the trials are both the lawyers in the military interacting together? is there one who is in charge? >> since the boom at the end of 2008, detainees have had habeus corpus. they have been able to challenge this and civilian court. . it is the one provision they have clearly help. this is not a criminal procedure.

they are determining whether or not there is authority to hold this. these are civil proceedings. it is for the writ of habeas corpus from the court. the court is supposed to determine your authority for holding these people. the standard is a standard that has been in place since march of 2009. it restates this law of armed conflict principle.

is this individual part of or did he substantially support al qaeda? they are often doing it out of their interest in civil liberties. on the criminal defense side, i mentioned before the right to counsel. it is qualified by one of the advocates.

if you're facing a death penalty one, it is qualified. different ones had different lawyers. captures this. some defendants get three or more. it could be a complex case. they are picking this team. they will detail one of the councils to be the the the military council.

internally this team may make them bleed for a number of pieces other and then had the civilian be the one. this is up to the team. the client can designate who they want to represent. that is kind of how it works. they are entitled to investigative resources. i will be the last to say that a defense counsel would say he is happy. that is healthy. you'll see that in every system. i believe if you look at the resources and in the litigation, and this has happened in some of the cases were the judge has some of the requests for additional translators. you would see there is april

best resurfacing of the defense function. all those choices are reviewable by the supreme court. they're preserved on a peel -- on appeal. great questions. >> do you think this could be a successful strategy? >> what specific strategy of the command? have day protected him from this tax i was wondering if you think

this will be emulated? maybe this could be a strategy. he had his father by the addition -- a petition. another aspect of this litigation. there are events that are happening.

i would say this does raise issues in difficulties. it is an interesting strategy of individuals who are harvard in different areas. it will present a challenge but not in a totally different way than something we have already encountered. that is the nature of this conflict. >> any others tax cu? >> there is a debate over whether to utilize this. who is the decision maker? >> very the question. there is a 2009 protocol between the department of defense and

the department of justice. the ultimate decision maker is the attorney general. these are some i receive from the attorney general. it looks very much like the decisions that are made davey between two different jurisdictions that may have concurrent authority to try somebody in our courts. very familiar this is a judge advocate. we have a case that has been tried by the civilian courts. we have to decide who would pick it. we have a memorandum of understanding. there is this protocol that covers it. it uses the strength of interest factors.

who investigated the case tax what are the punishment's? -- who investigated the case of? ? what are the punishments? are there laws that bar you from doing it? that is very important now. there is this protocol that decides which of two jurisdictions. you may have a drag case across state boundaries between oklahoma and kansas. you have to u.s. attorneys. it is importantly case specific. it is very lacked. the intent is to do justice. that is a great question.

>> i in the justice reporter -- in the justice report appeare. there are challenges about the classification of the accused declarations. this is what the lawyers obtain an outcome. >> i think he may be talking about specific motions that i will not address. i will not address any specific case. i will talk about rules. this is all from the methodical resolution that will be

preserved on the record. it can be appealed on a federal court. this is the context of transparency and any other issue. let's talk a bit about this. this is the unknown. they are not transparent. we're using the same practices we use in our federal courts. i am not going to promise that everything will be publicly available. there are sources and methods that to be protected. it is not just national security. the government has a lot of information about individual citizens. we are not the liberty to open our books. we have to have enumerated

authorities to do anything with information of government. that is what people expect. they have a sensitive medical file. we can open that up and show it. our values require this as to our eyeballs. we do a carefully. transparency as a general world? ps. an open society does not demand infallibility. it is difficult for them to understand what they're prevented from observing. we do have a desire to see the decisions are from is making. if we are going to not have something be visible, you're speaking of an example of a pre-

trial conference between two parties and a judge. you're trying to set up the trial in both your areas. you're not making any decisions a matter of law. any decisions need to be recorded. there is some level that the public is not seen. this is something that has to be on the record. these typeshow the come up. i am not sure i see the tension with sure transparency and understanding.

anything the portman has to be on the record. they are not being done. they're being dealt with both parties there. there's someone watching. if there's going to be non disclosure, the commitments are government makes are that there has to be an overriding interest for not having it be visible. the protection of sources estimate to you is an overriding reason of individual privacy. it has to be done in a tailored way. it passed the surgical. you have to have looked for alternatives to the closure.

sometimes you can protect the information in a tailored way. you have to put it on the record. any of the non disclosures that they may say. they have access to information. before they can blurted out the hat and a they want to raise it. the we have to figure out how we will protect the information. yet to lay that out in a way that will be reviewed. even in the case of pre-trial conferences, that is being preserved as an issue. it can raise the issue if they want. those are the commitments on the use of information. we have to reconcile this notion of a free press.

people understand how their governments are making decisions with these other interests. >> i'll come back to you. let's go here. it will go to you. >> you talked about the idea becker this is one of the tools on fighting in asymmetrical war. we have been noted for your ability to try to break the backlog at guantanamo. do you ever anticipate that there will become a time for this form of a military commission would no lagered need to exist? >> i'll go back to this idea that what most cases should be tried in a federal civilian

court, but there is a category where this instrument is going to be the best available option. i do not see any major ending of this a semester type of threat. a tend to think that is the way people will strike out again. he will have stateless a coordinated efforts. i do not have a crystal ball. it seems that we will have those kinds of threats for a long time. not existential and that it is threatened the very serious in a way the sometimes ex essential threads are through. you get defined in how you respond. you get tempted.

they encourage even peaceful people to respond outside the ball. having unlawful instruments, and this is an institution that for over 200 years has been at the intersection of law and war, having institutions like them. this is a notion in inherent tension. have you apply of la? it is a valuable instrument. you did not want to turn soldiers into our civilian court system. if given that mission, we ought to be able to do it. it is a law on the book.

we are developing a specialized practice. we are able to handle large amounts of classified information safely. we have the compartments of facilities. the defense counsel has them. we have the ability to do justice and protect information. we have relationships with agencies all over the government. this is a valuable thing to keep going. even though the number of cases may be small, they indicated and it can be important. congress has invested a lot of legislative effort.

my sense is that it'll be here. two different presidents has said that this is a part of our national security and justice institution. amigo over here. -- let me go over here. isi know today's focus detainees and serious. it seems to be an average soldier crime would be local. why aren't they judged by a jury of their peers? why is it always officers? >> this is the fact finder that congress has decided upon in these courts. you are pointing out the military justice system since 1950 has included 1/3 of the

jury trial. he may elect to have jurors of to include 1/3 of the enlisted soldiers. this is the composition of the jury is that congress has specified. that is what we're seeking simplify. it is a diverse group with gender diversity. all these different things that are policed by our congress. it does not include enlisted personnel. that is what puts officers in the pool. perhaps policy reasons why that may make sense, officers will be in there for a while. some of this and take a long time.

it is a very good question. the systems are not identical. they may make it better. of anything come to a sense of the system. ?s this a fair process t doing so in trying to find out what happens in an event that we think we know a lot about,

looking at it from the point of view of accountability under law, and saying specified charges it was recorded. >> he did not seek this particular position. in order to ensure that this job be done with a certain level of continuity and optimal professionalism, he requested

that his store be extended be that his tour be extended until 2014. in doing so, he voluntarily gave up the possibility of having another appointment and promotion to a higher rank to major general. this is an extraordinary personal sacrifice that has been done in the interest of ensuring that this job be well done. i just wanted to make a comment here about this. this is a model of the type of service to eight calls higher than oneself, which is one of the central lessons of moral leadership that we here at the institute for a politics try to inculcate and encourage in our students. there are so many people who are worried about their careers and worried about their position and their corner offices in their

personal power. and to have officers like the general do this kind of service is really the height of civic nobility. i just want to thank you for in bodying this and for honoring us with your presence here and your outstanding presentation. thank you, sir. [applause] >> these are symbolic things. these are our collins -- our , and i brought these back from afghanistan. field support of to try to go in and help build rule law capacity and help provincial afghan institutions. we have these cups and i want to give you one. it is a field cup.

[speaking foreign-language] a country without lott is a jungle. -- a country without law is a jungle. [applause] >> thank you for coming, ladies and gentlemen. have a great afternoon. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> in a few moments, the first price high school winner of the studentcam competition looks at intellectual property. then representative paul ryan at georgetown university and the budget. after that, vice president joe biden on foreign policy. several live events to tell you about tomorrow on our companion network, c-span2. house ways and means committee will look into medicare premium support proposals. that is at 9:00 a.m. eastern. then a little after 12:30 p.m. eastern, president obama speaks to the troops at fort stewart, ga., home of the third infantry division. here on c-span, will air at this week's supreme court oral argument on the constitutionality of arizonas immigration law. the court will decide whether

arizona has the authority to enforce its own immigration law or whether that is the exclusive role of the federal government. you can see that tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> where is the national public radio table? you guys are still here. that is good. i cannot remember where we landed on that hickok this weekend on c-span, the 98 annual white house correspondents' dinner. president obama and late night talk-show host jimmy kimmel had lined the event before an audience of celebrities, a journalist, and one house press corps. coverage starts with the red carpet arrival live at 6:30. watch the entire dinner, only on c-span. and the celebrity guest list, highlights of past winners, plus

blog and social media posts that c-span.org/whcd. the white house correspondents' dinner, live saturday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the per se price high school when focused on intellectual property. this is a half-hour. thanks to both of you and congratulations, carl. tillis have you got the inspiration to focus on intellectual property. >> the topic is the constitution and me. i decided it would be best to figure out what topics in the constitution vests relates to meet, was to read the constitution and pick up the

sections that i thought would make an interesting documentary. intellectual property is right there in article 1. i thought it would make an interesting documentary. >> how does it relate to you personally? >> i make a lot of digital content that i published on the web so it is important for me to maintain the act of ownership to that property as i released it to the market.

host: your talking with the winner of the first place of our high school competition, carl colglazier, an attorney at daniel bernard. -- and attorney daniel brenner. intellectual property -- tell us about the latest innovations and hot topics being discussed right now. guest: probably the hottest topic, which was covered in carl's film, was the debate over that on the internet. the two bills, sopa and pipa, aimed to increase the ability of copyright owners to police and prosecute copyright infringement, particularly weithorn websites -- by far and websites -- foreign websites. host: let's look at what the basis was for carl colglazier's entry, article i, section 8 of the u.s. constitution.

carl colglazier, what was the most interesting or surprising thing you learned by doing a documentary? guest: the most interesting thing i learned from the documentary is all the history behind the patent system,, what the original intent of the founding fathers were in treating the system, how it worked. the biggest surprise was all the debate on first to file versus first to invent. it was originally a first-to- file system, which surprised me when i found that out. host: daniel brenner, expand on what that means. guest: the most famous case involved a patent that alexander graham bell filed for with the telephone. there is a historic argument that bell was not the first to invent, but he was the first to file, because at least the legend goes that he was tipped off by someone in the patent office to file ahead of elisha gray, who worked for western union at the time.

it is not clear who invented it first, but we know that bell for a while successfully argued he was first to file. this goes to the underpinnings of intellectual property law. any of us have great ideas, think of great songs, great invention, but you cannot have a legal system that are taxed unless there is some system that says even if i thought of its second, i put in first. it is impossible for the government to know who invented it first. people can say they in a minute it first, but, state and complete department and application -- but unless and they complete the patent application and describe in detail what they intended, it is still up here in the head. >> let's go to the phones.

caller: hi, how are you. congratulations to your student winner. can you tell us exactly what language in the constitution you drew on that relates to intellectual property? tell us more about your thoughts on how much creativity is stifled by the current intellectual property laws, current practices here in america, and the company's and legislation and such. host: carl, while you talk we will put the exact language on the screen. share a little bit about your thoughts of the creative issues our caller asked about. guest: i based it on the words "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." will these various different

pieces of legislation that the proposed to promote the progress of science and useful arts? i did a lot of conclusions based upon that in my documentary. as we go forward with this legislation, it is important to look at analyze whether or not they do pursue and i pulled the progress of science and useful arts. host: dan brenner, talk to us about the difference between copyrights, trademarks, and patents. guest: copyrights and patents are covered in article i, section eight. it looks like the coverage of patent, coverage of copyright should be the words used to describe patents, and vice versa. the important point is that copyright is a federal statutory system until 1976, both state

and federal copyright protection. it allows for another -- an author whose work is fixed in a permanent form. once it is fixed, you have copyright protection for individuals. and seven years for work-for- hire, like a movie studio that makes a movie, the terms based on when it was treated or published. -- created or published. patent law gives a patent holder at 20-year production, exclusive production, and i just really a monopoly for the first 20 years -- and it is really a monopoly for the first 20 years after a it is file. many drug patents go off-patent and you get generic drugs based on the end of the patent life. trademark law is different. if there is a federal trademark

law that protects service marks, you should register those, and they can go on indefinitely. there are also state protections that relate as well. for example, trade secrets. coca-cola's formula was not patented in the sense that people can go up and discover it. it is a trade secret, and that can go on indefinitely. other forms of protection for trademark-like issues are all covered by a law for unfair competition. people want to be sure that people are not attending the service -- you don't want the customer to be confused by the -- what a business does.

that also can be indefinite. host: rick is a democratic caller. caller: how you doing? i am really impressed. you have done a wonderful thing. i liked the documentary. it was absolutely wonderful. i have a question for you, sir. what would it take an order to free up patents for the gasoline, the carburetors -- back in the 1930's, we had patents that were offered up, and oil companies bought them out. what would it take? it has almost become a national security problem to rehash the spirit you, sir, i think, young man, i think you have political aspirations. you probably will be meeting the president pretty soon. bring this up and give me your

opinion, what you have to say. guest: i really didn't study that particular topic in my documentary. that did not really come up. i really don't have -- host: we will go to dan brenner about that, but do you want to respond to the color bang's -- caller's comments about political aspirations? you are the grand prize winner in last year's competition. what do you think about your future? guest: i think it is is quite open at this point. host: you sound like a politician already. guest: by the way, if you of not granted c-span the rights to show your prize-winning film, talk to me later and we can pursue the infringement suit. if there was a set of patents -- one of -- another big problem in intellectual property is what are called patent controls

-- buy patents and prosecute against other companies and say you are infringing our patents. as to whether or not there are patents from government industries in the 1940's, those would be available for others to use. big oil companies, large energy companies are constantly inventing new processes which can be packede -- can be patented. if you look at the energy sector, you find that they are frequently developing patents. i guess what companies do to create values -- it is what companies do to create value for shareholders. they are the only ones that can use that as long as the copyright or patent is still in

force. host: democrat, texas. welcome. caller: thank you, thank you for c-span. i wanted to complem -- compliment carl, like the last unamended. i don't know if he had aspirations for politics, but he did an absolutely wonderful job on that particular documentary. i have a question. he helped me understand some things that i did not understand about patents. about 11 years ago, there was a little item that i tried to invent, only to find out it had a patent almost 30 years ago, and the person who received the patent never brought it to market. then something a very similar happened -- i don't know if it is related -- there was a corporate name i filed for, and there was a lady who held that in whenever done anything with

it. but was willing to sell it to me. i wonder if the two things are at all related. again, carl, you did a wonderful job. you are an exceptional young man. host: let's go to dan brenner to get a response. guest: if there was a patent, not all patents are brought to market. the application is filed. if it is granted by the examiner, if it is more than 20 years, it will not be in the public domain. the owner of the patent cannot block anyone. he may have gotten incorrect information when you got his -- y you may have gotten it incorrect information. the two people with the telephone, and ended -- invented at just about the same time.

if the name is not in use, if the name is no longer in use, he would have a good argument to use that name. the question comes up, was it in use? if something is a local car dealer or repair shop for food store at 1 area but not in another, that person cannot extend the claim of unfair competition in north carolina against the state of washington. the internet changes some of that because they have national and international coverage but he may not have gotten the best advice on either one of them. many times these things are gray areas. people are not sure. this is an area where fair use comes out. carl's video had excerpts from c-span and others. did he ask permission? was it fair use?

it probably was, because it is is good and documentary one of the enduring problems is that if you're not sure, it will take effort to find out. it is very easy to get material of the internet and use it in a documentary. you kind of hate to see him not be able to use four or five seconds of something, not have to go to a lawyer to get it cleared. host: robert is in dallas, texas. independent caller bang. cal -- in a band a -- independent caller. caller: the creator of the material for whatever purposes

is authorized with the inventor's or creator's name. host: he said two different words, "authorized" and "attributed." guest: if you have something on hulu -- host: came from nbc or c-span. guest: rightly or wrongly, they don't give you the right to make copies of that and solid -- and sell it at a flea market. you have to go back to the owner of the copyright. if you are using one of the enumerated rights, to make copies, you have to go and get

permission. i don't think that just because ideas on the internet you have --it is on the internet you have carte blanche to use it. host: brenner was on the faculty of the ucla school of law. he was an adviser to the fcc from 1981 to 1986. carl colglazier is the first place winner of our studentcam competition. he has a home school student in north carolina. -- he is a home schooled student in north carolina. good morning. caller: i have said before, speed dial is bad for this program. we are performing farmers in the ozarks. that is my intellectual property i can hold onto.

by the way, the young man is awesome. i will look at your documentary again. keep it up, buddy. to the lawyer, i heard a program on npr about a year ago, and they were talking about sampling and stuff, taking little bits and pieces, and they were getting down to, like, three seconds. i know you were talking about this, and my question is -- if there's anybody out there like this young man, you can probably do something about this -- if there was a program for a person like me to put my music into -- only 8 notes in music. everyone of them passed to have been played before, but there have been lawsuits over and over

again for bits and pieces of music. that is where sampling comes into play. i enjoy your program but thanks. i will be listening intently off the phone here. guest: sampling is another form of using copyright material. in the jargon of copyright law, what you're doing is creating a derivative work of that sampled content. sometimes it can be extremely valuable. important beats become critical to this success of music. sometimes the sampled author won't object because it creates new interest in music, music from the 1970's that gets was erected in this decade, and they may be ok with the -- gets resurrected in this decade and

they may be ok with it. it is true that there is a limited number of notes, but the genius of musicians is the way they sequence the timing of those notes. the people who created those pieces of music are entitled to get paid. there is some kidn of -- kind of room, but if i was representing a major artist today it was going to be releasing music for a very large audience, i would want to make sure that this was fair use or that i had permission of the sampled artist.

host: of course she is talking about that little copyright mark -- guest: she is 100% correct. it is fixed-rate if i tell a joke -- it is fixed. if i tell a joke -- if i tell an ad-lib, i don't have protection for that if somebody writes it down and uses it. there was a story that robin williams would say things in night clubs and not remember he had taken them from somebody else. once ids fixed -- once it is fixed, you do not have to put the c notation. it can be a necessary prerequisite, although i don't think the key is required for original works of art -- don't

think it is required for original works of art. what the listener is talking about is that you have to register the work or submit a copy or version of it in terms of our original paintings or something to get statutory damages, which are often the most important damages, because i guess hard to prove actual loss. -- it is hard to prove actual loss. on the other hand, you can get a nice touch great damage and attorney's fees. -- nice statutory damages and attorneys' fees. host: bernie in michigan. caller: i am a working-class person, i got an idea for a clipboard, spent several years, got it patented, $120,000. when it was all said and done, a friend walked into my house

and he had the clipboard and his hand made by rubbermaid. i called this patent firm, and they said rubbermaid has 50 attorneys on staff, when the idea comes through, they duplicate it, and if you try to defend it, it costs you and less amounts of money. i don't think you can afford it. this is what happens. so my question is if the government runs and controls the patent office, why don't they defend it? host: before we let you go, how did it turn out in the end? caller: i have made 20,000, and to this day they have never broken.

host: we're talking about a clipboard with space inside for storage? caller: you open it up, and it has a storage compartment, one inch deep for paperwork. when a driver makes a delivery, he takes the signed copy, puts it in the compartment, and it is say. it became wildly popular in the trucking industry and never were all spirit within six mo -- it became widely popular in the trucking industry and everywhere else. within six months, rubbermaid makes them. guest: these are not uncommon problems. i don't know the specifics of what rubbermaid's position would be. there are efforts by people,

once the product is released, or they were about -- learn about it, to try to do a work around. is the subsequent invention is sufficiently different from the filed application that both are entitled to protection? the examiner, if yours was patented first, with a padded and they might attract -- object, saying there is not sufficient originality to the second one. there is a cost, of course, to prosecuting patents. in many cases, small inventors look to larger companies to sell or license goods in hopes that they can carry some of the legal costs.

the other point he says, why doesn't the government do this -- the idea of the government would be able to do it, it is one way, but it is more efficient that someone who has an economic interest in the patent rather than have the government make these cases, because in some cases be patent examiner may have failed, made a mistake, failed to notice prior art that would have invalidated the earlier patent. by and large, our system does not look to the government to enforce any rights of that kind. the government's use on its behalf, but not on behalf of individuals -- government sues on its behalf, but not on behalf of individuals. host: carl, did you learn of stories of people who invented things and it felt like they were not able to either make it or make money off of it because

they missed the boat when it came to getting a copy right, getting a trademark, getting a patent? guest: i think it is a very interesting discussion, from the transfer to the first-to- invent system to the first-to- file system. there will be cases where people in at first but neglected to file -- invented it first but neglected to file. overall, for efficiency of the system, it's going to be interesting to see how that works out. host: carl, do you know what you do if you were to announce on the right now? -- if he were to invent something right now? what have you learned about how to go about the process of creating something? guest: definitely. with the new system, it helps the purpose of the patent, which is to get things out into

the market as soon as possible and to provide rewards as soon as possible. the first-to-invent system -- first-to-file system rewards you for filing earlier and getting it to market earlier. if i were to invent right now, the first thing i would pursue is getting a patent. host: felicia, maryland. caller: good morning. let me compliment the young man. oh, as a former teacher, i am so proud of him. you are doing a wonderful job blessings to the troops wherever you are. i publish some material in this country. i am a native of this country. usually, the colleges that are

going to use my material worldwide toomey and get permission -- the colleges that are going to use might material write to me and get permission to use the material. in canada, i dealt with one company, or one publication. the next thing you know, some of my work was in another publication. i am not worried about that. but the next thing you know, some of my poems were on the internet. how do i get protection from what goes on on the internet? i don't even know this person. guest: this is a common problem. people close all kinds of

copyrighted material to their facebook page. they may post elsewhere, on websites. there is a process under the digital lanham copyright act of 1998 -- digital millennium copyright act of 1998 -- if you notify a website that you believe they are carrying your copy, they have an obligation to take it down or do an inquiry to disprove that ids copyrighted. in most cases, they will take it out on a vacation. you need to contact the website -- take it down upon notification.

you need to copy it the website and tell them to take a down. even short poems, if you have fixed it and it is written down, you have that right. in most cases, internet sites will take it out, particularly something like a poem, where presumably the website wants to be sensitive to the rights of authors. host: one of our tweeters -- who owns your tweets? guest: i don't know if the law has decided that. it seems to me, if you typed it, it is fixed, who own it. i would think that the offer would be the most likely under -- author would be the most likely owner of the tweet. host: dan brenner, thank you so much. we have also been talking to carl colglazier. his documentary can be seen on the c-span2 web site.

congratulations. >> the house of representatives tomorrow will vote on a bill to extend the current interest rates on federal student loans for year. you can see that debate here on c-span, beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern. in a few moments, house budget committee chairman representative paul ryan at georgetown university on the budget. an hour, vice-president joe biden on foreign-policy. after that, remarks by the chief prosecutor for the military commissions at guantanamo bay, cuba. on tomorrow morning's washington journal, christopher matthews discusses the foreign corrupt practices act of 1977, which bars american companies from bribing officials overseas to obtain business. walmart is under investigation.

american university adjunct instructor talks about the history of japanese american internment camps. "washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> my name is captain rick. i live and oklahoma. >> the weekend of may 5 and 6, our local content vehicles explore the history of literary culture of oklahoma city. including the works of galileo and the history of science collection at oklahoma university. >> the most important part focuses on emotion. we was published in 1632, the pope was angry that galileo had broken his promise to treat it hypothetical. galileo and his enemies joined

together, and the results were his trial. this coppin contains his own handwriting. this is like being able to look over his shoulder in the months leading up to his trial. >> on book tv on c-span3. >> paul ryan criticized obama's economic policies. he spoke at georgetown university in washington. representative ryan faced criticism from catholics, including some at georgetown, who say his budget unfairly affects the poor. this is an hour. [applause] >> good morning and welcome to

the 2012 lecture. my name is edward montgomery. i'm dean of the georgetown public policy institute. this event honors our friend and colleague, dr. leslie whittington, who died on september 11, 2001, all of their husband charlie and her daughters. leslie, a professor at georgetown public policy institute's and ashley recognized expert on the marriage tax was a beloved member of our community known for high spirits and engaging lectures. while we are fortunate to have many great professors here adores him, is not every day it come across the teacher who genuinely inspired her students. leslie was one of them. each year, we award a scholarship in leslie's name to a second year student at the georgetown public policy institute in as demonstrated academic excellence and a commitment to smart public policy. among to recognize this year's winner, joseph cox. we stand up? -- will you stand up? [applause]

this annual lecture is dedicated to leslie's memory and to educating the georgetown committee on pressing public policies issues of the day. this year we are fortunate to have with us congressman paul ryan. he is serving his seventh term represent wisconsin's first district. he is a graduate from ohio. he is chairman of the budget committee in the u.s. house of representatives and a senior member of the house ways and means committee. you cannot turn on the tv or log on to facebook or the internet without hearing about the looming fiscal crisis of our country faces in the coming decades. a year ago, our nation nearly defaulted on its debt for the first time in its history. while we may have stepped back from that abyss, the challenge that confronts us is far from

over. georgetown public policy institute faculty members serb with congressman ryan on the president of the budget commission and came up with a plan for addressing this crisis. alice rivlin devised a second plan within entered dmitri that also addressed the problem. despite these and other plants, no consensus appears to be on the horizon. government leaders continue to be deadlocked in coming up with an approach to solve this problem. as chief budget writer for the house, congressman-at the center of efforts to resolve these issues. he has presented a roadmap for america's future that envisions a fundamentally different role for the federal government and our economy in addressing social issues. his plan proposes to tackle the long-term budget deficits by cutting taxes to promote growth and cutting government spending. republicans led his vision for the future. the young age of 42, he is often mentioned as a potential vice presidential nominee.

if you want to break some news today, feel free. this plan is not without controversy. in some ways, he is at the center of a debate that our colleague has written is as old as our nation, that quintessential tension between our struggle of the rugged individualist and our strong sense of communal obligation. many democrats and republicans see very different visions for future in the country as they struggle for imbalances between these competing instincts. please join me in welcoming congressman paul ryan. [applause] >> thank you so much. what a beautiful place, by the way. this is gorgeous.

the need for well-informed public discourse has never been greater. i think that is why this lecture series is such a moving tribute to the memory of leslie whittington. i was voting on the house for a couple of days ago and one of the senior leadership staffers pulled me aside and said leslie whittington was the best professor i ever had. she was a student here at georgetown. she spoke so adoring the of the impact he had on her lap. it is just like to see that her memory is still being honored by this, and i am honored to be here as part of this lecture series. georgetown is america's first catholic universities. the jesuits have done a great job of educating our nation for generations. i appreciate the dialogue. our copy of my budget with me so we could have a fact based conversation on the facts as they are, not as some have reinterpreted. did you ever hear the story

about the methodist who went to heaven and at st. peter at the pearly gates? let me get into it, then. this methodist goes to heaven and meets st. peter at the pearly gates. saint peter takes him on a tour like he does for everybody. they go down this beautiful building and this long haul and they come to the first door. they hear laughter and music and singing and the methodists ask st. peter, what is behind that door? he said that is the presbyterians. they keep going down the hallway and come to another door. the year praising and music. he said that is the baptists. they turned a corner and go down a long hall, but before they get to the next door, peter says be very, very quiet. that is the catholics, and they think they are the only people up here. [laughter] that takes a minute to sink in, doesn't it?

i suppose there are some catholics who, for a long time, thought they had a monopoly of sorts, not exactly in heaven, but on the social teaching of our church. of course there can be differences among the faithful catholics on this. the work i do as a catholic holding office conforms to the social doctrine as best i can make of it. what i have to say about the social doctrine of the church is from the viewpoint of a catholic in politics applying my understanding to the problems of the day. serious problems like those we face today require terrible conversation. civil public dialogue goes to the heart of solidarity. the virtue that does not divide society into classes but builds up the common good of all. the overarching brett to our whole society today is the exploding federal debt. the holy father himself, pope benedict, has charged

governments, communities, and individuals running up high debt levels are "living at the expense of future generations and living an untruth." we in this country have a window of time before it gets to economic crisis becomes inevitable. we need to take control before our own needy suffer the same fate of greece. how we do this is a question for provincial judgment about which people of good will can differ. if there was every time for serious but respectful discussion among catholics as well as those who do not share our faith, that time is now. as the dollar around southern wisconsin and visit with americans across the country, explaining that our debt is on track to cripple the economy, showing people charts and graphs to back it all up, they often ask me, is it too late to save america from a diminished future?

is the american experiment over? it is difficult question. it is one that gives me a little pause. the honest answer is the one i am about to give you. nobody ever got rich betting against the united states of america, and i'm not about to start. time and again, when america has been put to the test, when it looked like the era of american exceptional is and was coming to a close, we got back up and got back to work, advancing our community, advancing our society, and leaving the boundaries of opportunity ever for. churchill put it best. the americans can be counted upon to do the right thing, but only after they have exhausted all the other possibilities. look, we have exhausted the other possibilities. after four straight trillion dollar deficits and very little

economic progress to show for it, i think we know what doesn't work. we also have a growing consensus around the ideas that will work. but will not willing partners at the highest levels to lead us, to unite us, and to address our defining talent. the president did not cause the crisis we face. years of empty promises from both political parties brought us to this moment. but regrettably, the president is unwilling to advance credible solutions to the problem. he has broken a promise he made during his last campaign, to help us "rediscover our bonds to each other and get out of this constant, petty bickering that has come to characterize our politics." it does not seem to understand and cannot promote the common good by setting class against class or group against group.

the device of politics e.g. the divisive politics of the last few years have not only undermined social solidarity, they have brought progress and reform to a standstill, at a very time when america is desperate for solutions to this coming crisis. today, we face a fundamental challenge to the american way of life. a gathering storm whose primary manifestation is the shadow of our ever-growing national debt, and whose most troubling consequence is ever shrinking opportunities for americans, young and old, and the shadow hangs over young people to face a struggling economy and rising probability of greater turmoil ahead. more than half of recent college graduates are unemployed or underemployed in this economy. the shadow hangs over our seniors who have been lied to about their retirement security. it hangs over our parents. we wonder if we will be the

first generation in american history to leave our children with fewer opportunities and less prosperous nation than the one we inherited. this storm has already hit europe, where millions are enduring the painful consequences of empty promises turning into broken promises. for too many in washington, instead of learning from europe's mistakes, we are repeating them. our descent down this path was accelerated four years ago when poor decisions and bad policies from wall street to washington resulted in the crisis that squandered the nation's savings and crippled our economy. what we needed then for policies to strengthen the foundations of our free enterprise economy. what we got was the opposite. we needed single-minded focus on restoring economic growth. after the immediate panic in 2008 that saw, we need to restore real accountability in the financial sector and just

clean up the mess. we needed to restore the principle that those who seek to reap the gains in our economy also bear the full risk of the losses. we need policies to control our debt trajectory so that families and businesses were not threatened the the shadow of an ever rising debt. instead, the white house in the last congress enacted an agenda that made matters worse. they miss spent hundreds of billions of dollars on politically connected boondoggles. then when the country's number- one priority remained in getting the economy back on track, the white house in the last congress made their number one priority a massive, and one expansion in the government's role in health care. they even tried to impose a costly increase in energy prices in the middle of a recession. their idea of wall street reform -- a blank check for fannie mae and freddie mac, and a new law that provided more protection and preferential

treatment for the big banks and gave more power to the same regulators who failed to see the last crisis coming. their reliance on government of the heavy hand with more borrowing, more spending, and unprecedented interventions into the private sector were not just bad policy. they created a tremendous uncertainty for businesses and families as job losses continued to mount. we needed solutions to restore the american idea, an opportunity society in which the government's role is not to read the rules and and for equal outcomes, but in the words of abraham lincoln, to clear the past of laudable pursuit for all so that all may have an opportunity to rise and free pursue their happiness. instead, the white house in the last congress exports to the crisis to advance a government center society, a massively expanded role in the federal

government in our lives, higher spending to support this expanded role, and higher taxes to support dyer spending. higher borrowing, too. its report five years, the debt held by the public has grown by $4.5 trillion. that is a 70% increase. our debt is projected to get much worse, spiraling out of control in the years ahead. this bleak outlook is what is paralyzing economic growth today. investors, businesses, and families look at the size of the debt and help back, for fear that america is heading for a diminished future. should that future arrive, it would mean real pain for all americans. but higher interest rates would make it harder for families to buy homes. for students to go to college, and for businesses to expand and create jobs. it would mean more than economic pain to you and me. if we remain on this path, and

bond markets in the state of panic will turn on us, threatening to end the american idea itself. forced to austerity, broken promises and sacrifices from abroad but in into that most fundamental of american aspirations, that in this land, we are responsible for our own destiny. analysts continent will not forever be free from foreign powers to impose their limits on our dreams for ourselves and for children. if our generation fails to meet its defining challenge, we would see america surrender her independence to an army of foreign creditors who now owns roughly half of our public debt. it pains me to say this, but the president of the policies guarantee that outcome if we don't turn this around soon.

the good news is there is a better approach. a budget passed by the house of representatives that would lift the debt and free the nation from the constraints of ever expanding government. if enacted, this budget would promote economic growth and opportunity starting today appeared with bold reforms to the tax code and a credible plan to prevent a debt crisis from ever happening. the president is clearly threatened by this alternative vision. he is hoping to win the next election by attacking our good faith effort to secure opportunity for the next generation. the president is not only wrong on the policy, but he is wrong on the politics as well. americans resent being told what kind of car to drive or what kind of libel to use. they certainly do not think bureaucrats in washington should be empowered to dictate their personal health care decisions. the hallmarks of the president of the government centered

agenda is is that policy after policy takes from hard working americans and give to politically connected companies and privileged special interests. our budget calls this what it is, corporate welfare, and we propose to end it. as we end welfare for those who do not eat, we strengthen welfare programs for those who do. -- for those who do not need it. government safety net programs have been stretched to the breaking point in recent years, failing the very citizens who need help most. these are not just practical questions. these questions have moral implications as well. since we meet here today, and america's first catholic university, i feel it is important to discuss how as a catholic in public life, my own personal thinking on these issues has been guided by my understanding of the church's social teaching. simply put, i don't believe that the preferential option for the poor means at preferential

option for big government. just look at the results of the government centered approach to the war on poverty. one in six americans are in poverty today. that is the highest rate in a generation. in this war on poverty, poverty is winning. we need a better approach. to me, this should be based on the twin virtues of solidarity and subsidiarity. government is one more for things we do together. but it is not the only word. we are a nation that prides itself on looking out for one another. the government has an important role to play in that. but relying on distant government bureaucracies to lead this effort just has not worked. this effort just has not worked.