of today's discussion, economics are important for the sake of economics, for the businesses, for job creation, creation in both countries. .

. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

walls very fortunate the past 3 1/2 years to be able to play a part in some of the successes that andy talked about. i recall when we first reached out to president obama in a meeting making it clear for the united states, the reset was not just about improving the tone of the relationship which had gotten a bit scratchy, it was also about a substantive agenda

that would fundamentally improve living standards and a lot of people in both countries. and clearly the start treaty, the cooperation that russia and the united states achieved, particularly in afghanistan, those are signal accomplishments that i think signaled early on that both countries were serious about getting back to business and recapturing the intentions both countries had. but probably the goals both countries set for themselves were w.t.o. w.t.o. membership from russia did not depend on the united states alone. obviously it fended mostly on actions russia needed to take.

president obama made clear that he was willing to work with our european allies, to work with the europeans, to work with the business community to ensure that everyone saw the benefits of w.t.o. succession. the fact that russia was not in the w.t.o. seemed incomprensible to president obama. i believe you were in the meeting with me when president obama and president negedev met in the cabinet room and discussed the need to really get down to business and push this a -- across the finish line in a short time frame. the presidents turned from their advisors and said, we are going to go to lunch now, and we want

you to come up with the conversation. and president obama and president ne depfment edev also had a strong team. it was clear to us that the deputy prime minister would have the main responsibility for the legislative that needed to be passed in a very short period of time. and we also it was clear to us that we need today resolve the problem over chicken exports which had bedeviled u.s.-russia trade relations.

in the fall, russia was invited to join the discussions, it was many, many hours in which russia, the united states, all allies discussed the world economy, not just russia's economy, but to the world economy of having russia as a member of the w.t.o. this is the achievement i'm most proud of playing a small part in, because the dividends will continue to pay out for years and even decades to come. as sergei said, and i couldn't agree with him more, the foundation for a sustainable productive relationship between the us and russia is a strong economic relationship. >> when i was coming through the

arms control negotiations, we labored in the trenches. as he said, it is still extremely important. now a strong commercial relationship, trade and investment, increasing trade volumes between the two countries that understand the importance of this relationship and will continue to push forward and sustain the momentum, and also build on that to reach new achievements. >> thanks, very much. that leaves me to turn to you, susan, as you were directly involved in many of these negotiations for several years. what is your perspective on what this means for russia? and for the w.t. o.

>> i must say, this has gone on for a very long time. speaking of one who has gone in several years, and were involved and not family with the in's and out's of the w.t.o. succession process, would know this is a miserable process for any country trying to come into the w.t.o. this is not easy for russia. it was not easy for vietnam or ukraine or any other country. what, when china came in, being a late comer to the w.t.o., you are expected to come in, and in five or 10 years, do what every other country that's a member of the w.t.o. got 50 years to do. so let's put it in some perspective here. i had the opportunity to negotiate on these matters over

an extended period of time, and in 2006, november of 2006, to be precise, managed to conclude the bilateral russia agreement on russia's succession to the w.t.o., which is particular of a series of bilateral agreements that russia concluded in advance under multilaterals and was concluded last year. that waved the way for -- paved the way for where we are today. the short answer -- question is whether russia becomes a member of the w.t.o. two and whether its united states graduates russia from jackson vanek, and therefore, three, the sooner the united states can move ahead with our arms process so we can fully take -- can fully have russia

join the w.t.o. process that's the shorter version. the slightly longer version is that it is somewhat somewhat more complicated than all this. as we know in implication for the various actors. i would begin by offering principle kudos to the u.s. agency which has been up on capitol hill day in and day out making the case for why it is in the interests of the united states as well as in the interests of russia, for russia to join the w.t.o. it is in the interests of u.s. goods, producers, manufacturers of goods, agricultural exporters, services exporters, for russia to join the w.t.o., for russia to lower its barriers

to trade, to have disciplines on its intellectual property proteches -- protections. for those of you known as a web site "trade alert" you know the g.-20 in november of 2008 at the front end of the great recession, the g.-20 members told us they were not going to impose protection trade investment measures. two years out, g.t.a. was able to measure some 431 new protectionist trade and investment barriers that were imposed by g-20 members. of those 431 russia had imposed 85. of those members, only russia is not a member of the w.t.o.

i think the two are related. it is in russia's interests to have proteches for its exports in the world, for russia to be able to diversify its markets, its production away from just natural resources, but it is very much in the interests of u.s. producers or u.s. exports. so first kudos to the u.s. community. i have the privilege of sitting on the board, boards of boeing, of caterpillar, of fedex. i know jim is working in his capacity at boeing, but also working this.

chairman bauchus, there is bipartisan support moving membership for russia. they are very much on record for membership, and if it is going to happen, the sooner the better. if this is going to happen, the sooner the better. this is a june-july equation we should be talking about here. for that, we need the white house to keep stepping up and to engage with the leadership and to the congress to work to make sure that the votes are there. here we get into the issue, and this is sort of the awkward moment for me, i am an economist, i'm a trade policy person. i am not acorn policy person, i am not a human rights person. but i am told by everyone who is counting noses on capitol hill that the way this legislation is going to move is that at some point in parallel, there would be some other kind of legislation moving in the human rights area. this is not my lane.

this is what i'm told, this is what i read. if that is the case, the white house needs to to be doing it promptly and working with those making those decisions as well. i put that out there, because nobody else has yet. so the sooner the better. >> thank you very much for those words and for put tg out there. you have also been on the bare cade on this issue, and i think you have seen up close and personal probably through your long career with segram before and now with alcoa what foreign country engagement with russia means, what has taken place over

the past year, and what this means in the future. >> let me give you basically four views. the first is what has happened on the commercial side. the second thing is, what needs to ham. we should be open about it. first thing is, what are the opportunities? last thing is, connecting you said before, what we have done together. it has to be done jointly. i think you can't deny, promotion has to be made. human memory is very short. if you look at the things that have happened over the last three years, this is an unbelievable subject. let's start with we have -- if you look at the investments that

have been made, we have invested almost a billion dollars over there, and recently invested a billion of plaking a commitment for three billion over five years. 1.4 billion. this is not small change. this is big. and we should not just consider it is normal. it is normal if it were a normal place, but under the conditions we have been operating under, it is quite spectacular. the business community has already followeded. they have said -- the business community would not put their money there if they were not seeing it was working not just tomorrow, but for today. for most it has worked out very, very well. you see on the russian side they put the investments together.

$10 billion. that's a pretty gool cool thing. over five years, and that's all good. little things, like entry visas. now we have it. we have been complaining about it. thank you very much to both of you. always had a great or open year. fantastic, fantastic job. much can be achieved in 20 days. the business community has -- what we do, when we run into issues, with russia, my gosh, the country is really big. we came up with some good suggestions. one was to establish a hotline.

l -- the hotline became the ombudsman, and the ombudsman was the deputy prime minister. if you look at those that have a hotline which they can go to, elevate an issue, and the issue is taken care of and in most cases very nicely. so that's happening. we should also come to our second point. the picture is not as rose as you put walking away with that. i would try to be as objective as possible and not to step on anybody's foot here. if you have transparentsy, that is kind of absurd and a good indication for transparancy. >> in uganda. knowing the aspirations of most russians i'm dealing with, i

cannot believe that's what anybody is aspiring for. so in bangladesh and nicaragua, i don't think i need to say more. that's all not good. that's all -- i would say there is room for improvement. big-time prom for improvement. we and our assoc and our associ had to file 88,000 pages. that's an improvement where it was over 100,000 pages. these things work, but they work

slowly. this is the nonruling side. i think the business side would not be agriculture exciting. it would be going to the hill and say, let's use this opportunity that has not been around and establish this investment in. russia came out saying we can double exports to russia in the next four to five years. it is pretty incredible.

we have done a profile by each state and basically put in a profile, what the states do. new york, $500 million to russia. so basically doubling for the state of new york, 1,000 jobs. you go to california, the number is 665 million of exports. can anybody really say today that we can afford to leave this on the table? can anybody say, we don't excite today, we have a chance to do this next spring. so there are places in the world that are prepared to jump in.

i mean, if it needs more convincing, the arguments are very, very clear, and the business side already comes in. i give you reasons why. john has educated all of us in the business. 8% of the forest area, right? and then -- that's the opportunity i'm talking about. tractors, exactly. and basically just getting more out of this. so the auto industry, i didn't know that, actually. g.m., chevrolet is currently the top selling foreign brand in russia. did you know that sni didn't

know that. i believe that's what russia needs and what the business community needs. should clearly need that from the new leadership. clearly made that from the new leadership. we heard it from the people that were in the administration, we heard it almost as a mirs message, a clear commitment from the new loim toward modern zation. and that also has implication on it of a good opportunity for business.

the second thing is, i think it is no question, i said it before, we need to make sure pntr gets passed. we have had over 100 meetings on the hill. you are right, there is no support. i think if these are not parallel, they will be seen as one. and i close with that. >> thank you. klaus, following up on the point that you were making, granting

russia pntr, senator balkous recently had -- baucus recently had in the finance committee, from a commercial standpoint, it is a slam durving dunk. i wrote a piece last week where in a very intellectual way i concluded it would be very idiotic -- >> highly technical term. >> yes, technical term, academic term, beating around the bush. there are two issues. one, this is a campaign year. congresses and senators do make a vote that will be viewed by many as positive for russia and it is also positive for the united states.

two, while the economic argument is clear, this is a bread broad referendum for russia. you know, what is the argument we make? i think there is a strong argument we make about how improved relations with the russian federation have in fact served u.s. national interests and russian national interests. john how could you characterize that argument in a nutshell that puts us in a different light? >> well, i think it is clear that we, the united states, want to see a strong democratic russia that has an economy fuse producing toward people. that's the kind of partner that we need in the 21st century. and that means that we, like

many russians that we know p. many russian citizens, have a stake in seeing institutions built inside rush that that make russia a stronger, more sustainable country. and we go about that in many different ways. as i have said, i think the central way is trying to build a stronger economic relationship with russia, because it is good for both countries, and it loss serves as something that will shock for the political cycle, the ups and downs that we seed periodically. i think it means that we need to speak very frankly, as we do in progress, when we see things happening in russia that we think are not perhaps leading it to a stronger, more democratic more stable future. this, in the end, depends on the russian people themselves and on russian leaders. but if we as americans are making it clear to the russians

that we see them as a desirable strong partner and that our desire to see them strengthen their institutions is really just part of what we've stood for as a nation for 200 years, then i think perhaps some of the scratchiness, some of the unpleasantness that sometimes prevented the dialogue back and forth can go away. how that plays out exactly in the context of listing the jackson grant amendment and granting pntr to russia, we're going to have to see if the administration is committed to granting pntr to russia, and we're committed to working with congress in a way that is good for the us-russian relationship going forward for years and decades to come. >> do you want me to interfere

in the internal political debates? [laughter] >> i'll let you know after i hear what you say. >> i'll tell you a couple of things. one, we have a country where we respect our elders. the way that sometimes people try to teach others what is right and what is right and what is wrong in russia sometimes goes beyond something we cannot accept. i pick up the argument that john led us with, and that is the government should be pntr. it is pntr for american business

in russia. and you need to understand that. because we have been invited to w.t.o. we are going to be there the moment the documents are rectified in russia. whether the united states gives us the p.n.t.r. or not, it is not something we want to continue for several reasons. first, we want americans to be our partners. secondly, politically, it's one of the vestigages of the mentality in this political environment and one of the reasons which will explain this. because the reasons why jackson -vanex appears in the first place, however it was wrong even in that time, are no longer.

so it is a reflection of a wider problem. they call upon a wider problem that sometimes still exists. as one of my colleagues said to me, we are victims of the post-cold war handover. and that is right. very frequently we judge each other through this time and not through the common nalt of purpose that we have today. and that is extremely important. we want to do business with the americans. we want you to be present in the russian market. we stand to benefit from partnership with american companies. like our companies, eying the american market more and more, and we plan to diversify an economy. pl -- klaus said it is something

we must be committed to. i can tell you, we are fully committed to it. it is something we need and decided that we want want to do for the -- deeded that we need and want to do for the bisht of the russian people. we are a rhythm country. we have engineers, physicists. we now have a new proceed of managers. most of you will be able to confirm they now excessively rely. we have a new generation of people that are entering the market. mind you, we are still young. just try to imagine, it is only around 20 years.

look at the constitution. i would say that we are extremely proud of what we have been able to achieve. we have the polls, and the way we apply ourselves, and we are working, and there have been a number of things that have been recently introduced in order to make our democracy more modernized, the wish of the people as a result of political debate that is more and more like this. so whatever has happened in russia, it is because we do it for ourselves, not because we are told to by americans or anybody ellings. i think that what we have been doing in russia is holding the line with your ability to work with us as a real -- if that is not the case, and once again i

would like to draw your a-- attention, pntr has to be drawn in a way that does not undermine u.s.-russian relations. however, i go not follow the final version of what it is going to be. i will tell you up front, if that legislation is adopted, it will impact our ability to work in a number of areas. we will be working with the united states as much as the united states is willing to work with us in a respectful, and mutually beneficial way. i think the opportunities are great. unless someone wants to torpedo that kind of opportunity to be

materialized, we can do it. >> i would -- you know, i have some concern that the administration is shying away from a debate. one had to do with a transit corridor. it applied to troops in afghanistan in which the russian federation played a key role. 3 1/2 years ago, our troops in afghanistan were all being supplied through the port of

karache in afghanistan, and two military ground blocks that get into afghanistan on the backhand corridor. until three years ago, we were totally dependent on that supply line. with the opening of the new supply line that goes through the c safment. -- through the caspian state, central russia, that mailed us less vullneryble to whatever might happen in pakistan and whatever might happen in the u.s.-pakistanis relationship. there was a lot of discussion about killing osama bin laden and the advise bit of who did what on the campaign trail. all i can say is, a year ago may, if we did not have those other ground lock communication and the cooperation from the russian communication, the calculation about whether to carry out that strike on osama bin laden would have been very different, and we might have had more opposition than just defense secretary gates at the

time in a different position. with that, i think we have about 15 minutes or so for questions and answers. please ray raise your hand, note your affiliation, and limit yourself to one brief question. thank you. yes. >> speaking of syria and how that could affect u.s.-russia relations and the w.t.o. as well? >> john, would you like to take a crack at that one? >> well, we all see what's happening in syria. we have been watching this develop, i wouldn't say in slow motion over the last six to eight months. it is quite appalling.

we are, as a government, determined to see the killing and see stability return to that part of the world, and syria in particular. to do this, the united states needs to work in concert with our allies. we need to work in concert particularly with those countries in the united nations that form with us the p-5. russia i think shares the goal. i won't speak for ser gay. i will let him speak for himself, i think we share a strategic vision of what's happening in syria. but we have had some disagreement on the tactics that we should take to bring that about. we are committed to continuing to do everything in our power to end the violence and see an ordererly succession take place. it was made very, very clear

that we think president assad's time has come and gone. we hope very much through the dialogues that we have had with russia and our other partners in new york that we will continue to find ways to hasten that kind of change so the people in syria can live normal lives. >> i will add to that. we want the violence to cease. we want political dialogue on all sides in syria to be engaging and successful, because we do not believe that anybody in europe or moscow can tell the syrians as to how they need to lead and who will be the next president. it needs to be done by the syrians themselves for obvious reasons.

they have to decide their own future, and we need to be able to recognize all of that. so the difference was, especially in the initial stage, as to how you would approach this issue. i think we have a little more of the common ground. both the united states and russia support -- as the basis and needed steps. that will be how the political dialogue and political process can be organized and aimed in this country. it needs to be done by the syrians themselves. the second part is how it affects russian relations. at the same time it doesn't undermine our ability to work on

issues where we do agree. here, i think we have a little more normalsy in our relations. disagreements occur, especially on issues that are very important to both countries. both at all points, even at the points of significant greements disagreements, i think we have pretty open and respectful dialogue on this issue. >> thank you. we'll collect two or three questions. yes. right here. >> dr., let me put this question to you. there is a consensus we should grant pntr. i believe that the white house should speak out more clearly on this point. i understand there is sensitivities and diplomacy and

niceties, but perhaps you could articulate one, two, three, and four what are the specific oks, and if you don't want to say who in the congress is objecting, just the group so we can get an idea of what are the objections, so to speak. >> thank you. i will be happy to do that. >> yes, this gentleman. >> if i'm correct, there has been a bilateral investment treaty negotiated and agreed to by both the russian government and the united states government but not ratified. >> i will answer very briefly. we have been offering to our american colleagues the idea of sitting together and developing this agreement. because absence of this agreement is big headache for

development of long-term relationed. -- relations. the american colleagues were rethinking the strategic kind of agreements, not as applied to russia. but as it is applied to the rest of the world. my sense is that our american colleagues are now ready to engage in this, and we are looking forward to it. >> we should have a bilateral investment treaty. we certainly should have norks. the administration is just finally came up with its model. maybe you can engage with russia and a number of other countries on this. >> before you get back to this, that's fine. ly try to address this, and any one of can you jump in.

one of the advantages of a think tank is you can say anything you want. one of the proefficiencies perceived in those areas. this is one of the cases where sefment rgei, the lawyer who who died while he was being held in prison and had concerns about death. there is a whole set of concerns there. presidential elections, et cetera. that's one constituency. a second constituency. a second constituency would be that russia is pursuing certain policies that are counter to u.s. interests. there is no question that the issue has seriously poisoned russia's perception on capitol hill right now, because it has been a big issue on the headlines. our ability to come to an

agreement about the civil defense. aspects of, you know, russia's relationship with iran. actually our cooperation with russia and iran has been quite extensive. there are a whole series of concerns that people will have there about russian aspects of foreign security policy. and then i think more pertinent to the susan area, there are concerns about how russia does business. there are concerns about whether russia actually lives up to the commitments that it has made, and whether adequate -- i hate to use this word, concessions were made in the negotiations as part of the agreement on

intellectual property types. i think there are these constituent wednesdayies that have different reasons to granting russia's pntr status. anybody want to jump in on that one? >> i certainly will not be the one defining the arguments for these two. [laughter] >> i have understand, and i heard the whole thing all too often. [laughter] >> when i listen to that kind of argument, i ask myself, what is it are we still in the cold war? are we in a relationship of the united states, that's supposed to teach the younger brother how to lead? that's kind of what it can lead to. there is mild radiation, so be it.

we will leave further. we will go and develop our partnership with the europeans, our biggest economic partner, much greater than the united states, we will develop our relations with our immediate neighbors but it will be the choice of american people. if they do not want to work with us, it is their choice. if they want to work with us, it first needs to be based on mutual respect, and some of this legislation is a flagrant disrespect of mutual respect. as far as we are concerned. and it needs to be based on mutual benefit. because that is the most relying of any cooperation, especially when you talk about long term. we expect the business and the united states to make money and business in russia. that is wonderful because we know what our partners want, and

when we feel what they want, it falls in line with the goals of russia. 20 years in market economy, i think we are doing excellent job developing a market that has not exist in to a huge space of russia for generations and generations. mind you, not everybody ackseps the notion. it is normal, because people have views and they are different.

>> the russian affiliates of american companies need to understand how the they feel in russia. all of them, the ones i have met , all of them said they make excellent business there. not a single one told us they are reconsidering. while they did not go to the

united states and do business, they do not want additional reputation. [laughter] but what i'm suggest sg that companies that have entered, companies like america that have entered the russian market with serious proposals there, it doesn't come with -- without problems, but show me where there is a market without problems? equally in the united states. i've been talking to rugs. overall they feel comfortable. when i say have you experienced some trouble, they say oh, yes. but that's also normal.

because the other countries have the same trouble. they need to abide by the rules, they need to abide by the accounting procedures. sometimes it is something that is new to them, and it is entering a market. it is a serious proposition. but everybody told me, and people i had spoken to, that the moment you enter the russian market, they feel pretty reliably comfortable. >> one of them had to do with the -- the spirns of the w.t.o. has raised impressions of what to expect from russia. in your experience, what have you learned about the entry into the w.t.o.? >> one thing you -- we learned is you can only get two predecessors. monday morning quarterbacking is live and well in any trade

negotiation. you can always think of things you would have done differently had it been your negotiation. that said, i think that most objective observers, if you had to sit today and contemplate what the world in the raiding world would look like today, if china were on the outside of the trading system, or if china were on the inside of the trading system and the u.s. had granted china pntr, we would all be in much worse shape. the u.s. would be in much worse shape and china would be in worse shape. and similarly, it is going back to 21, it is in the u.s. interests and in russia's interests for russia to be joining the w.t.o. and for the u.n. to be benefiting from the entry of russia into the w.t.o.

and that will only take place when pntr is granted and jackson vanek is history. i would offer the following recommendations. i think of the three bass sets you described, i would like to add to it. this is a complex bilateral relationship. but i do agree with the ambassador that we need, and we should be at the point where we can navigate a complex bilateral relationship in some sort of normalsy, and that should enable us to have a healthy bilateral economic relationship, economic and commercial relationship, and still be trying to -- still be working our way through complex foreign policy disagreements.

i speak as a person who went around the world also second-guessing u.s. politics. everyone in the world has an opinion about u.s. politics and our economics. it comes with the territory. you get used to it. trust me. >> we also do. >> you just get used to it. and so i would say it would be in russia's interests to be active participants in the russian market. and u.s. businesses, as i noted, are very actively engaged in capitol hill, and at the white house and in the state department saying, you know, let's get pntr. because they recognize the importance of this. so it would be a real same shame

if -- it would be a real shame if the most vocal advocate of russia's success to the w.t.o. in the united states was somehow punished by russian government procurement actions or some other kinds of acks. -- actions. russia will be a member of the w.t. o. and the congress of the united states is going to move on pntr. the only question is the timing. is it going to be july? is it going to be after july? i hope it will be july, and i know the business community is working very hard to get that to

happen. i also predict it will be in parallel with another piece of legislation. that's out of my lane because that's not my field of expertise. and i think that, you know, i leave that to the high foreign policy hype. so put on your big boy fands pants and deal with it. [laughter] >> i can only say from the business side, it is real simple thing. number one, w.t.o. gives us a simple playing field. if you look at what has been far large -- we have a government program there larger than any other countries together have been creating with global zation. here we're bringing another country on to that system. we're opening it. we have conflict resolution mechanisms that everybody accepts. as you look at the long norks,

you mentioned that, all of that has been computed in a good fashion. that's very good. giving us finally what we've always wanted, right? and it is an oddity of history that russia was not on it, in my view. so the second thing now, you talk about export opportunities. and i would argue, hey, it is an election year. i would say yes, it is an election year. who on this planet says we don't need trade in the you -- u.s.? it would be out of our mind that keeping that on the table. it is impossible to imagine. the third thing you get, what you get on top of it, some of you might not understand that, most of the companies these days are global companies. they are head quartered in the u.s., and they are great companies, but in the end, it is

the international competitive that decides about how strong they can be anywhere on this planet and also here in the u.s. you get that, in addition to that, to an access to the russian market. for those that don't understand that, the russian ought motor -- automotive market is the largest automotive market in europe today. and it is growing. when you go there, you see it. you compare it to two or three years ago when you drive, you saw a lot of cars you would not want to drive. these days, a lot of cars are in that you are driving. so that's the good news. that's the good news. i talked about the farming, and there are thousands of other industries where u.s. companies are extremely well positioned to really make the market their own. the good news is, the modern

zation program, i agree with you, i think it is also an understanding in russia and in other countries what u.s. companies bring to russia. if i look at when we acquired this two large plans, we have a very long safety culture. we are recognized as one of the best safety cultures on this planet. the culture in russia had not been safety culture. if you look at it today, we are on the level of all plants. i tell you what, that was an extremely hard job. it requires a level of education and training that we were looking for. it was nightmarish event the change that we bring. i tell you a person that changes the pafere in their workplace,

number one, they are more respected, to your point, number two, not giving that up when they go in their private space. just last week we had our annual share holder meeting and we have a practice which we call the month of service worldwide where we ask our employees to give back to the community. when we started that in russia, everybody said, what is that? we don't know what that is. and we said, well, we feel we should all give back to the community. it should be an old soviet concept, but it wasn't, because everybody thought everybody else ought to give back. in october, we have 56 of all of our russian employees basically doing work in the communities in addition to their jobs. this idea of vol -- volunteeri. sm, this is the value added. it is a pod impact that achieves

on a political front and it achieves much more in society, and i think it is behind the whole idea of modernizattion, because the russian lealeders understand this. .

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> and we are going live now to the atlantic council here in washington, d.c. for a live forum discussion on russia's new government and the future of the nation's opposition movement. vladimir putin was inaugurated this week so a third non-consecutive term in march. political unrest have followed the parliamentary elections. the bureau chief for russian international television will discuss the nation's political course ummed the leadership of president putin and the future of the opposition movement.

the atlantic council hosting this live forum here in washington, d.c. >> let me begin today's event. my name is ross wilson. i am the director of the center here at the atlantic council. on behalf of the council, i welcome to all of you for another in a series of council events on developments in russia. others we have had so far this year include one that examined the outlook for u.s. -- russian relations during this year of political transition in both countries. another looked at the mood of russia on the eve of aelections

. today's look at the domestic political scene in russia and the outlook for the democratic opposition movement that burst into public prominence last fall. for much of the 50 years of the history of this organization, russian application has seemed to be unmoving, frozen, unmoving or at least opaque. brezhnev, when i first started, the picture was waiting for the eventual death of the leader and the change that would follow. for the decade or more that followed, the soviet and american political scene was a boisterous one. there were interesting days for us watchers. the putin period marked a

period away from open application and decisions were made behind closed doors. it has been with immense interest here as here at the atlantic council that we have observed something that has happened since last fall and since the highly problematic duma elections that took place in september, and the waves that have followed. those of us who care deeply about russia found edge couraging the fact that the country or important segments of it seem to have woken up from relative slumber to speak out and act publicly on important issues that the country faces. russia has now completed its presidential election cycle. the march election produced its largely preordained result, and vladimir putin was inaugurated

on monday for term four as the country's prime minister. so the putin regime will continue, but the demonstrations are continuing as well. so, too, i think does the public sentiment that is seriously less accepting and less accommodating of authoritarian governments and corruption. to help examine the nature of russia's current political struggles, the newly vibrant voices of populism, and the choices that president putin has and some of the substantive issues that russia faces today, we are pleased to welcome a former candidate for the russian state duma, who is a member of the council of russia's democratic movement. it was founded in 2008 by a number of well-known members of the democrat opposition.

it was instrumental in organizing mass protests after last december's parliamentary election and the protest that took place earlier this week. journalist and author, mr. karl wrerser is the washington burro chief here. earlier he was a correspondent and editor in chief of russia investment review. he has written in the financial times, the "wall street journal" and published a number of boos as well. as someone who witness first hand the events unfolding in moss cue and his life directly affected by them, his observations and comments are of value and important tons today. with us to moderate is donald jensen, analyst and manager at radio free europe, radio liberty, who is here in washington. he is one of washington's most

prolific and respected commentators on russia, panera on cnn, fox, the layer remember news hour and several other organizations. receipt me know that today's event is on the record. after some opening remarks, don will lead what i hope will be a life did i discussion. i hope you will all be thinking of questions. if you have one, please get don's attention. when called upon, please state your name and affiliation loudly and into a microphone that will come around for the benefit of our listening audience. with no further adieu, join me in welcoming our guests. >> thank you. >> thing for the kind introduction and thanks to the atlantic council for holding this important and timely event. thanks to don for moderating. i look forward to a very lively discussion here. one of the most popular feature

on russian social networks has been the photo collage that have two jackson take posed photographs -- juxtaposed photographs, one showing washington, d.c. with tens of thousands of people lining up on the mall from the capital to the lincoln memorial. the second was moscow in 2012 with the city center deserted, and rows of armed vehicles of interior ministry troops. if you have seen the tv pictures coming out of moscow monday, you may have thought there was a neutron bomb in the russian capital. it looked like something apocalyptic from a hollywood horror mofaz as the motorcade made its way through. not just the central, but all the streets and metro stations were shut down and cleared off to the public. outside that perimeter, there

were some 20,000 interior ministry troops and riot police guarding president putin from voters on inauguration day. it looked like it was under military ok makes. it was exactly the same thing in march. i remember walking down from the square where we had the protest after putin "victory," walking down the street toward the kremlin, i have never seen anything like that. police armed to the teeth, and police buses on every street going to either side. it was certainly not since the crisis of 1993 where there were so many troops in the center of moscow. it did not look like the behavior of a legitimate winner of a legitimate election. is of course because mr. putin

is not a legitimate winner of a legitimate election. just a few words on what did happen in march. the vote was unfree and unfair on so manies levels, it is hard to know where to begin. all the way through the process. the only genuinely democratic opposition was removed from the ballot. national television was and is under total kremlin control. there was a monitoring study that showed that 72 of all air time for the -- 72% of all campaign air time was given to putin and 28% split up franco the others. all the usual tricks like bat stuffing and rewriting of protocols happened. this was on a much bigger scale

than the car sell voting. this is when large groups of people are bused around from one place to another. the voting officials don't know. there were estimates that up to 20% of moscow who voted on the so-called additional voting list. they are not registered to do that. that is beyond any kind of control or monitoring. the legal voters, which is a specific coalition to monitor the elections, which fielded several thousand problem monitors across the country, about a quarter of its monitors reported violations of various kinds from the polling places. the citizen observer project estimated that about seven million orate million votes were added to putin's tally. that is an estimate.

we don't know. that is just it. we don't what the result of the election on march 4 was. that was exactly the message of the tens of thousands of people who came out to central moscow on may 6, to protest the inauguration of an illegitimate and unelected president. there were, despite heavy efforts by the authorities to prevent people from arriving to the region, there were trains canceled and buses turned away, and 60 thousand people came out to protest. the response was unlike what we have seen in december and february when we had similar size rallies. it was extremely harsh. in the western capital, he is called the last dictator in europe, much to our

bewilderment, because that implies vladimir putin is a democrat. there were batons used. there is a video of a riot policeman kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach with his foot. this was a direct quote. they were beating people brutally into blood, smashing faces on the pavement and dragging them by the hair and clothes regardless of gender or age. up to 50 protestors were injured and more than 10 were arrested in two days of protests. they were arrested not just at the protest, but in cafes away from there. the riot place, walk inside ransacked the cafe and detained him and then released him without any explanation. all this apparently was not good enough because we heard

mr. putin's press secretary, when he was asked for his reaction to how police treated the protestors, he said it was not harsh enough. he said the protestors should have had their livers spread across the pavement. this is what putin's press secretary said a few days ago. if anyone needed proof of putin's political attitude and plans, this was as good a preface any that we have seen in the last few days. that is not the main question. we know putin hasn't changed, and there is no reason he should. but russia has. russia changed beyond recognition in the last six months. beginning in december when 120,000 people came out to central moscow to protest against the rigged parliamentary elections and to demand a free and fair vote. these were the largest protests

since the anti-communist in 1991. they now want to live in a country with a rule of law and not to be treated as citizens, not as monkeys as mr. putin called them in his channel 1 interview in december. no economic slogans or social demand. this move is about political dig yilt and husme rights. this forced the putin regime on the defensive. it came came 12 days after the protest. they were forced to change the registration of political parties, and anti-kremlin opposition parties are beginning to come back. the republican party, which was

banned in 2007, was officially reinstated as a legal political party able to participate in elections. i don't want to overstate this. they are very timid concessions. but the fact is this is the first time that putin's regime has been on thive in 12 years of rule. this movement is not going away. this movement is here to stay. the latest poll from the most reputable polling agency from russia show that 38% of the general russian population is supportive of the protest movement, its goals and demabbed. that is a serious number. it is worth noting that according to the results of putin's central election committee released after march 4, some of the largest cities, including moscow, leningrad and others voted against putin,

even according to his own official tallies. that is important to note. this will be a very different putin presidency than the ones before. and the time where he could do essentially as he pleased and receive silence in return, that time is finished. i don't think it is coming back. there was an interesting report and forecast by the center for strategic research published in mid march. this is by no means an opposition group. this was a think tang created by putin associates to help his presidential program. they came out with a prediction in march, and they predict a spread in protests, a crash in putin's ratings, early parliamentary elections in two or three years' time, likely

won by the opposition, and then putin himself struggling to come up with an exit strategy. analysts are doubting he will be able to complete his six-year term until 2018. in close, i have a few words about the opposition strategy, plans and what we will be doing in the coming months and years. the opposition will be going beyond a straight protest strategy, although that is important and effective as we have seen. one of the forced confessions, a regime they were forced to reinstate presents an opportunity. even in the watered-down and limited form that the law was passed, it comes in force in june. it makes it difficult for

opposition candidates to register, major hurdles to overcome, but even in that condition, elections present a great headache. we have seen that in the mayor elections in industrial centers. the opposition candidate won against the kremlin candidate in an election earlier. now as they prepare to hold elections again, experts are saying that several key regions are likely to go the away. the opposition leader would

easily win the governship in several key areas. gregory lynch insky has not ruled out run for the governship in his area. they have kind of a power base in that city. if we will see several key regions going into the opposition column, that would be a gauge-changer. one of the foremost experts in russia has a paper coming out where he writes about it. he compares the slate of opposition victories at the local and regional level that we have seen unfold to the loss by several communist party secretaries in 1989 in the first partially free, partially competitive elections.

it came as a shock to the system. suddenly these dozens of communist bosses lost the votes. that was a very important initial breaking point, and he compares what is going to happen in the coming months so what happened in 1989. it is safe to assume that russia is on the verge of some big and important changes, and a very interesting place to watch in the coming years. thank you for holding this event, and i look forward to the discussion and the comments. >> thank you. >> i also want to thank the atlantic council and ambassador wilson for hosting this wilson today, having spent time there, something to which i am emotionally attached and attracted. the inauguration day was the quietest day since the day

napoleon entered two centuries ago. are a numbe narratives out there by people skeptical about the on sayings. there are many versions, but one of those is there is is no natural opposition leader. i was there in 1989 when yeltsin arose to lead this opposition movement. can address that issue? do you need a leader out there, part one? and part two, two fascinating but amazingly ambiguous character, kuderi finchem, and prokhorov, who i understand attended the inauguration this week despite having campaigned as an opponent.

can you respond to the allegation there is no natural leader of the opposition? >> on the first point, it has been a great strength of the movement, not a weakness, the fact it has no vertical base like the kremlin. if you look at the people who make up the protests, the majority are pro democracy and libly oriented people. there are leftists, there are socialists, nationalists, right-wingers. it is a very wide movement itemmed by -- united by common goals. i think it is not a detriment. it is an advantage that there is no kind of set figure head and structure to this. once these elections again, especially regional elections.

yeltsin in 1989 he did begin his return to power after he was forced out of it by winning in the moscow district for the 1989 soviet congress elections. we will see when those elections do begin take place, and we will see the new leaders emerges at the ballot box. on kudrin, he is considered by mean as one, at the very least a double agent, and those who are more favorable say he is a clever one in the region. he sensed the wind blowing, and i was one of the first to jump ship. he officially was sacked, but he made everything possible to be sacked in december. it was two days after the putin -medvedev job swap happened. the people said enough is

enough. do you think you can go out there and swap the most important job in the country and hold it for another 12 years? who do you think you are? he jumped ship two or three days after that happened. nobody really considers him a genuine opposition leader. >> he wasn't considered. >> right. in terms of prokhorov, i think it is telling that the other candidate was removed from the ballot, and prokhorov was not. he was given a green light in terms of certain conditions. he was never considered a genuine opposition figure. millions of people directed protest votes into prokhorov's column. one of the most respected figures in the russian dissident movement, he urged people to go and vote for

prokhorov in march. not because of prokhorov, but because in those conditions, it is the only way to express, a vote against the regime. in those places where votes were counted morals fair -- more or less fair, prokhorov came a strong second to putin. this shows that the protest vote chose him. what we are seeing now -- we are not seeing him now. these past few months, people have not heard of prokhorov. >> he just designs the basketball team logo. >> right, and moved it to brooklyn or something like that. that is all we have heard the past few days, not the politics. >> when you ask a question, please identify yourself. who would like to go first? >> bill jones from executive

intelligence review. >> wait, microphone is coming. >> i would just like to ask you what do you say to the argument this is a matter of sour grapes from the opposition at this point? 38%, opposition, and they are going to continue to operate. we don't expect putin to crack down on them or to be a major shift. he will have to work with the new situation. he seems willing to want to do it. i think that the argument of comparing with lugascenka. >> he did get 64% of the votes, and therefore he has a right to govern. of course the opposition is going to continue to work, but to think this is going to lead to the overthrow of an administration seems to me very far-fetched. the other thing is what is president putin going to do?

there is a broad program of developing the far east, developing the arc particular. the advisory council has put forth a plan for development of these underdeveloped areas, and putin s put hiseiin it if he successful, he is going to be more popular than he is today. why is this such a dramatic thing that you think he will not last out his term when he has been elected with a significant majority. he does have a program. if the program doesn't work, he will be in worse shape. if he does work, he will probably be better off. you can't just attack him for who he is because he has won the election. >> if you were one of those

people who were beaten to blun in the peace frul protest, you would not think it is a far-fetched conclusion. the only difference i can think of between him and putin is that he did allowed -- when we remember the events of 2010, he allowed genuine opposition figures on the ballot. he did allow opposition on the ballot. mills vitch allowed opposition on the ballot. when you talk about 64%, i don't want to -- i don't want to sound harsh, but that is ridiculous. to have percentage and results, you need to have an election. it is not just the mechanical process of putting a paper in a

box. we saw several candidates not registered. over 20 political parties were banned or unregistered between 2007 and 2011. that is not an election when you can't go and vote for the opposition. when all you see on national tv is putin, putin, putin, putin and occasionally prokhorov. let's not talk about election results. the last federal election in result was 1990 -- 1999-2000 when putin's vote was 50%. that was the last thing that conceivablely resembled a competitive election because competitors were allowed on the ballot. you ask why people think he is

not going to last out his term. well, lou at the divergence -- look at the divergence of where the public mood is going with him and where he is going. he -- you say he seems willing to work with the opposition. not really. beating someone to blood and kicking pregnant women in the stomach is not very willing to me. we will see. just as mr. mills vitch seemed strong as his day, we will see. mubarak had 80% election results months before his topple. i'm just back from moscow a few weeks ago. you should see the mood of

people. in modern teams, just to think somebody could be in power 24 years. when putin came to power, look at the world powers. david cameron worked as a consultant. it is unbelievable. this is not the kind of thing people are willing to accept. this is why young educated russians are coming out. are you kidding me? he has been there 12 years, and he comes out and says i am swapping jobs with this guy, and i am staying another 12. that is not going to happen. it goes against everything that is happening in the world, including everything happening in russian. you can't rule the country if you have lost the big cities. the majority of moscow is against him.

i think we are going the same way. i am one of those i don't think he is going to last out six years. i think he is not going to be able to complete the six years. >> working microphones. that is technological process, and maybe it will spread. ira strauss-kahn -- strauss. i gather you think a democratic restoration will occur maybe in our lifetimes and maybe in the section several years. i don't want to debate schedules. when i first wrote that nato ought to be able to throw an umbrella over a soviet space,

it was in 1985. i didn't expect it to happen in the next decade. i was surprised. now you have written some things about what a future democratic transition, whether it comes in one year, five or 15, will need in terms of its international policy, and i think that is of interest up here in washington. those here from the atlantic council. and one of the things you said which is identical to what others have said years ago was that they will need to be a part of the west, no longer an adversary of the west. it is a member of the group of eight, but the crucial thing is nato. you have written a very interesting article about this, about how others were fatally damaged at the start by nato not having a friendly response to them. i remember that at the start.

that was my cause back then. what will you need in the future, and how will it be possible for the west to be better prepared if such an eventuality were to occur? i would put odds on it happening in our lifetime. it is worth considering what we need to be ready with also. >> thanks for the question, and you are referring to eight 1991 when president yeltsin expressed his willingness to join nato and was given a cold shower. that was 20 years ago. the goal was nato membership was present in all of the major political packs. they talked about that integration interest the european space. that example, the european

union, in the polls, especially people of the aages of people under 30. they want to be there, too. there is a parallel path of demeckization -- democratization. we are a european country, no question about it. it is a matter of institutionalizing that. the g-8, which for some rinne putin claims he brought russia into it, but it was actually in 1998. they like to rewrite the history as you know. i would certainly be in favor of nato membership. some of my colleagues or -- are. is there is no structure, no single leader or program.

there is no single vertical. for now as you understand, that is not the main hot question. the main question is to start changing what has been there for over a decade, starting with the release of political prisoners and free elections. all the rest would come later. i want to thank you for your efforts of so many years of doing that. it is nice to know that people are sympathetic here. and hopefully when a new a democratally -- democratically elected government happens, they are accepted.

>> name name is walter. i am a member of the atlantic council. my question to you -- i spoke with russias. i was in russia and i talked to russian people as well, and i asked them to define democratic. not only in russia, but in other parts of the world. they said what are you talking about? define you democrats in the united states when you have senators and congressmen who sit 20 or 30 years in their seats. you have putin, who will be 12 years in office. they ask me a very simple question. define what is democracy. >> you are asking vladimir? >> can i piggy-back on that and put it in a somewhat different way, add this to your answer. talk a little bit about what

you nights -- units the opposition and what makes up democrats,' opposed to segments of the pop who oppose putin, because they are two different things. one is being for a more democratic society, a more liberal society, which is a slice, but much of what we read here, elements of the protestors and elements among those who have organized the protests appear by no means to be liberals and at best have quite dubai reduce democratic credentials that we in the west would think of. drill down a bit into the nature of the opposition as a democratic movement and elements that may be somewhat differ and weave in an answer

to walter's question to the extent that you can. >> absolutely. the favorite retort line of all the putin officials, when putin abolished election of governs in 2004, and he was asked for it, he said united states before 1913 didn't have the direct election of senators. they come up with resorting lines. a few years ago, i remember there was a scandal here in washington. i thin the washington post published something to do with electronic surveillance, and essentially a newspaper forced the attorney general at the time, gonzales, to resign his post, about five years ago. in russian after the ntv channel came up that the prosecutor general received an apartment from some of the people he was supposed to be

investigating, the kremlin shut down the ntv channel. i am sure there are a couple like luge who just lost -- lugar, who just lost in the primaries. the president can't be here longer than two four-year terms. imagine if bill clinton was still president? would that be conceivable here? no. or george bush. no we could have this conversation for several years. the definition of democracy is a tricky one. the word democracy is a difficult one. if you ask people to decide their preferences, would you want to elect your plerp or have it imposed on it, they would want to choose.

do you think local governors elected or appointed? the vast majority would say elected. without that loaded term, if dow serious polling like some do, you would see that a strong majority of the russian society are democratic. all the things like elections for governors, parliament and the head of state, they want elections. in terms of the democratic reaction of the opposition. there are well-known characters like imonov and others who are less than democrats. that was played up very much by the putin media when the protests began big-time in mid december. when the state television was

forced for the first time in a decade to show opposition leader, because there were 120,000 people standing in the middle of moscow. if you look at the picture on state tv, they try to show up somebody with a black flag or a nationalist slogan to scare people. was a tactic for a while. maybe we are back, maybe we are corrupt, and look at them. do you want an treeksist coming out? that was in december. then in february the center did a big sur via -- it was perhaps the longest on the 24th of december. still the end of december. it wasn't february. it was the end of december when there were in excess of 120 people there. they did a poll to find out who they are.

i printed out the result of the poll just to get it right. 69% described it as democratic or liberal. 13% said they were communists, and 6% described their users as nationalists. that describes the opposition. it was on pump made to be more balanced, between the left and the right, the liberals and the nationalerses, the social i.r.s.s and the conservatives. the broad base, in a european sense, liberal. people bonn to be citizens in their own country. they have been become consumers, and now they want to be citizens. when we saw all the nationalists, like dugan, who is considered to be the father of intellectual neo nazi iism

there, and others. that is what all these people were. we have do have some nationalists, sure, and some hard left people, too, but they are a small minority. this is kremlin scare tactics to suggestion that this is the alternative. >> hector antonio-riva will alpac. i do want to respond to a comment you made to the first question, the response and question. you said let's not talk about elections or results. let's talk about policy. i have seen in november of 2011 rigosan made the announcement for the strategic defense of earth. i have seen persistently the head of railways discuss the

baring straits tunnel. two things are driving the fear of the american population, which is the prospects of war and the financial collapse. this being put on the table i find something as to be seriously discussed between two mainly powers in a time where civilization does need it. i would also like to add that -- and i have been to a number of these type events. i was at the csis event yesterday, and there are consistent questions brought up about humanitarian concerns to the russian situation. if that is the case, why do we not 3-d the greece situation in the -- add the greece situation, which is under a

financial dictatorship. when two clear policy initiatives for strategic collaboration between the unless and russia have been put on the table, don't you think that should be something strived for and discussed between the opposition in general, russia and the united states, as opposed to the current way, which could lead to the confrontation of two nuclear powers over the ballistic missile system in europe. >> just in general, before i answer specifically, totalitarian illegitimate regimes don't make good partners. all you have to do is look at the corporation on syria and missile defense, which you did mention as proof of that. on the specific issues, there

are things like the jackson-vanik amendment or the w.t.o., what they are trying to do is bring the countries closer together while making clear this regime does not represent our country. you were at the event yesterday, so you are aware of the jackson-vanik debate. the entire russian leadership is 100% in favor of that. you get rid of an amendment which effectively sanctions the country. it is a great propaganda tool for putin. it says it limits trade with russia. the americans of anti-russia. we support the lifting of that amendment. but then you put another law in play which would say if you violate the internationally recognized new orleans, you should be able to come hero for vacation, or keep your money here or send your kids here.

so you replace something that is a genuine irritant with a measure that would upset a handful of crooks, thieves and murderers in the kremlin. the w.t.o. was an-in sentive. all those would probably be in favor of that from the russian federation when that came in. in terms of initiatives proposed by rigozan, study his political biography. you wouldn't want to be involved in the initiatives proposed by him. he has a nice hobby. he collects cast irons, and he loves french poetry. this is nothing personal against him. if you look at his politics, he is virulent nationalism. i don't don't you would want to

be voicing him up here, or advertising him. there is absolutely no contrakicks between discussing concrete issues and not -- daraa dixon between discussing concrete issues. and just a last point on the practicing tism, there was a brilliant "washington post" editorial a couple of months ago when putin won the election, and ted -- he listed all the moral arguments for the u.s. to get tougher on human rights, all the argumenting, and we should start with principles. it had a very pragmatic point, and it said do i really think that an american administration, doesn't matter which party, should put all the eggs in its relations with

russia in the basket of an their tehran leader that has people demonstrating against him. is that really a stable regime, to be putting all the eggs in that basket? and to condition very important strategic relations between the u.s. and russia, two nuclear powers, in the hand of one man, who was not elected, does not have majority support, and they don't know how long he is going to stay there. there is nothing wrong with not thinking strategic and not hushing up the issues of freedom and human rights. both should be done at the same time. >> if i could hone in as a quick follow up to a closely represented issue, which is the horrible treatment of our ambassador there during the election campaign. i hear, and mike talks with russians, various opinions on this in the opposition movement.

what is the u.s. to do in terms of direct support for the n.g.o.'s, the opposition movement and so forth? ross brought something up where we had a very extensive set of assistance efforts for that. mike, the ambassador, spearheaded a lot of that. what is your view about what should the u.s. be doing in terms of helping, or not, these groups? >> i think first and foremost the u.s. should not be helping the putin regime. the russian opposition is never asking for any direct help or support. god forbid any monetary support. that would be the best gift for putin and the regime. but stop supporting him. when the u.s. state department announces a few days after the march 4 "so-called election,"

congratulating on the win, it is a joke. state television was censored, and there was basically a preordained result. the major democratic power in the world comes out and congratulates you on the win, that doesn't hold water. the bill doesn't do anything for the russian opposition. no outside forces, no outside actors. it is for russian society alone. but just stop supporting the regime. when these people steal the money and keep them on the western banks, and buy property here, and have vacations here, and send their kids to study here, that is a means of supporting corruption and crimes in the russian state. that is what they are afraid of. if you look at one of the first decrees putin signed on monday,

it was a decree ordering the foreign ministry to make it a priority to stop the bill in the congress. it was called extra territorial sanctions in the united states against russian physical and legal entities. he signed it up two ours after his inauguration and swearing in. that is how important that is for them, and how sensitive. they are not going to have a place to spend the stolen money and ill-gotten profits. they know if they have to -- they kick people who are just peacefully protesting, and rigging the elections, they are not going to be accepted in the civilized world. that is the single most important thing to do. >> sure. >> i am also a member of the atlantic council. my question relates to foreign

policy, but i will star with internal policy. when president putin became president, and before that, prime minister, public awareness about him was very low as we all remember. he went through this power area with military activities in the chechen north korean republic. looking at this experience today, and some of the tense relationships that russian has with some of its neighbors, particularly georgia, do you see that that card may be played for internal purposes, and is there any resource now -- does president putin have the resource card to use it the

same way he used it in 1999 to make him more popular today? >> i think that last "money and politics" is pre-- the last point is precisely it. the terrorism card is what made him president in 1999. the mysterious apartment bombings in 199 and the attack and what effect it had then, a chilling affect and mass hysteria, and he came to power on that wave. a couple of years ago there was a terrorist attack in the moscow area under the f.s.b. building, and if you remember the reaction then, it was what is this? he has been here 10 years. he has taken away basically all rights and freedoms in for stability and security, and these guys are blowing up metro station 100 yards from the f.s.b. building?

so the currency was the same. the reaction was different. it doesn't work anymore. you are asking can he do it? sure he can? in another war, of course he can. he can do it tomorrow. already in 2008 when he did georgia, or when medvedev did georgia, it was not at all the same reaction in 1999. many people are saying this today, it was the best gift to the russian north caucuses. it set a precedent. did you it yourself, how can you say anything? the opposition leaders in 2008 said they would reverse that opposition. they would not be recognizing those separatist entities. he can try to do it, but i don't think it is going to work. it doesn't work anymore with

the terrorism card. he lost that card. as we said before, putin is the same, but society is very different. whatever he did in 1990 and 2000, whatever he pulled -- just look at operation success. in 2000 it was perfect. nobody said anything. he pointed at medvedev and said this guy will be president. then in 2011 when he tried to do the same, he had tens of thousands of people on the streets of the largest cities within weeks. he may try to do the old tricks, but they are not going to work anymore. >> hi. i am katie fox from the democratic institute. thank you for your interesting remarks. i wanted to ask you a little more about the future activities of the opposition. assuming there is this new constituency of people who are consumers and now want to be citizens, what is the opposition -- does the opposition do to keep them involved?

a lot of people say the rallies are getting smaller and that tactic is starting to wear out. running in election is his great, of course, but they will be rigged elections, and candidates may not be allowed to register. it is not clear whatcould you tt about that? >> the next large march is planned for june 12, russian national day. the anniversary of the declaration of sovereignty in 1990, a symbolic day for russian democrats. the strategy is moving away from the streets to the ballot boxes. you say the elections are rigged. what we have seen and tried in this new law, the election of

regional governors, has so much conditions and limits for people to overcome to be able to run. even elections like that are still a big headache for this regime. we have seen in recent municipal elections in moscow the opposition is prevent it from all the seats. no tv time. ballot stuffing. with all this, the opposition took the majority in the russian legislature. any particular city, 70% 20 kerr 8 -- 20% was the tally. this is going to be a major opposition -- opportunity for the opposition. there are already predictions some of the leaders will lead --

will collect opposition governors. all you need to look at is how the kremlin is waiting for this and how it expects it. in the last couple of months, since this concession was forced from then -- from them, they have made as of today it is 17 gubernatorial appointments. they have been trying to the last minute using that power, and most of those are in regions that are supposed to hold elections. they are afraid of those kinds of elections, which they have control over. in a particular city, everybody said an opposition candidate was not getting 70%. it was against putin. you can disqualify 80% of opposition candidates, and they are against the regime.

they can get 55% because they are against the regime. there are elections on june 1. we have still three weeks of this power of appointment. we should expect to see more of those appointments in the last time frame they can do it. it will not save them. they cannot do it forever. as there were suggestions they may after the initial protests, from march, those suggestions they might try to roll it back, but then they decided they could not because they would have 200,000 people in central moscow the next day. the public apathy is gone. he can try to do the same thing he has done for the last 12 years. when he shoved down the most

popular tv show, which is now a symbol of trash journalism, where it was to be the most popular independent television, the tried to do that, you can imagine the number of people in central moscow. it is nothing like 2000 and 2001. he may do things the same, but what -- but it will only slightly to -- but it will only need to the same result. >> what is the timing of these regional elections, and could it be that the people who were appointment had a fixed number of years? how long will this wave take effect after election day? >> october 14 is the election day this year. we're now down to five out of a

dozen, because they have made all those appointments in the last two weeks. they have still three weeks of that power until june 1. you can see where they are making one. one region where putin's party got 30% in december. that region was supposed to hold gubernatorial elections. want to make it. people who are appointed are now going to serve out until 2016, 2017, and no alexis will take place. this shows that they are scared. second, they are weak, because they are just making appointments in those regions where they are supposed to hold elections this year or next. they are saying they are going

to lose, as they just lost a slate of mayoral candidates across the country. that will be the s equivalent of abolishing elections, and then they will have their protests. they have all these hurdles in the law to register their gubernatorial candidate. ou have to conllect signatures from los cheryl -- from local legislators. a prominent analyst said that is more dangerous for the region, because imagine there is a popular gubernatorial candidate who has general support, and suddenly the kremlin removes hand. kenya imagine what will happen on the streets and squares?

they will multiplied the process from moscow across the country. they will give people local grievances, not just national ones. in 2009 and it doesn't tend, it was many local issues that brought people to the streets and initially, like the rise in the car attacktax. the import tariffs to vladivostok. all these local agreements and then itetus to th, became against putin. it seems like more local grievances and reasons for people to protest will be bad for them above all. even these limited can condition that elections may become a great opportunity for the

opposition. there was a recent leak in the kremlin that said you should expect to have between three and five gubernatorial races this year in october, and that was when they were supposed to be eight or nine. the last two were yesterday in another region, and now they will not have an election in october. the leak was between three and five. there will be some in any case, october 14. [unintelligible] every year, every year. the law says that any governor reason afterrny

june, 2004, they can no longer be appointed like right now. they have to do it now, two weeks. if they do not do it before june 1, that is it, they will have to have elections for governor. >> you make a chart that targets all the people with low pro-putin turned out. -- turnout. >> [unintelligible] let me ask a question -- [unintelligible] not only just a political solution, but also an economic solution. what is their opposition of? >> the question you asked is

when would you have the next election campaign. we now are at the stage where we were in 2000, not a question of what your tax rate will be pier root is a question of getting people out of prisons. it is a question of having a free vote instead of a reigged vote. it is rather than having putin they're all the time. it is a legitimate question, but it is not for this stage. we're not having an election campaign now. we are having a single movement. it is a white coalition when we have the next free election and you will not see people on the same list or on the same party.

what you see now is the opposition coalition -- and there will be another rebranting. there will be 10 or 12 different parties. the solutions will range from then to here, will be completely different. that is not a question or the point now. >> may be to follow up that question, and number of people would argue that the source of putin's power has to do with the fact with the image he has established -- security, stability, and prosperity. as president, as head of the government, he retains a lot of ways to influence the prosperity of the country going forward. russia faces pretty heavy economic headwinds. to what extent can putin -- and

i think from your comments, the answer is obvious, but i want you to answer it anyway -- to what extent can rising prosperity, if putin is able to deliver it, moderate the kind of domestic political problems for him that you have described? >> in 2004, it took $27 a barrel of oil price to balance the russian budget. into does 11, it took $150 a barrel. the absence of any kind of structural reforms, the entrenchment of the patetrol state -- 1/4 of the russian state is eaten up with corruption. tend it was over $30 billion.

-- in 2010 it was over $30 billion. prosperity keep trumpeting and the clique around him who became billionaires, they have prosperity, but it does not affect the country. that is why the forecast i mentioned earlier of the research, one of the reasons they project the spread of the protest is because if a fiscal crisis hits in 2014, there will be a whole new constituency of processors, those who have economic grievances. those who now putin are able to pay off with high pensions for the time being -- when he is not able to pay them off, they will join the protest movement. that is 2014. the second point, that is why

many of us think this movement is more significant than 1991. there was a protest against the totalitarian system, but also against the economic misery that the soviet state brought with it. this movement -- there are no economic -- they are not asking for increased salaries, better cars. these are people who have a pretty good standard of living. they want to be treated as people, not as cattle. they do not want to be sold by some guy who is going to be elected president for another 12 years. that is one of the reasons -- this is the classical argument that once the middle-class, the prosperity, the prosperous and of the population reaches a certain level, they will be demanding democracy and political rights.

this seems to fit in that, because the percentage of the middle-class has risen in russia. no thanks to mr. putin. now that phrase, they have become consumers already, it is not the economic grievances. they want to have a voice in the future. >> it seems to meet president clinton does have a program, and if you look at the documents he gave a series of speeches, including some basic speeches on the issue of economics. if you look at programs he has emphasized and papers that are coming out of from the council on productive forces in russia, with the development of the arctic, it is an extensive infrastructure role program and which they would use oil and gas, but now there is an end or -- an orientation toward mineral

resources. china and india needs mineral resources, which are there in the arctic and the far east. putin will develop this stuff. in includes an improvement of the conditions of life of people in these regions because it is a very difficult region to live in, and they have to have incentives. they're trying to do that. it seems to me he is talking about program whereas all the opposition is talking about is let's get putin. no programmatic ideas. if i were interested in the future of russia, which is in pretty bad shape, you have the middle-class which is fairly well off, but the majority of russians are suffering a lot because of the economic conditions, because of the population, a decrease of the population -- all of these things exist and it seems to me this is a program oriented toward improving the situation of russia. if i were a patriotic russian, whether i like putin or not, i

would look at what the opposition is saying, which is get rid of putin, and then putin will say i will go with it because this is the way to do it. it is funny to see that, that you expect people to buy a pig in a poke by voting for the opposition when they do not have an economic program. that is pretty farfetched. with regard to putin costs term in office, he will be there 18 years, not 24 years. i did the he has decided and will not decide to run again. if franklin roosevelt had lived, he would have served 16 years. i myself think that would add much better than having harry truman come in. that is a matter of course. it is a president that, this is then in office of a president. >> not to make an equivalence between fdr and putin. >> you had that phrase, people do not vote for the opposition.

you cannot vote for the opposition because it is not on the ballots. they took one person off. he did not see that name in there. you cannot vote for the opposition. forget that phraseology. let's forget about voting and not voting. >> if there is only one person on the ballot? >> they had a person who has been there for 20 years. if you talk about parliamentary elections, he is disqualified -- -- >> he did not run against putin. >> you have to have several names on the ballot. i'm surprised you ask all these questions. in 2008, you had a person who

nobody had ever heard of before. if you consider the fact that 50% of all will experts controlled by putin's friend out of switzerland, and if you look at corruption and how it has risen and how it is stifling the entire economy -- i do not want to discuss what he is going to develop, which is read those white papers. read about his billion dollar pilots in the black sea coast. people know that he does it. that is why people are coming up into the streets because of the

thievery going on in this regime. if you look at the placards, people in the last few weeks, putin is a thief. that is one of the most popular programs. [unintelligible] >> who is financing it? who is financing what? there was a project in -- >> we have 10 minutes left. let us bunch hour crisis together. you and john has his hand up. let's get to the new faces first. >> one of the first orders that putin he gave from the inauguration day was this deadline to establish the eurasian union by january 1,, 2015.

this has been a pet project of his, and we saw the articles appearing , including this program, and immediately after that we see a very modest commentary from another person in his state of the union address, who almost brushed over the topic. at the same time, in the recent weeks we saw a deal with kazakhstan and things developing on that front. what do you think -- will this project ever come to life and will be something sustainable and something that will eventually aid putin in his current term to maintain his position in the world arena? or will it be something that just dies off eventually the eurasian union?

>> if putin's support collapses in two years, for years, he does not last six years, what sort of transition is the record to be after put in? what is that collapsed going to look like? what comes afterward? and what challenges does that face the rest of the world? >> on the duration question, it will be the same fate. it is a rhetorical device. it is brought to the fore when it is needed for propaganda forces. this union state existed since 1996. there has not been anything to it. the unintended consequence, the only good one, you were there a couple of months ago and one of

the leaders from the opposition came here to washington to receive an award. he is on the black list. he is not believed -- not allowed to leave belarus. there's no border between belarus and russia. that is the only good unintended consequence of the union state. in terms of your question on the transition, it is very much up to the regime how this transition will be. when you saw the initial protests in december and february, you saw people coming out, families with small kids, with white ribbons -- it was 100% peaceful protests, just of moral peaceful protests against this regime. when you have then unleashing an army of 20,000 and right police

on demonstrators, that is going to radicalized the opposite side, too. nobody from the opposition leadership wants a violent revolution or a civil war. the regime is trying to do that by trying to completely closed off all the normal legal avenues, not just for political participation, which they have done, but now also for peaceful protest as well. a colleague spoke on that a couple days ago here. he said once again, minsk can now be arrested for clapping and for singing. in moscow, you can be arrested for wearing white. white is the symbol of the protest. i am talking about this entire week when police were randomly and arresting people who weren't wearing symbols, white

handkerchiefs, detained, put in police buses, and put into it secells. when you have a regime doing that does not encourage peaceful protest and does not give the opposition any encouragement to remain peaceful and more all. inevitably, there will be radicals on the other side, and that is very bad, and nobody is for that, but they are actually working for that, by trying to hang on until the very end, until they crash. that is what this exit strategy is about, this forecast. hese are putin's associates, saying you've got to start looking for an exit strategy because you are not going to be there much longer, maybe another few years, but not much blogger, and you better have that exit strategy because otherwise it is

gone to crash and that will be bad for everybody, for the outside world. the ball is in that court now. the opposition is protested peacefully. when they hit pregnant women and the stuomach and are saying your liver should be on the pavement, that shows you who wants a peaceful transition and who will resist it until the very end. >> time for one more. >> since several people followed oppressing you on putting forward a program, i would like to follow up on say -- on that and say this generous word -- it seems me -- to meet every opposition in an authoritarian system is lacking in substantive programs compared to what will be needed the day after a transition. if this has been my experience with what happened.

i think it is fair to say that probably the opposition will need to work more on program, because when a transition occurs, all the bills come due, and i am not just talking about economic bills. all the issues people put off under stability, suddenly they did not allow it to be put off, and you have to be ready for it. it is something worth considering more seriously. on the other hand, you put a challenge to the rest of us in your article that the bills are due for us also who what this change to occur, and we need to be ready with dealing with it, not in terms of just giving money, but in terms of the relations we want, how we want to deal with those relations. that is an even more fair challenge to us because we were not ready during the gorbachev-

yeltsin transition. i wanted to emphasize the challenge he to say we share it equally if not more so. >> thank you for your comment. >> i want to thank the atlantic council again for holding this, and thanks to everybody who took part in the discussion. it is great to have those kinds of exchanges of opinion here. >> thank you for your questions. the comment at the end was a helpful one. , i want to thank my staff who helped put this on, and the assistant director who is back for the first time after having had a baby several weeks ago. thank you very much. please join me in thanking our two guests for an extended presentation and leadership of today's events. thank you.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> mitt romney will be in lynchburg, virginia, this weekend to address liberty university graduates at their commencement ceremony. this is his first visit to the christian university, and we will have live coverage saturday morning at 10:20 eastern. this weekend, senator john hogan senate e-cen appropriations. -- senar john hoeven. >> i had my ambition to walk

with john smith and pocahontas. this makes a rectangular space that would be the chancel. incahontas mary's john rolfe this church in 1614. i guarantee you i am standing exactly a little deeper than she was, but this is where pocahontas stood when she got married. >> tour the jamestown colony dig. take a tour starting at 1:30 p.m. eastern saturday. joint in the conversation answering your questions, live saturday, 2:30 p.m. eastern, part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> these men go through things and have scars that no one can

understand and accept each other. >> the first thing that started us was the relationship when harry truman and herbert hoover, who were such different men and who ended up forming this alliance that neither of them would have anticipated and ended up being enormously productive and form the foundation of what would become a deep friendship. the letters between them later in their lives about how important they have become to one another are extraordinary. >> it may be the most exclusive club in the world. american presidents, sunday, 8:00 p.m., on c-span. >> the national committee to preserve such as security and medicare he released a port today. it's as the poverty rate for senior women and widows is a 50%

higher than male retirees. the organization with two other seniors and women's organizations offer proposals. this is about an hour. >> good morning, everybody. could i ask you to turn your cell phones off? c-span has made that request. my name is max richtman, i am the president of the national committee to preserve social security. we are a member-supported advocacy educational organization that for 30 years has been committed to protecting and promoting the health and income security of older americans and their families. i want to welcome one of our oard members, build ill vaughn,

and i would like to thank congressman john conyers for helping us get this room for this important briefing, and more importantly, where the leadership that he has shown for so many years and continues to show in protecting social security, medicare, and medicaid. we need congressman conyers to be here to do the things he has done so well for years. i want to thank everyone for being here. the national committee has joined the national organization for women's foundation, the institute for women's policy research, to release a report that we believe is important, not just our various constituencies, but to the entire country. breaking the social security glass ceiling, hour or four,

provides a desperately needed a reality check to a washington debate that increasingly an almost explosively addresses social security in terms of how much money can be saved by cutting what are already modest benefits, rather than what those benefits cuts would actually mean it to the average american. the truth is, as our country ages and retirement income continues to decline for millions of americans, congress should be talking about the adequacy of social security benefits, not talking about cutting them. congress should examine the inequities that have created a poverty rate for senior women and widows that is 50% higher -- that is an astounding number -- 50% higher than other retirees 65 and older. we can break the social security

glass ceiling, and we really have to if we're going to preserve the economic security of generations of american women and their families. let me also -- i saw scott frye here -- he is here, the deputy commissioner for legislation, and of course, thank you so much, carolyn, for coming. she is the deputy social security commissioner. we are very honored to open this briefing and here congresswoman eleanor holmes norton. she joins us this morning. she understands the challenges facing retirees, especially women, and elder women of color. she has been as we all know a tireless champion of equality and equity and a national

leader for civil and women's rights. the issues addressed in our report that we are releasing this morning speak exactly the kind of fairness and parity sheet has championed the drop her distinguished career. where very honored to have you, congresswoman. please welcome her. [applause] >> thank you very much. this briefing should be welcome in the halls of the congress. it is a beautiful cover and a very readable report. it is not like your government reports. [laughter] it as a report meant to be read, not only by members of congress, but by a larger public, a public

that is increasingly female that needs to focus on social security. i want to thank the three organizations who are responsible for this report, the national committee to preserve social security and medicare, the national organization of women, and the institute for women's policy research. to give you a briefing is a lot of expertise all of us will find and lightning. particularly since this is a security system as we know it is still about mr. de's work force. there is a genius of the system is that it has lasted so well and so long and is the most beloved and of federal programs, yet even the best federal

programs come to a point, and social security seems to be past that point, where one has to look at where today cost challenges are. if the challenge of the feminist movement was on the front end of the work force. women's work life, especially of some women, they were getting a work like for the first time in the post-world war ii in generation. the kind of work, still a single mission -- issue, because the sex segregation spills act at the end of a woman's work life when she comes to security and other ways of living out her life with some comfort. then of course the pay gap, which at the front end of the work force has always fascinated women and been a

driver of what -- of the changes they want. the fascination with opening up men's jobs, for example, to women has had a fair amount of assets -- of success. you see the doctors and lawyers and the rest of them. but what i think is important about this report is that it focuses on the mainstream woman, the average woman, the working woman who may be single or married, but also increasingly today, because of the longevity of women in particular, but also of men, as a responsibility for aging parents or relatives, her

own life is even longer. divorce or widowhood is almost inevitable for most women. and so the smaller salaries result in smaller retirement and smaller savings for women of color. -- savings. for women of color, this is a prototype, because they stand out because they emphasize the disparities that this report seeks to cure, because they are most likely not to have pensions even after a's, life of hard work. focus onthe report's what most people as they think of social security today have

not is focused upon it is extremely important, and i want to say, as the president has indicated, that he supports same-sex marriage this week, that i am pleased that the report also does not leave out any who would be affected or should be affected by changes in social security. finally, let me say i hope that as you hear this briefing today you are not deterred by the tone of the congress or what is happening in the congress now. i remind you that the social security system itself is an innovation that came out of great crisis, that the generation that created the system and is responsible for those innovations decided not

just to fix the depression, but to fix the economy and to assure security long after the depression, and indeed they have. it is an extraordinary tribute to the innovation that came out of tough times, so i suggest that we look at this report in light of the innovations that are also possible and not let the congress stop us. make the congress directing. thank you very much for coming today. >> thank you so much, congresswoman norton. we could not be more pleased to join him in presenting this report which with the national organization for women and the institute for women's policy

research. heidi hartmann and terry o'neal had spent a lot of time, as we have, and our great staff, especially mr. phillips, has committed a lot of time to producing this document. i am going to first introduced a chair of estes, our board of directors. she is a professor of social -- sociology at the diversity of california, san francisco. she is the founding and former director of the institute for health and aging, the former chair of the institute of the department of sciences. dr as these is a member of the institute of medicine, of the national academy of sciences, and a past president of the chair ontological society of

america, the american society on aging, and the association for gerontology. she has worked with the u.s. house and senate committees on aging. she is my boss. dr. estes? [applause] >> thank you. i want to acknowledge and thank congressman -- congresswoman eleanor holmes norton for your inspirational work and leadership, and particularly for your comments this morning. and your support. this report that we are presenting today is an urgent call for our retirement system to catch up with the changing needs of women and their

families. building on what works, the report offers a modernization plan for cercis security that would break the glass ceiling by strengthening benefits for winningly and improving the adequacy of social security, in light of the very difficult economic plight of women across america. the report examines the paradox of women's increasing role in the work force while they find themselves economically vulnerable in old age. whitman's lifetime of juggling the competing demands of paid work in the labour market with unpaid work of family care giving means women have less opportunity than men to accumulate assets across of their last life span.

interrupted employment patterns with periods of part-time work punctuated by timed out of the decade labor market is a recipe for lower wages, a few fringe benefits, and your assets in old age. despite women's increasing his labor force participation, women aren't 19% less than men. four women of color, which disparities are even greater, with little if any access to private pension coverage and lower amounts when provided. family responsibilities crowd out opportunities to work and to pay and to save. older women of color are most vulnerable, even with social security. older hispanics and african- americans experienced double the poverty rates of older white women. compounding their difficulties, when men live longer, have more chronic illness, and height out

of pocket health costs. throughout their lives, black and hispanic women tend to have low educational achievement, higher unemployment, lower wages, and greater care giving responsibilities. for the young, and increasingly grandchildren. the disparity and in come under the social security by sex is clear. men make approximately $15,620, while women's average income is $12,155. nevertheless, social security is the most important source of income for older women. it is a vital lifeline for all americans that represents 90% of the income of more than once last three of retired americans.

this reports beaten by race and ethnicity must be a factor in social satori reform. social security provides 90% of the annual incomes of more than half of hispanics and almost half of african-americans. the difference by race and ethnicity are even more pronounced when we take into account marriage and living arrangements. she work -- fewer resources make older women are physically dependent on social security. among unwomen -- among unmarried women of color ar -- the american people correctly understand they have paid into security, all their working lives and that they have earned their benefits. national polls favor universal

old age programs and think the u.s. should be doing more for the elderly. it is more than 70% in the most recent polls crossing party lines and age lines. the crisis is not in social security, but the private system that has failed to provide a foundation for income security and all age. the great recession of 2008, crashing stocks, home values, for 01 k's, and next to 0 inches streets on savings had demonstrated the grave risk we bear if we did not improve the universal risk he school of social insurance that we have turned to social security. while fiscal hawks " to use sosa security for deficit reduction, we offer a plan that would strengthen benefits for women

and their families while improving the equity and adequacy for generations of americans. our nation cannot afford not to provide fair and adequate benefits for future generations of working americans. so security is a family program. it is for families, not just elders. if it pays more benefits to children than any other federal program to their coverage in the event of death or disability of the care giver. for veterans returning from iraq and afghanistan, disabled, and for those killed in war, social security is a vital lifeline for their children and their spouses who raised bed. this was the case of the 9/11 the twin towers terrorist attack. there were about 2600 children who receive their first social security check within 30 days of

that disastrous event and the death of their working parents. social security not only is good for the american people. it is good for the american economy. it pours more than $725 billion at last count him into the nation through individual beneficiary payments. this money is spent on necessities and contrasts to the economy and security of our communities and neighborhoods. that is, $1 billion in the district of columbia at each year. more than $12 billion in maryland, and $18 billion in virginia. how the reality is that social security needs to be protected and strengthened. it is a practical means of protecting all ages at various points in our lives. thank you.

>> thank you, carroll. before i introduce our next speaker, i want to acknowledge a person's presence. scott is the deputy commissioner of social security in office of legislation and congressional affairs. thank you for coming. our next presenter is haiteidi hartman, the president of the institute for women's policy research, an organization she created in 1980 -- 1987. she is an economist at also a research professor at the george washington university and holds a ph.d. from yale university. dr. hartman has published numerous articles and books and her work has been translated

into more than one dozen languages. she often lectures on women, economics, public policy, including services occurred and retirement and has frequently testified before the u.s. congress and is often cited as an authority in various media outlets such as cnn, nbc news, and "the washington post." in 1994 from dr. hartman was the recipient of a fellowship for her work in the field of women and economics, and for those of you who are not familiar with that award, it is a very special award. heidi, for being here. >> good morning, everyone, and i want to think the national committee to preserve and now for being our co-conspirators in

this project. it has been a wonderful way to get out so many issues that we have all been working on for so long and finally this has come to fruition. where all pleased -- we are all pleased that this day is here. the women's movement has been talking about ways to modernize and improve social security for a long time. i see young people in the audience. , i want you to know that you are entitled to benefits as a worker, but you are also entitled to benefits as a spouse with in the old days it used to be that men always hard more than women, so it was when and who always took advantage of the spousal benefits. men may actually be taking advantage of benefits in the future. if you do mary, i would urge you not to get divorced for 10 years, no matter what else

happens. [laughter] you did not know what will happen in the future, and perhaps that ex they cannot stand now, may wind up doing well economically and you may have an economic problem, and then you will have the insurance of having benefits from the former spouse. keep that in mind. he cannot divorce them, make up, remarry -- it has to be 10 years at the time. if you remarry, the second time has to be for 10 years. these are important life lessons that i want everybody to know. it is the most important thing you need to know about social security. for women and men, you have access to these benefits to weis. for most women today, who are retired, they took advantage of the spousal benefits, that is equal to 50% of their husband's benefit. he is retired, getting 100% of this benefit. that means she is getting $1,000 a month. when he dies, she can take his

full benefit, you have to give up your spousal benefit. now she will living on 2000 month. our first of the improvement proposal -- i will be talk about proposals for improvement -- is to say the surviving spouse should have 75% of what the couple had to get there. you can see that that's surviving spouse would have lost 33% of the in, if we go to a rule of 75%. then the most any spouse will lose is 25% when the former spouse dies. this applies to divorced spouses as well. severaly you have marriages -- when you retire, you can pick the one who earns the most, and you will get those benefits. he cannot take all three. that is a problem. [laughter] this applies to a divorced

woman whose ex-spouse dies, and if you are a tool kerner, you are each -- dual earner, and one dies, and the research shows in need about 80% of what you had together. with this proposal, 75%, you would be able to keep more of what your former spouse was getting in benefits as well as yourself. we did not put a cap on that. -- we did put a cap on its. for general people, they would be able to keep 75% of the benefits. that is an important improvement for all people who are either married at the time of retirement or widowhood or work formerly married. one of the reasons spousal

benefits are so important to women is that it is based on the benefit of 35 years of work. that is a lot of years of work. this is especially for women who have taken time out to raise families. one of the things we want to do than and the second improvement is improve your work credits if you are a caregiver. let's say you are married and you take a lot of time out of the workforce because of raising children or for elder care, and now your own work record is depleted because you're not earning or earning less. our proposal here is to assign an amount of money to your earnings record pass the median wage would be $22,000 in 2011. you would be able to get up to five years of that earnings on your record. it is something that would be put on there. this is called the caregiving

credit, and could be done for those who care for the disabled or the elderly and the need special attention. this would help a man or woman who does care getting to build up their own where her credit even though they are not able to work as much ashad they not beeg caregiving. this would help not only married workers but single women. many women have children now without the benefit of marriage or the disadvantage of marriage. sometimes it can be one are the other. you never know. but this would help single women as well as married women and men as well as women. this is a very far reaching proposal. some of these things sound a little pointy headed but they are quite far reaching. it is a new alternative. there is also a special minimum. this was designed to help low- wage workers. if you work at a low wage your whole life, your benefit might

be small. if you earned it leased $12,000 a year for 30 years, you can get a benefit of $795 a month. that is not even the poverty level. our proposal is to increase that minimum level benefit to $1,400 a month. we would be almost doubling it and you would have to have 30 years to have the full values but with 10 years, you can get something. to this minimum we also want to add caregiving candid -- credit years. we would add 10 years. if you had no work history at all but provided care getting for 10 years, you would get this minimum benefit which would be about $400 a month. that could be very important for some retired people. this again is far reaching and an improvement of an existing system by making it more generous and adding care giving credits. we are really acting something new to that provision that was not there before. -- ading something new to the

provision that was not there before. we would also have a number of proposals for disabled people. the next one is one of those. the equalizing rule is for disabled widows. this is actually about homemakers who become disabled. in one or a man who has no earnings record of their own, currently is entitled to disability benefits. if he did care giving of a minor child for a deceased earner or if you turned 850 within seven years of when you are deceit -- your deceased earner dies. these are restrictions that keep certain homemakers from qualifying even though they became disabled. we would suggest removing all of these restrictions. no having to become disabled within seven years of some qualifying event. no having to reach age 50. and also no reduction in benefits for taking benefits earlier.

when you become disabled, you do not have a reduction based on the age at which he became disabled. this would apply the rules to disabled workers to disabled homemakers. we also have something similar for widows about benefit of quality. now if you take your with the benefit at age -- at whatever age, if your husband who died before you retire early, you are going to suffer a penalty for his having retired early even if you kept working. it is -- if his benefit is greater than yours, you will suffer the penalty because he retired early. we would like to eliminate that penalty. all of these things for widows would also be for divorced spouses who have not qualified and your marriage. the next one is something for everybody. we have heard a lot in recent years about how much increases

in health-care costs are taking out of the pockets, especially of the elderly who have more health care costs. our normal cpi which is based on the -- does not just enough for the fact that medical care is an extra-large portion of the vast amount of goods that elderly by. the price inflator that adjusts for the elderly and their basket of goods is a little bit higher. we would propose that the annual cost of living adjustment in social security tagged to the cpie. our next benefit is restoring student benefits. these benefits existed until the early 1990's. they were cut in 1981. if you have a disabled parent who died and you were a student

of through age 19 in high school, you will receive a child benefit through social security. it will be equal ordinarily to half of what your deceased parent was entitled to. that benefit used to extend to the college years, through age 22. we will like to restore that to students who are in college or another post secondary program. this would be for those whose parents had died or become disabled. that benefit would be extended. that can be an important benefit. it will be important to the surviving spouse as well who will now be able to save more for their retirement and be able to give a little less to their student in school because they will be getting benefits from the deceased parent. that is a very important one. it is more often the women who are the survivors in that case. the woman a parent. we would also like to improve the basic benefits for all

current and future beneficiaries. we have had the worst recession since the 1930's. lots of people have lost a lot assets. income from asset is virtually zero. this -- the effect of this recession will last a long time in terms of people's income. now is a very good time to increase the basic benefit. the amount we're suggesting is about $55 a month for everyone starting today. of course that could be in the amount but anything at think that would increase the basic benefit because there has been a falling behind because of the cola not adjusting for medical expenses and because of this tremendous shock to the well- being of some many older people through this last recession. a lot of home equity, assets of value and asset income. many have also lost earnings. many retired people worked part- time and many of those jobs have disappeared or become lower in

pay. another new benefit -- equal benefits for same-sex married couples and partners. this could not be more timely given the president's announcement in the last couple of days. i think that is pretty self- explanatory. there are couples who are not able to marry but in states that recognize the marriage or civil union, those partners that are recognized by their states should be able to receive social security benefits and of course would be very voluble to their children as well -- very valuable to their children as well chanute one of those parents become disabled or die. -- should one of those parents become disabled or die. if they become disabled before age 22, they are able to get benefits based on the parents work record. right now there are some

penalties for them that they cannot get it if they divorced have no spot supporting them -- spouse supporting them. we would like to see that the restored. their benefits are subjected to a family maximum but many of these disabled adult children live on their own and should not be subject to that family maximum. that i believe is our last benefit. i am sure i am over time but i need to turn to the pay fors. actually there are many ways to pay for it. we are not endorsing any particular pay for in this report a list 3. all those are the types of things that have been discussed. this could make our overall system reach that magic 70 five- year solvency. we are not at that now.

we are at about 25 years. we need a few more years to get to 75. so we need more revenue is coming into the system. one way, scrap the cap. there is a cap on earnings in terms of how much you pay social security on those earnings. it is capped at about $110,000. and you pay 6.2% on that. your employer same -- pays the same amount. that is not true of medicare. you pay on whole salary. people like to see social security be treated the same way as medicare and have everyone paying no matter what they are earning. this is really for bill gates. i want bill gates to pay his share and he can do this if we remove the cap. but there are many people above that level. our success -- our society has become more and equal. there are more people earning those high salaries.

another possible pay for is slowly increasing social security contribution by a share of percentage points over 20 years. you could start at 20 years in the future. many times we revise social security revenues, we put it into the future so people have a chance to adjust to it. finally there are -- this is a relatively small one. we have a lot of ways of escaping -- putting part of your salary away that you do not pay social security on terr and. thats are not thought of -- part of that. other things in flexible spending accounts that are allowed by the law, you are not putting social security away on that money. this would restore those earnings that you received it with you put into special categories. restore those to being covered

by social security. so that as our last potential pay for. timeoverall message is it's to increase benefits. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much. our final presenter is terry o'neill. is the president for the national organization for women foundation and the national organization for women. it is the largest feminist grass-roots organization in the country. with hundreds of thousands of members and supporters in every state. terry is an attorney and a law professor, having taught at tulane university and the university of california at davis. she is widely in demand as a speaker on a range of issues

important to women, including equal pay, women's economic well-being and social security. if i want to see terry, i turn on msnbc. if i wait 30 or 40 minutes, i will see her. for many decades now, they propose modernizing social security in a number of ways to better meet the needs of today's women and their families. we are hoping by joining forces with these two groups today that we can move that ford. terry. [applause] >> good morning everybody. thank you, max. i am thrilled to be here. i deeply appreciate my partner in crime, dr. heidi hartman.

we have worked on the social security issue for years. as collaborators and fellow traveler -- travelers. i also want to thank max for your leadership in bringing this together. it is really exciting. now and then now foundation -- i and the grass roots arm of the movement. carol, thank you so much. it is wonderful. it there is one of the major challenges facing the united states today, it is in the quality. -- inequality. the nation has begun to have a conversation about the problem of inequality but i think we need to focus our conversation on the disproportionate impact

that inequality has had on women and continues to have on women. we know that the wage gap persists. women on average are only paid 77 cents on the dollar demand. for women of color, it is far worse. i think it is 69 to the dollar for african-american women. and 59 cents to the dollar for latinas. how will you save for retirement? a report issued by the inside center in 2010 revealed that if you look at the net worth of individuals -- is the statistics are shocking. unmarried women, if you break down the net worth of long racial lines, and merritt african-american women's net worth in 2009 was just $100.

latinas, $120. unmarried white women -- $41,500. that is a disparity that cannot continue to exist in our country. the main reasons of that disparity is the value of housing and cars. i think those numbers show dramatically what other groups have done in studies which is to show that mortgage bankers were specifically targeting single mothers and particularly single mothers of color to sell them inappropriate housing at a piece of the sub prime mortgages. and that has resulted in these drastic levels of unequal network -- net worth for unmarried women. by contrast, contrast and unmarried women with married couples, in the african-american committees, couples get roughly

$35,000 vs 100 for unmarried women. 18,500 approximately in the latino community for couples. and 167,000 for the white community for couples. these disparities are huge. women disproportionately are impacted by these disparities also because we tend to cluster in jobs like retail and home health care and child care and in the hotel industry. jobs that do not have health benefits. they very often do not have pensions and do not even have 401k's. so again at 58 since to the dollar and no pension and you're having to come out of pocket for

your health care throughout your working life and you do not have a 401k, how're you going to save for retirement? the answer is you are not actually going to save the money. so social security is the solution. by the time a woman reaches the end of her working career, what she really has is social security. as we have said in this paper, social security needs to be improved for women but what we need to understand is that it is the core part of the solution for the disproportionate impact of any quality on women. -- inequality on women. we need to improve its meet the needs of 21st century families. one thing i really would like to point out -- politicians and

other public figures to claim that social security is the problem, that is going broke and is in crisis and therefore we need to cut it are not being straight with the american people. it is just flat wrong to suggest that social security is in crisis are going broke. it is not. politicians to take action to cut social security benefits instead of improving them will pay price at the polls in november and novembers after that. the public is not fooled by these claims. and their attitude is that even if it is in trouble, the responsible thing for elected officials to do is to fix the problem in a way that allows us to use social security and strengthen it and make it better, not cut it back and dismantle it. having said that about politicians, i would like to give a shout out to some of our best friends on capitol hill who

are leading the way for social security. nancy pelosi has been a true champion for us. last year she fought efforts to cut social security benefits by raising the retirement age and we are grateful for that. rep jens schakowsky has been a leader. john conyers of michigan has been a true friend of the women's movement as low as the civil-rights movement, especially around protecting security. and congresswoman eleanor holmes norton who spoke earlier has been a champion for these issues. there are many more but i just want to say that those who stand up for social security will see the benefit at the polls as well as those who try to cut it. going forward, my organization, the national organization for women's foundation is partnering with the national committee foundation at the grass-roots level to get the word out about the importance of improving social security benefits for

women. over the next weeks and months, we will be reaching out to activists in community after community. the national organization for women has some 350,000 -- 350 active chapters in the country. we will be working to get the word out. we are very excited about moving forward with our campaign to raise awareness and advocacy for improvements to social security and not cut. the me and i sang some of the cuts we are actually worried about -- let me end by saying some of the cuts we are actually worried about. we are opposed to increase in the retirement age. there are some opponents of social security who have tried to implement their opposition by suggesting that we should means

test social security. bill gates should not even be getting social security. the problem with that as we all know is that is a masked way of converting social security into more of a poverty program and let's face it, we know what happens to party programs in this -- this country. the formula of the consumer price index to figure out what should be the cost of living adjustment every year for social security. it is not only stingy, it is extremely not representative of the actual living costs and the increases in living costs of older people, particularly older women. finally, privatization. i do not think it is going anywhere. even george w. bush could not push it through when republicans occupied the white house and both houses of congress.

but there are many advocates on the right wing who would love to privatize social security and so we will be fighting that as well. thank you all very much for being here. [applause] >> we are going to take a few questions. c-span has asked me to repeat the questions for their audience. i wanted to make a quick commentary -- comment. terry talked about politicians not being straight with the american people when they talk about social security being broke. it is not just the politicians. it is the media. the media says this over and over again. the recent incident was the trustees' report a few weeks ago. despite the fact that even the commissioner try to make the

point in a press conference that the program is not broke. it is not bankrupt. but i was listening to the radio that afternoon and a commentator said to an audience here in washington, if you are 45 years old, social security will not be there. that is a lie. so we need to deal not just with the politicians who are misleading the american public but with the media. the way we plan to do it is by joining forces and working with our activists around the country, with all the chapters that now have and with our influence that we have here that the washington through dr. hartman and terry. we are going to try our best to take these recommendations and turn them into some legislative proposals. we have begun talking to members

of the house and senate that are committed. some of the one demented -- the ones you mentioned that want to improve these programs. we are determined to succeed. there has been so much talk about cutting social security and some may say how can you be talking about improving benefits at a time when everybody is talking pabout the need to cut social security? we have to start somewhere. we have a group of organizations that can move the ball forward on this. so i will take any questions. please address them to -- yes? >> my mother is 81.

but she cannot live off the first social security benefits. without help from the family, my mother would be homeless. i have a brother who is disabled. the question i have is just as the minimum wage was raised over years, shouldn't we be raising the benefits so that everyone getting social security should have the dignity of $2,000 a month so millions of seniors are not forced into poverty or disabled because they became seniors. if the bankers got a bill out, shouldn't my mother are brother? what's the question is shouldn't we be raising benefits rather than talking about cutting them? who would like to address that? >> we are raising benefits for everyone about $55 a month. that is a fairly decent amount. that increase almost doubles ai.

that would help low-wage earners. many of us to think $2,000 a month is only 24,000 a year. surely every person needs that. the federal poverty level is a lot lower, especially for single adults. right now, minimum benefits do not keep people above poverty but in our proposal, it would be above poverty. the $55 a month for every recipient would go a long way to read it might not bring everyone up to $2,000 but it would certainly help a lot. hartman talked-about cola. one way to raise the benefit is -- that accurately reflects to someone who depend on social security with higher medical expenses.

it is something the cpie -- we have worked on it for quite a few years. we hope we can get that put into law. >> the chain cpi which has been promoted as the cpi that should be used to calculate the social security cola. by the time a woman reaches the age of 90, if we use the chain cpi, her cost of living adjustment -- there would be such a gap between our actual increases and living expenses ander cost-of-living adjustment under social security that the gap would amount to 3 weeks of groceries per month. so that as one of the main reasons why the chain cpi is a nonstarter and must be rejected

out of hand. >> thank you very much. yes? >> i noted that the care giver credit would do a lot in reducing gender disparities between qualification for retirement benefits and the disparity in the actual benefits themselves. what that also affect determination for disability, eligibility and if not, is their usefulness in pursuing policy that would reduce the disparity in qualify for disability? >> how would care giver credits work with disability? i think we do in this and that it would be part of your earnings records and therefore would enable you to qualify for disability benefits as well. there might have to be some special rules one might want to say some earnings history.

but we also have that one that would help homemakers to become disabled with no earnings record at all. i think both proposals would improve women's ability to get disability for any adult who has done caregiving. male or female. >> demented increasing the child -- -- dimension increase in the child age benefits for up to 22. what about retired workers who have young children? >> we did exclude retired workers who have college aged children. i think it was more about the cost of the benefit package. in the former era, the adult children of retired workers were included as well. so that is really a spending decision as opposed to other

things like the special minimum. x any other questions? -- >> any other questions? >> how will the organization's be working together to get these proposals enacted? >> the question from facebook is how the organizations will work together to get these proposals enacted? i think we discussed that. our pastorates -- grassroots efforts now have some 350 chapters around the country. we have 3 million members around the country. we are going to mobilize. we may not be able to get it started in washington but we can get it started outside the beltway and at the same time, develop legislation and

proposals, turning these recommendations into bills that can then be moved through the congress. it will not happen obviously before the election. i do not think a whole lot will happen before the election but we need to create momentum and that is what we are committed to doing. >> i would just add that we would be working with the national women's law center and the older women's league. a wonderful organization who have been advocates for decades on these kinds of issues. we -- they will be partners with us going forward. it will take all of us and particularly those in states and communities who are members of these local affiliate organizations. breakfast senate for community change will be working with the women's organization on a grass-

roots campaign as well. and the labor movement passed a resolution at their recent meeting that it is time to increase benefits in social security because of the depression life recession. we had the recession and now we are in a depressed recovery preiod both are recovering. i think we look for good times ahead but i do think the severe economic downturn will have a lasting effect. that is one reason to increase benefits for everyone. that is a position we have taken. there are many activist groups that will be working on these kinds of proposals. >> one other thing that is exciting about this campaign to me is that so many of the activists i talk to when i travel around the country are bombarded. we are saturated in this country

with messages that we have to cut, cut, cut social spending programs. we have to cut social security and it is going broke. the people i talked to know that is not true. but they do not necessarily have the language and empowerment to counter these false messages. i think our report is going to go a long way to counter these false messages. because it is not simply saying that is not true. proactively, we can and must improve benefits. we are in the 21st century. benefits need to match 21st century realities. we can definitely pay for it and keep social security for 75 years out. what is really exciting to me is that we are moving forward with a proactive campaign to help us

counter this bombardment of inaccurate negative messages. >> there is also the 35 million- member aarp organization which is a fairly important factor on this issue and on the hill. isn't it equally important to try to talk to those folks and get those members asking their leadership to take a more aggressive position in advocating for the update on social security benefits? particularly since the majority of members of aarp are women. >> your obsolete right. we have been in close communication with the fact that aarp has a representative here. when we leave here, we are going

to march back to our office and board room. many of the organizations that have been helping will engage it in a session to launch this effort. this is not the end of the process. it is a big step developing this important paper. we will get together at 11:30 in spend a couple of hours figuring out how we move forward. on one of the pay for this -- pary fors. you have a question? >> i have a comment. we are asking questions about social security. and their opposition to cuts and their support for strengthening it. hopefully we will have more

elected officials after the 2012 election who will help move this forward. many of our allies are also asking those questions. hopefully we will be strengthening the incoming and let the officials. >> great news. thank you so much. >> i would also like to recognize congressman deutsch as one of our champions. he has a representative here and we did not mention him earlier. he is exactly the kind of candidate we are looking for in terms of strong support for social security. >> and senator sanders, another incredible -- >> he is the only one that is on msnbc more than you are. [laughter] >> a question from twitter. do you think the obama administration would support [inaudible]

>> we have discussed proposals with the office of public engagements. we will be talking in about a week with those involved in the obama reelection campaign. let me just close with one of the comments that was made about a pay for. dr. heidi hartman mentioned lifting the cap. a lot of us in this room probably know that fica tax is only applied to the first $110,600 in wages. by lifting the cap, you can bring a lot of revenue into the program. around the country, there are a lot of people that do not even know there is a cap.

i've participated in hundreds of town hall meetings with our members and other seniors around the country. when i mentioned the cap, many times they do not know what i am talking about because they have never made anything close to $110,600 a year. they describe it, they characterize the cap as a loophole. i think when people realize there is a cap, they will acknowledge the fact that it could be lifted, raised, may be eliminated. and it would be fair and it would solve a lot of the shortfall of social security and provide revenue for these enhanced benefits. any other comments from our panel? thank you so much everybody for coming today. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> earnings to the road to the white house now. republicans president joe candidate mitt romney will be in lynchburg, virginia this week and to adjust liberty university graduates at their commencement ceremony. this is his first visit to the

christian university. but coverage tomorrow morning at 10:20 eastern. >> these men go through things and they have scars that no one can understand accept each other. >> the first thing that startled us what the relationship between harry truman and herbert hoover, two politically different man who ended up forming this alliance that neither of them would have anticipated and ended up being enormously productive and formed a foundation of what became a deep friendship. the letters between them later in their lives about how important they have become to one another are extraordinary. >> it may be the most exclusive club in the world. authors on the private and public relationships of the american presidents from truman and hoover to george h. w. bush and bill clinton. sunday at 8:00 on two and a. -- on "q and a."

>> rick barton said the goal of his apartment -- department is task -- to have an impact in the force to months -- first few months. he spoke at the u.s. institute of peace where he discussed the need for u.s. organizations to think differently about conflict resolution. this is 35 minutes. [applause] >> thank you. thanks to all of you. i do feel as if i am home and i do feel as if u.s. institute of peace is our home. it is a great pleasure to be among some in the peace builders. all of you have dedicated so

many wonderful years and superb efforts. as i look around the audience, i see people i have admired for a long time. your dedication, your professionalism, your perseverance. one of the things i'm finding in this new job is that tenacity seems to be fairly important quality. it is not one i would have necessarily have put at the top of my personal list but i am finding there must be more of that new england strain then i realized before i moved into the state department in this particular job a few months ago. all of you have clearly shown that and taking some much. without it, we would not making the progress we are today. thanks to melanie and dr. and mrs. cullen for making the gift. [laughter]

i think there are a bunch of other old friends here that divert -- deserve mention. my predecessor at crs and cso is here. he has made it possible for us to build on a pretty solid foundation very --foundation. [applause] he is here now at usip as well. we stand at a breakthrough moment, a chance to make the u.s. government more effective and coherent in building peace. and we must seize this opportunity. to do that, we will need your continuing help and openness to change. at cso, our mission is to prevent violence and accelerate the departure for violence.

we are trying to fashion an organization that can make an impact on policy and in programming in the first 12 months of a crisis. it is a high bar and every time over the last six months that i have told people about our mission, i have heard the same two words -- good luck and good luck. had spoken quite differently. in both cases, people want us to succeed but i also hear concern that making an impact in some very challenging cases -- places is too tough. we know we have a lot of work to do. all of us face difficult challenges, not only the places we work with the attitudes and the structures that confront us. for example, we know that almost 80% of recent conflicts --

extend from violence within two years of a settlement or ceasefire. donor countries spending priorities in -- and developing countries are consistent regardless of whether a country is at peace, in civil war or recovering from war. why? we know that 62 u.s. offices were involved in managing iraq reconstruction. why? to answer these questions, to be more effective, we see the need for some fundamental changes. the u.s. has spent a significant effort and money the last decade to address conflict but whether we spend $3 million or $3 trillion, we have not gotten in right. but with your help, i believe it is possible. we also know that work like yours at the local level has

contributed to the longer-term decline in conflict around the world. i believe we are on the cusp of historical change. i believe this is changed we have worked up -- worked for and some of for a long time to read your work has brought us to this to the point moment and for that, i thank you. making history is not easy but i believe if we can work differently and work together, we have an excellent shot. many of you have been on this road for quite a long time. it is not hard to see narrative arc to the work at the grassroots and international level. development groups solve the links between the violence and poverty began working to address the root causes of conflict. organizations like partners for democratic change began to practice this work more systematically.

academics began to define its boundaries and trained practitioners. i am speaking of this but many of those people are in this room today. the field began to take shape at high levels everywhere. in the early 1990's, the u.n. began to recognize our work as a distinct discipline. 2005, un establish a peace building commission and, fund and support office. they adopted their latest definition of peace building in 2008. the diplomacy and development review qddr released at the end of 2010 identify conflict prevention and response as a core mission of the state department and led to the creation of cso. secretary clinton has told me and anyone else who will listen that cso is one of the most important things to come from the qddr so i know she is

invested in our success. i do not mean to suggest that cso is a crowning achievement of this movement. the u.s. must improve. but i do think that elevating these issues, giving them haft, has been on many of your minds for some time and it is a great honor to have a chance to bring it to life. the qddr reflects the fact we have reached the critical mass of people who love build a shared a language understanding the need to analyze conflict, planned what needs to be done and work together to do it. we are coming to the greater recognition that human rights, economic development and health of build peace. whether we call it peace building or stabilization, we all need to work together to seize this moment. where will cso fit into this

crowded space? our ambition is essentially to be more effective in an increasingly dynamic world. as amended, even within the u.s. government, we have not seen the best cohesion and coherence in our work on conflict. effectiveness means the recognition that the u.s. is going to be a pivotal and vital player but not always a dominant force. we need to be humble. we have to think about the length of our stay in a place and the resources available right from the beginning rather than saying we will get in there and make it up as we go along. effectiveness also means boosting the impact of local ownership. everybody talks about local ownership and sustainability but i still cannot believe that we do it. we need to. we cannot travel as freely as we

used to, we need to expand our partners, we need to get around a standard bureaucratic excuses and we do not want to get into a place and end up owning the problem. we have got to be much more fragile in what we do and who we can count on to do other things. we must bring a new sense of focus and urgency to this work. what we are offering at cso is essentially a process. it starts with determining a center of gravity for each engagement. someone with cost-cutting authority said the networks of people and ball -- invovled encourage innovation varied heaven forbid we had 62 agencies working at the place, they know what each other is doing and they are working with each other from the start. think of it as a board of directors model. at the front end, the inclusive

-- be inclusive, give them a chance to make their best arguments but come to a decision on the way forward so that everyone buys in and no one can take a shot at it later. we then need a vast rigorous analysis that is built from the latest local realities. in and outside of the capital. when the secretary interviewed me for this job, we talked about how when she visits a country, she ends up inevitably with the same list of the liberals -- deliverables. office -- often all good causes. if you tell me which office our bureau will go out to do the analysis, i can tell you what kind of solutions that are going to come up with. we want to avoid an

institutional bias or predetermined responses and instead answer the question -- what is most needed? we just help with this kind of analysis in vermont. we worked on a 7 person team with three -- burma. we worked on a 7 person team. under the offices of derek mitchell, the special envoy. we were trying to make sure those local voices are heard in that they drive the thinking that takes shape. cso has its own analysis tool. many of you have yours as well. sometimes they produce different conclusions. we want to learn from you and refine the icap in large part to make it more strategic and influential. the analysis we all do should lead to the next step. a single, integrated strategy with 2-3 priorities the provide

direction for all. many of these places need everything so you can never be wrong -- from infrastructure to schools to justice systems. but the u.s. cannot be in a nation-building mold, a jump starting is still plenty and vicious. we cannot afford to work on priority numbers seven or eight. we need to be on one, two and three. we have to be catalytic and make sure that those local people have the ability to make it on their own. next, the strategy leads directly to making sure the resources andams just the priorities. burma will be a challenge in this regard. it is exotic, safe, everyone wants to work there. but to live coherently together will be a centerpiece of our being affected. finally, we need to make sure we

are measuring and testing our work as we go, learning in real time and not to years after the fact. with this approach, i think we in the u.s. and government can increase our chances of success and it will help us work better with all of you in a transformation away. we recognize that we have the coming year to prove that we can improve the response to show a change and impact. for this year, we told the secretary behalf three goals -- we have to make an impact in 2-3 places of real significance to the united states. to do that we will dedicate 80% of our effort to four major cases -- syria, kenya, north central america and burma. then another 8-10 places where we can test new approaches.

so far i think we are gaining traction in each of our major priority engagements. many of you are working in these places and we realize that we will not know at all or know best about them so we hope for your support. in syria, we are providing in non-traditional surged to empower and unite it fractured, non-violent opposition. as the secretary announced, that includes providing nonlethal assistance. we are also working with partners to set up an outpost for the internal opposition to coordinate and communicate with the international community. in kenya, we are helping develop plans to ensure peaceful and credible elections a year before the vote. kenya is one place where we have seen a potential model for a broad cooperation and innovation. in northern central america, we

have a growing homicide and governance problem that could spill over and affect our interests more directly. we are bringing new urgency to address the violence on a regional basis, specifically to honduras, guatemala, el salvador and belize. in burma, we are supporting analysis and focusing on ways to connect with minorities at the seven national level. our second goal for this year is to build a trusted and respected team. we want to be the people the u.s. government -- in the u.s. government to bring everyone together to find solutions to conflicts. we have brought in a new leadership team. we refocus our scrs organization and restructured other core resources. we are reducing the size of the permanent court to a cadre who can leave our engagements. we are expanding our reach to

deploy experts from inside or outside the government on a pay as you use bases. instead of keeping a large standing staff in case of any eventuality, we are moving to the ability to deploy the right person to the right place just in time while expanding our partnerships. for example, we recently got a call from the u.s. ambassador in liberia seeking our help. the day before the presidential runoff in november, a demonstration turned violent and one person was killed and eight were injured by gunfire. some felt the police were implicated. the lead during commission set up to investigate the incident did not have -- the liberian commission set up to investigate the incident did not have enough. an expert was sent from the justice department who assured the investigation was on track.

liberian investigators interviewed 70 or 80 people and found a 15 second video of the demonstration that showed specific police firing on the crowd. it actually happened in three different ways. one of the liberian the investigators first saw a plain clothes person in an exotic shirt with a heavy armband firing into the crowd. the video showed a pop, little bit of smoke and you could hear the noise. still photography confirm to that person was -- a high ranking member of the presidential guard. that same 15 seconds clip was

shown to the department of justice investigator who then saw another policeman in the same frame shooting into the crowd. he then showed that same video to the commission members, the liberian commission members, and one of them that then saw a third person in the same clip. that became the critical evidence that led to three suspensions, further investigation and the president of the country taking responsibility. a great case for the role of law and strengthening of the political process. it also shows that we are and how we work our as important as what we are trying to do. to make quality impact in the first 12 months of a crisis, take agility and innovation that is different from the way the u.s. often works. our third goal is to work in a more agile and innovative way. part of that is developing a

model for diplomacy in the field and working as an antidote to the prophecy in washington. the bureaucracymove like an ele. it is powerful, but very large, so you can reasonably predict where it is going and be sure not to be underfoot. our goal is to work in a more speedy fashion which means with more help from our partners. i used to ask audiences would you rather spend $500 million on the largest u.s. embassy in the world and a place like baghdad or would you rather spend $500 million to train 500 americans in $1 million for each of them said they would be capable of working in a place like baghdad here? how many of you would favor the embassy?

we pretty much agree. i have bad news for you. since i have asked this question, the bill to the embassy, it cost a lot more than $500 million, so we have got to find a way to do things differently. violent conflict has dominated u.s. foreign-policy for years, so we need to expand the people who recognized its centrality and can address it head on. there is a lot of room for improvement and i hope we can join in doing that together. i want to take a moment now to address the tension that we sometimes feel when non- governmental groups and governments find themselves in the same space. the u.s. has its national

interests at heart, and ngo's often strive for neutrality. i think the key is to be a very albans -- honest about when our interests are in sync and when we might need a little space. we should feel like we can help each other, but also keep our distance when necessary without it being a snub. good, open communications should make that possible. with that i want to offer you a challenge. when i was at tsa we measure progress in afghanistan, almost everyone i spoke to was telling us how what they were doing was working while the larger enterprise was not going well. we had a situation where we heard 100 success stories that somehow add it up to one of very questionable larger effort. there is no mathematical

equation that allows 100 pluses to equal a negative. almost everybody had an explanation, but it reinforced the flaws in the approach we take to these places. here is some questions i wonder if you are asking yourselves. are you working in places that really matter? even though it is impossible to be transformative, is a larger situation getting any better as a result of your involvement? even if you are doing brilliant work, what is happening on the broader scale of asking these questions is part of our goal and i hope part of yours. we're looking at the next dramatic content and how the united states can be a more intelligent responder and anticipated and intervenor and catalytic force. these are the questions of our time. and this space, we see these questions in their raw form.

people are actually killing each other. because they cannot figure it out. there is nothing more profound in human life than people killing each other, because they cannot figure it out. the most fascinating, and most demanding, most responsible, moment imaginable, and we're trying to say, is there some way the united states can help? so it does not lead kippur to something much more tragic? we need your help. if you ever hill -- hear me say we're on top of that, we have it

under control, sending an e-mail or a call, because we need all the help we can get. there is plenty to be done. we need to keep building the momentum for this working congress -- for this work in congress, in government, and with our partners. we need to expand the base of people who believe in this work, and as i said, it cannot be business as usual. thank you very much. >> rick has kindly offered to

take some questions, if there are questions from the audience. i have to ask a question myself. will somebody be hanging around the microphone, or will people go to the side? handing them out. please raise your hand so that the answers-out can see you, and stand up and introduce yourself. >> i am a member of the board of the alliance. i am wondering, you know, in this more complicated world we are in, we will want a lot of company on the journey you have mentions internationally, that is, the questions you raised will be asked within an lot of governments. in your initial soundings with counterparts in other

governments, and nato and so forth, their questions are resonating well. >> thanks, bob. yes. i wanted to give at least one of mike mansfield answer. i admire his skill. if the answer is yes, whether we are talking hit the combatants in command leaders in here in the u.s. government or the u.k. government's, or the colleagues i had the chance to work with in new york, there is a great recognition that we have got to go at this in a much more creative fashion. one of the things i noticed having worked on this for about 20 years, in many places now, is

that we tend to be influenced by our most recent experience, and that puts us at risk because our most recent experience is such a huge one in iraq and afghanistan. as dick suggested, this next round of conflicts we're looking at have a different flavor, and different from what we saw in the 1980's where many of us were shaped by bosnia, although there were other catastrophes going on. part of it is to make sure we are accumulating this knowledge and whether then thinking we have got it. for me, one of the things that is most fascinating is i never know when i am going to get the parallel experience. i am always surprised to find in the congo there is more rehab hatiti than i expected. normally we would put regional experts.

part of what we want to do is to have intellectually challenging enough environment that there is a tension within the state department so we did not end up rushing to a consensus view within the government that this is the way to do something, but make it a more of a test. that engulfed a give and take with regional bureaus that will have to be more dynamic than it has been in some time. that is one of our civic it challenges. yet the thing i would say about these counterparts in other governments, getting to your question, is we are still a relatively small boutique and we are still all fighting our space -- finding our space within our larger bureaucracies, and so nobody -- we have to come together. when i was working at oti i would say it is nice to be doing and what we are doing, but

when we cannot be a professional team that practice is all the time. we have to be in a league. competition and creative tension should be part of this model, said that is why you almost never hear me use that word "coordination," although i believe we have to work as well together as a fine of textile. >>[unintelligible] let me go back here by the microphone. >> thank you. i am from american univer sity. i am from greece, and i found myself working on the support that i was not supported in my lifetime to do. it has to do with crease as a

failed state and a liability in terms of its regional security in case greece becomes a failed state. the question that i have is, how many steps ahead can usip be around the world around the world that are not there talking so considering the limited capacity in terms of money and resources, how many steps can usip be before things get bad? >> i can answer for cso and say we have partners like usip can get out ahead of us in these cases. i would hope many of you would be well ahead of us, because that would mean that would give me some greater sense of

confidence that we're on top of this. one thing that worries me is i am sure in some cases in some places -- it is not true in the case increase -- the u.s. military often has a war plans for all manner of places on earth. it strikes me as a minimum core requirement that we should have a comparable civilian thinking. the fact we do not i think would shocked many tax payers. -- would shock many tax. rit, all of us need to do that kind of forward thinking, and it does not matter who gets it right in the first op-ed piece. for any of us who have spent any time in bosnia, the trip from zurich to zagreb, that flight seemed like a sudden way to go from europe, have been in

europe, to help. it gave me this introduction to never be arrogant about what you have. we should be anxious about these places because anxiety is what prevent disasters. since most of you are in the prevention business, it is not a great feeling. worrying does not and make you feel great, but it is the worrying about it that sees the events rowdy. places like greece which should be alert to, probably for cso our focus will be in three kinds of cases -- hotspots, too big to fail, and longstanding conflicts that did not seem to be breaking loose. you can see what kinds of places fall into each of those. what we do in each of this might be very different. he might have a full-scale operation and try to push the

u.s. government to make sure that the assistance there is focused, and in other places we might be doing advanced strategic planning or advising an embassy. that is the model we are building upon. >> this one right here. >> thank you very much. i am representing global peas services usa. a question about the richness of u.s. government and those parts of it that may not have been involved in cooperation. the peace corps has its own identity and is at a distance from intelligence gathering, but the people on the ground have such insight and such a commitment to the well-being of their country -- is there any way their insights can be set into the process coca also the fulbright program. there are now many people from all parts of the world who are

in the united states, americans overseas, they have insights, they have knowledge of things that others did not. is there a way to tap into this extraordinary intellectual resource approved >> sure, and an awful lot of the process hes that i have seen and cso invite that kind of broader purchase of haitian. the part of it is to differentiate between formal sharing of information and informal. my feeling when i was at oti is everything we were doing was basically in an overt space he. being in an overt space meant that we were transparent about information which were collected, so we should be sharing it with anybody. if the intelligence community or anybody who wanted to know what we were thinking, it was fine. it was public information. that is one way to get around this wherry people have about

their insights being misused by the official world. what i do is open and so i am sharing it with anybody who has an interest in promoting peace. that is an easier, formula for the peace corps rather than they are being seen as information gatherers for the u.s. policy apparatus. on the other hand, one of my favorite sayings was from a retired intelligence officer who was living in princeton when i was teaching there, and he said, i found out after i retire at that i had the advantage that none of my former colleagues had. i had an open and free access to open information. it is interesting now, we get some analysis data from the intelligence community that is based on totally available information. they saw that as a witness in

their own work. it has -- is quite helpful to have them collect its. >>sorry for missing the rest of you. >> thank you. i'm a state department foreign service officer. i am on detail to the smithsonian. is there part of your office that is working on cultural recovery issues? smithsonian did a lot of work in haiti after the birth quick, but i was thinking we had a briefing and discussion yesterday about what the smithsonian is doing in burma, and from a full and covers ration research there, which is building a foundation that can be very helpful now. on the sort of cultural artifacts, the baghdad museum kind of issue -- is there anybody in your office who is

looking at that issue? thank you. >> the answer is not specifically, no, but i would like to be able to say and i think we're working on to really understand these cases you better not approached them as a from just a political optic -- i met more anthropologist in haiti than in any place on earth. as the sociologists -- it is when you get this convergence of violence in society, when it breaks down this badly is use yearly a witch's brew, and understand that you have to have disciplines in place. that is what we're trying to build at cso and i hope it will have that kind of crept of understanding. whether the cultural issue would rise to beat one of the top

priorities in the place is difficult to say. it is possible and should not be excluded any more than it should be the default position that we take. i am hoping we will have the freshness of analysis that will be sensitive to those kinds of opportunities, but not be captive of anyone when it gets there. take you all very much. i really appreciate it. -- thank you all very much. i really appreciate its. -- it. >> mitt romney will be in lynchburg this weekend to address liberty university graduates at their commencement. this is the former governor hoss first visit to the christian university.

this weekend,, senator john hoeven on the surface transportation bill. house version would rather work for approval of the keystone pipeline through north dakota. sunday at 10:00 a.m. at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> these men go through things and have scars that no one can understand and accept each other. >> the first thing that startle us was the relationship between harry truman and herbert hoover, who were to such personally and politically different men and who ended up for big this alliance that neither of them would have anticipated and ended up being enormously productive and form the foundation of what became a very deep friendship. the letters between them later in their lives, about how important they have become to one another are extraordinary. >> it may be the most exclusive

club in the world, the american presidents from hoover to clinton, sunday at 8:00 p.m.. >> the kreuz had visited places that define a city's heritage. june 2 and 3, watch for special programming on both tv and american history on c-span2 and c-span3. >> michelle obama and dr. joe biden hosted a group of military spouses, mothers, and children at the white house yesterday. this was held in honor of mother's day which is sunday. this is 25 minutes.

[cheers] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> i will wait until they get to their seats. anybody need help finding his or her mommy? i think that little one looks like one here. whose child is this? come up here. [laughter] [applause]

>> please be seated. good afternoon, everyone. it is great to have the at the white house. i want to thank my great friend and partner of first lady michelle obama who has done so much for military families. thank you, michelle. [applause] many of you know that i am a proud military mom and grandmother. i am always honored to be in the presence of military families. my son is a major in the delaware national army guard and when he deployed to iraq it was a tough year for our family. i know many of you in this room have faced similar challenges. grandparents, moms and dads, worry through deployments. kids missed their parents. throughout their service, children have to change schools,

a new friends, a joint news sports teams. a can really be hard. i want all of you to know just how much really appreciate everything your families do in serving our country. that is why michelle and i started our initiative to give something back to all of our nation's military families. we're working with the americans all across the country, in every sector of society, to find new ways to show our support. mother's day gives us a special opportunity to say thanks to the mothers who have shaped and supported us. now it is my great pleasure to introduce a military spouse and mama, jennifer pilcher. her husband is a pilot in the navy who has been assigned to six different duty stations in the past 12 years. with each reassignment, jennifer

has packed up their home, their two children, and started over in a new community, all while walkable they's palmistry she co-founded a website that connects military families with important resources. you have been busy. jennifer, thank you for being here today, and thank you for your service. happy mother's day. [applause] thank you for that kind introduction, and we're so delighted to be here. good afternoon on this beautiful sunny day here at the white house, the perfect day for celebrate military moms and our children. i am proud may be spouse and mom

to katie and griffin, along with my friend is an active duty air force spouse and has me be by far for moving. i think she is up to 12 times in 18 years. she wins the award from us. my husband ed and i imagine college over 19 years ago. after proposing a promise made after his seven-year commitment to the navy was complete and we would settle down with a regular job. sound familiar, ladies? 16 years of active duty service for him, moving six times, to children born into different states, and countless deployments, he has yet to have a regular job. throughout after 18 years of marriage, we have proudly chosen to continue serving our country. i am grateful for his

unwavering service and our children's incredible strength and resiliency. as a military family, moving at the end of diplomas are hard. to the love and support of my husband and our family and friends, i am able ought to be a better military mom. we feel so fortunate to be part of this extraordinary military community. i would like to thank the first lady and dr. by then for connecting directly as they are today with military families of veterans. just one year ago these amazingly the spearheaded drawing forces, a program that supports military families in a variety of ways. mrs. obama and dr. biden realized being a military spouse and mom comes first. they have created tangible job opportunities with companies who understand the crazy life style. the joint forces employers not

only respect our challenges, they recognize the positive impact on their business. if the first lady and dr by and are committed to making a true difference for military spouses and bombs for it, and guessing as moms themselves they might agree with the same, if mom is not happy, no one is happy. thank you, mrs. obama, and dr. biden, for highlighting our commitments as military spouses, and when we say that, aswe mean moms of military members. so many active military duty moms, we are so amazing. bragg grateful for the opportunities you have created. now it is my great honor and privilege can introduce to you the first lady of the united states, michelle obama.

>> good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the white house. it is a beautiful day. i hope you all like your mother's day surprises, because they worked really hard on them there. very focused, very intelligent, very creative. if you want to know what the black stuff on their mouths are, they had a few of the cookies. that the thank jennifer for that kind introduction and for everything that you and your team do for your family, for your community, and for our entire country. i also have to thank my partner in crime, jill.

she has been a role model for me. if she is terrific, and we have to give her a round of applause. it would not be mother's day if i did not think my own mommy. mommy, there you are. it is a big deal when grandma does anything. the fact that she is sitting in that chair is a big testimony to her respect and admiration for all of you, but i have said it before and i will say it again, i would not be standing here if it were not for her. my mom is my rock, as many of you all know, and as many of these young people will understand what being a mom is. she is my rock. if she has taught me to believe in myself and more importantly to pick myself up whenever i stumbled. she is always a shoulder to cry

on and talk to, and i do that and lots. she has always inspired me, something i think is amazing for my mom, to push myself to dream for something bigger for something that is bigger than anything she could drink for her son. she has done that and it is true today. when i think a mother's day i think my mom, and this day would not be the same if you are not here. when i was planning this event honor our nation's mothers, we wanted to make sure you could bring along your special people in their own lives as well. we are thrilled to have a really wonderful group of moms and grandmas and sons and dollars who are here with us today at the white house, and as jill and jennifer pointed out, we have military mothers here. some of you are in our country's uniform, as you can secret some

of you are married to someone who does wear the uniform. all of you are outstanding role models for your children, for your communities, and for this country. for all of you, and i say the sell-off, service is not something you do once in a wall or during the holidays. here is how you live your lives. whenever there's something going on in the committee, and opening on the pta, or they need a leader to drive for the local car pool or someone asks for volunteers and you got that uncomfortable silence in the room, we all have been there, you are the first ones to speak up and say, how can i help? no matter how busy you are with your own lives, you are always phillie in those gaps for your families and for the broader community. let's get a big round of applause to all of our military moms here today.

[applause] and another -- i want to thank all the grandmas here today. this is an obvious point where malia would say "duh." "dun." -- "duh." i cannot begin what it would imagine where the must feel like to have your babies be far away from home and in harm's way. but your sons and daughters, their choice to serve this country is really a reflection of your love.

it is a reflection of your strength, and all the good decisions and that you made in raising them. that we know. i know when a mom or dad and his deployed, it often means that all of you grandparents, you are stepping up to help take care of your grandchildren. you are the first phone call when mom or dad gets tied up at work, and you are often spending long weekends away from your own homes, filling in whenever needed. that is the case in our household. the matter what, you are always there. that is not just support for us as parents, but for the connection that you make a whit the next generation. it is so powerful. for that, this whole country is grateful, and that also means that you all have earned the right to spoil your grandchildren him as much as you walked, which happens in my

house. what happens to the grandmothers? you turn into a piece of the mush. i tell my children eat their vegetables, and grandma says, why? why can they have whatever they want? rules?were your loc don't you remember? to all the grandmas, thank you. we love you. and to all of our kids! our kids! all of this, this day, all we do is for you!

all of this for you. not for us. we don't care. he is for you. you're so cute and you look so good. i want you all to know just how special you all are. really, each and every one of you, and for all the kids out there, the military kids out there who will see us, you are so special. it is not easy when mom or dad is a way for so long. it is tough to have to be so blown up some kind can move across the country and try to make new friends again and again. i cannot imagine. i want you all to know that what you do every day, all the good things you do, the way you handle your business, as i tell my kids come picking up extra chores when mom or dad is gone, taking care of your brothers and sisters come off because we know you love them, even if you act like you don't. [laughter]

we know this. staying on top of your school work. just being good people. all that makes you all heroes for this country, too. today we are here to celebrate all of you. yay! [applause] keep up the good work, and no matter what grandma says, eat your vegetables. eat your vegetables. tomorrow is military's callous appreciation day -- tomorrow is military spouse appreciation day. we're a couple of days away from other state. now is the perfect time to thank all of you for your service to this country. you all are an inspiration to jill and to me. whenever we think we are tired, we just remember your stories, and it gets us up. you are an inspiration to our

husbands, more importantly, and you are an inspiration to the entire country, and today i think you deserve to celebrate. with that, i think jill and i are going to come down there and there are to take some pictures with all the. we're going to go table to table and say hello to everyone of you. day, and enjoy this day and all to come. thank you. [applause] ♪

corker >> north carolina will vote on

a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. on the next washington journal -- we will talk with -- [no audio]

[no audio] >> i thought it was important to write a book that took people's movement seriously. the tea party movement which

seemed to come out of nowhere -- i thought it was important things to take seriously, to look at them as a social movements. >> van jones on social movements in america today. saturday night on "betsy the." -- "book tv." sunday night at 11, on c-span2. >> i had my ambition to walk where john smith and pocahontas walked. this makes a rectangular space that would be the chancel. pocahontas married john rolfe in this church in 1614. i guarantee you i am standing exactly a little deeper than she was, but this is where

pocahontas stood when she was married. >> the colony has yielded more than 1.5 million unique artifacts. take the tour starting at 1:30 eastern. join in the conversation with them answering your questions. part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> next report on obesity prevention. dan glickman was a guest on "washington journal." host: dan glickman served as a member of congress. he was the secretary of agriculture.

he recently headed up the motion picture association. right now he is chairing a commission at the institute of medicine that this week put out a study on obesity. "when i grow up, i am going to weigh 300 pounds. help." what are the ways to address the obesity problem? guest: the largest driver in health-care costs is chronic disease. it affects our national budget. it affects people's lifestyle and everything else. it is a major national problem, one that is not capable of a simple solution. it involves all of society and the health care system, schools,

business community, local governments, and the individuals themselves. it is a big, big health issue and it is a big cost issue, and we have to deal with it. if we do not, it will be disastrous. host: the question, why are americans to fat? the answer is we eat too much. guest: the kinds of foods we eat are calorie-dense. we exercise too little. and lot of that is the changing of society, the fact that kids do not walk to school anymore. live a different lifestyle than we used to live. people -- kids are being bombarded about messages they eat, bombarded by messages. everybody is facing this cosmic

problem that all the pressures are to eat more an exercise less. there is some personal responsibility in this, but it is too big to say why don't people watch their diet? there are too many pressures on people. we need to address this problem as a major health issue, and also as a national debt issue. the balance is health care costs. they're going up much faster than anything else, and the fastest-growing part of that relates to chronic disease. >> host: as secretary of our agriculture, you had the responsibility of administering the food stamp program. when you talk about what your organization sees as a role of people to use food stamps is one thing, and women's and children's infant program toward healthier approved -- a fee. guest: the program is at its

highest participation level in history because the comic is so bad and people have lost their jobs. over 40 million people on food stamps now. there are restrictions, but by and large we let people make those choices for themselves. the wic program is limited to the kinds of foodsm where we limit kinds of foods that people are eligible for. we also do a lot of education in the program to encourage people to buy and consume help your foods. there is controversy here because some folks would like to restrict food stamps to certain types of foods. unfortunately we did not have a date yet to determine whether in fact that is legitimate or not because the food chains have always felt they did not want

to set up two lines. we have to look at this problem in a cosmic way. it is not just people with food stamps have this problem. everybody has this problem. host: how did you get involved with this? guest: when i was secretary of agriculture we dealt with the fact that we not only had the farm programs, so we provided programs helped farmers deal with production agriculture, but also the nutrition program. when i was at usda, we had the first session of what people's diets should be. i have maintained that interest ever since then. not only with the institute of medicine, but the bipartisan policy center, a think-tank where we are looking at this issue. it is an interesting issue. i am very interested in food,

the role the food plays in our society, good food, bad for, all sorts of foods, and how we can get people to eat better and take better care of themselves. host: on twitter -- high-for towson corn syrup. -- high-fructose corn syrup. corn has been getting expensive federal support. what do you think about this? guest: we did not find a direct linkage between farm programs and those that support corn and obesity. it is to interact of a connection. i think we need to look at our farm programs to try to help folks as we increased our demand for foods and vegetables, we will have have to be producing e of those. our current programs are not

always compatible with what you call non program crops. they tend to provide resources their -- they do not provide them in the fruits and vegetables. i would say one thing that to the bloogger. there is an old expression who said for every complicated problem, there is a simple and a wrong solution. this is one of those problems there is no simple solution for. it involves too many aspects of society. we have to look at all things including the farm programs. host: yesterday the fda approved one of two major diet drugs under consideration. this is an 18-4 vote.

the benefits outweigh the risk. endocrinologist said it is not the answer to the obesity problem but it may be a stepping stone to help us out. you are suggesting all sorts of solutions. guest: 1 in three children in this country are overweight or obese. it is a leading cause of illnesses like diabetes, liver disease, and cardiovascular disease. the older you get, these problems become almost epidemic and a change people's lives. we have to look at a multiple number of options. one of them is probably in the pharmaceutical industry. host: you are seeing a graphic that came from this report. we will look at some of the other statistics. we will take your calls and take your tweets.

the national response -- fredericksburg, maryland. caller: i can say so many things about this whole issue. really for me this comes down to that people are going to be people. people are going to eat what they want to eat. you put in regulations on what goes into school cafeterias and into the vending machines and you wind up creating a black market in doritos. you have to let people be free. the federal government has gradually barged its way into the medical profession by taking over -- with the medicare program from back in the 1960's. that you have a situation where

you passed this health care bill. the federal government has gotten more power over the medical profession. the result is, we got used to them infringing on people's freedom to eat what they want to eat. guest: what we are saying is a lot of people have responsibilities in this area. let's take for example physical activity. in years past most kids had at least 60 minutes of physical activity in schools. it no longer happens in most schools. i am not even talking about physical education. physical activity is not part of kid's education anymore. the business community for example, people spend more time at their work than any place except their home. they are finding more and more employees are either taking days off, and not productive or not

well because of health-related activities. they have a responsibility to look at problems as well. nobody is saying uncle sam is the cure all for these problems. it is part of the issue -- it deals with the medical programs of the federal government. the private sector, health care community, everybody has a stake in this. i would say to the gentleman who called, i understand your point. when the health care costs of this country is going to bankrupt america soon, we all have a stake in this. host: as you suggested earlier schools have a particular role to play according to your findings, tell me about that. guest: the role of non school food, vending machines, the role of schools doing education of their students. they understand what is good and not good for them. the relationship of schools with

parents as well. the resources devoted to quality foods whether it be breakfast, lunch. some kids have no meals whatsoever except as school. but he the schools have a big piece of this issue but not the only piece. parents have a piece, doctors have a piece, other institutions have a piece. i do not want people to think this is a situation with a simple solution. the essence of this report is that to deal with this problem of chronic disease and obesity as it relates to diabetes, pre diabetes, cancer, heart disease which are often lifestyle diseases, we all as a society must look at this as a major public health crisis. >> by the time young people get to school they have had five or six years at home learning from their parents. you mentioned earlier about more

public education. >> one thing we talk about is the need for the 0-5 before kids get to school and making sure parents know what kind of dietary guidelines -- what kind of dietary intake is good for their kids and can help in this regard and also encouraging parents on the physical activity side of the picture. you have to look at this entire thing when it comes to young people. a lot of it starts with prenatal care. it starts when young women have children and encouraging breastfeeding, studies tend to show kids who are breast fed tend to be thinner and healthier at a younger age. there are multiple pieces of this. host: on twitter -- allowing snap at kfc was a step in the right direction.

guest: states are granted waivers to do certain things. there are some restaurants that would like to see the snap program. there are a few exceptions for the handicapped and other things. for all practical purposes, it cannot be used for those things. one of the things we would like to find out, the data it needs to be looked at. our people on food stamps actually buying different kinds of food? that data is inconclusive. until you get that kind of data i think it is premature to start limiting folks what they can buy. right now they cannot buy certain things on food stamps. this is a public policy issue that i'm sure congress and people will continue to look at. host: i do not want to get into a tangent on food stamps. we have had callers say there is a robust market in people selling food stamps for cash. if you were to put rules in

place, could people circumvent that? obviously, there is some misuse of this. caller: as of august 1, the state was 0.2 implement. -- was going to implement regulations on sales, baking sales, etc. this is bananas. people were outraged. rescinded it. it is going to a vote to the state senate. it will be up to each community if they want to implement this.

if these fund-raisers are necessary, it was the craziest law. it was never in the national media. it was on fox news, and it was an embarrassment. i'm thinking that we look like a nanny state. guest: i saw that and quite honestly, in our zeal to do public policy things we do not use the best judgment. that was not good judgment. ultimately, there are certain things you can do, and certain things you cannot do. you have to encourage people to have better health habits and the health-care profession and the business community, doctors, others, but you have to realize human nature being the way it is, people do not want to be told to do things that might seem ridiculous.

it is always a question of balancing. as an old public official from kansas, and someone who was the school board member and a member of congress, i understood. host: some of the newspapers have picked up on this report. let's do a quick round robin. "the washington post" -- delicately, not dictating diets to the poor, but there are reasonable ways -- snap spending totaled $72 billion. host: "the washington times" --

make someone put down a notch shows. -- nachos and go for a job. people need to take their own responsibilities. one more. more regulation and picking winners and restaurants will only grow after the report. newt anti obesity programs are

likely to follow the historic pattern and end up making people fatter. guest: it is no secret that i agree with "the washington regulations. the institute of medicine did not call for that. when you look to the costs, almost $200 billion a year, the cause of obesity-related illness, 21% of annual medical spending, all of the spending in the country, is related to obesity-related illness. this is a monumental economic problem. what do we do about it? people ought to eat less and exercise more. we understand that, but incentives are different than they used to be. we have electronic media. we have parents working in a much more difficult economic environment where parents are not home, and kids do not have

the incentive to exercise. we do not require physical education in the schools anymore, and students get resources from the vending machines, though that is gradually being pulled out of schools. these are complicated, big public health problems and they cannot be dealt with by telling people you ought to eat less and exercise more. a lot of these patterns are set early in life, and once they get on the treadmill, they can not get off it without some help. we have to use good judgment. the rule of reason -- people do not like to be told what to do, but incentives need to be there. a lot of times that is up to the business community, the house committee, faith-based community and others. host: from twitter. -- soda and vending machines are on school campuses. easy access. let me add a caveat.

advertising is on vending machines. there is incentives for companies. this is a complicated problem guest: the schools have begun to take bending a strategic problem. -- guest: the schools have begun to take a vending machines out -- problem. guest: the schools have begun to take a vending machines out of schools, and started putting better-quality food in the vending machines, and a lot of schools have these bending machines this resources to pay for recent -- pay for things in their schools. they need them to support programs. naturally, kids gravitate to what tastes good. we see a trend to move these high-fat, high-sugar foods out

of vending machines, and i hope the trend continues. host: wichita, kansas. joe, a democrat. caller: mr. dan glickman, could you answer my question in the taking of the programs, shutting schools down -- i was at my daughter's school this weekend. there vending machine has nothing but advertisements of bad food. i was in the cafeteria. the food is very bad. this word obesity -- when i was coming up, we played a lot of ball and exercise. they have cut all of that out of the bills in kansas.

could that be contributing? guest: i am glad to hear from kansas, my home, that i represented for a long time. most states and local school districts are under distress. i have been reading in kansas how the fiscal state is being talked about in the legislature, and whether we have tax cuts, how much they are, and whether they heard the poor. -- hurt the poor. physical activity, which used to be an integral part of the education of kids in this country is no longer an integral part. in large part that was a financial decision. the schools did not have the resources to have a full-time teachers and do the kinds of things they would have done when i was a kid. that is something we have to address. it is not easy.

one of our recommendations it is that schools should be required to have at least 60 minutes of some sort of physical activity every single day in this country. that does not happen in formal physical education training. there are districts that are innovative and good teachers. it is part of the education. it is one example of the gap we have seen that we need to fell. host: georgian colorado rights -- -- george in colorado writes -- guest: part of that is true. the average person is bombarded by different messages of what they should or should not eat

-- a magic answer or a magic bullet. we do know certain things. generally speaking, a high-fat, high-sugar diet is not good for you. you need a balanced diet that is rich in fruits and vegetables. the usda has come out with a suggestion that half of a guided be in fruits and vegetables with lean meat and other types of items. we generally know what food intake is good for you and we know physical activity is very important. what is now happening is other institutions, particularly the business community is realizing that if they do not get with the act they will lose employees to fly, productivity, sickness and illness. there is a lot of confusing data out there.

at the same time, that is no excuse to do nothing. the consequences are grave, particularly for our national debt. host: i think this is, and cheat on twitter. guest: generally speaking, we have found that texting -- while some states have looked at it, and it is part of the solution, it is not the simple answer. he would have to have a large tax on a lot of foods, and those disproportionately hurt the poor as well. some states have tried it, some do it to raise revenues, but i would -- there is no one culprit. there is no one enemy. there is no one person causing

all of the damage. this is not like smoking. we know that it is bad for you. the reduction was pretty clear. everybody has to beat. -- has to eat. you cannot say stop eating. that is why this is a much more complicated public health issue. fort dan glickman, the chairman of this report, -- host: dan glickman, the chairman of this report. wisconsin. richard, an independent. caller: i want to make a comment. every time i try to explain something on c-span i get cut off. that is the first thing. now, to solve this problem we have to go back into time. c-span talk about sugar cane and putting a tax on it mainly

because of to the. -- mainly because of cuba. will we have to recognize is manufacturers decided instead of using sugar cane they came up with the idea of using corn syrup. corn syrup is the main culprit. now, as far as what we need to do to get control of our health-care system, we need to recognize what is called integrated medicine. i challenge people to look up this dr. -- dr. russell, dr. steven. i challenge them to watch "your health" of national television. they have a following of over 75 million people by -- people. tell people to study the book called "the food giant."

this is a long time ago. what we need to understand, and this was recently on "dateline," where they talked about the supplement industry. there are only 12 people that oversee the drug laboratories in this country that works for the fda. this is disgusting. we need to understand that the german commission is so far ahead of us in comparison to the fda. if we understand all of this, we can get control of our health-care system by competition, by having people to -- be able to buy insurance all around the country. host: richard, we have your point. guest: i get the point. i am a fan of integrated medicine. i have spoken to one of the leaders of this movement at the university of arizona.

there is great promise in that world. again, to deal with this problem, it is an important aspect of national security. he talked about other countries. if you look at how america ranks in the issue of obesity, life expectancy, health care outcomes, we are not even near the top. this is affecting national security. right now, the military has found they have had difficulty getting recruits in the all- volunteer force because people have a variety of severe health problems. one of them is bad teeth, dental problems caused by bad nutrition. this is a big, comprehensive national problem and there is no one answered. somebody said we should be free to do whatever we want. when you are a child and you go home, and you watched

television in the see the food that is marketed on television, -- watch television, and you see the food that is marketed on television, by and large you do betsy high-and you do not see high-nutrition -- you do not see high-nutrition food. it makes it complicated to say eat less, exercise more and we should do this on our own. i think they need some help. host: for major producers, would it not be logical that there is a higher margin on processed foods? guest: there is a higher margin on processed foods. now, the incentive needs to be to get food manufacturers, the restaurant industry, people that sell and distribute food to offer more nutritious food as part of this mix. then you need the education of

people, and other aspects of american society to encourage people and give them an incentive. host: mark rights -- guest: i never said that snap could not be used to buy junk food. it could be used to buy anything except alcohol and certain prepared foods. there are certain limits. the evidence shows that by and large people on food stamp programs do not purchase a different diet than people that are not on food stamps. the evidence is not new. the evidence is a little old. one of the things that needs to

be done is get better data collection. we need to encourage people who are on food stamps or snap as well as people who are not to buy and eat more nutritious foods. host: this is a town full of studies and reports. what happens next with yours? guest: this report goes to congress, health care, the health-insurance industry, and other organizations like the bipartisan center, we will come up with a report next month that i chair on ways to implement these recommendations. we are trying to reinforce the fact that this is a monumental national problem. we need to do something about it. we cannot sit here and watch health-care costs continue to strangle us. congress is dealing with debt reduction.

we are looking at what we have to cut, whether it is the defense budget, but the biggest problem is health care costs, and the biggest part of that is costs related to chronic disease, obesity, diabetes. host: we will look at a statistic on diabetes that comes out of the report as we listen to a call out of new york city. crag, democrat. caller: i would like to set i do not know why people were beating up on michele obama as she was trying to give people good information. people resent the government so much that when they give out good information and people do not want to hear it. when people were poor, they used to be skinny.

now there is a mcdonald's on every corner. the value of food -- sugar, white flour starch, but you also have people that are afraid to let their kids go out and play because there is a safety factor. there is also a video games the detectives to sit down. -- attract kids to sit down. they would rather have their kid inside and they sit there eating potato chips and junk food as they watch television and the cartoon shows encourage sugar- laden cereals and non--healthy foods -- non- healthy foods. i think the american public needs to take decision and not resent the government for giving as good information. guest: i could not have said it better myself. i wish she was working with me on this report.

but me say this is not a partisan issue. that is something that republicans, democrats, all care about. we know there is a limit to what the government can do. we know this is a national problem. the fifth base committee, reaching the faith-based community, the business -- the faith? based community, the business community, they can help as well. i saw a reverend on one of the shows and he looked at himself in the mirror he looked in the audience, and he decided it was pretty hard to be concerned about the hereafter and how to treat your human beings if we

all were unhealthy ourselves and he says the incentives for getting healthy were not there. he established a campaign in his church. they lost a lot of weight. it was a great incentive for others to follow along. there are so many things in modern society to make it difficult -- that make it difficult for people to get their health under control but we need a national plan, a private sector, business committee, health care committee, and government providing information to get the salt. -- to get this solved. host: the debate from twitter -- host: i will show you an opposing viewpoint after this call from landover, maryland. caller: i am 40 years old. when i was going to school, i had an hour and half in physical education class five

days a week. today, the federal government has taken away funding for schools. that is one thing. the other thing is that personal responsibility. parents' bed have kids, when they come home from school, -- parents that have kids, when they come home from school, they should make them do their homework, then go outside. stay away from the television. watch television for one hour a day. that is what i do with my kids. the federal government has tried put their fingers in everything and they screw it up. guest: you saw mike a good parent, and i wish more people would -- you sound like a good parent, and i wish more people would follow your example. 90% of the dollars that go into the schools are from the state. i would not blame the federal

government in terms of funding levels. i think we have ignored physical activity in schools for a very long time. one state requires physical education as part of certification for local school districts, and that is illinois. maybe it has changed. regardless of physical education, physical activity has been missing in a big chunk of our nation's schools. that would have banned under heard of years ago. -- that would have been honored of years ago -- not heard of years ago. to say the federal government ought to get out of the way, that is fine, but when the medicaid system is paid a bigger portion of tax dollars for people who are sick because they are overweight and had diabetes and those numbers are increasing dramatically, it is not just the government issue. it is a taxpayer issue. we have a responsibility to

reduce costs, where else as a society we will go broke. host: opposing point of view -- guest: i agree with that comment. host: you probably looked at pilot projects addressing this issue. tell me one that really works? guest: a lot of the school districts in this country are doing great things in terms of improving their foods. a lot of them are growing gardens and getting fresh fruits and vegetables out of there, and putting it as part of the school meals program. a lot of them have an innovative way for physical activity. businesses and the private sector have wellness programs where they treat employees to a situation where health is an

important part of workplace activity. there are a multiple amount of examples. those examples are there. one of the things we found is a lot of people would like a national clearing house of best practices so they would know what schools or businesses are doing, and those things will be available. host: i seem to remember -- was it the city of houston? there is this list of the fattest cities, and houston took it on as a citywide campaign. when something is concentrated in a locality, does it have a better chance to work? guest: leadership that all levels, mayors, state-based leaders, doctors, they need to be in the forefront. a lot of mayors have taken the sting on. they have a lot of campaigns -- how much weight can the city lose.

host: dennis tweets that obesity happens whenever nature is substituted for profits. last call. joan. caller: two things. i know a healthy pyrite is important for maintaining a good weight. -- thyroid is important for maintaining a good weight. where are we supposed to get our iodine? i know it is in fish and cod, and i have been told it is in the bread. if you do not have bread, where are you getting it? host: how about iodine salt? caller: that is the issue. it is a little more expensive. i called the campbell's soup, had a nice chat, and it seems like they do not use a iodized salt, but i was told that in

canada they do. i would think that the government should be looking into fundamental things. second thing, i think we are very frustrated as a nation. i am a senior. i'm beginning to feel very poor. medicare has been decimated by mr. obama. $500 billion has been taken out. i am frustrated. i tend to take it out on food. guest: i do not know enough about the iodine issue. i did not sure a lot of us -- i didn't know a lot of us who do not get frustrated and start eating.

the first lady has done a public service to get people to think about issues of pay health give ship. anything democrats say criticized by republicans. i think the first lady has brought this detention without herself being involved in the heavy hand of the regulatory part of the federal government. there is no one answer to this problem. the government can help because the government is so much part of this, from paying medicare, medicare, all these kinds of things. everybody in this country is affected by health care costs costs. but if sex were ability to live a long, productive life.

-- it affects your ability to live a long, productive life. we all have a stake in this. we have to do it in a way with good judgment. our twitter committee is having a live debate on this. mr. glickman, thank you for being here. report -- hyperlinked on c- span's website, c-span.org. >> tomorrow the impact but the --sident prosperi's high school students will have a chance to start -- is a talk

aligned with high school teachers died of prepping for tuesday's advanced placement government idb examined. "washington journal," a live on c-span. habib >> the crews kept is the places that have to find a city's life. >> mr. romney will be en kippur jena this weekend to address liberty university graduates. this is the former governor's first " this it can the christian university. we'll have live coverage tomorrow.

he then senator john hoeven on deck house transportation bill. on c-span.ss," care next, the president concluding keib trip to the west coast to homeowner his g refinancing plan. the white house says a refinancing applications have increased 50% since the announcement last fall. this is about 20 minutes. [cheers]

>> you can come closer. good afternoon, everybody, and thank you for arranging they beautiful day. this is a spectacular afternoon, and i am thrilled to be here. we all know how difficult these past few years have been on for this country, but especially for this state. after the worst recession in our lifetimes, a crisis that followed the collapse of the housing market, it'll take a long time corps the economy to fully recover. more time than any of us would like. there are plenty of steps that we can take to speed up the recovery right now. there are things we can do right now. but to help create jobs and help restore some of that security

that too many families have lost. now, i have to say that there are few too many republicans in congress who do not seem to be as optimistic as we are. they think that all weekend to bar tried the things happen done in the past, things that they have tried in the past. so they want to cut more taxes, especially for the wealthiest americans. they want to talk bachu -- they want to cut back on rules and we have set in place of 45 financial been institutions. that is its. hui have hurt those ideas before. that is their economic agenda. i do not buy its. i think they are wrong. we tried their ideas for nearly a decade and they did not work. i do so this country short by going back to the same ideas that helped to get us in this mess in the first place.

our goal is to build an economy where hard work,, responsibility are rewarded. where you can find a good job, make a good way to come to own they start yourame, own business. lives willour kids' be better than yours. that is where we need to go. och have been pushing congress to help us get there by passing a few common-sense policies that we are convinced will make a difference. we even made a and the to do list for congress so they could just check them off, a list like michelle gives me. i know paul is familiar with dallas. he gets it from val. there are only five things on this list. why did not want to overload

congress with too much at once. they are ideas that will help build a stronger economy right now. personnel on the list, it, makes no sense that we get -- -- that we give tax breaks can companies that send jobs overseas. we told congress it is time to end tax breaks for companies that its jobs to overseas can use that money to cover moving expenses for companies that bring jobs back to america. second, defense that of talking about gottfried ears, congress should help small business can help small business owners who created the new jobs in america. we want to give that a tax break for hiring more workers, and paying them higher wages. the third king on our to do list, congress should extend its

tax credits that are set to expire for clean energy companies. these businesses put folks to workstation. in nevada, the last time i was here, i went to see a huge solar plant. a lot of folks are working in the construction of its can the maintaining of its. that is happening all across the country. we need to make sure we're helping those folks because that that helps us prepare -- helps us break our dependence on foreign oil. it is the right thing to do. fourth, congress picture treat a veteran's job score so we can help communities hire returning heroes come, our veterans, beebe for cops, firefighters, police and national parks because nobody, who fights for this country should have to fight for a job or a roof over their

heads. [cheers] that is four. which brings me to the fifth. the fifth king on the list , why i am here today, calling on congress to give every responsible home owner of a chance to save can average of $3,000 a year by refinancing their mortgages. it is a simple idea and. it makes great sense. i note it will have an impact. the the last october i was in clark county where i announced a new steps to help responsible home owners, refinance their homes. at the time congress was not willing to act, so we did and did what we could do legal administratively without a new law being pass. as a result, americans who were previously stuck in high- interest loans have been able to take advantage of these lower

rates. they have been able to save thousands of dollars every year. it turns out that, two of those people are your neighbors, paul and valerie. i just had a chance to visit with paul and valerie and look at their beautiful home and check out the groat outback. calorie says paul is a pretty good cook. , i will take her word for it. they have lived in this house for 14 years. last year, they decided it would make sense for them to refinance. they thought it would be easy.

they are current on their mortgage, they make their payments on time. this is an example of responsible homeowners doing the right thing. when they tried to refinance about labor told they could not do it. the kellers have -- their house is underwater which means the price is currently lower than what they owe on it. they were hit -- you were hit -- with a historic drop in housing prices caused the value of your house is in your neighborhoods diplomat. a lot of banks historically have said we will not refinance you if your home is under water. luckily, the killers saw my announcement i made in clark county. i am assuming it must have been val because whenever something

smart is done is usually the wife. [laughter] they called their lender, and within 90 days, they bore able to refinance under this new program we set up. their monthly mortgage bill has now dropped $240 a month. that means every year they are selling it -- saving close to $3,000. [applause] val says they have been talking to their neighbors, and some of you here today, and they are saying that is a pretty good idea. a lot of folks across the country recognize this is a smart thing to do not only for homeowners, but for our economy, because if they have an extra $250 a month, they might spend it on their local businesses. they might go to a restaurant a little more often. they might spoil their grandkids

even more. that means more money in the economy and businesses do better and slowly home prices start rising again. it makes sense, for all of us. the good news is since i have made this announcement refinancing applications have gone up by 50% nationwide and 230% here in nevada alone. that is the good days. people are taking advantage of this. that is what we want to see. but here is the only catch, and this is where you come in because you are going to have to pressure concourse. the pool of folks who can refinance now while their homes are under water is still too small. the reason the killers were able to refinance is because the only thing we could do without congressional action was to give opportunities for refinancing for folks with a government-

backed loan, and fha-backed loan. to expand that opportunity, we want to include everybody, people whose mortgages are not government act. in order to do that, we have got to have congress move. is absolutely no reason why they cannot make this happen right now. it they started now in a couple of weeks, in a month, they could make every home owner in america who is under water right now eligible to be able to refinance their comes, if they're making their payments, do the right thing. the gimmick about all those families sitting to thousand dollars a month -- as a huge boost to our economy. for some of you who are under water, you might in say instead of spending that money, i can

plow that back into equity in my home and build that back up. this would further strengthen housing prices in nevada and around the country. it is the right thing to do. that is already a bill in the works, supported by independent, partisan economists, industry leaders, congress should pass it right now. let me say this -- maybe there are members of congress watching. if you need some motivation to make this happen, then you should come to reno and you should visit with folks like the kellers. i am not saying they want all these members of congress in their house. that is bad enough having me and the secret service in there. at least -- and they probably would not rmind. they should talk to people whose

lives are better because of the action we took. all over the country there are people just like paul and val, folks like you, who are doing everything they can to do the right thing, to meet the responsibilities, to look after their families, to raise their kids at right, give them good values. you're not looking for a handout. you just want to make sure that somebody is looking out for you and when you do the right thing that you are able to keep everything that you have worked for. that is what folks are looking for and what to expect from washington. to put the politics aside and electioneering aside, and just do what is right for people. [applause] so i need all of you and everybody who is watching to push congress on there to do

list donag them, until they actually get them done. we need people moving this country forward. tweet them, write them a letter, if you are old fashioned like me, but communicate to them that this will make a difference. it is one small step that will help us create the kind of economy all americans deserve. that is an economy that is built to last, an economy where everybody has a fair shot, everybody gets a fair share, everybody plays by the same rules strict that is what made us great in the past and will make us great in the future. thank you, everybody. dawson bless you -- god bless you. god bless america. and give paul and val a big

round of applause. [applause] >> yay! [applause]

[cheers] >> thank you so much. i appreciate you so much. >> yes, we can! >> who won the basketball game? [unintelligible] we are all winners. >> beautiful soul. >>