romney is where mccain was. all romney needs to do is win five of 12 states and he wins the election. >> that is true. the other side is true. obama needs to win the carry states. romney cannot get there. this is where the demographics start to cut in. and. nevada, new mexico, colorado, where you say that is tough for obama, a look at what is going on with foreclosures in nevada. he will get all the blame for that. the problem is rummy cannot win those states with the differential he is running with latinos and hispanics, states

where all three of those have sizable enough minority representation, particularly latinos, that you cannot lose that group 68-19, and when those three states. give him one of those. that means obama means -- needs to pick off one of the top states where he is leading in every single one of them. that is why -- this is going to be far out on the issues come up on going forward, going back. he has not done anything in the economy, we have lost jobs. there is going to be plenty of money on both sides that at that fight, and it will be the most negative election we have ever seen. why? because you have a president with a rating below 50%, you have a congress on both sides

with approval ratings that are the lowest in history, and you have a republican nominee who starts off with the lowest favorable of either party who has ever been at this stage of the campaign. they will talk about the positive visions for the future. i am sure it is going to happen. let me guarantee you, what is going to happen -- remember the swift boat ads in 2004? it is gone to be that kind of campaign. regardless of of what itthe two campaigns one, the super pacs and others will have a different view of how to win this thing. it will come down to the things karl and i talked about. what is the ground game, how does one make on immigration, on some other issues, and it can get down to niches.

how could he close the gap with hispanics, because if he does not it forces him to get into a situation where there are only a few states, a hyatt -- -- ohio -- >> you carried in 2004 the hispanic vote. can mitt romney win with 31%? romney had 5 million fewer republicans -- mccain had 5 million fewer republicans turned out to vote, and fewer veterans. the lowest number of veterans to vote in a modern presidential election, with an authentic and war hero. the republican national committee's hispanic liaisons' said candidate romney does not

yet know what his immigration policy is. >> he has a problem with this issue. he has a big advantage. take a look at the attitude inside the latina a commit -- community. he needs to get better on immigration, but also drive home the economic issues. if romney only carries the mccain states, that is closer, because certain states gained electoral votes. new jersey, pennsylvania, new york, massachusetts lost the electoral college vote. it is already closely if he carries the is. think about 3, 2, 1. three states he needs to

recover. indiana is already back in the republican column. i was having dinner with mitch daniels. i ask, is there a white democrat in the south who is for obama? he stopped eating his green beans and said not that i can think of. those three are important. there are 39 votes in those three states. that is a swing of 70 if you win all three. do you agree those are tough states? >> virginia will be that tough est shots for romney. forked virginia, this whole thing really could come down to virginia. what is fascinating about that, the irony and strange ways politics works is in 1989,

virginia elected a guy named doug wilder, the first african- american governor of a southern state, largely on his per-troy's method. it shocked everybody. now it is -- it could come down to virginia with the first african-american president. part of the recent virginia is a problem for romney right now is the governor passing ultrasound abortion measure their in the state. requiring an ultrasound for an abortion. what if has done is it has put the issue in that state, and romney as a problem? it is the whole forward-back

thing. virginia could be the most fascinating and most important state in the country in terms of how it deals with the cross- questions that will be going on. >> indiana gagne, north carolina is gone to him as well, but they will still make an effort. virginia is key, too. it would be a shift of 98 but they fell back into the republican column. if you look at the shift in those states, here is the national shift, here is the shift in those two states, and they were won by a narrow margin. florida is very likely to end up in the romney camp, and a high he has real problems, for obama. these will be critical battlegrounds. if republicans win, then the only thing romney needs to win

is new hampshire, pennsylvania, or michigan, or wisconsin, iowa, colorado, new mexico, nevada, and he is president. >> that is when we get into the niche demographics. i agree with karl -- he can win with 31% of the hispanic vote, but it is tough to win colorado, those states out in the west with that kind of a number. he can win the presidency -- >> two people problems with latinos -- romney and obama. the approval of the president is above the national average and has been consistently so. why? i got a hint of it in a focus group recently, when we said

let's get latino voters whose principal language in the home is spanish, so you are not talking about -- people are not partisans. the swing it voter. you are not talking about people who are clued into a lot of american politics. they do not participate. there are all kinds of barriers for them not to be here in this room this morning voluntarily. things that would not work well and say i am enthusiastic about obama, but one issue -- immigration. he told us he would have comprehensive immigration in 2008. they knew he was in control of the senate, could have gotten in the and. they knew he never put forward a bill. you misled us.

this is politics for you. the president has a credibility problem among this group that if the immigration issue is going to cut, it has to be lack of enthusiasm for romney, you have to have lots of enthusiasm for obama, and it is not there. d himself into a corner on immigration during the primaries. the administration will say, are you for the dream act wer immigration during the primaries. the administration will say, are you for the dream act were not for the dream act? >> i will have marco rubio. >> this is a bill that if he served in the armed forces are went to college you can get on the path to citizenship. >> we have had a bruising primary is -- >> he carries three county in west virginia. we have a bruising primary inmate -- i do not know who he is.

>> what i was saying is we had a bruising primary that did it cost some damage to the mitt romney gop brand. with latinos he backed himself into a corner and with women because i think rick santorum and others put some much pressure on social issues. that does not mean that mitt romney cannot heal that. that is one of the big challenges he has to have a shot at opening up the electoral thing. >> i agree with you about latinos. i am not sure i agree with you about women. time they cannot spend

contraception and religious liberty, it was time they cannot spend talking about the economy. i like how we fixate on the gap obama has a bigger gap on men. a a and mitt romney can not close it with women. the issues that drive both of them will work to the president's disadvantage. the economy, jobs, and growth. >> i do not disagree with -- if everything stays the same, obama wins. >> 44% obama, 47% romney. if it stays the same obama loses. >> i have been in one of those elections, but it was 500,000 votes. will lose the electoral college. please.

>> i am sorry i took us off there. the point i was trying to get to is, the thing that really does matter and it generally hasn't in the past, what does mitt romney do in terms of his vice presidential pick? as you were talking about ohio and florida, i think there is a reason portman and rubio and to a lesser extent bush. i think that would be a great pick. i do not mean that facetiously, but i do not think it will happen. mitt romney has some opportunity here to knock down or give himself real play in one

or two of those states. that could have some impact because of what we're talking about. if he can win the the three that have traditionally gone republican -- we both agree virginia and north carolina to a lesser extent could it be a dog fight and to go either way. then he has to win florida and ohio. he has to win both of those states. that is why i think this vice- presidential pick could impact that. >> what was the last time a vice presidential pick actually delivered a state? >> i read a article in the same topic. >> if you read robert caro's book he carried a states because he stole it. >> what else is new?

>> other than 1960 -- >> and rahm emanuel is robbing chicago. >> when did a vice-presidential candidate to really make a difference and carry a state? >> i am saying i think that is going into their thinking. >> i was the one skeptical to this. all the data shows the average vice presidential candidate has less than 1/2 of a point of impact on the national vote and 2% of a vote in their home states. if you take barack obama and drop it 2% and raise mitt

romney's in florida, we have a 2.8% victory for mitt romney. it could be the first time since 1960. if wisconsin is wisconsin of 2000 and 2004 and you put paul ryan on the ticket, he loses in 2004. if the at paul ryan and we get two points, it is in there. this is your trivia question of the day. in the last 50 years since 1960, what vice-presidential candidate not once but twice moved more of the vote in his home state by reaching across party lines and getting independence and people of the opposite party to support the ticket?

who is the record holder? dick cheney and wyoming. 11 point increase in 2000 and 7% increase in 2004. it shows his ability to reach across party lines and wyoming. it had no impact on the election. >> had the gore picked nelson, would that have made it -- the election was so close. the reason it has not mattered is because these races -- i think this one actually could be so tight in some of the big key states. >> your choice would be -- your

advice would be to go with somebody like a portman or a rubio who can help you win a state. how about paul ryan and wisconsin? >> you have to be doubling down on a lot of issues to do that. >> i think it depends on what happens june 5. if walker wins by a good margin, for or five or six points. wisconsin is an plate. -- is in play. $70 million is going to be spent, and note came -- campaign is going to try to get a bunch of norwegians to vote with him. i say that as a norwegian.

germans. let's open it up to the audience if we can. i would like to take some questions. we have microphones for you if you will -- >> good morning. i am a member of mitt romney's hispanic committee. one thing i could not agree more with is that president obama enjoys the media like nobody else we have ever seen. we can see that by the way this statement by what of these republican leon's -- the director of the hispanic outreach and nothing more, he has won. he has one that is probably better than anything obama has put out.

he does not only focus on people that are here illegally. he wants to bring in the best and brightest. you can see everything he is proposing on his website. what is important for the media to focus on is that latinos are going to be won over by the facts. the fact that nobody has imported -- deported more people in history that obama. unemployment is higher among hispanics than any other demographic group in the united states. hispanic children are at the highest level of poverty in the history of the united states. i think the challenge is not how to bring them over to immigration reform or dialogue. just to make sure the latino community knows these facts and understands the failure of president obama. >> i agree with you there is a lot of ammunition. these comments about self deportation have indicated to some in the community he does not have respect for them.

go to south texas and talk to latino ranch and farm owners and small businesses and members of the hispanic community. they are hard asses because they are the first to feel the adverse affect. cartels are shooting at them. are competing for jobs. there are a lot of reasons why they are hard asses but they do want to know the presidential candidate has respect for the community and in recognition this is not all a mexican problem. half the people here illegally came from hong kong the, nigeria on a visa and overstating it. the fact that all the people from central america are unworthy is a real problem.

>> thank you. >> we will get behind you. >> i have a question relative to the fact that president obama is attacking romney on policy issues and personal issues, particularly the high crime of being successful. mitt romney is attacking obama on the issues and not on obama as a person. do you think that is a mistake? should he equally go after obama as a person to better acquaint the american population of who he is? a european socialist and is not think like an american? the campaign? >>no. there is an advantage of romney keeping it where he has it. using the president's own

statements and pledges to paint a picture of him. the president makes a huge mistake going after mitt romney in the way he has. the one-year anniversary of osama bin laden. what would have happened if he said, you know what, let's not make this about me. let me get in a motorcade and go to the cia and we will have to have a camera shot outside. i will go in in a private meeting with them and tell them how proud i am of what they have done in following these thin shreds of evidence for years. i want to thank them and shake their hands and be there and tell them it is about that. i will get on the chopper and flied out to virginia beach and meets with the families of seal team 6. i will thank them individually and hugged the wives and tell the children they have every

reason to be proud of their fathers for doing what they did. i will go back to the white house and keep my mouth shut. make it about them he would have made it more and made it big. instead he has to engage in all the pyrotechnics and then he has to have an ad with bill clinton to say the damage if this had been -- if at gone bad, the political fallout would have been horrific. what about how difficult it would be for people affected by seal team 6? i think it is extremely ironic the attack was made by joe biden who at the time -- the leaks they had about their discussions about whether or not to launch the attack had an joe biden setting, no, we should do this bomber and obama overrode

him saying, said in the seals. kill him to make sure we have the right guy. now it turns out and joe biden in the latest iteration was saying, do not do it at all. we have by then he said at the time, do not do it at all. you cannot put mitt romney in there because he would not have done it. i think mitt romney had the same -- had the exact right answer to say, even jimmy carter would have done it. mitt romney had better not make the mistake of getting drawn into this back and forth on character. the people up for grabs that mitt romney need to get our like obama. they are terribly disappointed with what he did in office and they are this far from concluding he is not up to the job.

attack his character. it causes people to say, every argument generates a counter argument. that is the counter argument you do not want to have. here is what you say. he said the unemployment rate would be 6%. in 2012 we would have 6% unemployment. the president put out a budget. we are in a battle over student loans. he is saying, we cannot let that interest rates go up to 6.8%. we have to lower it to 3.4%. your budget in february said to raise it because you needed money to pay for obamacare. do not do that. >> the filibuster stuff really

works on the republican side. i think the real problem is -- i will just say it. there has been anger about a lot of americans have about fairness over what has happened to the country the last few years. i think there is a difference between the president talking about that and fighting for fairness for the middle class and taking that as an attack on mitt romney because he succeeded.

see it. it will not work for me. he has to talk about it, too. he did one time. it was a spectacular victory speech. >> he first said it in a debate and then it was following michigan. >> i thought for the first time he really framed of fairness and a way that would work for mitti have not heard it sense. i do not know why that is. i do not know if there is something in their data. instead he falls into the trap brent's at it and say the president is attacking the rich, i think it is a bad thing for romney to do. he had it articulated right. i wish i could remember the language.

>> it was that memorable. >> he has never said it sense. i think it was a big mistake for him to leave that alone. i would go back and look at that speech if i were him because i think he articulated fairness and a way that would work. >> did you have a question? over here. >> i think many of us believe is part of the government poser responsibility to create the conditions for prosperity. for me that means free terms, opportunity, velocity, a bird -- upper mobility. in a nut shell, could each of you tell me what you think each candidate's message would be regarding prosperity meaning opportunity and velocity and upper mobility. >> joe, why do you not go first? >> i think obama has been -- let me do it this way.

i believe we are in the miss we are in over 30 or 40 years of administrations. a lot of the problems ending up today that have not been fixed in terms of the long term of the nation have been built up over time. i think obama has been looking at really -- he did save the auto industry. it is focused on the college tuition and on getting rid of the bishop -- bush tax cuts. it is getting down to fairness about who pays the price for all of that. a lot of it will be some painful decisions that will have

to happen. i think both parties have avoided a lot of the pain. anybody who comes up with an idea, the other side automatically knocks it down. we will not get through any of this without making those tough decisions. i think both campaigns -- it will be interesting to see if either campaign will address any of this stuff. i will not be a partisan about this and said, we are going to have a big discussion about how to do it. i think it will be a negative race and we will put off the future until after this election. i think mitt romney has done that throughout the primaries. i think it will be the same case as we go forward in the general.

i think the president will be reelected. i think hopefully this polarized miss we are in, somebody will win a victory so we can get on with it. >> so we will have a negative campaign aimed at personalities and attacks. whoever wins will emerge with a mandate? >> if the president puts out the perfect plan to move the country forward tomorrow or paul ryan did, the problem is right now the other side will attack it. i do not see how we get out of it unless the american people actually -- unless somebody puts it out there and the american people swarm to it. >> i agree that if anyone laid out a plan both sides would swarm it. that is because it has been polluted by three and a half

years of this president stiff arm in his opposition. the president needs to set the tone. we got elected in a contentious election in 2000. we did not come in with a wave of enthusiasm and good will obama came in. by june of 2001 we passed bush tax cuts with a quarter of the democrats voting for it. we did it by negotiating with it. this president had too many democrats and the senate and house and he did not think he needed to talk to republicans. mcconnell told me he had been eight months without being at the white house. i was with john boehner, he said, that seems about right. my job went slack. i reluctantly believe the only way we will get bipartisan is to start again.

bush wanted to do it but we have florida. we were in trouble. he is a good man and a patriot. he was so caught up in the partisanship. obama had a chance and he blew it. mitt romney will win if mitt romney has a message that has not only got the cinematics right -- semantics' right, the specifics behind and so people said, i got a handle on what you want to do. i been not agree with that all but you will be willing to tackle it and i will give you my vote. >> if tax reform -- i want to ask you briefly. is tax reform a winning issue

for mitt romney if he makes it a>> i think so. most americans think, we have a crazy tax system. if he can say i wanted to be flatter and simpler and we spend less money trying to comply with that, if he says, we are being disadvantaged. we have the highest tax rate of any country in the world. if he says, we have american companies with one trillion dollars for the profits abroad, if you are a key word packard and you sell in germany and make a profit and pay your taxes and he went to brigham hobby have to pay a second tax year. if you are siemens and you pay taxes here you take it back to germany you do not have to pay a second tax. we are making it difficult to bring it home and invested here. if he starts talking about it in concrete ways that ordinary people can get. in addition to tax reform saying i want to do something

about order and there will be tough medicine, -- >> is the paul ryan plan a winner for you? >> i think it is. a truck driver and colorado said, we have to put our hats and order. we keep spending we will end up like greece and there is no european union to bail us out. a woman waited tables at ohio and her husband worked in a warehouse. she said we are spending money we do not have. it is causing everything to cost more for health care to groceries. i am worried about my mom and more worried about what we are

doing to our kids. for once the debt has become concrete in people's mines. it is affecting them and it will affect the prosperity and the future of their children. you take that in with obamacare peeper are willing to hear somebody talk about. >> -- people are willing to hear somebody talk about. >> what is fascinating is in europe with austerity, people are screaming it does not work and telling them to get out with the elections they are having. here we are saying we have to time when the the other argument it. that is where i think what is happening in europe will have an impact on our elections.

are they seeing it as having to get our house in order? somebody like bill gross is treasury secretary -- we will do this all different. we do not have to worry about that. i think there is this economic issue right now where the president is saying, everything else is falling apart. we are not. we are stronger than anyone else in the world. we have to keep the building forward. apart, it will either be people here feel like, we are next, orat least we have our

footing solid or moving forward. i think that is what the entire message in the of the campaign -- i think they are right about that. >> i think the american people say the stimulus bill failed and they want to keep us from becoming europe. what americans want to do is keep us from becoming like europe. what we are talking about is restraining the growth of spending. we are not in europe where we say we have to cut the budget by 15%. we have to restrain the future growth. we're having a battle between the rise in plan and the obama plan. both say we spend $3.60 trillion. in 10 years, the ryan plan says that the government budget will be $4.80 trillion.

obama says $5.80 trillion. we are not in a battle where the europeans are saying we're spending $1 trillion of our euros and they have to cut it to 800 million. we are saying that we want someone who will keep us from getting there. anyone in the audience. >> i know you do not like to attack obama. >> i like to attack and the right way. >> to you think it is a paid to do this by threatening tax increases by overburdening businesses with regulations?

>> the things that he has done has given us the week this recovery. if we have the average we could have about 2500 more per capita in gdp. we have the average growth. i want to be critical of the policy. look. i have this in a rough draft. at all a some at this early in the day. it. i loved it. it is the kickoff speech. president obama said two things. he said i still believe that we are not republicans or democrats. we're all americans.

he goes later on to say that make romney sincerely believes that as long as millionaires like camera doing ok then everybody else will do all right. where did he say that? where did he say everyone else would be alright? he did not say that. i want to deal with the impact of these policies. >> this gets down to a fundamental difference in terms of how people interpret fairness. this is how we view what the president is doing and is fighting for fairness. if he puts it in that context,

it does not give him an opening. this is correct for what democrats have to do. it is going to be interesting to say if romney could go back to this various issue. he tends to fall into ascribing motives. way in the back. >> good morning. as he reminded us at the very beginning of a presentation,

ideology and platform is important and may make the difference. my question relates to the third party. i do not know if rick santorum is the embodiment of that. how do you see that whole dynamic affecting the future of the race? >> santorum is a non factor. the people that are supporting him are in the process of getting energized into the network. the ron paul thing was a different deal. this is about the most unstable political coalition i have ever seen. it only exists briefly and is at war with itself. it has two very different wings to it.

it has beyond anti-war types anti-war, anti imperialists, so far right they show up on the left wing. people a deadly concerned about the actions of the federal reserve. caucus states like maine and minnesota get six delegations of they can place it in nomination. influenceying to platform. there be something on auditing the fed appeared this is a weird movement i suspect a lot of ron people are part of the anti-war movement and will not

be there for either party in the fall. whether the fed pagers and survivalist will there, we will see. -- fed haters and survivalist will be there, we will see. >> i think there is a 20% chance we see a third candidates in the race. americans are out there still trying to qualify the ballot. >> we will have a libertarian. this'll be a problem in a couple of close state. >> even have a situation where a is 3% of the votes. we can have the situation that did happen in florida with nader and making a difference in how the boat goes.

i think that is a real problem. we do not know who that will be a real problem for. somebody you is pulling more out of romney or an anti-war candidate. >> being one of those ties with a lot of charges in the basement. >> identify yourself. [laughter] this should theoretically be a slam dunk for the republicans. given the economy.

given what has happened. why isn't it? what makes people not comprehend what is going on? >> i am a follower of this. i believe we are a narrowly divided country, 50-50. a number of true independence is shrunk to 8% or 12% of the electorate. i have a slightly different view of where we are stuck in those camps. it is not because we have a vigorous debate between two parties that have different ideological views of the country. it is because we have two parties you have fought to a draw.

each side has won victories on civil rights a a question they're like to exhausted boxers to just pummel each other. each side has won victories on civil rights and a question of do we need more fairness. i hate that word. fairness in terms of outcome or opportunity. the republicans have won the war over this. [unintelligible] what are we going to do about the war on terror attacks each side does not have answers allowed to break the stalemate. one party or another is going to break the stalemate and move it this way and dominate american politics for 15 or 20

years or whatever. we are dead even. the economy is bad. it stinks. people feel it instinctively. if you are a democrat, you are willing to make accommodations for the president and if you are not you don't. >> it is like a dead heat out there. it is more anti-incumbent regardless of the party right now. you could see republicans take significant losses in the house. thus kinds of things could happen. it does not quite jelled the way we normally would think of it. it what i think the most likely

to be with obama then romney. the power of incumbency, crawl knows what it is like to have that power behind the a in terms of what you can do. the way the electoral map looks in terms of what romney has, if iran may somehow does not get there, or if something goes wrong, a could really go wrong. i do not see that happening with the president. a lot of the avenues they have been through already. that is a very big deal. i think romney may have a great team. they have not been 3 general

election yet. they could stumble. something could go wrong. i think we can have this. but it all falls back in place, it starts to look like a blowout the other way. wow. >> i think we have concluded that we will have a close election one way or another. i want to thank my panelists for their wonderful contribution. [applause] in particular, i want to thank all of you for coming to kick off our event series. soon. thank you so much for coming.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> saturday mitt romney spoke to the graduating class at liberty university. this was the fort message is it's governor visit to liberty. in his speech he told them about the importance of faith and making more roles a part of their everyday lives. he restated his position that marriage is a relationship between one and and one woman. -- one man and one woman. [applause]

>> thank you so very much. mark, thank you for that very powerful and moving and emotional for me introduction. thank you for your friendship. what a great man. chester, thank you for your support today. pastor falwell, faculty, staff, distinguished guests, and graduating seniors of liberty, beginning. the task set before you four years ago is now completed in full. to the class of 2012 -- well done, and congratulations.

some of you may have taken a little longer than four years to complete your studies. one graduate has said that he completed his degree in only two terms -- clinton's and bush's. in some ways, it is fitting that i share this distinction with truett cathy. the romney campaign comes to a sudden stop when we spot a chick-fil-a. your chicken sandwiches were our comfort food through the primary season, and there were days that we needed a lot of comforting. so, truett, thank you and congratulations on your well- deserved honor today. corkerthere are some people here who are even more pleased than the graduates. those would be the parents.

their years of prayers, devotion, and investment have added up to this joyful achievement. and with credit to congressman dick armey -- the american dream is not owning your own home, it is getting your kids out of the home you own. lately, i've found myself thinking about life in four- year stretches. and let's just say that not everybody has achieved as much in these last four years as you have. that's a theme for another day. but two observations. first, even though job opportunities are scarce in this economy, it is not for nothing that you have spent this time preparing. jerry falwell sr. long ago observed that "you do not determine a man's greatness by his talent or wealth, as the

world does, but rather by what it takes to discourage him." america needs your skill and talent. if we take the right course, we will see a resurgence in the am will surprise the world, and that will open new doors of opportunfor thoswh are prepared as you are. of course, what the next four years might hold for me is yet to be determined. but i will say that things are looking up, and i take your kind hospitality today as a sign of good things to come. i consider it a great life honor to address you today. your generosity of spirit humbles me. the welcoming spirit of liberty is a tribute to the gracious

christian example of your founder. in his 73 years of life, dr. falwell left a big mark. for nearly five decades he shared that walk with his good wife macel. it's wonderful to see her today. the calling jerry answered was not an easy one. today we remember him as a courageous and big-hearted minister of the gospel who never feared an argument, and never hated an adversary. jerry deserves the tribute he would have treasured most, as a cheerful, confident champion for christ. i will always remember his cheerful good humor and selflessness. several years ago, in my home, picture together with him. we wanted him to be in the center of the photo, but he insisted that ann be in the middle, with he and i on the sides. he explained, by pointing to me and himself, "you see, christ died between two thieves."

maybe the most confident step jerry ever took was to open the ago. he believed that liberty might become one of the most respectedand so it is today. he believed, even when the first graduating class consisted of 13 students, that year after year young christians would be drawn to such a university in ever- greater numbers. and here you are. today, thanks to what you have gained here, you leave liberty with conviction and confidence as your armor. you know what you believe. you know who you are. and you know who you will serve. not all colleges instill that kind of confidence, but it will be among the most prized qualities from your education here. moral certainty and clear standards to willthe commitment

to spiritual ideas will set you apart in a world searching for meaning. that said, your values will not adoration. -- admiration. in fact,the more you live by your beliefs, the more you will in censure of the world. christianity is not the fate of the complacent, the comfortable, or of the timid. it demands and create zero excels like wesley, wilberforce, on offer, john paul second, and billy graham. it showed in their own way the relentless and powerful jesus christ. may that be your guide as well. you enter a world -- you enter a world with are far from equal. harvard university historian and david landis devoted his lifelong study to understanding why some civilizations rise and by others falter.

his conclusion was this -- culture makes all the difference. not natural resources, geography, but what people believe and what they value. central to america's rise to global leadership is our christian foundation. the american culture promotes personal responsibility. the dignity of work. the value of education. the merit of service. devotion to a purpose greater than self. and that the foundation, the pre-eminence of family. the power of these values, the sculptor, is evidenced by a -- this culture is evidenced by a recent brookings institution study that senator rick santorum brought to my attention. for those who graduate from high school, get a job been married before they have their first child the probability that they will be poor is 2%.

if they are absent, 76% will be poor. culture, what you believe and how you live matters. as fundamental as these principles are, they may become a topic of debate from time to time, so if it is today with the -- marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman. [applause] [applause] the protection of religious

freedom is also a matter of debate. it strikes me as strange that the free exercise of religious faith is sometimes treated as a problem. something america is stuck with. instead of being blessed with. perhaps religious content subsets' the designs of those who feel that the highest wisdom and authority comes from government. but, from the beginning, this nation has rested in god, not man. [applause] religious liberty is the first freedom in our constitution. whether the causes justice for the persecuted, compassion for the needy, or mercy for the child waiting to be born, there is no greater force for good in the nation than christian conscience in action. [applause]

religious freedom opens the door for americans that is close to many others. around the world. whether we walked through that door and what we do with our lives after is up to us. someone once observed that the great drama of christianity is not a crowd shot following the movements of collectives or nations. the drama is always personnel. individual. unfolding in one's own life. we are not alone in sensing this. men and women of every faith and good people with none at all sincerely strive to do right and lead a purpose-driven life. i can tell you this much, all that you have heard here at liberty university about trusting in god and in his purpose for each of us makes for more than a good sermon.

it makes for a good life. so many things compete for our attention and devotion. that does not stop as you get older. we are all prone to treat the trivial things as all important. the all important things as trivial. little by little, we lose sight of the one thing that endures forever. no person i have met, not even the most righteous or pure of heart have gone without those towns where they three seats in the busiest of life is normal and sometimes even the smallest glimpses of the lord's work and our lives can reawaken our hearts. they burn his back to ourselves. back to ourselves into something far greater than ourselves. what we have, what we wish we had come ambitions fulfilled. ambitions disappointed. investments won, investments lost. elections won, elections lost. each is subject to the

serendipities of light. they do not define us. -- of life. our relationship with our maker depends on none of that. it is entirely in our control. for he is always at the door. he knocks for us. our worldly success cannot be guaranteed, but our ability to achieve spiritual success is entirely up to us thanks to the grace of god. [applause] the best advice i can give is to give those worldly things your best, but never your old. . your all. reserve your hope for the only

one who can grant it. many preachers advise the same. if you as memorably as dr. martin luther king jr. he said, with most of my life ahead of me, i decided to give my life to something eternal and absolute. not to these little dots that -- little gods that are here today and gone tomorrow but the one who is the same today and forever. [applause] the commitments that come closest to forever are those of family. my dad was the ceo, a governor, and a member of the president's cabinet. my wife asked him how what was your greatest accomplishment? hehout a moment's pause said, raising our four kids. my wife and i feel the same way.

i have never once regretted missing an opportunity so that i could be with my children and grandchildren. among the things in life that can be put off, being there when it matters most is not one of them. the home is the ultimate career. as c.s. lewis said. all other careers exist to support the ultimate career. promotions often marked the high points in a career. i hope i have not seen the last[laughter] sometimes, the high points come in unexpected ways. i was asked to rescue the 2012 winter games in atlantic city when this opportunity was presented to me, i dismissed it. the winter olympics. i was busy. i was doing well. by the way, my lack of athletic prowess did not make the olympics it logical step for me.

after i accepted the position, my son called and said, dad, i have spoken to the brothers. we saw the paper this morning. we want you to know there is not a circumstance we could have conceived of that would put you on the front page of the sports section. [laughter] the olympics were not a logical choice. but, that was one of the best and most fulfilling choices of my life. opportunities to serve in meaningful ways may come at inconvenient times. that will make them all the more precious. people of different faiths sometimes wonder where we can meet in common purpose. when there are so many differences in theology. certainly, we can begin service. in shared moral convictions about our nation, stemming from a common world view. the best case for this is always the example of christian men and women working and

witnessing to carry god's love into every life. people like chuck colson. he recounted a story from his days after leaving prison. he was assured by people of influence that even with his record, a man with his connections and experience could still live very comfortably. they would make some calls, get him situated. set him up once again as as important. man. his choice at a crossroads would make him, instead, a great man. the call to service is one of the fundamental elements of our national character and culture. it has motivated every great action of conscience. that is fair minded country of ours has ever seen. sometimes, as dr. victor frankel observed, it is what live is asking of us.

-- it is not a matter of what we ask of life but what life that some of us. how often the answer to our own problems is to help others with theirs. in all of these things, family, faith, work, service, the choices we make as americans in other places are not even choices at all. for so many on this earth, life is filled with orders, not options. right down to where they live, the work they do, and how many children they can have. all the more reason to be grateful. this and every day, we live in the united states of america with a talent god gave us and we can use this in freedom. thank god for this nation. [applause]

and sothat this great christian institution, you have all these gifts and good purposes they can serve. they are yours to have endorsed a share. -- and yours to share. sometimes, your liberty education will set you apart. and always, it will help direct or path. -- your path. as you leave, and make for new places near and far, i hope for each one of you that your path will be long and life will be kind. the idea that the bride you hear -- the ideals that brought you here, the wisdom you doing here, and in the friends you have found here, made these blessings be with you always. wherever you go. thank you all of you. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪

[applause] >> that was met runyan saturday and now we go live to president obama about to give the commencement address at barnard college in new york city. it is a women's liberal arts college associated with columbia university. graduates right now are receiving academic citations. >> 5 million people with increased access to better education [applause] and more than 7 million people with strategic and financial advice stepped in to improve the livelihood of the villages and households. [applause] with you at the helm, 122 million people in 84 countries are able to vision and more

promising future. if there is a list, uyou top it it. there is an organization in need of your intellect and savvy, you sit on its board. president obama himself has caused -- called an youtube share his advisory committee on aids and serve on his committee on white house fellowship. [applause] in your own words, sometimes we have to do things just because they are the right thing to do. at this moment, the right thing is clear -- in an expression of limitless gratitude and pride, york college presents you with a barnyard medal of distinction and honor of your vital and honored ongoing work. we're all the richer for ed. [applause]

>> i am judith kay, proud barnard alumna. [applause] and i am thrilled today that my alma maters is presenting the medal of distinction to evan wolfson. [applause] attorney and activist, hero of the charge for marriage equality [applause]

and, and ,and champion for the cause of civil rights for all. [cheers and applause] even as a kid, it never occurred to you that there were limits on what you could achieve. born in brooklyn -- [applause] and raised in pittsburgh and then on to yale, the peace corps, and a harvard law school where your 1983 thesis on gay marriage at a time when the issue was not on the national radar could easily be seen as prescience. in three decades since, every single move you have made has been in service to your vision for equality and freedom.

as assistant district attorney in brooklyn where you helped erase discrimination in jury selection, on the new york state task force on sexual harassment, as co-counsel in the pivotal hawaii marriage case, and expert adviser in the vermont case that established civil unions - [applause] in the fight for gays to serve in our country, to adopt, to secure equal benefits, and in your brilliant argument before the supreme court of the united states in boy scouts of america against james dale that proclaimed that banning gays would simply -- was simply not an option. [applause] as founder and president of freedom to marry and with your seminal book "why marriage

matters," have turned a once lonely march into a surge in national movement. in 2011, new york joins of the wave and a wind was transformed tiberi when the state that welcome your grandparents as immigrants in 1917 became the sixth and largest to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, the number of americans with the freedom to marry more than doubled. [applause] the momentum in the direction of e your dreamdirectionvan, is positively undeniable. today we hail your extraordinary influence and your limitless commitment to the right of every loving man and woman with the barnard medal of distinction to echo the iconic martin luther

king -- you are a drum major for justice and a true inspiration. evan, congratulations [congratulationscheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> now is my great honor and pleasure to ask president obama to join me at the podium. [cheers and applause]

president hu obama, it is an honor and privilege to have you here with us today before. i present your citation, want to take just a moment to share with everyone and here two special guests that barnard presented to you a little while ago. the first was a book entitled " pass it on" wisdom from the class of 2012 for melia and sasha. [applause] the seniors who were so thrilled to have you at third commencement have written their own messages of inspiration to share with sasha and melia. we hope they will enjoy together and we want them to know, of course, they are welcome at barnard any time. [applause]

the second gift for you and the first lady was a little light summer reading. barnard pride itself on our legacy of extraordinary writers and we wanted to share the wealth by giving you a special collection of books written by barnard alumni and described by the authors. we hope you will enjoy. [applause] and now i have a great honor of presenting the citation for the president of united states, barack obama. [applause] [cheers and applause] barack obama, 44th president of the united states of america -- in this exuberant presentation of the college of highest honor, we pay tribute to your leadership of our nation and your place in our world.

1961 in honolulu, hawaii to this stellar moment in may, the chronicle of your life hasn't rolled us. the early years in indonesia that's part your independence and open your eyes to the breadth of humanity, college first at occidental and then here in new york city where you turn your bachelor's degree from the great columbia university on whose long we now stand. [cheers and applause] to chicago, to work with communities in need and then on to harvard law school, becoming the first african-american president of the harvard law review [applause] and graduating magna cum laude in 1991. returning to chicago, you deep in your commitment to public service because you understood that grass-roots was the way.

as your manager jerry kalmen put it, if you're not trying to think things out there, you might as well forget it. in 1992, in one of your all-time best slam dunks, you had the good fortune to marry michelle. [applause] with her by your side, you served two terms as the illinois state senator and just months before winning a u.s. senate seat representing the land of lincoln, you gave a speech of the 2004 democratic national convention that was as brilliant as it was decisive. [applause] when you said that we stand on the crossroads of history, perhaps you had no idea that the country and the world would forever know your name. and january 20, 2009, standing

smack on those historical crossroads, you were sworn in as president of the united states. since then, [applause] since then, in three years and 115 days in office, you have led the way on preventing a crimes and providing affordable health care. [applause] on reforming student loan programs, credit-card debt [applause] and financial regulation, you have reinvigorated the auto industry, raised fuel efficiency, and overturned restrictions on stem cell research. [applause] you have ended the war in iraq, turned the tide in afghanistan,

and made certain that regardless of sexual orientation, those serving our country have the freedom to ask and to tell. [applause] just days ago, you affirm your belief that the right to marriage belongs to us all. [applause] for women in particular, you have helped ensure the equal pay we all deserve by signing thelily ledbetter act into law. you have removed barriers to women in the military, improved access to health services, and repeatedly supported our right to choose. [applause]

and the time and again, you have put your trust in a long list of gifted and remarkable women leaders. supreme court justices sonia sotomayor and elena kagan [applause] secretary of state hillary clinton [applause] senior adviser valery jarratt [applause] janet napolitano, kathleen civilians, hilda solis, susan rice, li said jackson, when men running everything from homeland security -- women running everything from homeland security -- [applause] to the epa. your wisdom in these selections comes as no surprise because after all, there are extraordinary women in your own light to shed the most profoundly. the strength and levelheaded as you learn from your grandmother, the values of honesty, fairness,

and independent judgment your mother ann instill along with her constancy and capacity for wonder. the special bond with your terrific sister and barnard alarm off maya. [laughter] [applause] the devoted partnership to share with first lady michelle obama [applause] 0 is greater in her own right and sasha and melia to give us hope. [applause] clearly, mr. president, you know something about the 594 barnard graduates seated problem before you are well on their way to discovering. that there is no opportunity they cannot embrace, no dream they cannot make real. you have demonstrated this troop carrier on amazing story, you're on compelling example, your own irrepressible spirit. it is a profound honor for us to come together on this historic day, not only to present you,

president barack obama with the 2012 barnard medal of distinction but to give you our unwavering promise to go forth like you in pursuit of a sounder, a freer, and a whole lot smarter world. you have our deepest thanks. [cheers and applause] >> thank you so much. thank you. thank you so much. thank you very much. thank you. thank you so much. [applause] thank you. thank you, everybody. please, have a seat. thank you. thank you, president sparr,

president bolinger and fellow class of 2012. [applause] -- hello class of 2012. congratulations on reaching this day. thank you for the honor of being able to be part of it. there are some many people who are proud of you -- your parents, family, faculty, friends, all of whom share in this achievement so please give them a round of applause. [applause] to all the moms here today, you could not ask for a better mother's day gift ban to see all of these folks graduate. [applause] i have to say that whenever i come to these things, i start

thinking about melia and such a graduating and the start of tearing up - [laughter] it is terrible. i know how you hold it together. -- i don't know how you hold it together. i will begin by telling you a hard truth. i am a columbia [laughter] college graduate] [applause] i know there can be a little bit of a sibling rivalry here. [laughter] but i am honored nevertheless to be your commencement speaker today although i've got to say that you set a pretty high bar given the past three years. [applause] hillary clinton, meryl streep, cheryl sandberg, these are not easy act to follow. i will point out that hillary is

doing an extraordinary job and is one of the finest secretary of state's america has ever had. [applause] we gave meryl the presidential medal of arts and humanities. [applause] cheryl is not just a good friend, she is also one of our economic advisers so it is like the old saying -- keep your fans clothes and your barnard commencement speakers even closer. [applause] there is wisdom in that. [laughter] now, the year i graduated, this area looks familiar -- the year i graduated was 1983, the first year women were admitted to columbia. [applause] sally ride was the first american woman in space. music was all about michael and the moon walk.

we had the walkman. [applause] no more walking today. no one walking today. [laughter] we had the walkman, not ipod. some of the streets around here were not quite so inviting. times square was not a family destination. [laughter] i know this is all ancient history. nothing worse than commencement speakers and droning on about bygone days. but for all the differences, the class of 1983 actually had a lot in common with all of you. we, too, were heading out into a world at a moment when our country was still recovering

from a particularly severe economic recession. it was a time of change. it was a time of uncertainty. was a time of passionate political debates. you can relate to this. because just as you were starting out finding your way around this campus, and economic crisis struck that would claim more than 5 million tons towards the end of your freshman year. since then, some of you have seen parents put off retirement, france struggled to find work -- france struggled to find work in committee looking toward the future with that same sense of concern that my generation did when we were sitting where you are now. of course, as young women, you are also going to grapple with unique challenges like whether you will be able to earn equal pay for equal work, whether you will be able to balance the

demands of your job and your family, whether you will be able to fully control decisions about your own health. while opportunities for women have grown exponentially over the last 30 years, as young people, in many ways, you have a tougher than we did. this recession has been more crucial, the job losses steeper, politics seems nastier, congress more gridlock than ever. some folks in the financial world have not been the model of corporate citizenship. [laughter] no wonder that faith in our institutions has never been lower. particular when good news does not get the same kind of ratings as bad news anymore. every day you receive a steady stream of sensationalism and scandal and stories with a

message that suggests change is not possible. you can't -- you can make a difference and you will not be able to close that gap between life as it is a life as you want to be. my job today is to tell you don't believe it. because as tough as things have been, i am convinced you are tougher. i have seen your passion. i've seen your service. i have seen you engaged and i have seen you turn out in record numbers. i have heard your voice is amplified by creativity and a digital fluency that those of us in the older generations can barely comprehend. i have seen a generation eager, in patients even, to step into the rushing waters of history and change its course.

and that defiant, can-do spirit is what runs through the veins of american history. it is the lifeblood of all of our progress and it is that spirit which we need your generation to embrace and rekindle right now. the question is not whether things will get better, they always do. the question is not whether we've got the solutions to our challenges, we have had them within our grasp for quite some time. we know for example that his country would be better off if more americans were able to get the kind of education you have received here at barnard [cheers and applause] if more people could get the specific skills and training that employers are looking for today, we know that we would all

be better off if we invest in science, technology and that sparks new businesses and medical breakthroughs, if we develop more clean energy so we could use less foreign oil and reduce the carbon pollution that is threatening our planet. [applause] we know that we are better off when there are rules that stopped the big banks from making babette's with other people's money [applause] when insurance companies are not allowed to drop your coverage when you need it most surcharge women differently from men. [cheers and applause] offed, we know we're better when women are treated fairly and equally in every aspect of american life, whether it is the salary you earn or the health decisions you make. [applause]

we know these things to be true. we know that our challenges are eminently solvable. the question is whether together we can muster the will in our own lives, in our common institutions, in our politics to bring about the changes we need. i am convinced your generation possesses that will. i believe that the women of this generation, that all of you will help lead the way. [applause] i recognize that as a cheap applause line when you're giving a commencement at barnard. that is the easiest thing to say but it is true. [laughter] in part, it is simple math.

today, women are not just half of this country, you're half of the work force. [applause] more and more women are out earning their husbands and you are more than half of our college graduates and master's graduates and ph.d.'s. [applause] you got as outnumbered. [laughter] after decades of slow, steady, extraordinary progress, you are now poised to make this the century where women shape not only their own destiny but the destiny of this nation and this world. how far your leadership takes this country, how far it takes this world, well, that will be up to you. you got to want it. it will not be handed to you.

as someone who wants that future, that better future for you and for melia and sasha, as somebody who has had the good fortune of being a husband and the father and son of some strong, remarkable women, allow me to offer a few pieces of advice. that is obligatory. [laughter] bear with me. my first piece of advice is this -- don't just get involved. fight for your seat at the table. better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table. [applause] it has been said that the most important role in our democracy is the role of citizen. indeed, it was 225 years ago today that the constitutional convention opened in philadelphia and their founders, citizens all, began crafting an

extraordinary document. yes, it had its flaws. there were flaws that its bid -- this mission has strived to protect overtime. there are questions of race and gender that were unresolved. no women's signature grace the original document although we can assume that there were founding mothers whispering smarter things in the years of the founding fathers. [applause] that is almost certain. what made this document special was that it provided the possibility for those who had been left out of our charter to fight their way in. it provided people the language to appeal to principles and ideas that broad and democracies reach. it allowed for protest and movements and the dissemination

of new ideas that would repeatedly, decade after decade, change the world, a constant forward movement that continues to this day. our founders understood that america does not stand still. we are dynamic, not static. we look forward, not back. and now that new doors have been open for you, you've got an obligation to seize those opportunities. you need to do this not just for yourself but for those who don't yet enjoy the choices you have had, the choices you will have. one reason many workplaces still have outdated policies is because women only account for 3% of the ceo's at fortune 500 companies. one reason we are actually re- fighting battles over women's rights is because women occupy

fewer than one in five i'm not saying the only way to achieve success is by climbing to the top of the corporate ladder or running for office although, let's face it, congress would get a lot more done if you did -- [laughter] [applause] if you decide not to set yourself of the table, at the very least, you have to make sure that you -- you'll have to have a say in who does. it matters. before women like barbara mikulski and olympia snowe and others got to congress, take one example -- much of federally funded research on diseases focused solely on the effect of man. -- on man. it was not until women got to congress and passed title 95 -- 40 years ago this year that

we declared women should be allowed to compete and win on the american playing field. [applause] until a woman named lily ledbetter showed up a rock doesn't have the courage to step up and say this is not right, women are not being treated fairly, we lacked the tools needed to hold the basic principle of equal pay for equal work. accept somebody else's construction of the way things ought to be. it is up to you to right the wrongs. it is up to you to point out injustice. it is up to you to hold the system accountable. sometimes you need to up and it entirely. it is up to you to stand up and be heard, to write and lobby in march and organized to vote. don't be content to sit back and watch. those who oppose change, those

who benefit from an unjust status quo, have always bet on the public's cynicism or the public's complacency. throughout american history, they have lost a bad bet. i believe they will this time as well. [applause] ultimately, class of 2012, that will depend on you. don't wait for the person next to you. to be the first to speak up for what is right. maybe, just maybe, they are waiting on you. which brings me to my second piece of advice -- never underestimate the power of your example. the very fact that you are graduating, let alone with more women now graduating ben mann, is only possible because of earlier generations of women, or mothers, grandmothers, aunts, shattered the myth that you

couldn't or shouldn't be where you are. [applause] i think of a friend of mine who is the daughter of immigrants -- when she was in high school, for guidance counselor told her you are just not college material. you should think about becoming a secretary. well, she was discovered such a went to college anyway. she got her master's and ran for local office and then ran for state office and she won and she ran for congress and you want and lo and behold, hilda solis did end up becoming a secretary. [laughter] is is america's -- she america's secretary of labor. [applause] think about what that means to a young latina girl when she sees a cabinet secretary that looks

like her. think about what it means to a young girl in ottawa which is a presidential candidate who looks like her. think about what it means to a young girl walking in harlem write down the street when she sees a u.n. ambassador looks like her. do not underestimate the power of your example. this diploma opens up new possibilities. reach back, convinced the young girl to earn one, too. if you earn your degree in an area where we need more women like computer science or engineering, [applause] reach back and persuade another student to study it, too. if you're going into fields where we need more women like construction or computer engineering, reach back, hire someone new. be a mentor. the role model. on tell a girl can imagine herself and picture herself as a computer programmer for combat

and commander, she will not become one. until there are women who tell her to ignore our pop culture obsession over beauty and fashion and focus instead [applause] on studying and inventing and competing and leading, she will think those are the only things that girls are supposed to care about. michelle will say there's nothing wrong with caring about that a little bit. [laughter] you can be stylish and powerful. [applause] that is machel's advice. [applause] never forget that the most important example a young girl will ever follow is that of a parent. melia and sasha will be outstanding women because of michelle and mary ann roberts and our outstanding women.

my last piece of advice -- this is simple but perhaps most important -- persevere. persevere. nothing worthwhile is easy. no one of achievement has avoided failure. sometimes catastrophic failures. but they keep at it. they learn from mistakes. they don't quit. when i first arrived on this campus, we have little money, fewer options but it was here that i tried to find my place in this world. i knew what to make a difference but it was vague l i would go about it. [laughter] i want to do my part, to shape a better world. even as i worked after

graduation in a few on fulfilling jobs here n.y., i will not list them all -- [laughter] even as i went from motley apartment to a monthly apartment, i reached out. i started to write letters to community organizations across the country and one day, a small group of churches on the south side of chicago answered offering me work with people in neighborhoods hit hard by steel mills that were shutting down. and communities where jobs were dying away. the community had been plagued by gang violence the ones i arrive, one of the first things we try to do is mobilize a meeting with community leaders to deal with gangs. i had worked for weeks on this project and we invited the police and made phone calls and went to churches and we passed out fliers. the night of the meeting we arrange rows of chairs in anticipation of this crowd and we waited and waited

and finally, a group of older folks walked into all and they sat down and the little old lady raised her hand and asked if this is where the bingo game was. [laughter] it was a disaster. nobody showed up. my first big community meeting, nobody showed up. and later, the volunteers i worked with told me that's it, we are quitting. they have been doing this for two years even before i arrived and had nothing to show for it and i will be honest, i was discouraged as well i did not know what i was doing and i thought about quitting. as we were talking, i looked up and i saw some young boys playing in a vacant lot across the street and they were throwing rocks at a boarded up buildings. they have nothing better to do late at night, just throwing rocks. a set of volunteers, before you quit, after one question.

what will happen to those boys if you quit? who will fight for them if we don't? who will give them a fair shot if we leave? one by one, the volunteers decided not to quit and went back to those diprovan we kept at it and register new voters and set up after-school programs and we fought for new jobs, helped people live lives with some measure of dignity and we sustained ourselves with those small victories. we did not set the world on fire. some of those communities are still very poor, there are still love gangs out there, but i believe it was those small victories that helped me win the bigger victories of my last 3.5 years as president. i wish i could say this perseverance came from some innate toughness but the truth is, it was learned. i got up from watching the people raised me.

more specifically, i got it from watching the women who shaped my life. yep, i grew up as the son of a single mom who struggled to put herself through school and make ends meet. she had marriages that fell apart, even when on food stamps at one point, to help us get by and she did not quit. she earned her degree and made sure that through scholarships and hard work, my sister and i earned hours and used to wake me up and we were living overseas and wake me up before dawn to study my english lessons for it when i complained, she would just look in and say this is no picnic for me either, buster. [laughter] my mom ended up dedicating yourself to helping women around the world access the money they needed to start their own businesses. she was an early pioneer in micra finance. that meant she was gone a lot an

adder on struggles to figure outbalancing motherhood and career. when she was gone, my grandmother stepped up to take care of me. she only had a high-school education. she got a job at a local bank and hit the glass ceiling and watch man she once trained promoted up the ladder ahead of her but she did not quit. rather than grow harder angry each time to get passed over, she kept doing your job the best she knew how and ultimately ended up being vice-president of the bank. she did not quit. later on, i met a woman who was assigned to advise me on my first summer job at a law firm and she gave me such good advice that i married her. [laughter] michelle and i gave everything we had to balance our careers and a young family but let's face it, no matter how enlightened i must've thought myself to be, it often fell more

on her shoulders when i was traveling and when i was away. i know that when she was with our girls, she would feel guilty that she was not giving enough time to her work. when she was at work, should feel guilty to is not giving enough time to the girls. both of us wished we had some superpower that lesbian two places at once. -- pat let us be in two places at once. we made that marriage work. the reason michelle had the strength to juggle everything and put up with me and eventually the public spotlight was because she, too, came from a bunch of folks that did not quit because she saw her dead get up and go to work every day even though he never finished college, even though he has m cripplingms. her mother never finished college. she was in that urban school every day making sure michelle and her brother were getting the education they deserve. michelle saw how her parents never quit.

they never indulged in self pity no matter how stacked the odds were against them. they did not quit. those are the folks who inspire make. me. those quiet heroes all across this country, some of your parents and grandparents were sitting here, no fanfare, no articles written about them. they just persevered. they just do their jobs. they meet their responsibilities. they don't quit. i'm only here because of. them they may not have set out to change the world but in small and poured ways, they did. they certainly changed mine. whether it is starting a business or running for office or raising amazing families,

remember that making a mark on the world is hard. it takes patience. it takes commitment. it comes with plenty of setbacks and it comes with plenty of failure. whenever you fill the creeping cynicism, whenever you hear those voices say you cannot make a difference, whenever somebody tells you to set your sights lower, the trajectory of this country should give you hope. previous generations should give you hope, what young generations have done before should give you hope. young folks who marched and mobilized and stood up and sat in from seneca falls to selma to stonewall did not just do it for themselves, they did it for other people. that is how we achieve it women's rights. [applause] that's how we achieve voting rights. that's how we achieved workers' rights. that's how we achieve a gay-

rights. that's how we made this union more perfect. [applause] if you are willing to do your part now, if you're willing to reach up and close that gap between what america is and what america should be, i want you to know that i will be right there with you. [applause] if you are ready to fight for that brilliant, but radically simple idea of america that no matter who you are what you look like, no matter who you love or what got you worship, you can still pursue your own happiness. [applause] i will join you every step [of the step [cheers and applause] now more than ever, america needs and what you the class of 2012 have to offer. america needs you to reach high

and hope to. deeply. if you persevere and what you decide to do with your life, i have every faith not only that you will succeed but that through you our nation will continue to be a beacon of light for men and women, boys and girls in every corner of the globe. so thank you and congratulations. [applause] god bless you, god bless the united states of america. [cheers and applause] thank you very much.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [applause] [cheering and applause] >> president obama, wrapping up here at barnard college, if you miss it, you can watch it at the c-span video library. here's a quick look at what is happening in congress this week -- the senate is about to gavel in. we will work on continuing the export-import bank charter. then they will turn to judicial

nominations. you can see this and it on c- span2. the houses back in session with the violence against women program and setting the defense department priority. we will get more on the programs from a reporter. >> the house armed services committee spent nearly 16 hours crafting its annual defense authorization bill. rick mace is a congressional reporter and editor with "military times." what are some of the key issues lawmakers will be debating this week? >> some of the key issues are issues we have seen before. we will be talking about afghanistan, but at the end of the day, there's not much they will do about it. they will be fighting about detainees at guantanamo bay in cuba. but part of the fight is still the same thing -- will we ever have trials in the united

states? should we close the prison down and keep all together? and there is the possibility of trading some detainees who will be tried for some peace agreement in the middle east. there is the larger fight we have already had a house floor this week over how much money to spend on defense. the bill approved by the committee has $4 billion more than the president asked for, $8 billion more than the budget agreement last fall has. democrats are not happy with the money being spent mostly because of where it comes from. there is not much they can do about it because where the money is spent, they are popular programs. they spent money preventing try care fees from increasing on military retirees. not many lawmakers will vote for those increases in an election year. >> in the committee debate, democrat says the bill as

billions of dollars for weapons systems the country doesn't need. how republicans respond to that? >> the republicans respond that we need them. it's a very simple disagreement between them. >> what about the overall bill itself and what an authorization bill does verses a pentagon budget bill? >> this has specific authorization to do things or continue programs are going to expire. there are 30 bonuses that would expire on december 31. it's mostly for new starts policy changes, appear racist, weapons programs and construction projects. it was a bipartisan bill and is one of the few committees even though there is a lot of partisan degree our capitol hill, it's one of the few committees that can get a bill but and pass it on a mostly bipartisan basis. >> there must have been some contention in that 16 hours? >> contention means you can

spend a lot of time talking about things without many votes. one of the interesting fights is over a plan to create an east coast battery missile defense for the possibility of having countries like iran have a missile that could reach the united states. it is not an immediate threat and the initial money is $100 million, which is not much in terms of the defense budget, but the long-range, it is a $6 billion program. it's committed you now to something that would be a lot of overtime. >> programs are set to take a hit in january of 2013 because of the debt agreement last year. is there any accommodation made for that? >> that is done separately. there is nothing they could do in this bill that would change that. >> what do you see ahead of the house floor at what is the senate likely to take it up if it passes the house? >> the senate is backing itself

up against a memorial day recess. it would probably be the last week in may but with the senate might pass the bill on the floor, -- they have had great trouble getting any bills to the floor at all. >> from capitol hill, thank you for the update. >> coming up live at 5:30 eastern, author arthur hartman recalls president roosevelt's ever to lead the war production effort. he speaks at the american enterprise institute in washington. we'll have that live at our website at 5:30 eastern. >> we have a real demand for spectrum, but we would be foolish if all we did was rely on things like incentive

options and auctioning spectrum. >> it's important to have neutrality to ensure everyone is competing on a level playing field. >> learn to about the newest sec commissioners with the washington post technology reporter and a technology reporter for the "wall street journal." that's tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> over the past year, public tv and american history tv have gone on the road from tampa to savannah, charleston to knoxville, birmingham and back to nourish and in oklahoma city. the crews visited places that define the city's heritage and literary life. june 2 and third, watch for our programming from wichita kansas on book tv and american history tv. >> arizona republican senator john mccain encourage the by

administration to expand its free-trade agenda in asia and drop economic sanctions on me and our. -- on myanmar. >> good morning, everybody. a special thanks to senator john mccain, who is going to get our week started. we were sitting back and he said he was not impressed -- i said when you get 200 people to come on time, you have to reward them. thank you for coming. we're still waiting for others to come and it's a bit of an impediment but we don't want to delay any further it's a real

source of pleasure and an honor for me to welcome senator john mccain back. he has been a long-term study support to what we do and i will have to say more important today than ever. when i look at the landscape of political washington, who is bringing the strategic frame of reference to evaluate the most complicated problems? this man is at the very top. one of the concerns i have is that he has for years been a champion for americans under standing asia. nobody has worked harder at this than john mccain and he has had transcending moral authority to do that. where is that next generation coming? i'm grateful for his response when he says he's going to help mentor the next generation of senators coming in by giving them exposure to asia. god knows we need it.

the senator -- the center of gravity has moved americans don't know it. they do not know because they're not presenting themselves to this dynamic landscape as is senator john mccain. a towering figure in the united states senate. it's hard for me not to get emotional when i think about all he has done for this country. he continues to do that today and i am grateful he's willing to share his perspective on this issue. i do want to say special thanks to our friends to have made it possible to hold this series. this is a series we're doing on the transpacific partnership serious which is made possible by google, hewlett-packard, pfizer, and procter and gamble. i want to say thank you to them for that because they're willing to bring a debate to the american people and make it happen. and to have someone like senator john mccain leading this debate and dialogue in

washington, it's not better than that. without further delay, would you please welcome senator john mccain. [applause] >> thank you. thank you for that kind introduction. i was just reflecting as you were speaking. i think our relationship and friendship goes back well over 20 years -- may be closer to 30. anyway, we're getting to the point where we hide our own easter eggs. i would like to thank everyone here for inviting me to speak this morning. csis is one of the finest institutions in this city and a benefit immensely and often from its outstanding work in the wise counsel of my old friend john and his team. let me also say how much i

appreciate all before taking time out of your busy schedules to be here. i'm grateful that you still care what a member of congress still has to say. most americans no longer do. last time i checked, the approval rating of congress is now 11%, and i've yet to meet anyone in the 11% category. we are down now to blood relatives and paid staffers. [laughter] and i'm not so sure anymore about the blood relatives. [laughter] i joke about this a lot and it's good for a laugh but the truth is it's sad. it's sad how little faith americans have in their government and it's not just americans. i met last week with a business delegation from malaysia and one of them said, senator mccain, when we look at america these days, you seem totally dysfunctional. your clinical system seems

incapable of making the basic decisions to feature fiscal problems and project resolve to the world. by the way, he said, some in asia are citing these failings to undermine the confidence that your friend still have in you. and you know what? i could not disagree with him. this is an enormous problem and it raises doubts about our commitment in the asia-pacific region. while it is wrong to speak of a pit to asia, the idea that we must rebalance u.s. foreign- policy with increasing emphasis on the asia-pacific region is undoubtedly correct. the court challenge we face is how to make this rebalancing efforts meaningful? but it met our physical and political problems, we run the risk of over promising and under delivering on our renewed commitment across the pacific. it is difficult to overstate the gravity of the choices before us

now. we face immediate decisions that will determine the vector of american power in the asia- pacific region diplomatically, economically, and militarily for decades to come. we have to get our bearings right. if we fail, we will drift off course and fall behind. however, if we get the decisions right, we can create the enduring decisions to expand american power, strength and leadership and secure america's national interests across the pacific. after all, while the context in asia is changing, america's interests in asia have not. we will still seek the same objectives we always have -- the ability to prevent, deter, and if necessary, prevail in a conflict. the defense of u.s. allies, the free trade, free commons, air, sea, space, and now cyber, and

above all, the maintenance of a balance of power that fosters the peaceful expansion of human- rights, democracy, rule of law and that many of their values we share with increasing numbers of asian citizens, none of these interests is directed against any other country, including china. the continue peaceful development of china is in our interest. we reject the notion america wants to contain china or that we seek a new cold war in asia where countries are forced to choose between the united states and china. in short, the question we must answer is can we in america make the big strategic decisions right now that will position us for long term success in asia? one of these big decisions pertains to trade. it is often said the business of asia is business. but when it comes to trade, the

united states has been sitting on the sidelines and asia is sprinting forward without us. after four years, this administration still has not concluded or ratified a single free trade agreement of its own making. it took them until last year just to pass the fta's with korea and panama the bush administration began. china has secured nine in asia and latin america alone. it is negotiating five more and has for others under consideration. it's not just china. the japanese prime minister announced last week he wants japan to begin negotiations on a free-trade area with china and south korea. india is negotiating a free- trade agreement with the european union and yet we will not even concluded a narrower,

bilateral investment treaty with india, let alone a full fta as we should. as of last year, when reports found asian countries had concluded or were negotiating nearly 300 trade agreements, none of which included the united states of america. the launch of the trans-pacific partnership has brightness picture a bit, but a deal may be years off if it happens all. instead, we should be moving forward with bilateral trade agendas starting with india and taiwan. we shall also moved more aggressively on a multilateral track. the trans-pacific partnership splits the countries -- we either need to bring them all into the trans-pacific partnership or push for a former -- formal free-trade agreement. the bottom line is america's

long-term strategic and economic success requires an ambitious trade strategy in asia. a second decision with enormous implications is our regional force posture. i want to thankcsis for its leadership on this issue. we all share the same goals -- strengthening the u.s.-japan alliance will continuing our relationships in the asia- pacific region 3 robust presence of four-play military forces. like many of you, some of us on the senate armed services committee were critical of the previous plan to realign u.s. forces on okinawa and glom which had become totally and affordable. the cost to the glom move alone had doubled in seven years to more than $20 billion. this crisis presents an opportunity for a broader look

at our regional force posture. some asian countries are showing new interest in a greater rotational presence of u.s. forces in the region. the recent agreement to rotate 2500 marines there australia could serve as a model for similar activities elsewhere such as the philippines. ultimately, these and other new developments offer an opportunity to think creatively and comprehensively about a new regional force posture which should include a fresh approach to the realignment on okinawa and qualm. that is why congress included last year the national defense authorization act for an independent assessment of these force posture questions. i'm pleased csis is conducting this important study. it remains unclear how the recent joint statement of the japan committee will fit into

this requirement for a broader assessment of our regional force posture. at this time, the joint statement raises more questions than it answers. among them, questions on cost estimates, logistical requirements, force sustainment, master plans, and how the proposal relates to a broader concept of regional operations. we need to get these important decisions right. that is why even as we seek additional details on a joint statement, congress will not make any major funding decisions until we receive and evaluate the independent assessment on asia-pacific force posture required by law. a similar and far larger decision we must also get right is our defense spending. the asia-pacific region is primarily a maritime theater. our ability to project military power depends mostly on the u.s.

navy. yet the navy is still short of its own goal of 313 ships. what's worse, the administration proposes to retire seven cruisers earlier than planned to phase out to major lift ships needed by the marine corps and delay the acquisition of one large deck amphibious ship, when virginia class attack submarine, to combat ships and eight high- speed transport vessels. we are now retiring ships faster than we are replacing them. cuts to our naval capabilities such as these without a plan to compensate for them only put our goals in the age of -- in the asia-pacific region at greater risk. all of this is before the potential impact of sequestration. the cuts to our defense budget required under sequestration would be nothing less than a unilateral act of disarmament

that would insure the real decline of u.s. military power. a number of us in congress have offered proposals to avoid sequestration, but we do not have a monopoly and ideas. we want to sit down with the president and work out a bipartisan deal, but the president refuses to engage. he has no proposal to prevent what his own secretary of defense called "catastrophic cuts to our national defense. unless the president gets engaged on this issue, he will preside over the worst hollowing out of our armed forces in recent memory. in addition to our military presence, we must sustain our means of gauging diplomatically in asia. here, we have a better story to tell. thanks largely to our secretary of state is making u.s. diplomacy more present and impact full than ever in the region. that said, we face a major test

that will signal what role america will play in asia and how relevant we will be to asia's challenges. one such test is the south china sea. the united states has no claims in this dispute and we should not take positions on the claims of others. nonetheless, this dispute cuts to the heart of america's interests in asia, not just because 1.2 trillion dollars of trade passes through this soft tennessee every year and not just because -- through the south china sea every year, but because it's crucial for a rising asia to avoid the dark side of realpolitik where strong states do as they please and smaller states offer. ultimately -- smaller states suffer. this is not about china and the united states. it's about china's relations with its neighbors. we must support our partners as

requested so they can realize their own goals of presenting a united front and peacefully resolving their differences multilaterally. another major test for u.s. diplomacy is burma. i've traveled to burma twice over the past year and to be sure, they still have a long way to go, especially in stopping the violence and pursuing genuine reconciliation with the country's ethnic minorities. but the burmese president and his allies in the government i believe are sincere about reform. they are making real progress. for the past year, i have said concrete actions by burma's government toward democratic and economic reform should be met with reciprocal actions by the united states that can strengthen these reforms, benefit ordinary burmese, and improve our relationships. following the recent election that brought aung san suu kyi

into parliament, i think now is the time to suspend u.s. sanctions, a specially except -- except for the arms embargo, and targeted measures we maintain against individuals in burma that undermine democracy, while human-rights, and plunder the nation's resources. this would not be a lifting of sanctions, just a suspension, and the step as well as any other easing of sanctions would depend on continued progress and reform in burma. we must also establish a principle and binding standards of corporate social responsibility for u.s. business activities in burma. aung san suu kyi has made the distinction between the right and wrong kinds of investment. the right kind of investment would it strengthen burma's private sector, but if its citizens, and listen the military's control over the

economy and civilian government. the wrong investment would do the opposite -- entrenching into oligarchy and setting back burma's development for decades. for this reason, i am not convinced the american companies should be permitted to do business at this time with state-owned firms in burma that are still dominated by the military. u.s. business will never win a race to the bottom with some other asian or european competitors and they should not try. rather, they should align themselves with aung san suu kyi and the burmese people who want the kind of responsible investment, high labor and environmental standards and support for human rights and sovereignty that defined american business at its best. our goal should be to set the global standard for corporate social responsibility in burma, a standard that we as well as aung san suu kyi could use to

pressure others to follow our lead, and that could become the basis for new burmese laws. these are large challenges and where -- and would require is to set aside political bickering and point scoring in the name of our financial and national interest. i would say we can come together and do this and i'm confident the profits of american decline can be proved wrong and i will tell you why. even as you work to sustain the supply of american power, the demand for american power in asia has never been greater. i'll give you one example. on my last visit to burma, i met with the president. he had most of his cabinet there and i walked over to shake their hands. as i went down the line, one of them said fort leavenworth, 1982.

another said fort benning, 1987. it went on like that. i realized many of these guys were former military officers who were part of our military exchange programs prior to severing relations with the burmese military. even after all this time, all of our troubled history, they remembered america fondly and it wanted to get closer to america once again. take another example -- why are dissidents and asylum seekers in china running to the american industry when they've for europe -- embassy when they fear for their safety. they're not going to the russian or south african embassy, why is that? is it because we are powerful? certainly, but other nations also have great power. is it because we are a democracy that stands for the equal rights and dignity of all people? certainly, but these values are not ours alone.

why is it? it is because we mary are great power and democratic values together and act on this basis. it is because among the community of nations, america remains unique, exceptional, a democratic great power that uses its unparalleled influence not just to advance its own narrow interests but to further a set of transcendent values. this is why so many countries in asia and elsewhere are drawn to us. we put our power into the service of our principles. that is why during my repeated travel to asia, i meet person after person, a leader after leader who wants america to be their partner of choice. they don't want less of america, they want more, more of our trade, more diplomatic support, and yes, more of our military

assistance and cooperation. add a time when most americans say they are losing faith in our government, we should remember there are millions of people in the world, especially in the asia-pacific region who still believe in america and who still want to live in a world shaped by american power, american values, and american leadership. with so many people counting on us and by no means counting us out, the least we can do is endeavor to be worthy of the high hopes they still have in us. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for the great speech. i would like to open the floor. this session is on the record. if you have a question, please introduce yourself and let us

know what organization your with and i will try to see people on that side but i may need your help. >> thank you very much. [inaudible] i am happy to hear your comment about how the united states wants to improve its relationship with china -- you've made the point that we need to stand with our friends for all the reasons i don't need to repeat.

wouldn't this be a good time for any administration to lift the embargo of lethal weapons in vietnam? busy to they're point is would it make sense. i appreciate your idea. >> i view it as one of the few things i've done in my life and i am proud of is the establishment of normalization of relations between the united states and vietnam. i think it went along way to healing ones that needed it closing. but i have to be very candid with you. i remain concerned about the vietnamese treatment of

buddhists, christians, minorities, and the corruption that exists at very high levels -- the scandal of the shipyard is just the most visible example of it. over the years, have grown more and more reliant on human rights organizations. they are important in our considerations and i have found over the years in many instances that they are right. human-rights organizations tell me the persecution of buddhists, christians, minorities and others continues. and there is no reason for it. i visit vietnam fairly often and i say to their leaders was the point? what is the point here? i don't know if its old habits or some fear that there may be

an uprising for some reason, but i think we can sat and say with certain standards that are set that could be met and we could have much closer relations with them. let me finally say the vietnamese are of course nervous about china. they have a long history that they are very familiar with that shows about one year ago, a ship named after my father and grandfather paid a port visit and shows if you live long enough, anything that -- anything can happen in this world. i love the vietnamese people. i love vietnam. look at the way our country has been enriched by those who fled to come here. it's not anything personal, but

when i hear of the persecution that still goes on, it seems to me the vietnamese have more maturation to accomplish before we provide them with offensive weapons. >> good morning, senator. i'm with the "south asian journal. a beautiful summary of defining american interests in asia. but she did not mention a run, pakistan, or afghanistan, which i believe have important roles in defining america's interests in asia. could you comment on that, please? >> if i had brought up iran, pakistan and afghanistan, we would have a whole other speech. but obviously, iran poses a

great challenge to peace in the world. there is now a new set of negotiations going on with iranians over nuclear-weapons. i am not as optimistic as some because i have seen this movie before. but i am not opposed to sitting down as long as it is not a process of the way while they make further progress. afghanistan, i was very pleased at the strategic partnership agreement that was concluded. we want to see the details, but there are two major problems we have had in afghanistan. one is corruption and the other is the presence of the sanctuary in pakistan. but as i'm sure you are aware, there is a widespread feeling in the region that the united states was leaving. the famous anecdote about the

taliban prisoner and american and taller gaidar and he says you've got the watches, we have got the time. i would hope the strategic partnership agreement, if correctly implemented would change the mindset in that part of the world that the united states does not intend to abandon as we basically did a iraq. we won the war and we are losing the peace. in case you missed the story yesterday of the failure of our ability to train even their police forces, believe me things are going to get a lot worse in iraq unfortunately before this is over with the tragic loss of 1474 young americans. next time i am invited, i invite you to come and i will give a

talk about it. >> thank you. i'm a former world bank official and a former member of the world bank of pakistan. pakistan is a key ally to the united states. next week is the chicago summit. what do you see as the role of pakistan? >> pakistan is vital to the united states national security interests for a broad variety of reasons -- reasons, including the broad a nuclear inventory they have and the fact that pakistan's role in the region is vital, not to mention relations with india. we have to operate in our relations with pakistan with the

realization that the i s i has close relations with the network and they are carrying out activities that kill americans. that's an assessment that cannot be refuted by the facts. it saddens me. we were talking earlier -- one of the grievous mistakes in recent history was this amendment that cut off our military to military relations and we're still paying a very heavy price for it. there are some who would argue pakistan as a failed state. i do not argue that but i could argue plausibly that the politics in pakistan are very unsettled to say the least. it is our interest to have good relations with pakistan. it's in our interest to try to

assist them to a better democracy and a lessening of corruption and a severing of relations between the i s i and the high network. if there is any lesson we should have to learn over and over again is that we cannot force pakistan and people to change their ways unless they want to. it is so disheartening sometimes to see the lack of progress toward a meaningful democracy and all of the things we would hope pakistan might achieve. but whether we are successful in persuading them or not, pakistan will remain a country that is violent -- vital to the national security interests of the united states. i don't have to draw the various scenarios of a breakdown in

their government. i hope we will continue to work with pakistan in every possible way that we can but we must take a totally realistic approach to our relations with pakistan. >> are you comfortable with the pace of the trans-pacific partial negotiations and how should we manage the interests of canada and others who want to join? >> i am not satisfied with the pace of negotiations. it is saddening when we see china concluding all of these free trade agreements and other countries in the region and the united states in more than three years, we have concluded three free trade agreements negotiated by a previous administration, that's a shameful record. every other country in the world is recognizing that benefits of

free trade agreements and yet we are beholden to special interests and trade unions. some of the special interests are the car companies. and the trade unions which impose restrictions and when we abandoned the fast track methodology, but it makes it even worse. when i travel around at your expense, i hear them. they want a free trade agreement with us. they are saying why can't you do it? this concept of a pacific partnership is magnificent. it could be one of the greatest breakthroughs we have had in recent history if we could just move forward with that. i know we are in an election year and i'm not here to beat up on the administration. that would be easy enough for me to do.

it requires presidential leadership and it requires setting priorities. president clinton set the free trade agreement between the united states and canada as a priority. congress reacted. in all due respect, the president ought to give a speech, come here and give a speech and say we're going to conclude this pacific partnership agreement. i just came from chicago and by golly it is the best thing america can do and keep jobs at home. if i sound frustrated, it's because i am because the rest of the world is understanding the value to their own country's free trade agreement while we discuss a very nice concept. >> for the record, the president

is invited. >> it won't help if i recommend it. [laughter] >> in a couple of weeks, that talks between the united states and iran will resume in baghdad. i want to ask your thoughts about reciprocity. the administration has talked about the principle of reciprocity and whether you think the goal of the sanctions congress has placed on iran and the administration is forcing should be a deal to end the nuclear program or regime change? >> first of all, i'm not optimistic about the possible results of these talks.

the first talks were greeted with great enthusiasm because they agreed to talk again. i have seen the movie before and we have seen it not only as far as iran is concerned, but north korea. i am for talks. anyone who is not is foolish. but for us to not take a realistic approach to these conversations i think is -- it flies in the face of history. i don't think there is any doubt sanctions are hurting iran, seriously hurting their economy. i don't think there is any doubt about that. you can look at a number of indicators to show these sanctions have hurt rather significantly. but i have yet to see an erosion

on the part of the popular support of this government for the development of nuclear weapons and i have yet to see any real meaningful concessions made by the iranians and i have yet to see any change in the path they're on toward development in the clear weapons. what really should happen is instead of sending our national security adviser and chairman of joint chiefs to israel and telling the israel's not -- telling israel not to attack iran and then we get to the press which weakens the israelis, especially with this new government in israel, we should sit down with the israelis and establish read lines. those could be four or five provisions. one of them could be the state of iran -- state of enrichment

and the other is further development of facilities. you could write them down on the back of an envelope and say to the israelis that these are the red lines and we're telling the iranians these are the red lines and as the president has said, it is unacceptable. his statement for the iranians to develop nuclear weapons and then we could be in closer alignment with the israelis. netanyahu has formed a new government and that gives him more latitude on talks with the palestinians but it also gives him a broader range of support if the israeli government, and i emphasize if the israeli government acts militarily. finally, everybody is worried about the reaction in the arab world to an attack by israel on iranian nuclear facilities. behind closed doors, there would

be celebration in arab countries all over the world, have no doubt about it. they do not want the arab world -- the arab world does not want iran to have nuclear weapons. trigger's proliferation throughout the region and the rivalries taking place in places like bahrain and others and including competition in iraq -- all i can say is it was a little disappointing to hear our first meeting was so wonderful and it there was a frank conversations and they agreed to meet again in baghdad and now i hear they are already planning another place to meet after that. we have seen the movie before. >> i'm with the earnings program

here. thank you for another great speech. you mentioned north korea. two weeks ago, secretary panetta testified to the house armed services committee that china has been providing technical assistance to the north korean missile program, missiles which are targeted for the united states. in light of that, what is your view of the ministration's positions to lift export controls to china on lethal weapons? >> i think it is conventional wisdom but i think it's a very wrong that we have -- china looks hundreds of years in the future and have thousands of years of history and china, they are thinking three moves ahead of us on the chessboard. if that is true, why do they continue to prop up the north korean regime?

why in the world would you want to prop up a regime with 200,000 people starving to death? why would you want to support a regime that continues its only cachet and the world is nuclear- weapons and continues to try to move forward not only with the development of the means to deliver them but exporting those technologies to the most volatile parts of the world? the new chinese leader was here in town and there were four or five of us who met with him and i said why do you continue to prop up this regime? it is a blot on the reputation of your government. his answer was -- i am not making this up. senator mccain is well known for his candor. that was his answer. that is not a serious answer. i'm a serious person and that's not a serious answer.

but it was this charm toward he was on. -- a charming tour he was on. i worry about irrational behavior of the north koreans and general custer was a general at age 23. we have a guy now in north korea -- he's a four-star general at age 27. great. but the point is there is instability there and it's a very unstable situation. we need to worry about and why china and russia continue to veto sanctions on syria, why the chinese continue to prop up this regime and they are the only ones who can really influences regime as you know is something

i don't understand and a whiff of the recent events, the murder of the british citizen, i wonder about the real permanency of this regime that is now running china and whether with things like a blackberry and a tweet and all of those things, whether there may not be some real dissent in china as a result of some of the things we are finding out. i don't see how a group of men and most of the 1.3 billion people in china don't even know their names can continue to meet once a year at a seaside resort and determine the future of 1.3 billion people without something having to change sooner or later. i do not predict any cataclysmic

events in china. don't get me wrong. say ist i'm trying to what i was present as a not so young naval officer with a group of senators at the occasion of the normalization of relations with china in the great hall and everybody was having to drink kerosene, and i'm sure he was drinking water -- we have high hopes for china. we thought there would be a significant amount of progress. in a number of areas, i don't think those expectations have been filled. i do not envision any confrontation between the united states and china. it's not in china's interest and it's not in the united states's

interest. but i do think there is going to be internal problems the chinese will have to grapple with. >> thank you very much. thank you. i'm with the voice of america chinese branch. thank you for your candor. a follow-up to the question -- the united states and china just concluded the strategic and economic dialogue not long ago. i remember years ago you voted yes to bring normal trade relations to china. do you think the trade between the united states and china is in the right track and would you please elaborate what you said that you support a free trade agreement between the united

states and taiwan? >> i do support a free trade grew between the nine states and try one. -- and taiwan. i propose the overall specific trade agreements. >> i think -- as we know, we know we have a serious trade deficit with china. i do believe we could make significant improvements there. we are becoming more competitive than their fair is a bright spot in this terrible recession we have been through, it is the productivity the american worker has increased and made as far more competitive throughout the world at great cost.

the looming issue between the united states and china is cyber security. we are grappling with that issue in congress now as far as legislation. we have created a cyber command and we are trying to address this issue, not only from a military standpoint of cyber security, but as importantly, on a trade and international -- intellectual property issue. we know that the chinese have packed into an gotten a lot of our technology. they have been able to acquire through cyber activities -- i am not saying cyber warfare, but cyber activities. they even hacked into my campaign. that shows you the depths they would plumb. it must have been a boring day in beijing.

our trade situation with china can show significant improvement, but the issue of cyber security between the united states and china and united states and other countries, not just china. china is the greatest violator. it's going to be a very serious issue in relations between our two countries. >> to build on your response to north korea, you said china holds the only influence over them. is that to say the u.s. doesn't have an ongoing role trying to influence north korea directly? >> i think the united states should do everything it can and the sanctions that were unfortunately lifted by the bush administration, including bank accounts and other activities is one of the great mistakes of the bush administration. i think we should continue to

make every effort to modify their behavior. we could do that by closer relations with south korea, maintaining our military presence. there are a number of areas we continue to be active in. the only country that can force change in north korea is obviously china. they could shut down their economy in a week or two. maybe that is an exaggeration, but they could certainly have a significant effect on north korean behavior. they have the leverage of power to do that. i keep hearing maybe not from the apologists, certainly those have a different view than i do saying china is afraid of a unified korea. if korea became unified, do you think germany had problems observing what was then east

germany into their economy? since 1945, this is a country that knows no principles of capitalism, free enterprise, democracy -- the challenge to integrate north and south korea would take years and years and years. it would not be a threat to china. how is a unified korea pose a threat to the world's superpower? it's foolishness. all countries develop reputations in the world. i want us to have the closest and most progressive relations with china possible. when they vetoed sanctions on syria, when these recent activities like having to come to the embassy -- the murder of the british citizen, the chinese

have to understand as a world superpower that there is a certain level of conduct the world expects them to maintain and i think a lot people would make the judgment they are not measuring up to those standards a major contributor to peace and progress in the world should be making. >> thank you. i'm with the voice of vietnamese americans. thank you for all of the time that you have served in vietnam and now as well. i would like to come back to one question i had the chance to ask the last fall. in the united nations conventions, you promised us at the time you would

[unintelligible] and i would like to come into the second part regarding the unfair posture china has exerted on the south china sea. today's from now, they're about from may until august. that truly will affect a lot of people living around that area with fishing. i would like to come back to one statement, under focus in asia. president obama has somehow --

you and he would somehow share the same interest for asia. because of a level playing field requirement that he put out, that is very important for us, by pushing the treaty forward. thank you very much. >> i am all in favor, as i said, a partnership agreement, and i want us to move forward with it as quickly as possible and place it as a high priority. i don't think the word pivot is the right word to use concerning our emphasis on our relations in asia. because a lot of things are happening in that part of the world, too, and we do not want our european friends to think that pivot means we are leaving one part of the world.

by the way, to the secretary of defense's credit, she has not used the word pivot. has been others who have. you covered a lot of ground. i think again, i have not heard the president under one word that he wants the law of the sea treaty ratified. it has to do with presidential leadership. it has to do with the president saying he wants the treaty passed by congress. there has not been one word that i have heard. second of all, now it will probably be up to either the second obama administration or the romney administration as to whether that treaty is move or not. that will be a decision the leaders of congress follow the leadership of the president of the united states, so we will see whether the incoming romney

administration, or the continuation of the obama administration replaces the law of -- places the law of the sea treaty as a priority. has been languishing now for some 40 years or so. my dear friend john warner continues to come and see me and advocate for it. >> senator, let me introduce myself. i had the question that i wanted to know what are we so focused on iran if they are so far away from us? that is my question rebekah think we are worried about them developing missiles that can reach us -- that is my question.

>> i think we are worried about them developing missiles that can reach us. they not only are developing nuclear weapons, we all know that. there is great debate as to how far along they are, what their real intentions are, but they have enriched uranium. they have taken other steps to further the development of nuclear weapons. but the iranians are also behaving badly throughout the world, including here in the united states of america. they had a plot to assassinate the saudi ambassador here in washington. it is too expensive for my taste, but i can see why the saudi arabian ambassador can afford to pick up the tab. actually, it is a very fine restaurant. [laughter]

only part of their activities is the effort to develop nuclear weapons. this is my criticism. we need to look at iranian activities in their entirety right now -- right now there are iranians on the ground in damascus showing the al-islah regime how to kill people, and there are iranian weapons coming in to syria as well. this is the government that when a young woman was bleeding to death in the streets in pteron and 1.5 million people were demonstrating, saying obama, are you with us or are you with them, and this and ministration refuse to stand up. one of the great mistakes of, in my opinion. i worry about iran that is dedicated to the radical, islamic agenda.

what is wrong with that? if it means wiping israel off the map, that is what is wrong with that, in my view. there are some who may just find that to be an idle threat. i don't, when a country dedicates itself to the proposition of wiping a neighbor off the map. so i guess you and i have a very different view of the threat that iran poses to peace and stability in the world, and i respect your views and i hope you will respect my views on that issue. i thank csis for not only giving me the opportunity to make remarks, but most importantly, to have an exchange with some of the smartest people that i know. so thanks again, and remember the words of chairman mao, who once said it is almost darkest before it is totally black.

i thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> there are changes in the status of texas congressman ron paul campaign for president. he released the state last hour that says "moving forward, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that not yet voted. doing so with the hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have. i hope all supporters of liberty will remain deeply involved. i will be right there with the. in the coming days, my campaign leadership will lay out for your delegate strategy and what you can do to help. please stay tuned." we have a link to the statement on our website, go to c- span.org. there is still a question of whether he will endorse mitt romney for president. coming up live in about 50

minutes, we will go to the atlantic council for remarks from nicholas burns. he will address the international organization's future and launch his new released report on nato. that will be live here on c-span starting at 4:00 p.m. eastern. coming up live today at 5:30, franklin roosevelt's call to industrial magnets to leave their private sector position during world war ii. arthur hermon will speak at the american enterprise institute. we will have that live on our website. go to booktv.org. >> we have a real demand for spectrum, what -- but we would be foolish if all we did was rely on things like incentive options and the auctioning of spectrum. >> is important to look at

neutrality to ensure that everyone is competing on a level playing field. >> tonight on "the communicators" at 8 eastern on c-span2. >> secretly recorded phone conversations from 1971-1973. this saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern, here conversations between president nixon and key advisor chuck colson, who passed away last month, as a talk about the democratic presidential nominee, george mcgovern. [unintelligible] >> everything he has done has gone wrong.

>> nationwide, we are onxm channel 199 and streaming at cspanradio.org. >> former undersecretary for political affairs and u.s. ambassador to nato. he will discuss the organization's future. until then, discussion on how free enterprise can help the country's economic issues. this is from today's "washington journal." host: joining me now is arthur brooks, president of the policy think tank, the american enterprise institute, and the author to the new book, "the road to freedom." something you cite in your book is a 2010 poll that shows that 86% of americans had a positive image of free enterprise. by that measure, are you not always -- not already winning the fight than the guest: you think. i would wish that that were

true. the truth is, we are not. between 70% and 90% of americans express a real interest in the free enterprise system, culturally, but a large majority also want policies that do harm to the free enterprise system. 75% of americans say it is the first -- permissible to change social security. 64% think that the government should give people free health care. i understand the sentiment, but we are asking for policies that do not work with a free enterprise system. host: you seem to spend a lot of time in your book talking about the morality of the free enterprise system. why do you think there is a moral case that needs to be made? guest: for the paradox to you just outlined. people say that the love free enterprise, but are willing to compromise with a lot. the situation on the left is that they do not love of free

enterprise. conservatives say that that is not true, we have not rammed down their gullets enough to give them the idea, but the truth of the matter is that we have made an insufficiently compelling moral case for the system. we hear a moral case all the time against free enterprise, and it is time to hear from those who think it is about lifting everyone up, not just making a few of us rich. host: if you want to join us in this conversation about the free enterprise system, markets, everything we have been discussing this morning, give us a call. for democrats, 202-737-0001. for republicans, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. mr. brooks, are you anti- government? is this the anti-government

party in this book? guest: absolutely not. anyone who has studied economics at all and who loves free enterprise knows it will need a functioning state. that is exactly the problem that we have today. once they get around providing a minimum basic safety net for the poor, once it gets above these levels it starts to do real harm to the free enterprise system. and it also starts to do something really insidious and i think the conservatives need to spend more time paying attention to this, calling out corporate cronyism. this sentiment that large companies and corporations get bailouts and carve out from the tax code. things that people watching us today, landscaping companies or hardware stores, deals that they just do not get. we really need to spend a lot

of time talking about the legitimate role of a legitimate government that does not award powerful people in the way we are seeing today that is creating some much discontent. host: we have been talking about the $2 billion losses in the papers today. put it in terms of the banking industry, as well as the role of the government. many called in this morning calling for more regulation after what happened with the banks last week. guest: we do not know exactly what happened with the banks last week, so we have a lot to find out before we can render judgment, which is an important thing for all of us to do, to say that there was a problem in the banking industry, they got public -- punish in the marketplace. there is over-regulation, for that matter. so far, one of the most encouraging things is that the private market has figured out something that is going on internally and has punished it. the question we are talking

about, the 9% hit in stock price, that was because price vector's did that. maybe we need more regulation or different regulation, we just do not know yet. seems to me that the market seems to be working pretty well. host: the important use of the banks in question is part of the self regulation they see going on? guest: we do not know if it is the best or the right self regulation going on, but it is certainly part of it. it is an amazing thing when boards or stockholders, certainly in this economy, start to take it out on organizations that they do not think have a good corporate governance. you saw the stockholders of citigroup saying that the ceo was taking too much money. this was not congress saying you had to lower their salary. the hubris of the anointed, who have the conceit of saying, as

regulators or politicians, that they can do these things better, it is belied by the things going on now. they tend to make things worse, as pointed out in my book. leading not only just to the 1%, as they like to be called -- or as people on the other side, the political left, like to call them, not them getting richer, but the people who get hurt and manipulated, over- regulated, again and again, just look across the atlantic. i spent a lot of time in spain. the people who are most under the gun, people getting hurt the worst are the people being left without a safety net, which is exactly what will happen in the united states as we careen forward on the basis of really bad public policy, which is basically immoral. host: paul krugman had an interesting article in "the new york times," this morning.

can we get a response? guest: sure. [video that] >> suppose we go to an america where tax rates are much higher than they are now and where the minimum wage was way higher than it is now relative to the average earnings with unions being much more powerful, one- third of the workforce. lots of people said that that would be a disaster. i just described america in the 1950's. they had higher taxes at the top, much stronger protections for workers than we have now. they also experienced the best generation of economic growth than we have ever had in this country. what people think of as the problem is just a prejudice that has been carefully cultivated by propaganda campaigns.

none of the things you're hearing about what it takes to make this country prosper are true. we actually had the demonstration that said that we really needed was a good education, a good infrastructure. that is what leads to a successful economy. host: mr. brooks? guest: there is a lot to agree with. we need is a good education system. the reason is that what is holding down mobility in this country is the bottom 20% of the income distribution has fewer opportunities to get ahead, but it is not because the top 1% is stealing their stuff. this is a class warfare argument that is counterproductive for meeting social goals and not a moral thing to do. we should bridal against it morally. if we want to look at the morality of it, which i think paul wants to do, he is plenty smart, so do i, we have to

think about what we are going to do to help them up. the answer is not simply more complaining about income inequality and more distribution. it starts with a system that works for kids and grown-ups, opening up the tools of entrepreneurship across income distribution, dealing with cultural issues in the bottom 20%. "coming apart," i would recommend that to those listening today. they talk about what is holding the poor down today. it is not that they're being insufficiently taxed. he talked about the 1950's and how great they were when we had more regulation and high tax rates. in point of fact, we have higher growth rates then then we do now, but think about how high it would have been then and much more prosperous they could have been today if we had not

had such a head wind up in front of american entrepreneurship in the 1950's. we could have been like china today, 8% growth, if we had not had counterproductive regulatory tax policies. host: we are talking to arthur brooks, author of the new book, "the road to freedom." harry, independent line, little rock, arkansas. good morning. harry, are you there? well, we will go straight to memphis, tennessee. carol -- carl is waiting. democratic line. well, having trouble with the phones. in your book you talk about how you did not grow up committed to the free enterprise system. talk to me about your background. guest: we grew up in poor family. we were basically liberal democrats. not really political, but none

of us had free enterprise or business backgrounds. became from a family largely of artists and teachers. i literally do not -- did not know anyone who had voted for ronald reagan when i was a kid. maybe one of coal, and we thought there was something wrong with them. as a matter of fact, i did not even go to college. i went in my late 1920's and spent many years as a musician. in my 19 -- in my 20s, i was looking at evidence of what lifted people up around the world and what held back the progress of poor issues -- people. it was the best tool, economics, for understanding how to get things done. i think we are all commanded to serve others and i think the

best solution i found was setting people free to create an opportunity society. that is not cheap. that does not mean no government. it does not mean that we all have to do nothing but go to our own jobs and go to work. we have to think about our social projects, give more to charity, expect government not to waste our money, passing on the burden of debt and deficits to our kids, with crazy entitlement programs. that stuff turned out to be pretty hard. host: we will try the phones again. carl, memphis, tennessee. caller: how are you doing this morning? b mr. brooks stated i -- as mr. brooks stated, the top 1% of people, they're going overseas

instead of staying home. what they do about that, will government stepped in to put jobs down to bring the poor and less fortunate people up? the money that we need is here, but in these corporations they say the jobs are elsewhere. guest: that is a good point and something that we need to think about very seriously. it is not good enough to say that no one is hurting, because some people are prospering, but in point of fact the reason that those jobs are growing -- going overseas is because the structure of the economy is changing. there is not some conspiracy amongst the rich to do that. and i know the caller understands that, but what do we do?

the first thing that we do is start planning for the next 20 years to create an education system that prepares people to function in a modern economy, systematically marginalizing the bottom purse -- bottom 20%. some people say that they should spend more on education, but it is not getting the job done. looking at systems all over the country, they are not functioning very well or they have a tendency to be rigid in their institutions. the truth is that they are not sufficiently local for people to be involved. the work that we are doing at the american enterprise institute, you will find lots and lots of ways that we are dealing with this. more immediately, we have to talk about the people who have been displaced, structurally. our chief economist is doing work right now on what to do with people who are displaced.

we are trying to innovate and talk about real solutions to these problems. our caller, as much as he talks about this issue. host: talking about these rights on twitter -- guest: the way that it does -- let's back up for a second. the problem have with medical care in this country, and in point of fact we need serious health care reform. we have known this for a long time. republicans knew it and did not do anything about it. democrats used it as a pretext as opposed to moving towards what we really need, which is insurance reform, such that people are covered. we do not have a big uninsured problem, where people who lose jobs or change jobs do not have

to worry about losing coverage. that is what we need to do. that does not mean we need single payer, which would be massive, unwieldy, and lead to worse care and worse coverage for more people. there are free-market solutions for this. aei has a visiting fellow who has a fantastic seven. plan on how to do this. we have the solutions. the key thing is to remember that we have an insurance reform issue in this country. not that we need to go to single payer, which is basically flushing the system we already have in the united states, which has led to arguably the best medical care in the world, to make it look like the european system that people do not like very much. host: republican line, good morning. caller: there are only two ways that you can redistribute wealth, marriage and divorce.

in a good example is that the poor get $6 per day from the government in redistribution when they should be getting $50, and the american worker is getting $1 per day because of these ridiculous tax cuts, instead of getting $20 per day based on the amount of money being spent since this administration took office. they are putting in so much money, the dollar is worth only half as much as it did when obama came into office. gas prices have not gone up, the american dollar -- gas prices have gone up, the american dollar has gone down. how does that help these poor? guest: there is a lot in there, what you're talking about. to begin with, the concept of redistribution in my thinking is very misplaced. we are hearing a lot from

politicians, including the president, who talk about fairness and that what that means is we need -- we need more redistribution because it tears at the fabric of the nation. that is only true if this is not an opportunity society. many americans think that true fairness means creating opportunity and rewarding quality. think about why your ancestors came to this country. it was not to get a fairer system of forced income distribution, it was about being rewarded for hard work and merit. meaning we need to have a true opportunity society, which is a tough thing in a distributive environment. almost 70% of americans are taking more out of the system than there are paying into it today. -- than they are paying into it today.

a lot of people have a stake and they will be open to this argument that fairness can be falsely defined as redistributing and socking it to the rich. a real problem that will lead us away from the country that most of us want. host: a former labor secretary wrote and editorial in "the baltimore sun," if you want to read the other side of that argument. that was from the april 18 edition of "the baltimore sun," if you want to read more about that. stan, independent line, oregon. caller: my question is -- i noticed that when i graduated from high school this started lowering taxes on the rich. they continued to do that over and over again until now. they keep saying that it will

help the poor, but it does not, not one single bit. wages has -- wages have stagnated for those same numbers of years. do you know what the word patriot means? thank you. guest: taxes on the rich, let's look at that. in 1980, when i was in high school, the top 5% of earners paid 35% in federal income taxes. today they pay 59%. if you look at the marginal tax rates, it is going to look like it has not changed or has gone down, but if you look at how much they are paying, it has gone up. is it enough? i am arguing that that is how much the rich pay and how much is redistributed does not lead to more fairness. the definition of fairness, you just talked about that article that talked about fairness being essential to economic growth,

which is right, but in my book i talk about true fairness. this is the argument that conservatives and free enterprise activists have to get their minds around. host of this is the cookie argument? guest of the arguments in the book, -- host: this is the cookie argument? guest: yes, the argument in the book, they fight all the time like children over cookies. one says that they helped make them, the other says that they have had equal amounts already. most americans believe that if we have an opportunity society, we should award merit. that a society like that does not award redistribution, perce. that is the one that gets the best economic growth and creates the most jobs. what the right needs to do

today, and i say this as trying to get into the playbook of the right, they need to get behind the advocates of redistribution who say that they want a truly fair society. what they are doing today by stealing from kids and grandkids is on a fair by implementing a system where they can make more than their private-sector counterparts in the public sector, where we have corporate cronyism and tax breaks for connected people, that is not fair. we demand the truth fairness that builds opportunity for everyone. host: duane, republican line, good morning. caller: i just want to say that it is a breath of fresh air to hear someone bring out the politics involved in what is fair and unfair. you know, redistribution of

wealth, we are a country that was founded by people who came here to work hard, with the idea that the harder you work, the more you can make, more education. it is really just not fair, you want to talk about their, to tell someone 15 years ago they started breaking their back and they put themselves through school to get a good education for themselves and then start telling them well, because you have done that, we will start taxing you more than the other americans. to me that is not fair. i hope when i can, and i am not one of the rich -- i help one i can, and i am not one of the rich people. sure, thank you for working hard and going to school, now we are going to tax you. rich people do pay more taxes, if you look at how much a rich person pays compared to someone who makes $30,000 per year, they pay a lot more, which is fair. they make more, they pay more.

host: thank you for the call. we will go right to silver spring, jeff, democratic line. caller: part of my point is that it seems like you are presenting a false choice. that it is only fair, only morally correct to have competition and fairness for people at the top, rather than providing a minimum standard of a working safety net for people at the bottom. seems like it should be possible to accomplish both of those things, but it is just a matter of where you land in the spectrum. guest: the truth of the matter is that if you read the work of [unintelligible] probably one of the most revered economists amongst conservatives in the 20th century, he said one of the basic functions of government is to provide the minimum amount of safety for the poor.

paul ryan calls it a safety hammock. three times as much social security? that is not fair. rewarding political winners and designating losers within the system? that is deeply unfair, which is what we do with a safety net, not to mention the fact we are taking the risk out of life and dealing openly with a problem of income inequality. on's _ the fact that jeff the democratic line is correct, we should be able to celebrate opportunity and merit, we should be able to be proud of this success and want people to get rich by saying that even though society is strong, in point of fact when we look at people in countries around the world, where they are social

democratic economics, these are the ones that default on their covenants with the poor. it is exactly the wrong decision if you want to be a society that is truly charitable. host: what was the most famous book of the economist? guest: "the road to [unintelligible] i am no [unintelligible] but i do not -- but i do think that we can make the case for living in a free and strong country in national security terms, and the only way that we are going to be able to do that is to say that this is not just about the money. this is not about being simply a more prosperous society, it is about leading a society that is free, strong, and just, that

people risk everything to come here for. host: independent line, phoenix, arizona. caller: it is interesting to hear people talk about fairness, being a black man in this country. i remember a time when we did not have to -- when we did not have the right to vote in this country. we did pretty good, sticking together and working with each other. i think staying separate but equal would have been more beneficial to the black people in those black communities. an example of what i mean, everywhere i have gone in my country, if you have black care products, and you buy them from koreans. everyone in our community is selling our products, except us. let's talk about the nba.

if that were fair, during those lockouts, those men should have said listen, since they want to play that way, let's go ahead and start on leak. i am all for fairness, but let's be fair across the board. i believe that black people in particular need to just walk away, separate from this community of americans, and start their own independent league, but we cannot do that because of the culture that exist today that relies on an education, that doms down all americans, and you marginalize the contributions made by americans and give yourself, that being white people, all the glory as the thing sure founders did. let's deal with reality of it. can you talk about the economics of it, i hate to hear people say what what people did when they

got here. you keep forgetting that you literally enslaved african people to build this country. host: talking about the issue of fairness from his experience down in arizona. guest: >> i believe immigration is good for the united states. has enriched my wife and i think we have made progress and we will make a lot more progress. host: carol, republican line from florida. caller: paul krugman has been put on tv over and over again and he always makes the same point, or at least that is the point that everybody brings up, that we should go back to high taxes and unionization and we would rule the world. that is exactly wrong. in the 1950's, the reason we did so well had nothing to do with high taxes or unionization. had to do with world war ii, destroying competition. with the arsenal of democracy in

the world and all the other industrialized countries were literally wiped out, destroyed. they could not produce anything during the war and after the war. when we started manufacturing in the late 1940's and 1950's again for the civilian market all we had no competition. everything we sold was picked up everywhere. we sold all the cars and world. we sold everything, and everybody love american products. that is why we did so well in the 1950's. but the 1970's, will we had competition, we had to finally change with reagan in the 1980's and lowering taxes, just to keep going. we cannot go back to high taxes and unionization. a monopoly is what we had. right now the only place with high taxes and unionization is if you are in a government union. you do it in the corporate system, you don't have that monopoly. we do not have that economic atmosphere where you can judge ruled the world. it is just crazy to listen to

krugman bring up that point over and over again. that is exactly wrong. host: a question on twitter. guest: an unregulated economy leads to real problems. terrible pollution, insufficiently protected nation that does not have enough national security, crime problems. that is one of the fundamental functions of government. nobody in his right mind can argue for zero regulation or zero government. waiting on thes democratic line from texas. -- charles is waiting on the democratic line. caller: thank you for c-span. he is on the right page in terms of a few things. a couple of points as far as

wage suppression is concerned. there is clearly a campaign of wage suppression taking place in the united states where we are forced to compete with third world countries and their wages. as people disproportionately benefit from our system, you are going to see these disparities in our tax code, where at the ridge will pay more in taxes because they are the only ones who are profiting from it. that is my point. host: there is not a conspiracy of wage oppression. what is going on with globalization is great things, but also some costs. let's go with the great things first. people living on $1 a day or less, 80% has been obliterated since 1980.

that is incredible. is not because of the united nations. the reason is globalization, free trade, free enterprise and global entrepreneurship. that is a great thing. we love the poor, not just in the united states but around the world. 75% of the property -- of the poverty in the world has been reduced to one country, which is china. 600 million chinese have been listed in poverty. of course there is pain when you have a globalized environment. the earnings power is greatly attenuated. what we do about that? we could have a highly redistributive the economy retake more from the rich and redistributed to the port that leads to a dependency in greater misery. there is lots of evidence on this. this is not just an assertion.

it creates incentives for people to go outside the system. what we need is a way of recognizing the fact that certain people have pain, and that is what we should put in our resources for, a better education system. host: akron, ohio, michael is on the independent line. michael, are you there? go ahead. caller: your idea is about as great as meeting on a private jet and going to play golf with warren buffett tomorrow. we live in a country with the zero military bases could that means every year, americans have to defend themselves if a war were to happen. we would have zero basis anywhere in the country, including this country and countries overseas.

i am not in the rich class right now. that is just tell it is. that is america. that is out it was built. [unintelligible] host: michael asked about overseas military spending. guest: it is very important point, how much we should be spending on defense. people will disagree on this issue, but my strong view is that a free society in america and around the world requires a very, very strong national security presence from the united states. in my view, the american free enterprise system has been a blessing to america. has been our gift to the world, but that requires that we have a strong military here and abroad. we are not spending enough on

defense, our defense is becoming antiquated, and we should be doing a lot more in that regard. it is not good enough just to say cut government in every way. we could spend a lot less. we should not be running a deficit. at the same time, we could be spending more on defense, more intelligently. host: richard, on the republicans from new york. caller: good morning. some of your view sound pretty good, but others sell like ron paul. his tx only one who has really talked about saving america -- he is the only one who has really talk about saving america. we have to save america first. this country was founded on certain principles. ron paul does one oklahoma and arizona.

i will take your views off the line. guest: ron paul is an incredibly important messenger for a lot of things. he has done usually crucial messaging on economic freedom. he is as good as anybody right now making the statement of economic freedom and moral good. his notion of national security, the idea that we should save america and the rest of the world can largely take care of itself. the world cannot take care of itself, and we cannot save america unless we live in a free and prosperous world. we are highly connected society. it is about more than just the money. it is the right thing to do for us to say that freedom and austerity, there are societies around the world can and should require our assistance as well. there are people around the world deserve freedom as well. i realize that not everybody is going to agree with me.

ron paul is making the moral case for economic freedom and openness. we cannot do that, if we cannot join him in that, we are not going to make it. host: talk about mitt romney is economic news and your thoughts on his campaign. guest: obviously had five months or so in the primary that you don't know if you are running for the nomination. he had to campaign in states where he would not of had to campaign. i see it it involving more into an aspirational case for what he believes then, one that is fully revolving around the free enterprise system. talking more about fairness, which is crucial. he is not exceeding the fairness debate to president obama. he talked about fairness nine times, and in every case used

fairness in a redistribution will since. mitt romney saying you are defining fairness wrong, mr. president. real fairness is rewarding merit an opportunity. getting in front that with an aspirational definition of fairness is the right way to go. i think he is making a smart decision there. >> tim is on the democratic line from indiana. >> good morning. my question is, for starters, my son is in south korea in the military defending us. where does our economy stand, or how does free enterprise and capitalism work when, unfortunately, we gorge our military for its wants and needs and the rich, and yet we

doubt call or poor people. it is not working -- we gouge our poor people. on a point of marijuana, if the industry did open up, would that not help our economy? guest: this is something we need to pay attention to, the fact that our defense budget, including the war spending, comes to a little under 5% of gdp. whether or not that is too much or too little, i think that historically if you look at the numbers, it is cannot hide. what we spend on entitlement spending is dramatically higher than that. we are spending something on the order of almost two-thirds of our federal spending on entitlement programs. to the point the caller is talking about -- i am sorry, tim. we do not spend enough on the

truly poor and we do not try to help the truly poor. we have a tendency to give welfare to the middle class. that is not the objective, and that is not right. that is pure redistribution for the sake of it. we need to create opportunities for the middle class to rise. we have misguided principles and misguided objectives. the last thing i would say is, god bless your son, and thank him on our part for his service to our nation. host: the last call goes to the independent line in peoria. caller: you were talking about your background and how you were a musician, and you have made comment on people's lives and what we need to do to make a free society. but you yourself have been talking only in ideals and concepts, weathered be job

creation or medical care, and talking about things that you have not expressed that you have done yourself. then you talk about national defense and how we need to do this and that. i am an army veteran, but you have not expressed the view have been in the military. one of the problems i have with conservative values is that they don't seem to live the very things they want to impose on other people. i am just wondering if you can explain further about your background and what you are prepared to do to contribute to this free enterprise society, other than writing books and going to spain. guest: the enterprise society requires that people in all walks of life stand up for their ideals. i am privileged to be the chief executive -- i am fortunate to be in that role. it gives me an opportunity to talk about on this wonderful show, to talk about these big ideas.

the entire back half of the book goes chapter and verse into the specifics about public policy, do this and don't do that. we have been talking about the message. having been in the military, we have a system in which the professional military is unbelievably skillful. career people are keeping this country safe, and at the same time, more than half of americans believe we should have a strong military. if one of my children ran the military, i would be incredibly proud of that. host: the book is "the road to freedom" by arthur brooks. thank you for joining us. >> coming up shortly, we will go live to the atlantic council here in washington for remarks from nicholas burns, the former

undersecretary for military affairs and former ambassador to nato. it is expected to start at noon eastern here on c-span. coming up live today at 5:30, author arthur herman. he will speak at the american enterprise institute here in washington. we will have that live on our website, booktv.org 3 that starts at 5:30 eastern. here is what is going on in congress this week. the senate gaveled then this afternoon at 2:00 eastern, working on the export-import bank charter that the house passed last week.

at 4:30, senators will turn to a number of judicial nominations, also votes on whether or not to move forward with the export- import bank charter. the house returns tomorrow, working on continuing the violence against women act, and setting the defense department programs and policies for the next year. >> the house armed services committee spent nearly 16 hours this past week crafting its annual defense authorization bill. rick mays is a congressional porter and editor, joining us from capitol hill. what are some of the key issues that lawmakers will be debating when the bill comes to the house for this week? >> some of the key issues we have seen before that -- they will be talking about afghanistan. that will probably have some sense of resolution on things that we ought to look at. they will be talking about detainees in guantanamo bay,

cuba. will we ever have trial for them in the united states? should we close the prison down into altogether? the possibility by the obama administration of trading some detainees who are being held and will not be tried in return for some peace agreements in the middle east. there is a larger pie we have already had on the house for this week on how much money to spend on defense -- more than the budget agreement of last fall, and democrats are not happy with the money being spent, mostly because of where it comes from. there is not much they can do about it because of the way the money's being spent, they spent money -- you will not find many lawmakers that will vote for increases on healthcare fees for people in an election year. >> democrat said this week that

the bill had billions of dollars for weapons that the country does not need. how republicans respond to that? >> it is a simple disagreement between the two of them. >> what about the overall bill itself in terms of what an authorization bill does versus the pentagon budget bill? >> it has specific authorization to do things. he needed to start programs or continue programs that are going to expire. bonuses included in the bill would expire on december 31. pay raises, construction projects and things like that. this is one of the few committees that even though there was a lot of partisan bickering on capitol hill these days, was one of the few committees that would pass it on in a bipartisan basis. >> there must of been some contention in that 16 hours.

>> contention means you can spend a lot of time talking about things, without hearing any votes. a plan to create an east coast battery, the possibility of sunday having countries like iran begin the possibility of someday having countries like iran with missiles that could reach the united states. $100 million is not very much in terms of $650 billion defense budget. it is committing you now to something that would take a lot of time. >> it is said to take a hit in 2013 because of the debt agreement last year. does the authorization bill making the accommodation for that? >> no, that is done separately. there's nothing they could do in this bill that would change that. >> looking beyond that, when is the senate likely to take it up?

>> the senate is backing itself up against the memorial day recess, the last week of may. when the senate might pass the bill on the court has been the questionthey have had trouble gg the bill passed at all. i do not think we will get this until the november elections. >> from capitol hill, thank you for the update. live pictures from the midlantic council here in washington, as we await remarks from nicholas burns, the former ambassador to nato. he is here to talk about his new report, "anchoring the alliance," looking at the future of nature. this is expected to start momentarily, and we will have it when it gets underway.

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

>> awaiting the starting remarks from the former undersecretary for political affairs and u.s. ambassador to nato talking about the future of nato. it is expected to start hear shortly from the atlantic's council here in washington. ron paul is essentially suspending his campaign. he is done spending money on his campaign for the republican nomination. representative paul issued a statement saying he would continue to fight for the battle, but the fate of the libertarians and those in the tea party, he said he could no longer spend many tens of millions of dollars that simply does not have.

mitt romney is shy of those needed to capture the nomination. also, president obama telling graduates of a women's college that they and their generation will lead the country to better days and that change may not seem as possible. the president said it "do not believe it." he was the speaker at barnhart college in new york. if you missed the president's remarks, we did have them live on c-span. you can see them on our website. go to c-span.org, and look in the c-span video library.

>> live pictures from the atlantic council, a waiting to hear from ambassador burns to talk about the future of nato. there is a new report released called "anchoring the alliance," and we expect that shortly hear on c-span. coming up at 5:30, an author, calling on leaders to private industry during world war two. he was speaking at the american enterprise institute here in washington. live coverage of that on our website. that is again starting at 5:30 this evening.

>> that afternoon, and thank you for coming. i am fred kempe, and we are approaching the nato summit, the gathering in chicago for the first nato summit in the u.s. since 1999. the council has been active all

year. but ever since the lisbon summit and remaining at the forefront of thought leadership on all of the issues that will be addressed in chicago, including but not limited to the issues of afghanistan and defense capabilities and of global partnerships and, of course, missile defense, and those will dominate the discussion. however, as important as those issues are, it was our feeling that something underlies all of this, and the most important thing of the alliance, from the beginning of the alliance, has been the leadership question. all of these will be influenced by the kinds of leaders into influence them as we go forward. secretary robert gates made that clear in his farewell remarks in brussels last june, where he talked about the alliance is facing a dismal future.

if we did not get our act together, he pointed out, some of those challenges lie with american allies in europe and canada, whose lack of defense spending and political will risked creating a two-tier alliance. last week at the annual awards dinner, ban ki-moon, the u.n. secretary-general, who received our distinguished international leadership award, rarely addressed a dearth of leadership as a challenge facing the system. quote, everywhere we look, he said, it seems as if we see growing insecurity, growing in justice, growing social inequality. if i were to speak like an economist, he said, he would say it might be like we have an oversupply problems and a deficit of solutions and a deficit of leadership. fortunately, we do have a leader on our board of directors. ambassador nicholas burns, who

was able to of recommendations for the nato member states to stay off the prospects of this dim and dismal future. there have been different ways of leading the alliance in the past. there have been many times when the u.s. was way out in front. there have been many times when at the u.s. -- when nature met in the quad, after world war ii, and i think in this paper, there is a good look at what sort of leadership will emerge now. nic made numerous visits from his perch at harvard to washington to meet with top officials and experts with in the transatlantic community. i was lucky enough to sit in on some of these meetings along with others of us with the a atlantic council.

we are delighted with the product we have been able to produce, and a look forward to being able to share its findings and conclusions with you all. you will find some of them controversial. as well as quibble with many of the underlying argument there. we are also fortunate that this report has the endorsement of a vast array of senior officials who have done some of the most important jobs at major road and in the alliance, such transatlantic luminaries as madeleine albright, robertson, it david miliband, and others. three former secretary general of nato signed off on this. the report has benefited from their guidance, their wisdom, and the it supports a broad findings if not each and every one of the specific recommendations. before i turn the floor over to

nic, i briefly when to call attention to another atlantic council effort. the atlantic council foreign policy magazine survey on the future of nato. they built a survey, which we sent to some of the most senior figures in the transatlantic community. this is in light of some of the challenges i just mentioned. i think the survey can give us a sense of the political obstacles facing the alliance, which this report argues must be overcome. if you did not grab a copy of this survey coming in, please do so on the way out. now, before i hand the floor to nic, i want to invite you to come back next week in may, where you can fill out a report card on how the alliance did in addressing its key issues from

chicago at our post summit conference. so now, it is a pleasure to turn the floor over to one of america's finest and most distinguished diplomats to talk about the report and its findings. ambassador burns, as i said earlier, it is a council board director. he is a professor of the practice of diplomacy and international politics at the kennedy school at harvard. he is also the director of the aspen strategy group, which has the chairman of our board. he retired from the u.s. foreign service in 2008 under secretary of state for political affairs, and he did that after 27 years in the diplomatic corps, where he served as u.s. ambassador to nato. he was ambassador to greece and a state department spokesman. he worked with president clinton and george h.w. bush working on

russian and east european affairs and also with the bipartisan nature of the atlantic council. i do want to tell just one story about him. just to give you a feeling not only of his biography but of the impact he has in crucial times. he was u.s. ambassador to nato while i was sitting as the editor of "the wall street journal" europe, in brussels, and that was one of the most challenging times in the history. he arrived just days before the tragic a tax of 9/11. the next day, the alliance showed its unique and enduring alliance. this was the first and only time in nato history. it was not an easy time to be the u.s. ambassador to nato. and the alliance had achieved a historic and transformational summit in prague but also went

through one of its deepest crises ever during the iraq war, which i think at the time he referred to as a near-death experience for the alliance. i think likely in part thanks to your leadership that the alliance got three those turbulent times and is in the shape it is in now. he has done more than just shape of the nato alliance. he has helped shape the council. i met with him at the state department to get his views on what the atlantic council ought to be doing. he was undersecretary of state for political affairs at that time, working with our allies on forging a position on iran, and an array of other issues. he described his ambition of a transformed transatlantic community capable of serving as a catalyst for global action and partnership with the united

states on the greatest challenges we face in common. a lot of the partnership initiative that you now see in chicago grows out of that kind of thinking. it was a compelling vision, which she later described in a speech in 2007, which you can still find on our side, just prior -- prior to his retirement. that became the atlantic council vision, so, thank you, for your able service to the country but also to the atlantic council. [applause] >> fred, thank you very much, and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. a lot of friends in the audience, and i want to thank the ambassador to denmark particularly for being here. a lot from the foreign service are here. i went to begin by thanking fred and the president of the atlantic council. this council is the place in

washington were the transit atlantic community needs and has been for decades, but under their leadership, this council has been transformed, and it is not only the center of the transatlantic partnership of intellectuals here in washington, d.c., it has taken on new programs in the middle east, in south asia. it has rethought interests in asia. even if i was not a loyal member of the board of directors, i would say objectively that it is the fastest rising think tank in washington, d.c., and as a think tank, is making a real name for itself. i want to thank them for their leadership. the report before you, i will say a few words about it, and then fred and i will sit down and have a brief conversation about its major points, and then we will open it up to you about your questions and observations. any criticism, please feel free to direct that my way, not

friend's way. we believe in a strong grenada and believe we need a recommitment for the 21st century. that is the basis of this report. our leaders of the 28 members of the alliance will meet with obama in a couple of days. it is even a broader summit member in chicago, because more than the 20 partners will be there too, so this represents the combined leadership, power, involvement, not just of north america and western europe, central europe, but the caucasus and central asia as well. that is how big and broad the atlantic ocean alliance is. our view is that nato needs reconfirmed and stronger leadership. we say this for a couple of reasons and go into it in the report. first, nato matters for the united states.

we want to meet with that thought today because the conventional wisdom in a lot of areas of our own country is that nato was yesterday's story, that nato was against communism, that nato was the principal vehicle for which germany was unified in october 1990, that nato was the organization that stopped the bloody wars in bosnia in 1995 and close the vote in 1999 and has kept peace. nato did all of that, but nato is not yet ready to retire, as our former secretary of state colin powell used to say. if nature is yesterday's story, why are so many countries knocking on the door to get in? the fact is that we know this, from some of the bitter issues of the last decade. after 9/11, the bloody and difficult events in afghanistan and iraq, the fact that we live in a highly integrated globalized world, it sounds trite to say it, but if we did not have nato in 2012, we would

want to create an organization that looks exactly like it, because the united states has learned we cannot be unilateral. that does not work. and we certainly cannot be isolationists, not in a globalized 21st century, not when terrorism and the juxtaposition of wmd and al qaeda and terrorist groups like that and global climate change and drug and crime cartels require our active involvement and leadership in the world. we cannot go it alone. and we have this enormous, successful alliance called nato that helps the united states and helps the united states helped allies to negotiate their way and to face these challenges and to overcome them, and the common denominator is we believe in the same things, human freedom, a democratic government, the rule of law, and the alliance. if nato had not been created in

1949, we would want to recreate it today. nato really matters, and that defies conventional wisdom you often see in speeches by our political leaders and by commentary in many leading newspapers. europe still matters greatly to the united states. one of the big issues of the last seven or eight months has been the obama administration's work with asia. china and its rise, the biggest story of our time. the challenge that the chinese military build a means for the united states and all of our allies is quite profound. we no longer live with china and engage china, we need to be present, and in that sense, president obama made exactly the right choice. the problem is, if you are sitting in europe, and we interviewed a lot of european leaders who believe this, it looks as though the united states is pivoting away from europe to asia. when you look at our largest

trade partner, when europe is our largest investor, and when europe as a whole contains the greatest number of allies in the world, 26 european countries allied to us in nature, if there is going to be a pivot to asia, it should be a european-american pivot together to asia, and i want to credit the former secretary of the united kingdom david miliband for having agreed on this point, and we do give him to credit in our report. nato matters. europe matters greatly to the united states. we are at our core a transatlantic nation by history and by interest, and nato needs new leadership. the core of our report is to ask each of the leading countries of nato to reaffirm that leadership in very concrete ways, and we begin with our own country.

we ask united states congress and this report not to cut the united states defense but it -- defense budget. roughly $400 billion over 10 years that has already been agreed. if we go into sequestration, if we are facing in this country over $1 trillion in defense cuts, it will impair the ability of our military and our government to protect american interests around the world, in europe, in the middle east, in south asia and certainly in east asia, so the first recommendation for the united states is really a recommendation to our political leaders in congress, to both political parties. we understand. i certainly understand as a citizen that every part of our society has to uphold the responsibility of reducing our budget deficit. the military is going to do that with nearly half of $1 trillion in cuts, but we go well beyond that and in danger to our. the greatest force for good in the world. as i said before, the second

recommendation is that this should be with europe and that the united states and europe should be acting together on a strategic bases to be actors in south asia, in the middle east, in east asia, and third, there has been a lot of talk about a transpacific partnership. that was part of the president's initiative on asia, with which i certainly agree. how about a transatlantic partnership that goes beyond just data, which brings about a greater economic integration between north america and europe itself as a visionary ideal for the future? those are some of the recommendations that we have for the united states. they value so much the leadership of france in nature, and as fred said, i went through all along with damon and my friend, an outstanding secretary of state during the bush administration -- we went

through some very difficult times. the european allies coming to our defense on september 12, 2001, invoking article 5 for the first time in nato history, and then the near-death experience of native nearly breaking up in the division over the iraq war in 2003. one of the strengths of nato in the last years has been the return of french and vigor, french and lead, and french leadership under president nicolas sarkozy. i felt that when i was undersecretary of state. i felt that in the iran negotiations when i was negotiating with the russians and the chinese over iran sanctions. it was the strength and toughness of sarkozy that allowed us to surpass those sanctions between 2006 and 2008. there is a new leader in france now, and of course, we welcome the leadership of france want --

we hope hollande, and that this french policy will continue. obviously, president hollande will have an opportunity at the summit this weekend that we hope to reaffirm about keeping the troops in afghanistan until 2014, as nato has agreed, and not to withdraw them by the end of 2012, as the president elect hollande said he would do. we hope there is not a division between the new president of france and nato on that level. they had taken france out in 1966, and sarkozy returned it, but that will continue. at first and foremost, that french steel against iran is needed, in a coalition of countries now facing a second

round of negotiations with the iranians in baghdad on may 23. i am just speaking for myself now, not as an atlantic council board member. there was a report that a french leader had been sent by the president elect of france to go to tehran to of conversations on the nuclear issue, and i have no idea, of course, what was said in those meetings. i think it would 7 preferable if they had come to washington to talk to the leading allies first about iran before jetting off to tehran. we of course also mention germany in this report, and in many ways, we have so much support for germany, for its historic leadership of europe, for the role that chancellor angela merkel is playing in the debt crisis, and we hope for the sustained german leadership in nature, but i must say, if we

went around and talked to scores of people on both sides of the atlantic over the coming months, we were struck that nearly every person we interviewed serving officials, former officials, said we needed a stronger germany. we need a stronger germany in nato. germany is an economic superpower, but in terms of its political and military leadership, it is not a leader in any sense of the word, and if nato is due the 16th hour keystone country, really the reason for the nadel existence, think about it historically, germany needs to meet us politically and militarily. it needs to be right in the middle of the leadership group, and i must say, just based on my own experience, germany is not in that group. it sits at the meetings, but it is not providing the leadership that we need. you know, nato, for a long time, just to give you one example,

for along time, nato has said that all of a allies should spend about 2% of the gross domestic product. exactly three of us are spending 2% of our gross domestic product, led by the united states at 4.4% or 4.5% of our gross domestic product. germany is at 1.2% or 1.3% of their gdp. you see a gap between the leadership position of them and the reality that they cannot deploy because it does not have the military capacity to do so. that is an important metric, but i think a more important one that i hope will come out in this report is that we need germany's ambition and germany's leadership, and paraphrasing the polish prime minister in a famous speech she gave last autumn, a polish-born minister saying we need a stronger germany. we heard that throughout our

conversations, and we are convinced that a weaker german a politically will weaken the alliance, and a stronger germany will make us credible and energetic in the 21st century. a course, we did not forget the united kingdom. we spent a lot of time in the united kingdom, talking to france and talking to some of the people who have been directing the government of the past few years. we are concerned in our report, and we say this by the extensive military budget cuts in the united kingdom over the last several years. there is no question that pound for pound, the u.k. is the most capable european ally in terms of its ability to project power, to deploy its forces in the first rate quality, and they have proven that, both in basra and in southern in afghanistan over the past decade. these defense budget cuts, and,

course, we understand there is a budget and economic crisis in the united kingdom, they risk that quality over the long term and capacity with the u.k. army forces, and we certainly of the economy revives in the u.k., that britain returned to sustain their defense budgets, and return to the first rank of major, where it belongs. there is one more country that we emphasize in this report, and that is turkey, and if you look at the landscape in europe and the euro debt crisis, if you look at the realignment of power, with the rise of china and the rise of regional power, there is one regional country that is rising rather dramatically in its power and influence in the world, and that is turkey. i would say personally that turkey is more influential in the united states than germany or france. we have seen a remarkable amount of turkey under the leadership there over the last

many years, and a willingness in turkey to lead and to be active in the toughest problems, and so our report calls for turkey to be treated like a leader at native. turkey joined the alliance in 1952. it has never been given leadership opportunities. there is an informal group of four countries, including the u.s., germany, france, and britain. turkey ought to join that group. we believe that george should be considered to be the next secretary-general of nato. we believe that the turkish generals should be given opportunities in our military in peacetime and in wartime. we believe that turkish leadership is essential. this would require an attitudinal change, all of us. it would require americans to be more, and i suspect this will not be an aspect given the close relationship between the united states and turkey, but it will

require europeans to think of turkey as a european power. europe has not made that decision. on the eu, on their candidacy for the eu, but the transatlantic conference is different. we wanted this report to reflect a strong willingness of the united states tuesday turkey play that leadership role. a final point is that we need nato not to be global in terms of membership but global in terms of its political orientation and capacity to act. some of our best allies in afghanistan are australia and new zealand and united arab emirates and jordan, some native has been constructing the partnership program that would bring nature to a more global orientation, and that is where native needs to go with the specific partnerships. australia, japan, south korea, u.a.e., and others will not become members of nato, but

they can play with us and exercise and train with us, and they should be encouraged to do so. we should not think of ourselves just as an organization that exists in just in north america and western europe. we have to have the ability to act globally, and that is in our report, as well. in terms of how we put this together, i do want to thank our review board, distinguished u.s., european, and canadian officials, who agree to disagree with some of the prescriptions and are not responsible for this in anyway. damon and i are responsible for the quality of this, but to have them support in writing, to have our former secretary of state madeleine albright and former deputy secretary of state, to have others join the board and

agree with us, including the president bush national security adviser and secretary of defense bill, and, the former vice chair, supreme allied commander, and three former u.s. ambassadors to nato, and three others, it david miliband, a former u.k. ambassador to the united states, and my former british colleague at nato. we have widespread support for this report. we are very grateful for their intellectual import and personal support, so that is what i wanted to say. at the order is for us to have a brief conversation, and then we will be happy to take whatever questions you have. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much for that. first of all, it is important to state that the atlantic council

as a council does not take a point of view on anything, because it would just be too hard to get all of the members to agree, but i do think one thing we all agree on is a strong alliance and an enduring alliance, and this report points us in that direction. let me ask probably just two questions, and i will go to the audience right away, and two of the more controversial points, clearly, what you're saying on germany is tough, and it is saying it to a germany where many germans would argue, are we not doing the most important thing we could possibly do for the future of europe right now, which is aiding the euro zone and putting together the fiscal compaq, etc., etc.? what is your answer to them? and then, where is this german weakness coming from?

is it historical reluctance? is it lack of political leadership? and what is the fix? what do you want germany to specifically do? >> well, fred, i think i can speak for all of us who wrote the report that we offer this recommendation with the greatest respect for chancellor more oil and their government. we understand that job number one for germany is resolving the euro debt crisis, helping your to climb out of a recession, and that has to be their first order of business, and we understand that. at the same time, the reality is that germany is a global power. it is one of the strongest and largest economies in the world and one of the most powerful nations in the world, and it is without question the leader of europe, and if they are to have a global policy over the next decade or so, they will have to be led by germany. germany will have to do what we

have to do. we have our own economic problem, and that is our job number one, but global powers do not have the option of saying we are going to opt out of our global responsibility, so let's to in the united states for example. our taxpayers have been funding the first-rate military in the rug because it is in our interest but also because we have a global responsibility. germany has the same interests that we do, and we need germany to do that. we would like to get that message with great respect to the german government and those who read this report. where does this go? you would be better qualified than me to answer, but i would say that all of us understand that the german entry into nato in 1955 was a very difficult and complex operation by the eisenhower administration. but germany has more than proven that it is one of the world's most present democracies.

it is now seven decades beyond the seven world war -- the second world war. no country has done more than to face the crimes of a holocaust that germany itself, and the current leadership is undoubtedly a truly decidedly democratic. perhaps an excess and ambition for the role that germany must play, and we were really struck by the fact that every european we talked to said we need a stronger germany. every american meter we talked to said we need greater german weight in the world. beyond economic leadership, beyond the eu, we need to see a politically, and we need to see it globally through the german military and in a joke. when the arab league asked major to intervene in libya last spring, when the u.n. security council asked, when there was a worldwide widget when britain and france and denmark and norway put their soldiers and

airmen on the line, germany did not support it, and with the people we talked to, it was rather shocking to see germany not played that leadership role. that is the kind of thing we are talking about. >> on turkey, walked me through this a little bit. i do not think people would quibble with the greater centrality if you just look at what is going on in syria, but are you talking about a short- term move to make turkey more engaged? short term, perhaps even considering turkey to be the next general secretary of nato? or are you talking about something longer term evolutionary? and on the other hand, what does jerking me to do to earn this? one hazard reports that there is the turkish veto over israel

attending the summit. i do not know that for a fact myself personally, but we do know about the strains between turkey and israel right now, and so if you can tackle malinois a little bit and think through how this might happen. >> you know, we were also struck, fred, in our conversations with other cell often turkey came up in the conversation, because as i said at the podium, it is a sad fact that in many ways, this is a time of crisis for the alliance. there is an economic crisis in north america and a profound economic and perhaps political an existential crisis in europe about the future of the act -- european union. there is exactly one country that is now accelerating in its power in the world, and that is turkey. it would be a missed opportunity for europe and america not to essentially say to itself, we need this country to play a bigger leadership role in our

alliance, where turkey has been a very faithful member since the mid-1950s. we would be remiss if we did not take advantage of the turkish influence in the arab world, particularly during the time of transition during the arab uprising, so this is really not a controversial recommendation. it may be in some quarters of europe, and we can put aside the question of whether or not turkey should be a member of the eu. certainly president bush and obama believed that it should be open to turkey. this is our alliance, transatlantic alliance. to remain credible and effective, we need that turkish leadership. there is an ethic that all 20 of us are equal, and that is the way it should be. we operate by consent, so if we decide to go in afghanistan, as we did, and we voted and sent military force to afghanistan, as we subsequently did, they all had to agree.

iceland, the military, luxemborg, a small military, they are as important as the united states, and that is as it should be, but there is a leadership circle. there always has been. it is based on military weight and influence and global capacity. turkey has never been in it or allowed to be in it, and what we are suggesting is by a strategic decision the united states, france, germany decide that turkey decide to be in that leadership circle. there is no easier way to do it then at least consider a turkish citizen, a turkish diplomat, a turkish politician to be our leader the next time that major chooses its secretary-general and four turkish generals to be given important military posts. you have to make strategic decisions, and our recommendation is that nato make this. it is a very complex situation.

as we got into this and talked to others, there are a number of challenges that turkey needs to meet to attain the leadership role. first is the fact that turkey, because of its dispute with israel, it is a very unfortunate dispute, it has been essentially blocking, preventing the maturation of a nature-israeli leadership. secondly, a continuing disagreement within the eu over the cyprus issue. turkey is not solely responsible to that. there are two sides to that on cyprus. and third, there are some very worrisome developments with turkey itself in the last several months, restrictions on turkish journalists and the rest of over 100 turkish generals and military officers who will now stand trial. we do not want to take sides in these internal turkish matters, but just to say that there is considerable disquiet in the

united states, canada, and year, and that we feel personally about this actions of the turkish government, and i suppose that if turkey is to play this leadership role, many of these deficiencies are going to have to be overcome by the turkish government. >> one other question on turkey. turkey would like an article for consultation. maybe you can explain to the audience, but nonetheless, if you could explain what that is, and why is there such a reluctance in nato to take this on? >> we do have a televised audience. we will explain this née to 101. there is a tree. we are committed to it. it obligates us. article 5, if an alliance member says we are being attacked, please, everybody else come to our aid, as everyone did after

september 11. i was worried on the evening of 9/11. communications were cut off from washington because the state department for a time had been evacuated, and i finally reached some people, and i said that nato was thinking of evoking article 5, and we agreed that that would be a tremendous shot in the arm to the american people waking up on september 12, but it would not be such a good shot in the arm of perhaps they did not even agree, and to their credit, the year -- the european allies, and i remember the danish government, they said they would in essence side with us in a war against a foe the we had not yet even identified, but at looking at the collapse of the twin towers and the attack on the pentagon and what happened in new york and pennsylvania, that is article 5. article four, if an alliance

member feels the same may be becoming engulfed in a war or attacked by someone else, and they say to the alliance, can we meet to plan the possible defense of our country from an aggressor, and in march in the 2000, turkey invoked article 4 of the nato alliance and said if there is a war in iraq, we are afraid that the iraqis may attack us, and there were considerable challenges of germany, france, luxembourg, and belgium to plan for the defense of turkey, and we succeeded. it turkey wants to invoke article for in chicago, we should all agree, because turkey, the prime minister of turkey has taken a very courageous leadership role and has turned turkish policy around. all of us should agree to invoke article four and have a discussion and protect turkey if

need be. i think it is as simple as that. >> one last event for the audience. you have got tough love for the turks and the germans and the french, but you also have some for the u.s. what is your report card on the obama administration leadership so far, and more specifically, as the host nation for chicago, where we have got a few days to judge this so far. >> i think president obama has been very creative. an active and energetic leader of nature. and the way the united states is to convince some of the allies, denmark, to benefit from the leadership of denmark, norway,

libya, and others was mainly certainly not a template for all future operations, but a very positive point of departure where in some instances europe cannot actually lead the effort. we have never had that before in nature. we were really proud to see what norway and denmark and others did, so i credit president obama with that decision. there is great respect with be administration, and i am very much a supporter of the administration. this pivot is really important that it be executed properly and comprehensively. no question about it. given our history, and our economics. so we are going to pivot towards asia. germany, france, denmark, iceland, luxemborg. altogether, reorienting ourselves not to forget the challenges we are facing in

europe, trying to finish our work in the balkans, but to be present when we must, to be part of a positive solution in the middle east and others. the main recommendation to our country is not to be isolationists because we're having trouble here at home and to avoid draconian cuts to our defense budget. there are a lot of people here to understand defense better than i do. if the united states loses are quantitative military edge, if we lose our power to project force and to be a force for good, our foreign-policy will suffer, and countries that we do not like very much may emerge as dominant. >> so -- >> said the most important is that the united states league native. $450 billion is quite a significant contribution to budget cutting.

>> thanks. >> in 1999 during an summit, we were bombing serbia. bill clinton was being impeached. there are some interesting things that support this negative view. second, economic and financial

crisis in europe is going to be worse before it gets better, and, indeed, i think you'll see greater budget problems in europe, and last january, a perfect storm is developing in the united states over sequestration and this leads automatically to what you fear most, which is a draconian response. so how do you deal with these issues? and what united states will face in six or seven months when a new and administration or credit administration takes over? >> thank you. i would just say we specifically did not intend this report to be a comprehensive look at the status of the alliance. there have been roughly 862 reports to take the temperature.

we wanted to focus on leadership, will not see a lot, but in afghanistan, there is a real test here. the united states and nato allies are trying to form in negotiation the the taliban and the afghan government as a way to create peace in afghanistan. it the taliban believes that france is going to meet this calendar year, in françois hollande carries this out, if the allies sprint for the doors, in the united states says we are not going to leave as strong a force beyond 2014, the taliban is going to wait us out, and they will think that they can emerge triumphant after 2014. we will have invested more time in afghanistan than any other war in american history, and so before we rush to the exit, this is a very difficult war for the american people, it is in terms of the loss of our soldiers and the huge economic situation.

we have got to redeem this operation by making the correct choices. i am not a journalist. i would look at this afghan discussion and say, will naidas stay the course or drawdown in 2014 as president obama has promised, to lead a residual force? it cannot just be the united states that states, and hopefully a transition to peace talks with the taliban so we can have a peace agreement at the end of the war. the taliban will not buy any of that if they see as sprinting for the exits. you are right to say that the economic issue will be front and center. we are seeing a sea change in greek politics with the parties of the last 40 years. we are being outclassed and out run. the democratic left party.

the second greek election in the middle of june, rejecting the austerity plan. i think we are right back into a profound crisis in the european union and perhaps the departure of degrees from the euro zone. a big problem. you mention sequestration. it is very important that the united states remained the very strongest military power. this is critical for the future of america. >> thank you. in greece as well. >> yes. >> i was struck by how skillfully the report builds on and corporate assumptions about nato with this administration and the past two. so it is a very useful document with one gap. almost nothing is said about russia, either as a challenge,

which some in the lines think it is, or as a potential partner, which many of us hope it could be. what was your sense -- what sense did you get about the views of russia and the potential for partnership, and if you had to make recommendations for russian leadership, along the lines of leadership for the other nato powers, what would they be? >> thank you for your question, and thank you for your of leadership, continued leadership. you mentioned by partisanship. i was struck in the course of preparing this report, at a time when republicans and democrats agree on very little, that there is widespread agreement between republicans and democrats. that was reconfirming for us. when it comes to russia, a lot of our comments from our rev