commitment from central headquarters to go out and find the stories and report them. even though it is self aggrandizing, we do a great job. host: thank you so much. guest: thank you. >> "on washington journal" to become a discussion on >> we breakdown the $105 billion transportation bill passed by congress last week. then our series on international news continues. the stars said 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. -- the start at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. on c-span tonight, defense

secretary leon panetta discusses a new military strategy to build a partnership. there we look at the national security positions of president obama and mr. romney. that is followed by a justice department announcement. later with the supreme court health-care decision means to the constitutional powers of the executive and legislative branches. defense secretary leon panetta said the military will deploy army units to build international partnerships. it will also strengthen stability -- security capabilities. he delivered remarks at the u.s. institute of peace for just under an hour.

>> good afternoon. we are delighted you are with us for a special presentation. i am the president of the institute. to start the evening off with -- it is my special pleasure to welcome the germans -- chairman of the board of the institute of peace, rabin west. -- robin west. >> thank you, dick. i am robin west, chairman of the board of directors for the institute of peace. good evening and welcome to the acheson lecture. this is the fifth lecture. we welcome you to the george shultz great hall of the headquarters of the u.s. institute of peace. this building symbolizes our belief that peace is restoring hope of humanity.

it is located on the national mall. it is a statement of how we want to see ourselves in the world and the world to see us. this building was achieved through a public-private partnership. congress was supportive, as was the private sector. one of the first and most generous was lockheed martin. it has helped support the lectures as well. private citizens also contributed. tonight's speaker was a leader, a tireless leader, in the effort to honor madeleine albright in all right wing. we are deeply grateful for this assistance. the lecture was established by the board of the institute of peace to recognize a great figure in the conduct of america's relations with world.

he was at the creation of a new national security structure to confront the rising threat of communism as well as one of the most enlightened adn effective policies ever created, the marshall plan for the rig construction of europe. in 2012, the old world is over. we confront different challenges than we did in acheson's day. it's a religious and ethics disputes -- better religious and ethnic disputes. the institute of peace represents an idea of profound importance that this country must find non-violent ways to prevent and manage international conflict and develop the abilities to stable in reconstruct nations after war. we help find practical solutions

for dangerous world. this is what we are doing with our partners in the military and diplomatic community as well as non-government organizations. on any day, an average of one- third of u.s. ip's professional priest builders are deployed around the world in challenging places such as afghanistan, a rock, yemen, libya, sudan an. peace is tough business in for a places. the contributions of these people should be acknowledged. in an era of lowered resources and battery -- petit, -- battled i want to salute the men and women of the united states institute of peace who go in

harm's way for safer, more peaceful world. the lecture seeks to recognize not only those new solutions but also the men and women responsible for implementing the solutions of protecting this country. they have come from both sides of the aisle, both sides of the potomac, and both ends of pennsylvania avenue. there are weight bearing people. they have no choice but to decide and act. they bear tremendous responsibilities. tonight's speaker continues the tradition. i will turn the program over to dick solomon. he will introduce our speaker. [applause] >> it is a special honor to have

secretary panetta with us this evening. he is a unique and distinguished american, who gives webster to the lecture series. he is an exceptional public servant and a longtime supporter of the institute of peace and a secretary of defense and x official member of our board of directors. he is a private citizen and a supporter of our permanent headquarters project. this facility is a monument to our national commitment to build a more peaceful world. burton as we have been this past decade by the wars, it important to remember that the proportion -- the promotion of peace is our purpose with the world. peace building requires well- trained professionals. it demands a dedication and

risky work. it requires partnerships. it requires the work of the institute of peace. before introducing secretary panetta, let me say a few things about our origins. the national need for a proper piece establishments was envisioned by our first president, george washington, as early as 1783. however, it took two centuries of and the trauma of the vietnam war to the congress to embody washington's vision in the patient -- institute of peace, which was legislated into life in 1984. one of the unanticipated aspects of the growth of the institute is the active contribution that we now make to our country's national security.

our work today with the military spans the whole spectrum of what we do here usip, from practical training and the skills of conflict management to collaboration between civilians and military professionals as they prepare for their deployment aboard to be on the ground stabilization and reconstruction programs in zones of conflict around the world. the institute's activities on the ground over the past decade have enabled us to build strong partnerships throughout the military. with the vision, brigade and command staff and with leaders such . senior administration officials and members of congress and others make special request of the institute, taking advantage

of our standing as an independent bipartisan natural organization, a center of innovation in matters of conflict management. we undertake important policy assessments. the iraq study group was another notable project. citizen panetta was a distinguished member of the group before he returned to public service. one of our more recent contributions has been collaborating with the u.s. army's peacekeeping and stability keeping institute. it has published the first ever army field manual on stabilization and reconstruction work, which is a how-to guide

for the military and civilians who are rebuilding countries that have been ravaged by war. the world of the 21st century prevent dramatically new challenges to our national security, certainly when we compare them with the challenges we face in the violent century now passed. that is why i believe the most important work of the institute of peace is yet to come. in the 28 years since the creation, our mission has expanded because the role of the united states as a world leader for security and peace has been dramatically transformed. the institute's contributions are more relevant as to partner with asian -- agencies to our conference which the government as well as -- what the government as well as with the private sector for conflict

management. today we still with the world's challenges of nuclear challenges, ethnic and religious conflict, and the instabilities of economic globalization. the series provides a podium for our most important national leaders. let me say a few words about leon panetta. there are few officials in public service today who have secretary panetta's exceptional range of experiences. in 16 years in congress were followed by service in the executive branch as director of the office of the budget, president clinton's chief of staff and president obama is director of the cia and now secretary of defense. secretary panetta's public contributions extend well beyond

the halls of government. before he arrived at the sea -- cia, he and his wife directed the panetta institute for public policy based at california state university. it is a non partisan, not for profit center that seeks to instill the virtues and the values of public service. of all of his public service, i would suspect too much to say that the highlights of his career have been his contributions to the iraq study group and his support for the construction of this permanent headquarters for the institute of peace. every day as i come to work, i see from my office window the hallowed ground of the national cemetery. i see the root of the pentagon -- the roof of the pentagon and a blanket is watching us from his memorial close by the korean

war and the vietnam veterans memorial. this dramatic building and its special location makes us aware of the challenges and opportunities for and responsibility for us to better fulfil our congressional mandate of making the united states a world leader in peacemaking. with those words of welcome, secretary panetta, thank you very much for giving us your time and your wisdom. please join me in welcoming the 23rd secretary of defense. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, for that kind introduction.

thank you for the invitation. to deliver the fifth dean acheson lecture. dick, let me start by commending you on two decades of leadership at the u.s. institute of peace. i also want to wish to be very best as she prepared to step down after a long and distinguished tenure here. do not get too comfortable in retirement, comes from someone who knows what i am talking about. i am proud to have served in the house when we passed the bill that established this institute back in 1984. under your leadership, this institute has changed itself from a research center into an

organization that provides invaluable expertise to prevent, to mitigate, to manage conflict throughout the world. deploying staff to iraq, to afghanistan's, to libya and other conflict sounds. -- zoens thanes. that is what was envisioned. to have a facility that would actively engage in the effort to preserve peace. i did have the honor of serving as a member of the iraq study group, which was supported and staffed by the institute. it was chaired by former secretary of state jim baker and former congressman lee hamilton. i i believe that the report of the iraq study group made an

important contribution to the debate into the strategy that alternately brought that were to a responsible and. the institute's work has saved lives. it has enhanced our national security. in doing so, it has stayed true to the spirit of the man whose legacy we celebrate tonight. , dean acheson. one historian once observed that in a city of gray and anonymous men, dean acheson stood out. like a noble monument from another and more vivid era. 60 years after serving as

secretary of state, and more than four years after his ofth, acheson's unique blend strategic brilliance and remembered in thiswell town. having just enjoyed the hospitality of your car to a reception, use a reminded of the time when a newly elected president kennedy paid a call on the acheson at his georgetown home. acheson offered him a martini, but kennedy declined and asked for tea instead. that deeply offended acheson. after all, according to a friend, he never trusted a man who would not have a stiff drink with him.

i know i would have been his very dear friend. [applause] in fact, i learned that acheson and i share more than a love of stiff drinks, we both rose to prominence in the executive branch when we were both and we wereyoung, adn we we both fired from our jobs. acheson was fired from treasury by fdr in 1933. i was fired from the office of civil rights by president nixon in 1970. in both of our cases, we first heard about it from the press. acheson was eventually rehired by roosevelt at the beginning of his third term. i was never in danger of being rehired by president nixon. [applause]

i made the wise decision to go back to california. the nation is in the very fortunate to have had the service of dean acheson. there is perhaps no span of time in american history when the country faced more international turmoil, uncertainty, and conflict than the decade during which dean acheson served at the state department. it began just months after pearl harbor in 1941, and extended to the truman administration. despite our victory in wwii, dean acheson became secretary of state in 1949. the global security landscape

was ominous. was at the height of its powers, and uruguay in ruins, adn we face a -- western europe was in ruins and we face a crisis of berlin. the soviet union would test its first atomic bomb within months. north korea would invade the south. in the face of these challenges, and others, dean acheson help guide the truman administration to take some bold actions. from the marshall plan and the berlin airlift, to the koreaention in corv that helped lay the groundwork for an ultimate victory in the cold war.

dean acheson was a leading proponent for asserting america's military might. dean acheson also strongly believed that america should not seek to shoulder the burden and costs for global security alone. instead he understood that a key part of a strong defense was to build the security capacity of our allies and our partners. that legacy is deeply relevant to the argument that i like to make tonight. in order to advance the security and prosperity in the 21st century, we must maintain and enhance our military

strength, but i also believe that the united states must place even greater strategic emphasis on building the security capabilities of others. we must be bold enough to adopt a more collaborative approach to security. both with in the united states government and among allies, partners, and multilateral organizations. from western europe and nato, to south korea, from the truman doctrine, to the nixon doctrine, working with key allies and regional partners to build their military and security forces became a major component of u.s. national security strategy after wwii. this approach has endured long

beyond the cold war, and for the united states military, it has gained new and appropriate important as a mission in the decades since 911. in 2006, the same year as the barack study group convened, -- the iraq study convene,, they recognize the critical importance of having the authorities and resources to perform what it called building partnership capacity. since then, as the united states helped turn the tide in iraq and afghanistan, confronted terrorism in yemen, the philippines, the form of africa, and participated in the nato theation in libya tha,

approach of working with and through others has only grown in importance to our mission of defending our country. in particular, the task of training, advising, adn partnering has moved from the periphery to become a critical skill set across our armed forces. it is in many ways the approache that this institute hs promoted for nearly three decades. standing of the iraqi security forces was central to our ability to bring the wall -- were to a responsible conclusion last december. achieving our goal in afghanistan summer rally depends on building and afghanistan that

can secure and cover itself. the reality that is now guiding the strategy that general allen is implemented on the ground as commander of the nato effort. as the war in afghanistan begins to wind down, the united states has an opportunity to begin to focus on other challenges and opportunities for the future. as we do so, the united states is grappling with the deficit and the debt problem that has led congress to require us to achieve significant savings, nearly a half a trillion dollars in savings over the next decade. unlike past defense situations, we have experienced those two of today week stilltime

confront many challenges in many threats, the continuing threat of violent extremism, even though we have done damage to al-qaida in pakistan, we continue to have terrorism in yemen, somalia, north africa. we confront the threat of weapons proliferation. we confront the threat of cyber intrusions. we continue to experience cyber attacks every day. it is without question the battlefields of the future.

we continue to see be destabilizing behavior of nations like iran and north korea, the rise of new powers across asia, adn the drama -- and the dramatic changes that we have seen and fold across the middle east and north africa. these challenges, coupled with a new fiscal reality, led us to reshape our priorities with a new defense strategy for the 21st century. it is a strategy that places a greater emphasis on building the capabilities of others. to help meet the security challenges of the future. and to sustain a peaceful and cooperative international order. the strategy is built on five key elements. first, we know we are going to

be smaller in -- and leaner. that is a reality. we must remain agile, flexible, quickly deployable, and on the cutting edge of technology. second, we must remain strong enough to confront aggression and defeat more than one enemy at a time. we face the threat of a land war in korea. we have to be able to deal with that at the same time the possibility of closure of the straits of hormuz. we have maintained that capability. third, we will also continue to invest. in the capabilities of the future. yes, we have to meet our responsibility with regards to reducing the deficit burden, but

at the same time, we also need to invest in cyber, unmanned systems, , invest in, special forces operations, and the ability to quickly mobilize in the event of crisis, adn also importance of maintaining our industrial base. fourth, our new strategy prioritizes the asia-pacific prioritizesnad these are the areas with the most significant security challenges. in those regions, we will retain and even enhance our military presence, to ensure that we can project power and deter aggression. but we are also going to help more nations share the

responsibilities and costs of providing security by investing in alliances and partnerships, as i explained at the shangri- la dialogue earlier this month. and lastly, we will maintain a presence elsewhere in the world, particularly in regions like europe, africa and latin america. we must use our best skills and our assistance to build new alliances, new partnerships throughout the world by engaging in exercises, in training, in assistance and in innovative rotational deployments. the benefits of this emphasis on a partnered approach to security were apparent to me during a trip that i took to colombia in april.

there, the united states has spent years training and equipping the military to take on the farc, a narco- trafficking terrorist organization. not only has colombia made significant gains over the past few years against the farc, it is stepping up to help combat illicit trafficking in central america. colombia is now one of fourteen countries working cooperatively to disrupt narco-traffickers in central america. i also visited brazil and chile, and saw impressive demonstrations of their growing military capabilities -- capabilities that are enabling

them to contribute to security in central america, africa and across the globe. what i saw in these countries reinforced a new reality. in the past, the united states often assumed the primary role of defending others. we built permanent bases. we deployed large forces across the globe to fixed positions. we often assumed that others were not willing or capable of defending themselves. our new strategy recognizes that this is not the world we live in anymore. but implementing this new strategy will demand adjustments across the entire national security apparatus. tonight, let me outline a

department-wide initiative -- "building partnerships in the 21st century." its fundamental purpose is to improve our security cooperation across three broad areas, first, by taking a strategic approach to security cooperation and making sure that we have comprehensive and integrated capabilities in key regions in order to confront critical security challenges, second, ensuring the defense department continues to enhance the skill sets and capabilities that are needed to build and sustain partnerships, third, streamlining the department's internal processes to speed up and improve security cooperation programs --

and working with the department of state and congress to do the same. let me talk about the first point, which is a comprehensive and strategic approach to security cooperation i have urged the department to develop innovative approaches to meeting future security challenges, approaches that take better advantage of the opportunities for partnership and help us to more effectively advance a common security vision for the future. to that end, i've directed all of the geographic combatant commanders to think and plan strategically when it comes to security cooperation, including all their regional activities -- from joint exercises, exchanges, and operations to more traditional forms of security assistance.

during the cold war, u.s. partnership efforts were principally directed at countering a single adversary, the soviet union. in the 21st century, we must build partnerships that enable us to better meet a wider range of challenges. to that end, i see us building networks that leverage our unique capabilities -- and the unique strengths of our allies and partners that share common interests -- to confront the critical challenges of the future. that means continuing to work with nations in the horn of africa, the middle east and asia to counter violent extremism. it means working with partners in the persian gulf to strengthen their ability to counter iran's destabilizing activities, and it means

advancing collaborative efforts with israel to deploy systems like iron dome, which protects israeli citizens against the threat of rockets. it means investing in new capabilities with allies in northeast asia, such as missile defense, to counter north korea. we will also work to strengthen the maritime security and humanitarian assistance capabilities of key partners in the indian ocean and in southeast asia. we will work with partner nations in the western hemisphere to tackle the challenge of illicit trafficking and response to natural disasters. and we will strengthen nato's capabilities in missile defense, meet our article 5 commitments, and ensure that we can conduct expeditionary operations with our european

allies. and we must ensure that they can assume a greater burden of the responsibility when we do engage. these networks will be supported by innovative, small-footprint deployments of u.s. forces and capabilities to key strategic locations around the globe -- from northern australia to singapore, from djibouti to rota. combined with our traditional forward presence and other capabilities, these deployments will enhance our ability to train and to operate with partners, and to respond to future crises. to succeed in these efforts, we have to coordinate even more closely with the department of state.

my goal is for the department of state to have a leading role in crafting and conducting u.s. foreign policy, so that we can reaffirm and strengthen our strategic approach to defense partnerships. but it is also clear that building partnership capacity is a key military mission for the future. a second area is to enhance dod's capabilities in this area. building strong partnerships around the world will require us to sustain and enhance american military strength. but all of the military services, and the department as a whole, also must adapt as partnering with foreign

militaries becomes even more of a mainstay of the u.s. defense strategy. we have got to develop a "partnering culture." to that end, those security cooperation capabilities and skill sets once considered the exclusive province of the special operations community will need to be built up and retained across the force and among civilians. in particular, it is critical that we invest in language training and in cultural expertise throughout the department. building the capacity of defense ministries and other institutions, which have not been a main focus of efforts, must become more prominent. we need to work collaboratively

with state, usaid and non- governmental organizations to help partner countries so that they can modernize and reform in a way that contributes to regional security. the u.s. army's plan to align a brigade combat team with each regional combatant command -- which will be rolled out next year with africa command -- is one example of the kind of approach that will boost our partnership capabilities and regional expertise. and more broadly, i want to see the military retain the hard-won capability to train and advise foreign security forces in support of stability operations like in iraq and afghanistan. but i also want us to become better at working with more capable security partners on our shared security interests

-- particularly rising powers like brazil and india [that] can make significant and positive contributions to global security and prosperity. and lastly, streamlining processes. to better partner with our more capable friends and allies requires that we make our security cooperation processes more efficient and more agile. as part of this effort, we are working with the state department to ensure that our new and most flexibleurity cooperation tools -- particularly the new global security contingency fund -- are used to their maximum advantage. these "dual key" programs --

which require approval by me and by secretary clinton -- have been a big step forward to create incentives for collaboration. but our security cooperation programs still rely on a patchwork of different authorities, different funding, different rules governing defense exports depend on processes that are truly cumbersome and were built during the cold war. i strongly support efforts to achieve comprehensive reform in these areas through legislation. but i have also directed t department of defense's senior leadership team to streamline and strengthen those security cooperation procedures that are under our control, and that maximize our use of the highest

priority and most effective programs. we have also made substantial progress in facilitating defense trade with a broad range of allies and partners -- an area i believe of critical importanceo both our national security and the global economy. as one indication, annual u.s. government foreign military sales have grown from an avere of about $12 billion at the beginning of the last decade to an average of roughly $38 billion over the last three years. there has also been a tremendous growth in cooperative acquisition efforts with allies and partners, including the joint strike fighter and the nato alliance ground surveillance programs, and in u.s. industry's direct commercial sales of defense equipment and services abroad. defense trade is a promising avenue for deepening security cooperation with our most

capable partner nations. our on-going work in reforming our export control system is a critical part of fostering that cooperation. each transaction creates new opportunities for training, for exercises, for relationship building. it also supports our industrial base, with roughly one third of defense industry output supported by defense exports. this is important for american jobs and for our ability to invest in new defense capabilities for the future. india is one such country that would benefit from changes to our system. while in new delhi earlier this month i announced that my deputy, ash carter, will work with indian counterparts to streamline our respective bureaucratic processes to

better enable defense trade. it is clear to me that there is more that can be done to facilitate defense cooperation, with our traditional allies and our new partners alike. we are working to make u.s. government decision-making simpler, faster and more predictable for our partners. this means better anticipating their needs ahead of time, fast-tracking priority sales, and incorporating u.s. exportability requirements up front in the development process. a new special defense acquisition fund is allowing us

to begin procuring long-lead, high demand items in anticipation of our partner requests. and we've also built expeditionary requirements generation teams that send acquisitions experts abroad to help our allies better define and better streamline their requests. and a proposed defense coalition repair fund will allow us to repair equipment in anticipation of partner requests. all these efforts are a priority for me, and for the department of state. and i firmly believe that judicious sales or transfers of capabilities to responsible governments are vital in maintaining peace and deterring would-be aggressors. the security challenges of the future require us to partner, and the plan of action i've outlined will allow us to do so prudently -- by protecting the "crown jewels" of u.s.

technology while putting in place the programs and capabilities and processes to build partnership in the 21st century. but only some of this is within the control of the executive branch. congress too must also take action -- and we will work with them to do so. speaking of congress, the strategy i have outlined cannot succeed without their stable and consistent support. one of the greatest dangers to national security today is the partisan gridlock that too often fails to address the problems facing this nation. i came to washington over 40 years ago and in part of a

different generation. when i first went to the senate as a legislative assistant, there were bold leaders like senators mansfield, aiken, russell, javits, jackson, fulbright, dirksen and others. republicans and democrats who were willing to work together to meet our domestic and foreign challenges. even when i was a member of congress, i saw speaker tip o'neill and congressman bob michel work with senators bob dole and george mitchell to address budget, social security

and foreign crises together. too often today, the nation's problems are held hostage to the unwillingness to find consensus and compromise. and in the face of that gridlock, artificial devices like sequester are resorted to in order to force action. but in the absence of action -- in the absence of action sequester could very well threaten the very programs critical to our national

security -- both defense and domestic. any new defense strategy is dependent on new and innovative deployments, on diplomacy and on assistance, and it must rest on a reliable political system prepared to make decisions on behalf of our national security. that is a critical ingredient to the success of the partnership strategy i just outlined. it is clear that even as we turn the page on a decade of war, the international security environment will remain complex and threatening. but as we look at each challenge we face, it is clear that wehave many allies and partners who share an interest in helping advance a common

security vision, and that we are more secure when they are more capable of helping us. nearly fifty years ago, and more than a decade after he left government, dean acheson wrote an article called, and i quote, "the practice of partnership." in the aftermath of the cuban missile crisis, acheson argued for a revitalized military strategy to counter soviet expansionism. a key part of acheson's vision was for european allies to build up their conventional military forces, complemented by a strong u.s. force posture and nuclear deterrent. he saw a strengthened network of alliances as the key to

security and prosperity in his time. what i described tonight are some of the broad outlines for what i've called building partnership in the 21st century. we must continue to map out a new path to build up the strength of our allies and partners around the globe, using both old and new tools. we must, and we will, remain the strongest military power on the face of the earth, but more than ever -- more than ever -- our strength depends on our ability to govern and to lead, and it depends on capable allies and partners willing to help

shoulder the burden of global security. that is the key to preserving and protecting not just our national security but our democracy. thank you again for having me. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] secretary, thank you for your vision and our support of what the institute is all about.

would like to share a representation of the earlier atchison features. [applause] join me here. we have another unexpected presentation debate. this is a special day for the secretary of defense. we are extremely pleased to wish him a happy birthday and all of you as you leave will have a taste of this a very attractive cake to take with you. happy birthday to you happy birthday to you happy birthday dear mr. secretary happy birthday to you

♪ [applause] >> thanks a hell of a lot. >> a dimon put all the candles-- we didn't put all the candles we could have. >> what do we do? [applause]

>> and "washington journal tuesday, a discussion of the supreme court ruling of the 2010 health care lal. then john hoarsely breaks down the transportation bill passed by congress last week. later, our series on international news bureaus in washington, d.c continues. "washington journal," every morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> tuesday, british prime minister david cameron's appears before the british house of commons liaison committee to talk about the effects of the

european debt crisis on the british economy. you can see a live starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern, here on c- span. >> this weekend, had to the state capital named in honor of thomas jefferson but bob tv and american history tv in jefferson city, missouri. saturday noon eastern, former senator and misery first lady jean carnahan on family life and saw the governor's mansion. of provisions list from ancient mesopotamia to the university of missouri's special collections. sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern, american history tv. >> at one time, in 1967, this was called the bloodiest 47 acres in america. >> a former warden texas through the historic missouri state

penitentiary. walk back through the halls of history. once a month, c-span is local content vehicles explore the history and literary life of cities across america. this weekend from jefferson city, saturday at noon and sunday at 5 eastern on c-span2 and 3. >> now discussion on the national security positions of president obama and mitt romney. the director of the tribal center of terrorism and homeland security and a former justice and defense department attorney also looks at the impact of national security issues on past presidential elections. >> we are very happy to welcome david schanzer, the associate professor of the practice for public policy at duke

university. he is director at the triangle center of terrorism and homeland security and associate professor of public policy at unc. he is the director for strategy and outreach i. d. institute for homeland security solutions. he did his undergraduate work at harvard. he also served as editor for the harvard law review. prior to is academic career, he worked as a law clerk for the department of justice. he was a trial attorney for the u.s. department of justice civil division. special counsel for the u.s. department of defense. he is also served of the legislative director for senator carnahan and the democratic staff director for the committee and homeland security.

he has parlayed his extensive experience in public service and policy analysis into it journalistic and academic career. he has weighed in on many of the issues involving homeland security, foreign and domestic policy, and the intersection of legality and individual rights in the age of terrorism. a gifted teacher, his courses offered at both unc and duke on 9/11 and its aftermath. preparing a new generation of scholars and public servants to face the challenges presented by the post-9/11 world. we're delighted that he has taken some of his time to brief us on how war, terrorism, and national security will play out in the 2012 elections. please extend a warm welcome to professor david schanzer. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you to the bookstore, of great addition to our top of the community. thank you to the audience for coming out on a warm north carolina afternoon. hope i will have a chance to share some of my ideas with you and your ideas with me as well. our topic today is the war on terrorism, national security, and the 2012 elections. while i am going to be talking about the candidates and their ideas, i am not here to represent one candidate or the other. you heard my background as a kind of no little bit about which way eileen politically. that is ok. -- which way i leaned politically. that is ok. i want to -- look a little bit

at the kind of back and forth of the campaign and tried to analyze how the candidates are going to make their case on these national security issues. i guess you're tempted to start of the beginning and ask the question, is national security and terrorism bonn to have much of a role in this campaign? i guess one could answer that question and say, not much. it is all going to be about the economy. we could all go to our local eateries and college and afternoon. i think that would not be fair or accurate. it is clear the economy is going to be the dominant issue. there are a couple of reasons it will not be the sole issue. national security, commander in chief is a threshold issue for

any candidate. that is especially so for the challenger, who was an officer of -- for the challenger. for governor romney, it is the type of issue that if you do not get over the bar, so does speak, and convince the american populace that you are equipped to properly execute the office of the presidency, the most powerful office in the entire world, then you are going to hit the bar. you were going to crash. you are not going to become president. since president obama has been president for three years and nothing calamitous has happened, this is more of an issue for governor romney. clearly, that will be part of the vetting that the american public is going to be doing.

second reason is an election at a time of war or a time of national economies and concerned about foreign affairs -- these issuesnease, rise to the top. while we do have 60,000 troops in afghanistan and the concern of terrorism is still prevalent, i do not think the american public is feeling this is a time of war and national security. their insecurity is coming more from the economic troubles that we have experienced in the last three or four years than they do about national security. nonetheless, because national security issues are still very much on the forefront of the

newspapers because we do have troops, that is another reason it is going to be important. there is some irony to that as a matter of fact that the economy is going to dominate. when you look at the powers of the presidency, the president really has virtually nothing that he or she can do about the economy. the power to set interest rates, and to print money rests with the federal reserve, which is independent from the president. fiscal policy, there is nothing that the president can do in terms of taxation or spending without skidding the agreement of the congress. -- without getting the agreement of the congress. with respect to national affairs and national security, they are at its apex.

the president is in control of the nuclear weapons. the president can make foreign- policy by walking at of his office and walking into the rose garden and stage u.s. policy without asking anybody else. and in state u.s. policy, and that is it. obviously, the president is commander in chief of the armed forces and can use that power to project authority anywhere in the glow. the president -- in the globe. the president has amazing powers in terms of national security, limited bonds in terms of the economy. -- a limited ones in terms of the economy. speaking a little bit about the history of national security in presidential elections, i will talk about the different candidates are framing. what is the big picture that they seat of national security

issues? how did they view the united states's role in the world and ability to shape foreign affairs and national security issues? and then i will talk about the lines of attack. what are their positions, the line of scrimmage, but how will the candidate line up their arguments? what are they going to say about their strengths and weaknesses of their opponent? we will look at it from both perspectives. that should leave us a little time for questions and discussion. let's turn to history. 64 sawriod from 1932-195 the democrats win nine national elections. the subsequent 20 years saw republicans win 5 of 6

elections. we've had a number of closely contested elections when even the winning candidate did not even win the majority. what accounts -- i will not try to explain all of this change. but let's talk about how national security has played into that historical trend. lyndon johnson, as you well know, by 1968, when the election occurred, the vietnam war had become so unpopular, both on the left and on the right, if johnson had lost the country. he decided not to run. the blame for vietnam's was depend mainly on the democratic party.

democrats went on to move left and nominate a very strong anti-work candidate in 1972 after richard nixon won the election in 1968. that was not for the country was at that stage, even though nixon had escalated a fairly unpopular war, national security began to take routes and this notion that maybe democrats are not as strong as they need to be on national security. it began to influence national elections. jimmy carter, who is not experienced in foreign affairs, although he did serve in the navy, when a very tight election in 1980 -- in 1976. it should have been -- given watergate's-nixon resignation

and the unpopular pardon, but the house -- is perceived to not have been a strong candidate on national security. the response of the soviet invasion of afghanistan was deemed as a tepid. carter increased spending in the military during his four years in office. he was mired with the iran hostage crisis, which continued until the very day that he stepped down from office after losing the 1980 election to ronald reagan. reagan hammer home this notion which has been, and added -- become indebted in national security that republicans were strong, pro-military, patriotism, the idea that he

used force for the first time , hee vietnam's in grenada called the soviet union the evil empire and on his watch, the communist system was beginning to erode. although reagan's foreign policy record was not entirely unblemished, he projected this notion of a strong president and not rallied people behind him. he was very popular in that regard. he won a landslide election after winning a close election in 1980. he was able to pass the mantle on to his vice-president in 1988. in that case, we had a very

experienced republican running with the advantages of the idea that democrats are we gonna national security. by the way, public opinion polls were showing republicans with a 30 point advantage in public polls about to do you trust on national-security issues. george bush was not only the vice president, he was ahead of the cia, ambassador to china, and he ran against michael dukakis. he had no national security experience. to prove that he was tough, and he got in a tank with an oversized comment. many of you remember that. that was a defining moment, which would not give confidence to the american public. george bush the first goes on to

win the presidency. the economy, much like the election today, the economy was the big issue in 1992. the soviet union was no longer. the national security began to take a backseat. in some ways, it opened the door for bill clinton to get elected in 1992. again, republicans continue to have an advantage. because it was a time of relative peace and security, issues like the economy, education, health care were the defining issues of that election. democrats came man. clinton's record on national security was so much mixed. there was the unfortunate -- the tragic black cod down incident -- black pop down incident in somalia early in his presidency. there was a controversy about

gays in the military. 20 things later, things have changed. his failure to serve during the vietnam war, all of which led this perception that clinton was not strong on national security. he did executes humanitarian military action in bosnia and in kosovo. he had a mix of record of national security. in the end, even though he was present for eight years, that did not translate into more popularity for democrats on national security. going into this century, democrats for being told -- polls with over 20 points disadvantaged. al gore, 2000, no major threats

on the horizon, the cold war was over. even though he had more national security experience and military service than george bush, george bush wins and then 9/11 occurred. bush goes on to start the iraq war it in 2003. in 2004 goes against john kerry, a war hero a vietnam veteran, but nonetheless, some on national-security issues, taking advantage of the idea that democrats are weak and republicans are strong on national security. his success in preventing any subsequent act of terrorism. john kerry did not good -- do a good job of saying what he would do differently about the iraq war. it was a very close election, but many believe he lost the

election on the national security issue. interestingly, during the -- bush's term, you can see for the viewers on television, this charge of the polling about which party is better for national security after two decades of very strong republican support. the unpopularity of the iraq war begins to erode republican advantage on this question. literally, a 30-point gap, december 2003, saddam hussein has fallen. over time, the inability for us to secure iraq, the rise of sectarianism, the advent of al qaeda, what was seen as many stumbles and a lack of clear execution of leadership on

behalf of the first bush administration. it goes on despite bad. -- that. by 2006, the damage is done and the gap is only five points in favor of republicans. when the midterms comment on the democrats' win that election, take control of congress. you can see that pretty much closer contest between democrats and republicans prevails. right into the run-up of the 2008 election. perhaps the nomination of john mccain and the war hero against the relatively inexperienced barack obama leads to a reopening of the divide. as the election golan, people become more confident -- election goes on, people become more confident. obama passes the national

security test. you can see by december of 2008, when obama is about to take office, he has gained the support of the country on national-security issues. his promise to end the iraq war condenses the country that he is the person to take the mantle. at that point, only a two-point gap. we see some erosion in the early part of the obama administration. that has not held. here we are, a recent fox news poll from june 7, 2012, shows that while romney has better standing on the economy, if you look at the last paragraph, obama's is trusted more on education, a foreign-policy. this is the first time in recent

memory where a presidential candidate on the democratic side is walking into a reelection with the democrats having a better perception of national security. that is our historic background. given that background, how are the different candidates framing their ideas of national security? they lookhe lens through? it is a fair reading of mitt romney's position to say that he is looking at american exceptionalism. you can tell foreign-policy is a -- isn't a predominant issue. the last speech he gave on the national security was at the citadel early in the primary

season, october 2011. he says -- later in the speech, he goes on to say -- this idea of american how we adaptedsism, to give us a special god-given role in the world to promote

peace and security, but also our own values, values of democracy, free and open speech, economic exchange, freedom of religion, equality between people. i think the idea of american connotes thatsism america has special responsibilities. america must lead, not that we should lead, but that we must. special responsibilities to patrol the world, make it safe for commerce, naked say for free expression and free enterprise. -- make it safe for expression and free enterprise. we also have some special rights attached to that.

the idea that we can act unilaterally more than other nations and we welcome the role of an international institution, alliances, if those institutions are alliances are not serving american interest, we can go at it alone. what president obama has also said that we will act unilaterally, we must. american exceptionalism is a highlighted feature of this way of thinking about the world. what about president obama? governor romney criticizes obama because obama was asked, do you think america is an exceptional nation? i think we are an exceptional nation. the british probably think that they are exceptional. other countries think they are exceptional as well. romney has mocked that as saying, we are not equally

balanced. we are first among nations. what is obama's frame? a lot of scholars have struggled to define an obama doctrine. he is very much a pragmatist and one who has all little bit -- difficult to pigeonhole him. what i believe it is the best description for obama is a frame we can look at to his policies. he believes u.s. leadership and the promotion of u.s. american values and principles but in recognizing that we do live in an multipolar world. a world that has problems that are global in nature, that america, while we are the predominant military, other nations have those powers that they can apply to international

affairs. we need to operate in the that is, which is america is the most powerful nation in the world, but we cannot impose our will as much as we would like. we are much better off and much more capable advancing our interests if we are acting in conjunction and partnership with other powerful nations around the world. it takes president obama is rhetoric, this is from his speech accepting the nobel prize in 2009. i do not think you would hear the governor romney it look at foreign affairs in that way.

adds another important speech before the united nations general assembly -- yes, president obama identifies what we say as american values as being universal lines. he says we are committed to advancing the principles, but we understand that we live in a diverse world and that we cannot impose our will on those partnerships.

frames, i would like to look at how -- what are the lines of attack? how is mitt romney going to go after the obama record? and vice versa. first, mitt romney is going to argue that obama it is a declinist. because he is not willing to assert american exceptionalism, that he believes in the american decline. that china is taking over. we're willing to cede power and leadership. in libya, but we did something called leading from behind. that is not good for america or the world.

second, he will try to argue that obama is naive. and talk about how obama wanted to engage with our enemies, believing that trying to work things out in dialogue, even with countries like iran and venezuela and north korea, that that is a naive approach, that our enemies are going to always try to take advantage of us, negotiation is the only way they can be influenced is by assertion of american power and action rather than dialogue. he will try to characterize obama has not even that regard. and then the world -- as naive in that regard. he will say the successes, especially the killing of osama bin laden, were not because of anything obama did, but because

they follow the prescription established by the bush administration since 9/11. the successes are not due to him, but because of the framework had been established prior to him taking office. i think those are going to be the main lines of the romney argument against obama. where is my slide? what are some of the arguments that -- the issues he will use to try to support these lines of argument? obama tried to close guantanamo bay. this was not leave, wrong, he was forced not to do it by congress and public opinion. as i said, he tried to reach out to ahmadinejad and iran to try to deal with the nuclear program. he was rebuffed. romney will say this showed

america's weakness and lack of resolve. obama has cut the military budget. another sign that he does not believe in american exceptionalism and that we should be spending more on the military, not less. he will argue that we have not been a firm ally to israel and this is evidence of obama's failure to support our allies can be a global leader. he will argue that we have fallen behind economically because we allow china to dominate and we have not been tough enough on china. early on, he said, we are withdrawing too quickly from afghanistan. we're not listening to our military commanders on the ground. we are doing precipitous withdrawal and that he would listen to the commanders, to try

to maintain the gains we have made since our troops were inserted after 9/11. he has backed off of that position quite a bit since then. but that was one of the arguments he had been making. this is part of the money -- the evidence that mitt romney will use to try to support that frame that i mentioned earlier. one of the problems with this -- what are the problems with his argument? in many regards, he and a lot of the republicans, politicians and strategists, were really eager to run against not the obama new has been present for the past 3.5 years, but the obama who was running for president back in 2008. they want to run against this inexperienced young person who

had never been any role of national security leadership before, who made these statements without engaging. unfortunately for them, obama's 2012 version, has a strong record that he can use to deflect all those charges relating to weakness. here are a couple of them. removing u.s. troops from iraq as promised, winding down the war in afghanistan, neither of those places, while they are not stable and secure, they also have not resolved into crises. successful international intervention in libya. marshaling of a very tough sanctions against iran relating to its nuclear program. being on the right side of history in the arab spring and not -- and allowing the protests

to take place. the decimation of the al qaeda central organization. a strong record on counter- terrorism. a new nuclear weapons reduction treaty with russia. a balanced relations with russia, china, emerging powers. we do not necessarily did everything we want comment they do not get everything that they want. but we have good relations where there is dialogue and agenda that is constantly being worked on. this is a fairly strong record that does not show weakness, it does not show a decline or an erosion of our place in the world. those are some of the reasons i don't think this is going to be an effective line of attack.

killing bin laden and the successful campaign against al qaeda really blancs those questions of weakness. nobody is going to want to listen to minor issues whenever a president took these actions. finally, the american u.s. leading to, police the world against all the evils and asserting our values and ideas across the world, it does not jibe with the america that is fairly war weary. the lives of our troops, time of and a general sense that we need to focus rebuilding home, that it undercuts the residents of a lot of these arguments. -- resonance of a lot of these

arguments. both mitt romney and obama are both internationalists, i believe. does the president have some vulnerabilities? the answer to that is yes. i think a lot of them relate to the economic argument. i think that mitt romney will try to pitch obama on foreign policy in ways that resonate the story he is trying to tell about problems with the economy. for example, europe, while obama has very little that he can do about that, virtually nothing, he will argue that obama pursues a european-style welfare state with excessive government debt and spending. look at what is happening in europe and that is a model of

what will happen here. likewise, i think the idea of a rise in china is something that unsettles a lot of people. it feeds into economic anxiety. mitt romney is not the president, so for him, talk is cheap. bashing china, unfair trade practices, saying they are not devaluing their currency to make american products cheaper, the inability for us to infiltrate as much of the market in china, the idea that china is a growing power on the international stage, all which feeds into a little bit of u.s. economic anxiety. fear about being overtaken and that our jobs are going elsewhere. obama says some tough things

about the chinese as well, but this is the disadvantage of being president. he has to balance our concerns about china's activities with other things, like getting support in the united nations for actions with respect to iran, the north korean nuclear program, and a whole host of issues. he has less liberty to essentially-china. mitt romney can say what he wants. once again to office, totally changed course and it won't matter. -- once he gets into office, he can totally changed course and it won't matter. the issue for defense spending is a bread and butter republican fang. defense spending is the only type of government stimulus that

republicans like. a jobs program. we spent more than we need on defense, in my view. president obama, in his efforts to come up with a budget package to reduce our long-term debt bank has committed to reducing military spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years. mitt romney says he will reverse all of those cuts and add to the military, make the army 100,000 bigger, increase our shipbuilding, increase our procurement. that is a pretty costless thing for him to be able to say. i do not think he will be penalized for being a reckless spender for doing that, but it is good for jobs.

people live in communities with defense contractors or shipyards, that is a potent economic argument that mitt romney will be able to use effectively. i think finally the issue of u.s.-israel relations is gone to be an important one. -- going to be an important one. obama got off to a bad start when he made the demand that its the israelis freeze their settlement activity outside the '67 borders. that was bluntly rejected by netanyahu government and led to the termination of the arab -- the palestinian-israeli peace talks. they have not been able to be restarted. now i think mitt romney, in some regards, does not understand the diversity of the jewish vote on this issue.

there are many jewish voters who have reflectively defended in the criticism of israel is bad and will support candidates who do that. there are others who have been somewhat disappointed with some of the actions of israel. not unconditional supporters. there is some diversity of opinion among jews on this question. i do think the bad start that obama got off to resonated with some population. it shows up in the polls. obama got 74% of the jewish vote in 2008. recent polls show some erosion. that could hurt obama, i think, especially the jewish vote is concentrated in a number of important states. florida is a swing state.

you have an older jewish population there, who would be more sensitive to these difficult questions of u.s.- israeli relations. obama is approval ratings in israel or very low after this incident. beverly rebound in the last couple of years, partly because of obama -- they have really rebound in the last couple of years. resolutions of the united nations, had a strong position on that. some of this recent statement about having to use force against iran, if necessary. in some ways, he has rebounded very nicely. i think he will have problems with pockets of the jewish population. ok, what is obama going to say about mitt romney?

obama, unlike his economic platform,, i think he is going to run on his record of achievements in foreign policy. he is going to make the argument that mitt romney's foreign policy as a return to george w. bush. he left office very unpopular with respect to his foreign policy. obama will argue that he inherited a mess, at a less secure world, and he has made it more secure. mitt romney is advocating the same policies as george w. bush and will try to paint them as being reckless, too quick to use force, and the like. one more direct line of attack that was tried already was mitt romney did make some statement saying that he did not think we should galavant the world and spent billions of dollars trying to find one person. he criticized obama's statement

that he would go inside pakistan after bin laden. obama will try to track that out to show that mitt romney is not tough on terrorism. i think he will try to make the argument that mitt romney is trapped in the past and maybe making -- his statements that russia is our number one geopolitical cell was mocked by a lot of people in the foreign- policy establishment, including a lot of republicans. the arms control agreement was -- had very strong bipartisan support. they were kind of surprised i did mitt romney making a statement like that. are we rivals? sure. are we upset about their

autocratic tendencies of late? absolutely. but does that make us a number one geopolitical foe? of return to the cold war? most people might see that as being somewhat out of touch. we might hear something about that. what are some weaknesses in the obama's argument? it will be hard to disqualify mark -- mitt romney as not been qualified. he still benefits from the notion of just because you are a republican, you are going to be strong on national security. he is intelligent comment he has been -- he is intelligent, he has led large organizations, people think of them as a good manager. the obama campaign talked about this argument that mitt romney would not have tried to go after

bin laden the same way that obama did. i do not think that worked all that well. that line of attack probably will not be a very effective. does mitt romney have all of the -- an incumbent has the air force one a fact. mitt romney cannot do that. obama it is consistently gone to make himself -- or take instances when he is gone to try to be a strong leader, demonstrating himself as being a global figure with the authority of air force wind, making national-security decisions, things like he did going to afghanistan and announcing the agreement to withdraw troops. having the nato summit in chicago recently. these things are going to keep taking place over the course of the election.

there could be crises or things that makes foreign affairs issues that don't go the way we might like, like economic crises in europe. the incumbent is then held responsible for those things whether or not he had anything to do that. that is a mixed bag, but that advantage accrues to the president. i think mitt romney's caucused this is not going to play well in a world -- war-weary nation. we will see him town that down to a large regard. he will keep advocating military spending. he will not make a lot of noise about afghanistan or iraq, but he has said enough on that record to hurt him a little bit during this election campaign. to the extent that mitt romney has advocated things that make him sound a lot like george

bush, american exceptionalism argument, morphing into bush is not a good way for him to go. the public's recollection of the bush years on international affairs is not a good one. the idea that we should've kept troops in iraq longer, even though the rockies no longer wanted us, troops and state -- iraqis no longer wanted us. strangely enough, i think republicans really feel like iran is an issue goes to their view to their benefit. obama is a week, he is not willing to use force, he is willing to reach out to ahmadinejad. the president has a pretty good record here. it is one that the american public is pretty comfortable with. he has used covert action to try

to box up the nuclear program would cyber warfare. he has organized international community's to the extent that president bush could not. tougher and tougher sanctions come up some of which will take place in the next couple of months. this has brought iran back to the negotiating table on this issue. i do not think the american public are eager to get engaged in a third war in the middle east in this decade. ironically, where republicans thought they would be able to use iran to fit their paradigm, i think it fits the obama paradigm pretty well. returning leadership, working in conjunction with our partners,

keeping the idea of force on the table, but using diplomacy, using diplomatic sanctions to try to achieve our objectives. i think it is beginning to show roots in iran. the public is going to support that approach. that leaves us with the two individuals, at the american public is going to find that they would both be credible national leaders. they certainly have a different outlook, which will be explored during this election campaign. u.s.-israel relations, china on trade could be vulnerabilities for the president. mitt romney's framing of the world and his ability of obama -- may be of advantage to the president. that is my analysis.

i would be happy to take -- engage in dialogue with you. [applause] >> we are open for questions. we ask that you wait until the microphone to get to you. don't be shy. >> let me start back there. >> in regard to america's military role throughout the world, the things the american public's patient is going to give out? -- moody's think the american public's patience is going to give out? >> i think that has a lot to do with energy.

our alliance with israel, but the need to have lots of troops there to have stability, a lot of that has to do with our desire to have secure flow of oil. we are becoming more and more energy -- less energy dependent on the middle east. we have new sources of production in north america. mexico. other sources of even oil in north america, russia, elsewhere. we're beginning to find ourselves to be able to wean ourselves -- we are less dependent on middle eastern oil. as long as we, you know, our economy -- i think the american

public will understand that investments that we make, which. -- we believe provide stability and security, that is something we book continue to have to do. >> -- that is something we will continue to have to do. >> i think this gentleman was next. >> i am curious, there are scheduled cuts in the military better coming up. republican party seems a bit split on that. some are not too worried about it, others do not want to see it. where do you think mitt romney is going to come down on that? >> let's get everything on the table. president obama, a part of issue at about the deficit should be handled has put down half a million -- half a billion in cuts on the table. if you recall, we ever having

the debt limits debate around this time last summer, nobody found that pleasant, what was agreed upon was that if congress did not cut, find another $1.20 trillion to cut from the budget over the next 10 years, automatic spending cuts, in addition to what was in the budget already, would go into effect. half would be on national security, and half would be on domestic spending. those cuts have not been made by the congress. the super committee that was created flopped. therefore, this automatic sequester is scheduled to go into effect in january. that would mean an additional $500 million of cuts over the next 10 years. combined with the once they're already in the budget, that would be a trillion dollars.

there are not a very many democrats or republicans who are eager to see those cuts. the problem is, this is law. they are going to happen until a budget deal is made. very few folks think we will be able to do that before the election. to what extent that becomes a campaign issue, i do not know. mitt romney will certainly say that he is against the sequestered from going into effect. we should make all the cuts on this domestic side. at some point, it means medicare, health care spending, medicaid. it does not talk about that very much, that that is going to come up. if you are for a large increase in defense spending and you are for canceling what obama has put

on the table, you are proposing medicare cuts. mitt romney will swear that is not true. it is not a credible argument. if it comes up, and if you are not for any defense cuts, you are not for any increased taxes, the only way to do the spending will be a large-scale cuts in medicare. that is how it is going to play out during the election. go ahead. >> [inaudible] >> i wonder whether the issue of whether the war in iraq was a mistake will come up in the campaign or will people to try to forget about that? >> well, i think it could

possibly could come up. i tried to allude to some of those concepts in my top. obama will try to paint mitt romney as having supported all the policies of george w. bush and the iraq war -- i will note that there was a recent bombing , there are still problems in iraq. i do not know if we will rehash. i do not know if we even rehashed in the 2008 election. i think it will, in terms of obama trying to link mitt romney to have the failed policies of the past. >> i have two questions.

one is a question of weakness from the left. a lot of people believe that obama might be an anti-for president. in 2008, they voted for him because they expected pace. some cable would argue that heat -- some people would argue that he has been very active with drones, taking out bin laden. i wonder if that could weaken his position on the left. it is not that they would vote for mitt romney, but they would not vote at all. this weakness might resonate with those who believe that his economic policies have not been as friendly as people hoped. from the right, the other side of being pragmatic is not having a clear vision.

the two big threats in the world are pakistan and iran, and possibly russia. i am not sure how much progress is made on any of those. one thing that some republicans might say, he could push more aggressively with oil in america. oil prices are down to $60 a barrel. >> a lot of questions. let me see if i can get some of them. gas prices, when they go up, it is always bad for the incumbent president. bill clinton would talk about the relationship between the number of cents added to the gas price and how would affect his approval rating. fortunately, for obama, some believe the gas prices would

hit $5. a kind of peaked at $4. maybe that will be -- will continue throughout the summer and we will not have extraordinarily high gas prices come november. that is an issue that depends on where the prices at the pump in the 30 days before the election. environmental versus domestic production is a classic democrat-republican issue. we had this argument frequently. obama's record on domestic production is pretty good. he will say that he has increased domestic production of the course of his tenure, whether you are responsible for it or not, you get credit for it if that happens. the republicans will argue that that is everything that bush

did. obama got to take advantage of that. obama will argue that he has worked on domestic production. i think the fact that canadian oil, the new sources in mexico, all becoming less dependent on oil from our enemies. obama old be able to make an argument. mitt romney will makeromney will argument we need less reliance on oil from the middle east and russia. in terms of counter-terrorism issues and the left, the idea that obama in 2008 ran as an anti-war president and has not fulfilled those promises. i think the probe -- problem obama is based on a lot of issues with respect to what people thought is that people

attached to obama what they wanted to hear and did not listen or were willing to look the other way with respect to parts of his record they did not find appealing. his talkncts liked about bringing the parties together and having a less confrontational idea of politics but did not listen with respect to a new health-care plan and other things that were not on the top of their agenda. with respect to the left and counter-terrorism, when i listen to the obama campaign, he said he would use force to go into pakistan to eliminate the terrorist threat. maybe people on the left were not listening to that part but

to me he projected that he was a president who would be willing to use of force to deal with direct threats to our security. what he has done has not surprised me personally and i am not, i do not agree with the criticism from the left about him and not, let's put it this way, trying to make this a more peaceful world. obama did get our troops out of iraq. he escalated the war in afghanistan but against the will of the military and he set a time line for the surge to end and is drawing that conflict down. he has resorted to sanctions

rather than the use of force to do with the iranian nuclear program. i would counsel folks on the left to are disappointed in the obama record to look at the totality of the issues and not just the things that may be an know you -- maybe annoy you about the last four years. please. >> i wonder if you could comment on the route recent national security leaks from the political aspect and the national security perspective. >> from a political perspective, i think republicans are disappointed.

they wanted to make obama as a naive, a weak leader and here we have a cyber war, drone strikes, al qaeda leaders getting knocked off every week, and obama essentially conducting a covert action campaign that republicans would have been proud of under the bush administration. i think that frustrates them to a great degree and the claim about leaks is a way to try to take some of the luster off of that. that is the politics of that. i find it a little difficult to get excited about this issue. dick cheney would go on "and meet the press" and say things and argue that since he had declassification authority

whenever he said it, that means it was no longer classified. there is a little bit of ye doth protest too much with that issue. and said, i had a security clearance and i worked on legal cases where individuals did not fulfil their obligations. that is a serious issue. having been a government servant, i cannot countenance individuals taking it under their own authority to believe what they think should or should not be in the public domain. i believe we keep too many secrets. we classify too much and we have too many people who are entitled to have security clearances. i am not one who believes in closed government but i i feel strongly against this leaking

and it is a prevalent part of our national security establishment. this is true before and after obama. can we get some ladies to ask some questions? we should hear from you. we will go here. >> two questions, to what degree given the media focus on the swing states, to what degree do these issues resonate more or less in a swing states? given you have talked about their campaigns, and the possibility exists that the pacs may follow different directions, will they go in a different manner? >> a lot of what i got in terms of trying to construct the romney narrative, looking at his

website and an article that karl rove wrote about how to beat obama in the fall issue of foreign policy, and he is running one of those big pacs. in general, the pacs are going to, there is a some biotic relationship between them, whether the legal lines are crossed i do not know but i think that if you're going to see certain things coming out of the romney campaign, you see a lot of them coming out of the super pacs. they might try to do something and if the campaign says that worked well, you might see the campaign following them. in terms of the specific foreign-policy issues, having more resonance in certain

states, i think, yes, for sure. for example ec trade -- you see trade policy being a much bigger deal in the rust belt then in the south or the west. there is a big jewish vote in florida, so there are israel issues and things like at that have more resonance in florida and new jersey becomes a swing state. there are other pockets of ethnic populations, for example the moslem vote is becoming stronger and the hispanic vote is a huge vote and they are interested in immigration policy. more to the meanleans domestic rather than national security. immigration will be a big issue in the campaign. that is going to be discussed in

a lot of the western swing states. the woman in the pink. >> would you comment on syria and the relationship of russia? our view, i know we are watching it, but could you encapsulate that? >> is a difficult situation. in terms of the campaign, the difference between the candidates is that romney has agreed with senator mccain we should try to arm the opposition in syria to counteract and make it more of a fair fight with assad. the administration has not gone that far over the. we do not know what they are doing colbert lead. -- covertly.

in number of years ago israel invaded syria and knocked out a nuclear project which they believed was a nuclear weapon. after that, syria invested a great deal of money in anti- aircraft defensive. after a day we were able to knock out gaddafi in debut, our ability would require much more longer and deeper investment and it would be more difficult to do without injuring civilians. it's wanted to try to use military force, and i think there are few experts to believe that is a good idea, it would be more difficult and more costly. libya is pretty clear geographically and etiologic the -- ideologically where the lines were being drawn. in syria, the opposition is more

diffuse, less organized, and not as geographically identifiable. that makes it harder to provide a safe haven of corridors or even transfer weapons. there is concern about some of the opposition to be more in the direction of the fundamentalist extremists. you would be taking on a risk in providing advanced weaponry to them because they might be used for terrorism, possibly against israel or make its way to hezbollah. i do not have any easy solutions. i think what is happening is that more and more pressure is going to be placed on russia to take a more responsible action. maybe a possibility is we have a

non-assad regime that is still pro-soviet. maybe the opposition would not be happy but we will get assad out and be more representative. maybe the russians could live with that if they were able to sell arms and have this relationship. in terms of what i have been talking about, it is easy to geo- russia your ngo hig political foe but in the real world they have power whether we like it or not. here is an instance where having a more positive relationship with russia is potentially giving us some leverage or some ability to engage in diplomacy, to address this particular issue.

yes. we will get to you next. there is a gentleman here. >> what is the position on north korea? >> i think the position on north korea has been stable throughout the second bush administration through obama. again, talk is cheap for the challenger. being able to say we have a growing threat and the president has not solved the problem, president bush could not solve the problem, either. our ability to influence the north koreans is very low. they have a huge amount of weaponry they could use against south korea.

some sort of unilateral attack or even a strong western attack against nuclear facilities would end up in a lot of lives lost in south korea. that is an option that none of the parties or presidents have felt was on the table. in many ways the only game in town is trying to get to the koreans to the bargaining table and a lot of that, china has the strong leverage against north koreans. north korea is a leadership transition. in an autocratic, closed states like this, what that new, younger, inexperienced leader is very beholden to the military and is in need of seeming strong to his domestic population. you might see a lot of rhetoric

and provocative actions that come out of north korea. but i do not see president romney or president from the doing differently about it. -- president obama from doing differently about it. >> the federal debt is going to catch up with us. it caught up in germany and spain. what is going to happen? >> our debt problems are not as extreme as europe. in terms of the way we look at things, comparing apples to apples is our debt to gdp ratio. how much is our debt compared to our economy? if we have a smaller economy, that is what makes the difference. our debt, our total debt, which

is approaching $16 trillion, i could stand to be corrected but i believe it is close to around 60% of our gdp. right now, what we are looking at in places like greece and ireland and spain is debt to gdp ratios that exceed over 100%. the feeling is if we get to that point, we would be in a serious crisis. now, left untouched, leaving the defense budget growing, leaving the expansion of medicare, especially, is going to explode in the next couple years as medical care keeps getting more expensive and baby boomers who are in their 60's and still healthy, in 20 years they are

going to be 80 and not as healthy. there are a lot of them. even social security is a flipping in terms of its in not bringing in as much in contributions. the explosion can come in the next 15 years from now when our debt to gdp ratio which start approaching over 100% and get into a danger zone. we have a short-term debt problem. we have a medium-term one and then we have a long term. it is a very clear that every person involved in this says we need to take action on our long- term debt, we need to bring the trajectory of our spending down and there is a debate about whether we need to bring our rate of taxation up to meet

that. what is going to happen in november, after the election, i guess it is really january when it happens, is a tax-maggedon. the sequester would take 1.2 trillion dollars out of the economy and it is the expiration of all of the bush, obama, bush extended by obama at tax cuts, which over 10 years, if you take the totality of them, and nobody thinks all of them will go back to the way they were in 2001, we are talking about $five taxes.ion in another 1.2 trillion dollars in spending. people believe that could put us into another recession. there will be a tremendous incentive, especially once the

election is over, for some sort of political deal to be made between the parties. i think both parties are waiting to see who will be president so they will know what the relative bargaining strength is going to be. if romney winds, the republicans hold onto the house, then the final plan is going to be more spending, domestic spending cuts, and less taxes. if obama wins, it will be tilted with more taxes, more defense cuts, and a little bit less on the medicare spending. but i believe there will be something because under current law, but things are unsustainable in the long term. everybody knows that. >> we have time for one more question.

>> i believe this might be a former student so i am worried. >> that is correct. you mentioned that obama may benefit from the perception of being on the right side of history according to the arab spring issue. i have heard from strategists on the right that perhaps this could be interpreted as obama abandoning strong american allies, in tunisia and egypt. and that the recent elections of islamic-based political parties may in fact leads to anti-american policies in the region and abroad. do you think that romney will attempt to make that argument? if so, will it resonate with the american public? >> an excellent question from a former student. obviously learned a lot. [laughter] so, i think on the mubarak

issue, which is what you are talking about, i think those americans who feel that the united states can somehow impose its will and get the desired effect it wants on every international issue might find that argument to resonate. but those votes are -- folks are probably voting for romney already. what were we supposed to do? were we going to support egyptian tanks rolling into cairo to suppress popular, unarmed protesters? i think that is preposterous. if somebody is going to try to start making that argument that we abandoned mubaraks, and then at the same time making an

argument that somehow we should be more active to get rid of assad in syria. he is not an ally, but nonetheless it is not all holds together. that said, the question of islam and what direction the arab world is going to take, and fear in some regard that when these countries gained democracy and are able to vote, they are going to bring in governments that want to the more governed by islamic principles than previous ones. the question will be, what does that mean? obama in some ways is taking a risk and a chance in believing, again, what he to do otherwise is not clear to me. but st. we are going to see what

happens in this election and what we want to do is take the islamists at their word they will be committed to democracy, with a more islamic flavor, and hope they start looking more like a turkey than iran. iran is shia, but we do not want these countries to devolve into these autocratic, theocratic, anti-western entities where there is no true democracy and a harsher version of islam is being pursued. we would like to see more of a turkish model which is a commitment to democratic principles and if people want to be governed by laws that are more in accord with islamic practices, so be it. it is their country. that is what democracy is. we do not know it -- which way

it is going to tilt. y.ere will be more of them, think the position the government should be taking is, let's see where it goes. let's do what we can to support these governments and in courage them to head down a democratic path, to liberalize their economies and be supportive and if they head in the other direction to use coercive measures to try to influence them. but this is about the people who live in these countries and our ability to shape this outcome to one that would be a perfect and in our interest is actually extremely limited. how that plays out in the campaign, i am not sure but i do not think governor romney is

probably going to go there because there are not any good answers. thank you for your excellent questions and a great session. i really enjoyed it. thank you. >> thank you, professor schanzer. we have three more series coming up. june 27, discussing civility and public discourse. on july 11, talking about gender issues in the elections. and on july 25, we will have daniel talking about network politics. thank you for coming and for c- span for broadcasting. have a wonderful evening. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> on washington journal, a discussion of the supreme court ruling on the 28 -- what the

ynalth care law with marylan serafini. then john hoarsely breaks down the transportation bill. later, our series on international news bureaus in d.c. continues with mio siroric. starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. tuesday, david cameron appears before the house of commons. he will talk about the effect on the european debt crisis on the british economy. you can see it starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. the justice department announced a health care settlement with glaxosmithkline on saturday.

it settles multiple criminal and civil investigations involving drugs. james cole spoke to reporters about the sediment and later to questions on the fast and furious operation for 30 minutes. >> good morning. we are here today to discuss the latest development in the administration's continuing fight against health care fraud. first, it is my privilege to introduce people. i am joined by the deputy secretary of the department of health and human services, the acting assistant to the attorney general for the civil division, daniel levenson, the inspector general for the department of health and human services, the united states attorney for the district of massachusetts, the deputy commissioner for global regulatory operations and policy at the food and drug administration, the u.s.

attorney for the district of colorado, and the acting executive assistant director for the fbi. it is quite a group up here today. today, i am pleased to announce that the justice department and our law enforcement partners have reached an historic $3 billion resolution with the pharmaceutical manufacturer glaxosmithkline llc, and this is to resolve multiple investigations into the company's sales and marketing practices. this constitutes the largest health care settlement in united states history and underscores our robust commitment to protecting the american people from the scourge of health care fraud, and it provides the effectiveness of strong relationships that we have forged with our partners to ensure the health and safety of the american people and to safeguard the integrity of the health care system. under the agreement announced today, gsk will plead guilty to

criminal charges and pay $1 billion fine for illegal forfeiture for marketing the drugs will be tran and taxol for uses not approved by the fda. this includes the spreading to children as well as adults for ailments including anxiety as well as adhd. and it will be provide a report about the drug avandia to the fda. and it will pay an additional $2 billion to resolve civil allegations that caused false claims to be submitted to the federal health-care programs for these and other drugs as a result of the company's illegal promotional practices and payments to physicians. the settlement also resolves the civil investigation of the company's alleged it rebates required under the rebate program.

today's multibillion-dollar settlement is unprecedented in both scope and size. it underscores this administration's firm commitment to protecting the american people, and hold accountable those who commit health care fraud. who commit health-care fraud. at every level, we are determined to stop practices that jeopardize patient's health, harm taxpayers and violate the public trust. in this historic action come what it is a clear warning to any company that chooses to break the law. since may of 2009 when attorney- general eric holder and secretary kathleen sebelius announced the creation of the health care fraud prevention and enforcement action team, this fight has been a cabinet level priority. over the last three years, the justice department has recovered a total of more than $10.2

billion in settlements, fines and forfeiture in health care fraud matters. our medicare strike forces have brought criminal charges against more than 800 defendants seeking to defraud medicare. these results and the ground for any resolution be announced today are extraordinary. they had been made possible by close and seamless coordination between states -- stake in agency partners here in washington and throughout the country. they demonstrate the fierce determination shared by every official, attorney and investigator who is -- who has contributed to these efforts to be relentless in the pursuit of those who break the law, to stop those who would endanger the health and safety of the american people, and to hold accountable those who violate the public trust by committing waste, fraud or abuse. let me be clear -- we will not

tolerate health care fraud. in every instance where we uncover it, we will use all are available tools to hold those responsible to account. before i turn over the podium to our next speaker, i want to acknowledge our colleagues in part meet -- partners at the department of health and human services, its office of inspector general, the fbi, the fda, the massachusetts medicare fraud control unit and all of our other federal and state partners who would make valuable contributions to this effort. i would also like to thank the u.s. attorney for the district of massachusetts who along with our outstanding staff have done in number of enormous things to make this historic settlement possible and for their longstanding commitment to eradicating health-care fraud. i also want to thank the u.s. attorney for the district of

colorado and his office for their significant contributions to this investigation into the off label promotion area. i would like to express my gratitude to the hard work of the civil division and the commercial litigation branch and consumer protection branch whose efforts have proved instrumental in advancing both of this investigation and other important ones like it. it is now my pleasure to introduce to you deputy secretary of health and human services, bill corr. >> thank you deputy attorney for your leadership and our continuing partnership to fight health-care fraud. i also want to abolish the team of people who bought us here today through their tenacious -- i also want to acknowledge the team of people who brought us here today to their to national leadership. the deputy attorney general has mentioned many of them. i also want to a knowledge and our hss inspector general, our

commissioner for regulatory operations and policy and our debbie directory -- our deputy director. this historic settlement is the latest milestone in a coordinated campaign to stamp out fraud in our health-care system. when president obama took office, he asked secretary sebelius, attorney general holder and our department's senior leaders to make fraud prevention it top priority. we have done so. in 2009 as deputy attorney general coel mentioned, we prevented the team. our departments are fighting a wide range of crimes against our health-care system. including marketing drugs and devices for off label use, under paying rebates to state medicaid programs and giving kickbacks to providers for prescribing one drug over another. abuses like these affect everyone.

when corporations misbrand a drug, manipulate prices, improperly influence doctors or keep critical safety information from the light of day, they betray people trust and confidence in the very care they count on to get well and to stay healthy. practices like these put our public health at risk, increased costs and undermined our health- care system. we are determined to bring them to a stop. over the last three years, we have increased enforcement in prosecutions, while recoveries have reached record levels. we are aggressively pursuing our responsibility to protect taxpayer dollars under the false claims act. we are protecting the health of americans by ensuring pharmaceutical companies do not hide from fda and the public funds it affects of their products as gsk did. for a long time, our health care

system has its target for cheaters who thought they could make a quick profit. thanks to settlements like the ones we are announcing here today, that equation is rapidly changing. we will remain vigilant in stopping such abuses and today's settlement is a testament to the collaboration between our department in the face of this urgent national challenge. together we are protecting the american taxpayer and all haircare system for the future. -- and our health care system for the future. it is now my pleasure to introduce the acting assistant general. >> thank you for the introduction and your efforts. at the deputy attorney general mentioned, today's $3 billion resolution resolved several major investigations of gsk. the global settlement resolves allegations relating to three major issues gsk.

will pay $1.8 billion to resolve federal and civil liability relating to practices including off label marketing. this includes $757 million in criminal fines from spreading the drugs paxil wellbutrin. and $1 billion to resolve civil allegations relating to of ribble promotions and the payment of kickbacks involving these and other drugs. the second investigation result today it relates to the diabetes drug avandia. gsk will pay a to hunter $43 million criminal fine for failing to report required safety data to fda. gsk will pay $657 million in a related -- to resolve issues

they made regarding the safety of avandia. the third investigation involves the underpaying every bit old under the medicaid drug rebate program. gsk will pay $300 million to resolve civil liability under the false claims act related to these allegations. in a moment, carmen ortiz will describe the conduct revealed by our investigations. today's resolution is significant not just because gsk's conduct was an egregious or because it is the largest health-care sediment in our history. health care fraud is an epidemic that touches every aspect of our lives. yet for far too long, have heard the pharmaceutical industry used these settlements at the cost of doing business. this administration is committed to using every available tool to defeat health care fraud. as we did with abbott

laboratories a few weeks ago, today's resolution six not only to punish wrongdoing and recover taxpayer dollars in but to ensure future compliance with the law. the corporate integrity agreement which department of health and human services will describe in a moment, exemplifies the best practices and compliance. both of that agreement and the plea agreement required the escape -- gsk to maintain certain policies the company has recently put into place. for the next five years, the plea agreement requires gsk to report to the department of justice any probable violations of the several food drug and cosmetic act concerning promotional activities and the port and obligations. gsk's u.s. president and board of directors must certify the company's compliance with the law every year. for every day that the

certification delay our policy is not maintained, gsk agrees to pay the government $20,000 a that the stipulated damages. the changes we are requiring a go a longehrhers will way to bring about much-needed change it in the way the pharmaceutical industry conducts business. because we know that many companies already play by the rules, these changes will help level the playing field and make clearer that there are no incentives to cut orders -- corners and good compliance is good business. i want to ask you -- echo the comments about the many public servants across the country who contributed to this matter. i want to recognize the dedicated attorneys, investigators and support staff in the civil division here in washington who are the backbone of all of our health care fraud enforcement efforts. now it is my pleasure to introduce the united states

attorney for the district of massachusetts, carmen ortiz. >> thank you. good morning. it is an honor and pleasure to be here and joined in this historic announcement. i would like to focus my comments ongsk's illegal -- on illegal activities. gsk paxil distributed with false and misleading labeling. they encouraged the use of paxil creek children dealing with depression with false messages about its safety and effectiveness. including ghost writing an article that ms. reported the results of a study -- that mis- reported the results of a study.

three studies conducted failed to demonstrate that paxil actually worked to treat depression in children. paxil has never been approved by the fda for any purpose to treat children or adolescents hundred the age of 18. gsk also misbranded wellbutrin by distributing it for unapproved uses such as weight loss, adhd, sexual misconduct and substance addiction as such as alcohol, drug are gambling problems. gsk paid millions of dollars to doctors who went on speaking tours in which they promoted wellbutrin. as if it was a wonder drug for uses that have not been approved or found to be safe and effective. gsk hired a public-relations firm to create a buzz about getting skinny and how you could

have more sex simply by using this drug, wellbutrin. gsk failed to report safety information about avandia. the fda uses it to determine if a drug contains to be safe for its patients. the missing information included data about studies done in response to european regulators concerns about the cardiovascular safety of avandia. since 2007, the fda has added to black box warnings to the avandia label about the potential increased risk of congestive heart failure, and possibly heart attacks. in the settlement, gsk is paying $686 million to resolve allocate -- allocation that it promoted its drug for asthma

patients for whom a was not recommended or approved as a first-line drug. the government alleges that gsk marketed it as superior for the first line use in certain mild asthma patients based on a study that the fda rejected. in marketing these and other drugs inc. into the civil settlement, gsk sales force private physicians to prescribe their products using every imaginable form of high-priced entertainment from hawaiian vacations to paying doctors millions of dollars to go on speaking tours to european pheasant hunt to tickets for concerts'. this is just to name a few. these allegations and others are detailed in the papers filed an unsealed today. in those documents, you will find many examples of gsk's misconduct including a dvd

showing senior executives in las vegas during a launch for advair who were motivating the sales force by asking who wants to be a millionaire? using a slot machine to illustrate how much money they could make in commission. the more they sold, the more they could make an gsk the more would make. this case is not just about punishment for past conduct but reforming of a company and industry to conserve health care dollars and insure better information and care for our patients today and is until the future. the hard work in this case cannot be understated. i want to congratulate the entire trial team, case team, including my own staff, especially assistant u.s. attorney susan winkler and sarah bloom as well as my colleague

from colorado and the terrific staff he had on this case. and the department of justice's civil division for their great work and efforts. i am proud to be a member of this team. i thank you for your attention. i would like to introduce inspector general dan levinson. >> thank you, u.s. attorney carmen ortiz. patients rely on fda rules designed to ensure drugs are safe and effective. these rules must be followed so that patients interests are concerned. glaxosmithkline admitted misbranding of paxil is a stark example of the importance of these rules. this unlawful promotion put children at risk of taking drugs

that were on proven to be effective for them and had been shown to increase the risk of suicide. millions of elderly, needy and disabled americans rely on all -- medicare and medicaid to help pay for their prescription drugs. it is imperative that the funding for these vital programs be used to provide needed care to patients. this investigation and then -- and today's resolution help achieve both goals. this unprecedented $3 billion resolution and the guilty plea sends an important message. we will not stand by while drug marketing and safety rules are violated, kickbacks are paid for medicaid is cheated out of rebates to which taxpayers are entitled. moving forward, we need to ensure that glaxosmithkline gets it right. so that inappropriate corporate gains are not born on the backs of taxpayers and are most

vulnerable patients and so that doctors have accurate information about drugs and prescribe them to patients for the right medical reasons. to that end, oig is entering a five-year integrity agreement with glaxosmithkline that includes provisions designed to foster individual accountability by the company and its board and to increase transparency about the company's research and its relationship with positions. the agreement addresses financial incentives for sales representatives, their managers and key executives. sales representatives are being paid based on the quality of service they deliver to customers, not on sales targets. the company may recoup performance bonuses from executives if they or their subordinates engaged in severe misconduct. the goal is to create incentives for sales representatives and executives to do the right thing.

oig is committed to our mission of protecting federal health- care programs and overseeing the rules in place to protect all patients. i commend oig's special agents and attorneys for carrying through on our commitments. i also extend my thanks to our partners in the department of justice and the united states attorney's offices, both in massachusetts and colorado. our colleagues at the food and drug administration and the many federal and state agencies to work together to protect our nation's patients and our federal health-care programs. thank you. mr. deputy attorney general. >> thanks very much. we are ready to take any questions you might have. >> what are the consequences for the physicians accepting kickbacks and bribes? >> we are here to comment on

this one case. we are not here to comment on any other matter is that maybe still being looked into. >> in addition to the financial penalties, isn't there some deterrence in finding individual executives and putting them possibly in jail. is there any criminal sanctions here that can lead to any jail time for anyone down the line? >> we are not here to talk about other cases that may or may not be undergoing. we cannot talk about investigations or whether or not investigations occur. as a general proposition, there is a deterrent effect from prosecuting individuals as well as corporations. >> you have an estimate as to how much the company profited

over the years? >> i do not think we have a firm number on that. a cumbersome -- covers a number of years. >> there is a view with in the industry that these types of settlements are essentially cut the cost of doing business. you have a response to that? that they can still make a profit in factor this into those profits? question one of the things you need to keep in mind over long amount of time, this is hitting them here this year. this is a big effect on this year's profit. this is quite an impact on the company. $3 billion is a major financial impact in a single year. >> to supplement, i think it is important to frock -- focus on the integrity agreement going forward. the way in which the roadmap is being changed. the way in which incentives are being built into future business

arrangements. the possibility now of recouping in a corporate compensation for executives and managers through a federal sanction, mandated process that the corporation will oversee. the opportunity to change lets it in terms of the accountability and transparency for now and the future is an extremely important part of the global settlement. >> the conduct took place from 1998 until 2003 for paxil. did any contact go past 2007 or was it all over? is there any ongoing investigations into company executives? >> we did not comment on

whether not investigations are ongoing so we cannot answer that. as far as how long it took -- >> you'll find some of the details in the papers but some of the con but went as late as 2010 and the rebate issue covered a large span of time as well. >> i heard that some of his conduct service within the company and had been and i waited in the company did not do anything about it. is that the case? are you confident that the integrity agreement and sanctions will be enough to send a message? >> i think it is going to -- they will abide by it. the convent -- there's

overlapping medications as you can tell from the different prescription drugs involved here and during the time frames. given the criminal penalties, the civil fines as well and the fact that now people have signed off, the board of the president know they are on watch so that they cannot just allow this kind of conduct to happen. and not be held accountable for it in some format or another. they just cannot -- conduct that goes on during their watch, they will be held responsible for. that is what they're signing off on. >> you have information as to how many people were affected by this? >> i did not think we have a firm number on that. >> in the whistle blowers and compensation they are expecting to receive? >> i think it is still subject to litigation. >> this is the largest

settlement of its type. how would you describe the extent of the misconduct? is this the most misconduct you have ever seen at a pharmaceutical company? >> i will refer that to -- >> we have seen an unfortunate amount in a variety of contexts with respect to rebate issues as well as the off label marketing problems. this is one of the very big cases. we have focused on this case. i emphasize the importance of the integrity agreement which is on our website. i believe it might be on the justice the part of website as well. run's over 100 pages and provides an important detail in creating what i think is a very new significant road map toward greater accountability and transparency in these areas. >> if i can ask a question on

the fast and furious matter. can you give a general sense as what would or would not have been found in this document? lawmakers are gearing up for a fight in civil court. what is the justice department doing to get ready for that? >> the documents that are issued are not the documents concerning the actual fast and furious investigation. all of those documents were turned over. these are just documents that occurred well after the fact. they concerned internal communications in the justice department about how we would be responding to the congressional questions. that is all. these are things we offered in an accommodation to try to give to congress in return for just having to satisfy the subpoena. we never asked them to stop their investigation. as far as what happened, it is up to the house to initiate it. we will see what they do.

>> could you speak to how close you are to any civil criminal settlements? >> american samoa i am sure you understand, and the supplement our discussion of it is not something i can go into. >> a question about the wildfires. is there any indication that they may have been started by a crime? >> we are working closely with federal and state and local law- enforcement agencies to determine whether there is any intentional human involvement in these fires. i really cannot comment on whether those investigations are -- >> it is at the top of our to do list.

>> thank you everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> on washington journal tuesday, a discussion of the supreme court ruling on the 2010 health-care law. then john of the american association of state highway and transportation officials talks about the transportation bill that was passed by congress last week. later, a series of international news bureau's continues with it washington bureau chief. washington journal, every morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. tuesday, the brookings institution hosts discussion on the current situation in afghanistan. looking at development and

government and future international financial support. you can see it live starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span to. -- c-span2. >> saturday at noon eastern. literary life with book to be on c-span2. gene carnahan on family life and said the governor's mansion. from her book "if walls could talk." from a to mesopotamia to the university of missouri's special collection, the story behind babylonian tablets. on american history tv. >> at one time in 1967, this was the bloodiest 47 acres in america. >> if formal boarded takes you through the historic missouri state penitentiary. what dr. history -- cspan

explores the history and literary life of cities across the country. this weekend from jefferson city. saturday at noon and sunday on the day at 5:00. >> the cato institute hosted a discussion on the supreme court ruling upholding the 2010 health-care law. attorneys discussed the rulings implications for the state -- for the constitutional powers. >> good afternoon. welcome to the cato institute. i am the director of the center for constitutional studies, which is hosting this panel of

this to panel program. this program for the benefit of our c-span audience is subtitled -- entitled the ruling, what does it all mean? this panel will be discussing the scope of constitutional powers as the next panel will be discussing the substance of the matter where we go from here as a matter of health care policy. like so many you heard the oral argument in the obamacare litigation in late march, described by -- as a train wreck for the administration, we were taken aback and stunned by the supreme court post a decision last thursday of holding obamacare's individual mandate. taxing power. no one had taken that arguments

seriously. many still cannot. but chief justice roberts did and the courts four liberal justices said it worked for the chief, it will work for us. whatever our reservations may be. we are here now to dissect this decision. unlike as with our normal practice, we decided even before the decision came down that we would do so not with a pro and con panel but with people who share roughly the same views. we did so because we want to try to zero in on this decision to drop out all or as much as we can in the time we have to do so. let me proceed now to introduce our panel. i will introduce each speaker before he speaks, starting with randy barnett. he is -- i will give a brief

introduction to each speaker because there bios are long. randy barnett is the waterhouse professor of legal theory at georgetown university law center where he teaches constitutional law and contract. he has also taught the words -- cyber law and jurisprudence. he has been a visiting professor at the university of pennsylvania, northwestern and harvard law in 2008 he was awarded the guggenheim fellowship in constitutional studies. he's a graduate of northwestern university and harvard law school. after graduating from harvard, he served as a prosecutor in the cook county state's attorney's office. in 2004, he appeared before the u.s. supreme court to argue the medical canada's case in --

medical cannibus case. for reasons that were not at all his fault, the court erred again. he wrote a brief in texas as well. he is the author of a"the presumption of liberty." and many other books. and articles. would you please welcome randy barnett? [applause] >> thank you. it is always a pleasure to be here. i think i have been here on happier days. i have been involved in this case challenging the affordable care act since before the law was enacted in 2009 when i wrote

a heritage foundation legal memorandum on the on constitutionality of the individual mandate. the only person who was been involved longer than i have identified the constitutionality of this bill and the idea of an individual mandate is my colleague david rivkin who wrote "wall street journal" piece that got me thinking about the constitutional questions in this case. the decision did not go the way we hoped it would. this was a crushing blow. to liberty and to myself. i was pretty devastated by the loss and i am still devastated by the loss. i want to sit up front because i will say some positive things -- i want to say that up front because i will say some positive things about the case and i do not want to be deemed as giving

an unrealistic view. it was a bad day and a bad law but because it was a bad day and a bad loss is not mean a could not have been worse. because it could have been. i think under circumstances like this to engage it into a kind of extreme doom and gloom that denies the stuff that we accomplished while still bemoaning what we failed to accomplish is actually to give the other side a bigger victory then they in fact obtain. that is what i want to emphasize today. i want to suggest that there were actually -- the reason why this case was so big and historic and why the supreme court granted an historic three days of oral arguments is because there were two huge issues on the table. the first was on obamacare. on the issue of whether the

government in this country would control our medical care. and if the government does control our medical care, i believe as do others, that will fundamentally alter the relationship that individual to the government and change our form of government to one more closely approximating order -- western europe. i do not have anything against western europe. i like going there. they have nice buildings and the food is good. but that does not mean i necessarily want to live under their political system. a social welfare, social democracy. if this particular bill was to remain a law, i believe that is the inevitable outcome. so that was huge. the second huge thing on the table with a small was the constitution of the united states. our constitutional form of government.

this is been the principal this country has stood for from its founding. in principle the supreme court has never denied and often the firm. it did not deny it in the new deal or broiling the court or during the great society. it has never denied it. if the individual mandate which is the core of this bill which was enacted by congress under its commerce clause authority was going to be upheld a in this case under the commerce clause authority, the theories by which it was going to be upheld were going to emanate. the theory under which this could be regulated into the commerce power, anything could be regulated into the commerce power. essentially what we would have would be in national power's cost -- and national problems klaus. -- clause.

i have been debating with them for two years and this is what i hear from the other side. essentially the commerce clause gives congress the power to address and a national problem. that was at stake constitutionally. let me say what we thought was going to happen. everybody was surprised by what happened. everyone assumed, including those on the other side, that we would either win on both issues are loose on both issues. in order to prevail in -- and our challenge to the constitutionality of the individual mandate, we would have to prevail on our commerce clause issue. but at the lost, that would necessarily mean we would have to lose our commerce clause theory. therefore we would lose both our challenge to obamacare and our

effort to preserve the enumerated powers scheme of the constitution. we would have a lost on the medical care issue and on the constitution. everybody assumed this is what would happen. even all law professors who said this is justified under the tax authority, not one of them said it was only justified under a city construction of the statute under the tax power but on constitutional under the commerce clause agreed not one of them took up position. everyone of them said it was constitutional on the congress and tax power which is not what was decided. now let's talk about what was decided. what was decided last week is that there are 5 and vote for the proposition that every law professor on the other side said was privileged when we went into this debate. that is that there are limited enumerated powers. that the individual insurance

mandate as drafted exceed the limit of congress. that the commerce clause is restricted to regulating commerce or activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and it is not reached an activity. it does not reach people who are not doing anything. it is not give congress the power to mandate economic activity to then regulate it. that is what the court decided. five votes. that was the position that 99.9% of law experts said was a frivolous position. their position that congress had an unlimited power to address national problems. that position commanded at best for votes. if we are told that the meaning of the constitution is not the original meaning of the constitution which is what i maintain what is what what we

did what the supreme court says, if that is what we're told by those who believed in the living constitution, under the old rules of engagement, we have five votes for the proposition that both the government is of limited enumerated powers and that the congress klaus is restricted and that the individual insurance mandate exceeded that restriction. i consider that to be major. the alternative would have been worse. i do not think it is spinning. i do not think it is putting an unrealistic clause on what happened. if you are in a war and you were in a big battle and you lost but during the course of the battle you gained terrain, at the end of the day after having lost that battle, would you then surrender that serena you gained? -- that terrain youi gained?

nobody would do that. we actually lose constitutional law on the books in a positive direction because the position that had not been affirmed was not on the books but that does so explicit a firm -- form that law professors could say that is the least a reasonable position. they said it was not even a reasonable position. now it is the law. orlov five justices. so that is where we are. -- or the law of five justices. so that is where we are. where do we go from here? david will talk about the tax power issue because that is obviously what is on your mind. i did not have time in my remarks to talk about it. i can mention it in the follow- up period.

so where do we go from here? the way this happened is highly significant. imagine the are -- in 1935. the supreme court strikes down the minimum wage law by a 5-4 vote. what is coming after that? 1937. when as a result of public pressure, and the democratic administration, the new deal is reauthorize a different version up held by a 5-4 vote based on another switch. we could be in 1935. only our position is the position that could conceivably emerge later. for the first time in my lifetime, the american people -- the people who are engaged in public affairs and people who follow these things. the american people have been following this case said before

-- the american people have been following. they were a dent -- in case. they were aware and a majority of them thought the affordable care act was unconstitutional and a majority of them thought the supreme court would find it unconstitutional. they were deeply disappointed by what happened last week. that is a fact. now what happens? i do not believe the meaning of the constitution changes. but the meaning of constitutional law, the substance of constitutional law, of course that changes. how does the supreme court changed? it changes the same way it has always changed. president nominates, an elected president nominates and an elected senate confirms the next justice. then the question is which justices do you pick for the next justice? that will be determined by an election. here is the reason why if i had to choose which of those two

things we were fighting, obamacare are to preserve the constitution, if i had to choose -- >> we could only tax if you do not do it. >> if you tax me in order to make we choose this, here is what i would have chosen. i think i would have chosen the constitution. because it is within the power of the electorate to reverse of what -- obamacare. it is something that can be done and we have an election ready to do that. the timing of this was quite good for that. but it would be next to impossible to adverse an adverse ruling about the constitution that we were expecting it for loss on obamacare to read that would take generations. as it is, we made good law as opposed to that law on the constitution. what we learned is five votes on the supreme court is not enough. five justices are not enough you need more. if you only have five, somebody breaks.

as the result, this election will not only be about obamacare but this election is also going to be about the supreme court. this election will be about what the president to commit himself to nominating people for the supreme court that will lead in the written constitution and the enumerated powers contained therein and have the courage to uphold the constitution when pressure is brought to bear upon them. in other words, who have a judicial character as well as a judicial commitment. that is what this election should also be about. if it is, if the american people are so upset or offended by what happened last week -- and this is made into that issue so that the next president doesn't nominate better justices then have been nominated that the

past, we could be standing at the threshold of a constitutional moment. in which from now on, justices will be selected because they are committed to the written constitution and it will be selected because they have the character to resist pressure to the contrary. that happens, will look back upon this day at the turning point that was actually necessary to occur. and my predicting it will happen? no. i am not. it is not optimistic in that sense. i did not predict the way this case would come out and i'm not predicting the way the election will come out or what a republican president and republican senate would do if a won. an election is a prerequisite to a constitutional moment and the seeds of a constitutional moment have been sold by our law challenge and by the ruling this week and by the way that ruling was made.

as a result of that, there is reason for hope and it is counterproductive for conservatives and libertarians to be completely pessimistic and have nothing but doom and gloom about what happens or what it is likely to happen. now is the time to hitch up and go to town and ensure that this potential for a constitutional moment takes place. that is in fact is our 1935 and what is coming is going to be our 1937. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for the upbeat reaction to the opinion. we will hear now on the tax issue from david rivkin, an

international environment group who cochairs the major motions team. he has had extensive experience in constitutional law litigation. he's been involved in numerous high-profile cases. he represented the 26 states that challenged the constitutionality of obamacare. he was the lead outside counsel in the district court in the court of appeals in the 11th circuit in that litigation. he also represented the republic of croatia before the international criminal tribunal, the former yugoslavia for a number of years on a wider range of issues involving humanitarian law and the laws of war. he is also a considerably experienced with litigation

involving national security matters including defendant -- defending actions brought against don rumsfeld. he served as an expert member indicted nations sub commission on the promotion and protection of human rights. he is a recipient of numerous academic and professional awards, including phi alpha theta, the alfrea thayer award for the best maritime article in 1984 and the burton award in 2011. he is a prolific writer and commentary. you have seen his articles in " the washington post," the "new york times" and elsewhere. he is a graduate of columbia law school. please welcome david rivkin.

[applause] >> thank you for reminding me how old i really am. going back to some professional endeavors and in the 1980's. i am torn about how i feel about the case. on one level, i agree with randy. that the commerce clause portion of the case is superb. not only in terms of the outcome but in terms of restoring, refocusing attention. on the core structural separation of powers division. randy has done a great job covering that. it is not only the big picture but the language of that to which the court majority has rejected the theories that obamacare had been advancing for

over two years is wonderful, and build upon where justice kennedy concurrence was. probably one of the most rousing discussions. i cannot be happier than that. it is particularly good on the necessary and proper clause which is not the case -- which is not as abundant as the commerce clause which fell from the one -- day one. the necessary improper klaus has not been as well plowed -- clause has not been as well plowed. what bothers me and what i am not as cheerful as i would have liked to be it's not just the

loss. i agree about the constitution versus the practical impact of decision in striking are not striking down obamacare. this case has never been about health care to me. to me this case was about individual liberty and the structure of constitution and the fate of obamacare and policy implications have been secondary. what troubles me greatly is there is a considerable attention. i do not think any of us on this panel would disagree. there is serious tension because while the roberts opinion particulates the need for the federal government to exercise enumerated powers -- each power has to have a meaningful judicial enforceable limiting principle. that is an opinion.

some of us to talk about it before have made the dramatic impact a point that it is not only the case that congress cannot exercise and police powers of the commerce clause by itself. it cannot do so on the basis of all article one powers. at one level, the opinion recognizes that but then we have a problem with the taxing power which is what i will send the balance of my time talking about. you have read some discussions about it, including a piece in a journal."all street the one i am not as exercised about is the fact that chief justice roberts wrote the law. he did not interpret the language that congress enacted.

he wrote it. at the front end, it took nancy pelosi -- her immortal statement about passing along to figure out what is in it. rewriting the law is not justified by the constitutional deference. it is not justified by going to the nth degree to parse the words to save it from oblivion. that is clearly not a judicial function. that is unfortunate but that is a one-off perhaps. what troubles me far more is the way he received taxing power mkes it -- makes it -- to get at that, let me remind you that we

do need a meaningful limiting principle for each enumerated powers. but they are not the same for a number of them. with regard to a taxing power -- the framers were very concerned about taxes. they wanted to have formidable limitations. in recognizing that the federal government needed taxing power, it was a confederation that -- the framers wanted some serious restrictions on the taxing power. the power that particularly bothered them were not indirect tases -- taxes. if you hike up the price of excess tax on coffee or fire arms, people would not by them but the opportunity will be to

fame. -- would be a tipping point. the framers were concerned about direct powers which if you think about it, power to tax individuals -- they exist. those of us who have been dealing with the difference suggest it can change very easily into general police power. the framers understood that. they came up with a couple of ways of disciplining the exercise of direct taxing. one of them is an obscure term that only happened once, maybe twice in our history.

the basic proposition is that while the tax is the same, the way it would be structured -- each state would have resigned -- have a signed target. the idea was that the larger state would find it particularly difficult to vote for such a thing because as a symbolic matter, it would look like, if he were a large state, we would have to tell constituents that it seems like your state is paying a lot more curious -- more. justice roberts and correctly concluded -- incorretly concluded that this is not a direct tax. he did not point out what kind of indirect tax it is.

contrary to the opinion, this is a tax that is triggered by you having an income. for a vast majority of taxpayers, this argument was made early on litigation, it ist measured by income, and is measured to your ascension to wealth. it is not an excise tax. there is a passage, where you read the opinion about the tax on gasoline, but the point is taxes on gasoline, taxes on a commodity, on the excise taxes, it is exactly the same as things that can be reached through the commerce clause. if we can envision it for a

second, you can attack somebody for an absence of gasoline? you cannot tax somebody for purchasing broccoli. by the way, if you did that, that would be fine. and access tax on broccoli. the notion that this is an excise tax does not pass the test. in an effort to help get around the issue of why it is not a direct tax, i promise to spare you the case names, he basically says taxes are only imposed on individuals without any regard to circumstances. the circumstance they're talking about is really a profession. under his logic, if the excise tax is imposed on americans at

the same time, it would be a direct tax. let's do another experiment. let's put it in three pieces. let's say on pregnant women and then on all women and then on all men. since it would be without regard to the circumstances, in three stages, you can impose a tax on everybody. it does not work. it is badly written and badly conceived. there is something that is also slightly less optimistic. again, to save you from reference to early cases, he basically says, look. i understand that this tax has a regulatory impact, and they're used to be days where we had wary about regulatory impact, and he leaves it at that. there is a very elegant pivot,

elegant on in the sense that it is drafted eloquently. going back to the very fundamentals about which randy and i were talking about, if you can have a tax or a substantial regulatory impact, and you care not all about the regulatory impacts, the court is not looking at it. you're going to have a tax that would accomplish the same general police power-type interest, but the necessary and proper cause can accomplish it. it is very easy to stipulate how that can happen. you can have dozens of other mandates all of which are backed up by the regulatory penalties, and it is interesting. justice roberts in an effort to disclaim that outcome talks about his senate factors, the necessary and proper clause. he says it is really money, and

monday -- and money -- there are some aspects of human behavior that cannot be monetized, but 99% of the time, people believe in the market forces. there is absolutely no difference between mandating the use of broccoli and penalizing you for not doing that to the tune of, i do not know, $500, and taxing you if you do not buy broccoli. now, before i stop, let me try to defend it a little bit perhaps, and this is something that several of us have pointed out by now. perhaps the chief justice figured out that by having this type of approach, a tax, he is providing the accountability that the politicians have not seen fit to provide at the front and.

we have talked about increasing taxes, a tax credit that accomplishes the same result. the politicians disclaim resolutely, including president obama, nancy pelosi, senate majority reader -- leader harry reid. that tax word has political connotations. maybe that is the reason for his optimism. he is making it difficult to argue the police power. the commerce clause would just be more difficult, more onerous. that was a possibility for the first few hours, when i noticed a strange thing, ladies and gentlemen. have you noticed how this administration has been able to maintain as per statements by both the president as well as the very same nancy pelosi, as

well as the white house chief of staff and many other folks, i will not spend my weekend looking at the sunday shows, their point is that it is a penalty. we now have a strange results. it is a tax for constitutional purposes but a penalty for political purposes. so the chief justice was really planning to use the tax court as a way of making this a foray into general police power more, i wonder if he succeeded. the problem is, even if he is right, a whole thrust has been to say it cannot be just political obstacles. my good friend paul clement who argued this before the supreme court made the point that it is pointing to the in permissibly. the separation of powers

relating to states sovereignty. it did not have to be enforced. it is a very narrow situation. and you cannot have a fundamental part of the separation of powers with political means, and that is what we are talking about. it is purely political means. and the chief talks about his own limiting factors. the amount of the levee is reasonable. what is reasonable? is there any constitutional basis, i would ask any of my colleagues, that would not be reasonable? and then he is talking about enforcing it with the irs. you can also have mandates for the internal revenue code, and then the point that it is somehow less destructive, less onerous if done as a tax. back to my point, a penalty for

not buying broccoli is no different. so we are left with a situation of this opinion plus the medicaid stuff, but a very, very dangerous deconstruction of the taxing power, and it contains no judicially enforceable limiting factors, and it provides for an opportunity to get at this by other means. let me just finish by giving you one more scenario. nothing would prevent the government, and actually stronger in this case, to have a true tax. imagine a situation where the government taxes everybody at 99%, and then there are 500 provisions in the tax code that says, "if you buy this, you get a tax break. if you buy this, you get a tax break."

this is about the government controlling your behavior. there is a regulatory impact of these provisions. this is very difficult for me to swallow. at least the opportunity for this type of morphing is inherent, unfortunately, in the chief justice's opinion. thank you. >> thank you, david. you give your money to the government, and if you bought a house, you get a tax credit, and we have come to that largely. >> as a matter of quality, not yet. >> in time. >> and that is why it is dangerous. >> ok. we are going to wrap up with the senior fellow in constitutional studies here at the cato institute and who is editor in

chief of the supreme court review which will be out in just another 2.5 months, the first scholarly review of the court's term, and this will be a big one because there were many important decisions that came down this term. before joining the kindle institute, he was an adviser to the multinational force in iraq on the rule of law issues, and he practiced international political commercial and antitrust litigation at a firm. he, like our other two guests, is a prolific writer. he has concluded to a variety of publications, including "the wall street journal," "the l.a. times, and "the harvard review," and he has been on many programs, including "the call their report -- "the colbert

report," and he was a clerk for the fifth circuit. please welcome him. [applause] >> thank you very much. it is a pleasure to be on this august panel. they are the progenitors, and "the new york times" call them the godfathers of this litigation. it has been an honor watching them work and seeing it develop and trying to do what bill ikea the challenges and try to restore the constitution. in fact, perhaps the greatest honor i had during this whole thing was being randy's lawyer

in this whole thing in the fact that before he joined the council table in the state's challenge, he was a fellow amicus, a friend of the court, and joining the k2 institute on a number of reits that i was privileged to sign off on. this has been a fascinating journey, and randy is right. -- joining the cato institute on a number of briefs. never did i think i could feel this hollow. i filed four breeds at the supreme court. the majority did not contradict anything i said in any of those briefs. luckily, i was not one of those

amici that was taxed with doing it. i was there in the court on thursday. it was frightening. i understand why fox news and cnn got it wrong immediately. i think all of us did sitting in the court as we heard chief justice roberts, on so passionately about why there are actually a limit on the commerce clause. the language is incredible. the founders gave the ability to regulate the commerce clause, not to mandate it. even if the individual mandate is necessary, such an expansion of federal power is not a proper means for making those reforms effective. those could have come from any of my breeds or ran these writings or david oral arguments.

-- this could have come from any of my breach. -- breeks -- briefs. i was not quite sure what was going on. ultimately, i think it was a political decision. it is really hard to make sense of the chief justice's opinion. it seems he made this tactical decision for something, as in the famous film "a man for all seasons." purge yourself and your legal sold to get something else. here, i am not sure what she'd justice roberts is saving his court for, and this may jeopardize my future availability for something, but let me move to what i actually supposed to talk about here. this is the other big win, perhaps the biggest winner and

may turn out to be the biggest thing that this case is remembered for. for the first time in modern jurisprudence, that is since the new deal, the court found a federal law unconstitutional as succeeding congresses spending power. the question that the court asks, and this goes back decades to the new deal era is whether the financial inducements offered by congress is so coercive as to pass the point of which pressured turns into a compulsion. that is, in our federal system, the federal government cannot mandate states and their officials to enact or enforce federal law and federal regulations. the court upheld that as recently as 1992 and 1997. they cannot commandeers state officials to do federal building. randy transformed that idea into common during the individual.

it is not just to the states but to the people. congress is common during the people to do its bidding. but nevertheless, on this medicate part, what the court held in agreeing with the states' claims is that congress violated the constitution pertaining to all of the federal funding that went to the states. all of that funding would be lost if they did not accept the new regulations, the new expansion of medicaid that is required under obamacare. the court said that congress can offer the state's -- states grants, but the states have to have genuine choice. with medicaid, in which they are

inextricably intertwined, or lose funding. they are effectively between a rock and a hard place. rather than striking down all of the medicaid expansion, by the way, seven justices agreed that it was unconstitutional. seven justices. including chief justice -- including justice briar -- breyer. seven justices found this unconstitutional. but, again, the remedy after fineness and constitutionality by the five justices, the four dissenters dropped off, the

other republican appointees dropped off, and the liberals joined on with this remedy, it basically writing this provision, rather than making it all or nothing, it is voluntary. states can choose the new funds if they are now also willing to accept and expansions and regulations assisted with those funds, or they can keep what was in place before obamacare. this seems to throw off a whole transformation. much as not quite as the mandate in title 1, but certainly this title ii stuff is hard to reconcile. they were talking about with respect to the individual mandate, but your the chief justice re-wrote the medicaid expansion and then applied the severability clause. what do they call it?

rather than a severability, and validation clause effectively. an expansion mets as a part of this provision is found unconstitutional, the rest can stand. but this was a we written sort of thing that was standing. -- a rewritten sort of thing. this is to provide for the general welfare of the united states. the first clause. it says they of long recognize that they can use this power to grant items. taking certain actions that congress cannot require them to take. because this was in nature of the contrast, jim, most notably,

who is going to be writing this, he is a vanderbilt law professor, congress, the federal government is effectively breaking its contract were trying to impose an unconscionable contract of adhesion, as lawyers would call in private law, but here, the state signed up for one type of program, and they are being forced into another. the last state to join was arizona. clearly what was in place even then, let alone what was there. it is different in this new transformation. pregnant women and dependent children, the elderly and the disabled. here we have an expansion and a whole host of other requirements.

this rests on what might seem to be a counterintuitive inside, the creation of two governments, not one. this is to preserve and protect liberty. when pressure turns into a compulsion, this was echoing the 1937 case that i was talking about that was also quoted in the last eighth regarding this clause. this runs contrary. it does not give congress the authority for congress to regulate. controlling the use of the federal funds. you can have an inducement, and encouragement, for the states to join those programs. but not pressure them.

here, the induce managers and is much more than mild encouragement. it is a gun to the head. congress may not simply construct -- conscripts straight -- state agencies into a bureaucratic army. and i will leave you with this. what is the test? of the medicaid expansion, the spending clause, the jurisdiction, we are left with a panoply of factors which we will be grappling with the next time some health-care, environmental, social security, or other program starts in treating or being unduly pressuring towards states. the court frame the issue as to whether a state has a legitimate choice as to whether to accept the conditions in exchange for federal funds, and there are four factors. there is the size of the grant. here, maybe something more than

10% of a state's total budget versus one half of 1% with the highway funds. second, whether the conditions make a lot in reality a new program or simply a modification of the old one, then whether they are threatened with state loss of funds or a choice about new sources of revenue, and finally, with the traditions are ones that govern the use of funds or that take the form to determine other significant independent grants as a means of pressuring states to accept policy changes. yes, there are line drawing problems with this. yes, there can be coercion by the spending clause, and this is beyond, and these are the guidelines for the courts in the future to evaluate the challenges. i think i will leave it there. again, once obamacare, the

policy issues, and my health- care colleagues in the next panel will discuss those, but as we move forward constitutionality and would jurisprudence and what is done with other programs, it could be done as soon as dodd-frank, which was filed a few weeks ago. these are what we're going to remember from this case. obamacare is upheld, and that is certainly a big loss for health care for the economy, but i agree with randy. i am not sure how much power a political decision will have, but certainly on the necessary and proper clause, and especially this will put in place, underlining is -- this. it really was breaking new ground and imposing new limits on federal power, which is what the challenge was all about. thank you.

>> thank you. now we're going to be having some discussion among the panelists before return to questions from the audience. let me begin by asking randy. granted that the decision accomplished putting a brake on the commerce clause, no longer can it be used to compel people to engaging commerce, but how much of a gain was that? as far as anyone could tell, congress never engaged in any such command as this. it is highly unusual. secondly, the decision did not at all address the massive expansion of the commerce clause power that has followed the new deal, a constitutional

revolution that you spoke about, so it is not really from that perspective a relatively small victory? admittedly, it is a victory against the academics, with him you so often dispute, because they would have had the full commerce clause jurisprudence that the act sought, but in the actual world, is it that much of a game? >> that is all we were ever going to win. if we won the case. i have said this for two years. we are saying there is a line beyond which congress has ever gone before. if we win this case, we will never be able to do it again. and only one law would be affected, and that is the affordable care act. that was all we were going to get if we won the case, and we got that, so i agree with how

you're characterizing it, but i do not think if you measure it against the realistic assessment of what we were going to get -- i always couple that point with another point, and that is what this case would stand for symbolically is the enumerated powers scheme of article one, and that we also got, so we got that, too. we got the affirmation of the principal, and we got the specifics. that is all we were going to get if we won the case. i want to talk about the tax power, because i really do agree with almost everything david said, but i want to propose a thought experiment to you. my position all day has been it could be worse, a lot worse. that is the so-called optimistic scenario. "it could have been worse." let me just explain. imagine what the drug laws, the national drug laws, the controlled-substance act, actually enforced under the tax

power, what would happen that would be different? well, what would happen is we would empty the penitentiaries of millions of incarcerated individuals. that is what would happen. if we actually could turn the drug laws into tax law as opposed to commerce-power regulations, we would fundamentally altered drug policy in this country in a libertarian direction. it would not be a libertarian outcome, because you would still have to pay a fine, but there is a big difference between paying a fine and taking adult males away from their families and destroying the family structures in certain communities in this country, so it would be huge. i am just giving you a practical, real-world reason why this could be less dangerous than the commerce power. i did not always believe that. for the whole first year of this, and i published, as david said, and i think it was probably in the heritage foundation paper, and it may

also have been in my law review article, it would be more dangerous, because it would be unlimited and allow basically congress to have a plenary power. that is what i said. it would be more dangerous, more abroad, more open ended, but i was actually convinced otherwise when i attended one of the oral arguments, and the judge from the d.c. circuit said that the commerce clause is more dangerous because they could put you in jail, and with a tax penalty, you just pay the fine, and that changed my view about that. i think in that sense, the tax power is less dangerous. secondly, we all know that taxes are toxic, which is why the administration is now doing a dance about why this is taxed or not, and chief justice roberts also included in his opinion that i agree with david is a difficult line to draw. he said, look, if the penalty becomes too high, they may rein

in, and i am not saying that is something they may necessarily do. this goes to the legitimacy of this decision. the only part of the decision which is bad for us, which is the tax power decision. what kind of a decision was this? we all know what kind of a decision this was. before the reporting took place yesterday, it this was a political decision on the part of a swing vote. now we are in doubt from yesterday's reporting that indeed, we won this case after oral arguments. i don't know if all of you read this. cbs reported that she justice roberts changed his vote after conference. we walked out thinking we had one. we walked out thinking we had done well. then friday the supreme court had a conference and we won the conference vote. sometime after that, weeks after

that, the beginning of next week, the president of the united states began to attack the supreme court for how oral arguments had gone. he began to inject politics into the delivery processes of the supreme court because the case had already been submitted. then every major democratic spokesperson, many major folks entered the fray and argued about why chief justice roberts should rule a certain way, culminating in senator pat leahy making a for speech about it. now we find out, which we didn't know, that we had won the case in congress and we lost the case later after that pressure was brought to bear.

what difference does it make? first of all, the case is lost. obamacare is up help. what is the presidential wake of the decision? my suggestion to you is that with any kind of political change in our culture, this decision, the tax part of this decision is not long for this world. it can be easily limited and reversed. it will not be a ladweighty precedent. if we don't change our political culture, if it does not change as a result of this decision and as a result of the fact that we now have the political route to eliminate obamacare, tax

penalties on consumption and broccoli will be the least of our problems. i would not be all that concerned about that. first things first. if we do change the political culture, this decision that we got last week will not pose a barrier to forward progress in limiting the powers of the federal goal -- powers of the federal government. >> i don't disagree with randy and there are some respects in which the commerce clause is more impressive. i think that is one of the points the chief justice made in trying to distinguish between the two. on balance, if the choice was between the opinion we got and an opinion that pivoted of the administration views of the commerce clause, of course i prefer the opinion we got. call me greedy, but i would like to have the good parts of the opinion it rule out the bad

ones. overall of that with you, that leaving aside a few aspects of criminal behavior were criminalization versus penalty is different, including the drug laws that randy mentioned, one of the reasons i felt we were in danger, what did we really stop? this is the first time this kind of purchase mandate was put forward. if you look back in history, everything was done for the first time at some point in time. the reason the mandate were so in city is, and i wish we had -- were so insidious, and i wish we had more time to talk about it, we have a mature welfare state that is straining under the weight of its own economic and political problems. we of thing would happen in europe and rising debt, not

enough job creation, it is the irresistible temptation for the political class to fob off with a very clever man day. the reason the mandate came about is because of agreed to provide -- the need to provide a cross subsidy, and talk about fairness and personal responsibility. if you think about other -- dozens of other instances where such a mandate would be very tempting to politicians. so the danger was real. i agree with randy that the danger has been averted as far as the commerce clause. unfortunately, in almost all those circumstances, because we are not talking about drugs here, we are talking about crop subsidies. the same danger exists relative to the taxing power. it is more modest, but it is still real.

i will close my answer by saying one thing. those of you familiar with constitutional history, it is interesting. if you look at how the federal government has tried over more than a century to exercise police power, it has alternated with a taxing power and the commerce clause. it really went back and forth. look at the early 19th century were congress comes in and tries to ban under the commerce clause the manufacture, injecting goods manufactured with child labor in a few years was struck down by the court. they come back in a few years and try to do it as a tax. i am not hypothesizing something that never happened. has gone back and forth. this is not far-fetched opposition. on balance, randy and i are on

the same page. it is better than it could of been, but it's certainly a heck of a lot worse than it should have been. >> ilya, the court says that states must have a real choice. if they lose all the medicaid funds they already have, that is no real choice, it is compulsion of that loss. it means that unless they expand their medicaid rules vastly, that, theyy don't do are taxpayers are going to have to continue contributing to the medicaid fund and yet not get any of the benefits. so how realistic is it to say that they now have a real choice? >> this is the problem with rewriting a statute in order to save it. it's hard to get all the loose in the and whatever else.

it is still coercive, and still unfortunate that all those income earners will still be paying their fica taxes and contributing to washington without getting anything in return on a little bit more that will now be assessed. so is not a complete, voluntary choice, but perhaps, i believe the notes the chief justice of this much, but it will perhaps be more a daydole type situation before he rode it. >> we will turn to the audience. please wait until the microphone gets to you. identify yourself and any affiliation you may have for the benefit of the c-span audience and our audience doing this cato.gh kat

let's start with this gentleman right here. >> thank you, gerald chandler, independent. it is said now that is a tax and that taxes have to originate in the house, with this bill that originated in the senate. is there any basis there for constitutional challenge? >> this is one technical problem that congress has mastered. the way it usually works is you have an unrelated bill in the house that it's trimmed away in what is left is a tag line and then it's mated with a senate bill. so i am afraid -- that is not what the framers intended, but i am afraid that practice has been going on for a long time and it would be difficult to challenge it on that basis, if not impossible of us want to underscore what david said.

the way the congress has gotten around this for a long time is the senate takes a bill that originated in the house, strip out every word that bill, amended with the new bill and claim that it originated in the house. that is how they do it. here is the important point. the courts won't do anything about it, and if the courts don't enforce the rule in the constitution, that rule goes away. that is the problem. that is why you need course that will enforce all the constitution, including the parts they might not like. so that is another lesson about why so much in the constitution has already been lost, including this part. >> this gentleman right over here. >> no affiliation. this is a question about the opinion addressed by mr. rivkin.

i read that roberts and his tax decision said that it could be upheld as a tax only if there was a realistic choice between either paying or doing. it seems to me, i guess the question is in fact the language to that effect in the opinion, and second, would that not suggest that if the tax equaled or exceeded or even came close to equaling the cost of doing, that there is no realistic option. you would always do it instead of paying it, so you could avoid the tax. >> that is a very astute question. i tried to make the same point by indicating that the vast

majority of activities that the government may seek to compel, there is no difference between a fine/penalty of $500 and a tax of $500. something that human beings would not do, acts of a trail or dishonesty, but mostly, to be fair to the chief, he is talking about the choice in a different box. he is pretending, if you will, that the absence of a compulsion, a mandate under the commerce clause is somehow that it is inherently compulsive. and paying a little bit of money is not. it is a bait and switch. the compulsion is that you analyze it in the context of what you are being asked to do in the context of the drug laws, there is an enormous difference between being imprisoned and

not. that is a very narrow sliver of human behavior. the tax penalty is no more compulsive, compelling, and punitive than a mandate backed by a penalty. so you are absolutely right, it is sleight of hand. it really does not work. again, what he is trying to say there is there can be some circumstances where the tax is so high as to become punitive. for example, the penalty is to strip away all your wealth. that clearly would be punitive. these are finally situations that would never arise. >> put very simply, because that is in there, a future court can use that to limit this opinion. that is all. >> i am with the washington

legal foundation. cato published a book not too long ago and i wonder if you think the commerce clause language in this opinion is strong enough to start looking at other past opinions and whether we can start bringing more free-market principles back and rehabilitating locher. >> what was indicated in the case was this far and no farther. that is, there are no lines. as far as the conference has gone, and no farther than that, the opinion does not say less than where we are now. that was never on the table in this case. i will say one technical thing about that that might be a ray of light. there is a point where she lists

all these various rulings that a pre 1937 court ruled to uphold economic liberty and so forth. it is not so much that it was all about lot near but it was merely one of those bad cases that unfortunately is not improving. -- all about lochner. >> congratulations on the language you got. our conservative friends have elevated concept of restraint and deference to the other side to a fetish. is it not incumbent upon all of us to make sure the public understands what a complete disaster the decision was for

federalism, for limited government, and for the constitution so they will take the appropriate action in response, which is to say that no future supreme court justice who cannot articulate a concrete theory of limited government should ever put on a roll again? >> i miss 90 when you are rosen did not introduce yourself. that is clark field in who heads up the project on judicial engagement. he raised the question that goes to the very first principles of the matter. >> quite frankly, i don't buy that. the problem is not deference. the problem is that there was nothing to defer to. you don't defer to the political branches and then do something unconstitutional. deference largely operates in the context of practicing law

for a living. congress provides the statutory vehicle that can be interpreted a variety of ways, and one of the worst possible plausible interpretations saves it. you up holding on that basis. you don't try to hold the legislature and the president to a standard of drafting perfection. it has nothing to do with deference. the problem with pushing for more aggressive, open-ended judicial review is that you get people for every decision to uphold the constitution, you get five others that legislate from the bench. if you are looking at it from the standpoint of influence, if

you are looking at scrutinizing economic regulations to get a rubber-stamp, it will not always be right. if you look at it from a standpoint of social conservatives who are looking at of -- being scrutinized from a perspective of violating the bill of rights, that kind of approach is bad. it is hard for me to accept the notion of a less deferential standard of review being uniformly good across a range of cases. >> we do have differences on this panel, after all. perhaps randy would care to respond and what you just said. >> i want to agree with what clark said. this decision is the fruit of 20 years of republican conservative judicial nominations. this is what you have got. republican presidents have been

nominating justices for 20, 30 years. this is the decision you got as a result of making justices that way. justices have to be picked a different way. what makes this decision so difficult to swallow is that she justice roberts articulated all the right lines that we have been advocating. i could not have written it better myself. and then he deferred by rewriting the statute. by the way, if he is that polemical, the technical term is he gave it a saving construction. it is a different reading that is a conceivable reading, and therefore the statute might be constitutional. that is literally what he did. that is the doctor he invoked. a political construction is what he did, but this is the fruit of that kind of judicial nomination, and that is what

must change. if that doesn't change, then these results will continue. >> this gentleman right here. >> professor barnett, this may be more of a policy question than a legal question. you said that the mandate is the core of law. would not be more accurate to say it is the core of the legal challenge to the law? if you think about limited government, the mandate itself, the $4 billion that will be collected in penalties and taxes, that is a small part of the overall impact on the public. by the time to fully take effect, the new medicare tax will collect 10 times as much as the penalty, and then you have the secretary of hhs defining minimum essential benefits,

etc., and the law is much, much bigger. >> if i said it was the core of the law, i don't know the context in which was saying that. i agree with you, this was simply the only part of the law other than the medicate part the we -- that we had a legal shot at. there was a 1944 case that says insurance = congress, so therefore was under the commerce clause. this was the constitutionally vulnerable part that funded the rest of it. i don't disagree with how you characterized it. >> the gentleman right here. wait for the microphone, please. >> i have no affiliation. i wanted to ask a question about this issue of a tax versus a penalty.

although i thought this was a direct tax, i actually found something compelling about what the judge said in terms of this being a tax. to me, it seems like the tax is simply something that raises revenue, and regardless of what the purpose of it might be, that it might have dual purposes to be a penalty and a tax, it does seem that if it raises revenue, it is a tax. >> the definition is a measure that was imposed for the purpose of raising revenue, and this one was not imposed upon all finds raise revenue by definition, so that were actually the correct definition, then all fines would be qualified as taxes. the supreme court does not accept that proposition. a penalty is something that is a monetary action as a result of

reaching some duty or retirement, which -- the revenue derived from the penalty was not even included among the expressed revenue raising provisions of the affordable care act. not according to the statute. >> if the mandate worked as it was supposed to and hoped to work, there would be no revenue raised because everyone would buy insurance, so it would be a zeroth take. if it were a necessary condition for a tax, it would not be a tax. this one right here in the front. >> betty cook with chevy chase women's republican club. i am responsible for political education. over the weekend, a commentator from the washington post

basically said let's not underestimate john roberts. he is a brilliant lawyer. while everyone else was playing checkers, he was playing chess. so perhaps this was a political move in our favor, well thought out, with the purpose of what he is achieving. i would like your comment on that. >> let's assume that you are right. i don't agree that you are right, by the way. i think it was a foolish move, if it was done out of calculation. ,et's assume that you are right that is an illegitimate basis on which to make a constitutional ruling.

everything he set as a political consideration. if you are right, that means the case was decided politically. that is the way it is reasoned. now we know that the boat was changed after political pressure was brought to bear. this is one of the best things you can say about it. that means it isn't illegitimate decision. cracks that are running because all along, the supporters of the legislation warned the court against being political, against having five votes to strike it down. that was just the republicans politicking. the four democratic clear appointed justices were never in play. the more interesting point related directly to your question is, if it was a political maneuver for the long term, three-dimensional chess that we cannot even understand because we have not achieve the

correct level of wizardry that john roberts has, what is that? some variation of saving the court's reputation, institutional integrity, whatever, what is the saving the court for to fight another day? to fight for what? the reason we care about the court having a high, and besmirched, independent reputation and not getting into the political muck is because we want the decision to be respected. we will often have to take unpopular decisions on big cases. if this is not the date for which the court is meant to be saved, i cannot imagine what that would be. >> that is why we call it the non-political brent. >> i know what you are talking about and i could put it no

better than to say that this is not an instance where if you credit my part of today's discussion, it is not a situation where you've changed the political life line of the obama administration in exchange for not ambiguous, no backsliding argument of the constitution. it is not a brilliant chess master move to me. that is a very ambiguous move. frankly the people who talk about it have not read the opinion. understand what the roberts court has done to the taxing power. >> i have been very hard on the court or on justice roberts. i think it is very important for us to be realistic about how the other justices behavior.

i think that the four justices who were the liberal side of the court were deciding this case out of principle. is the principle with which i disagree, that 99% of all law professors agree. they were voting out of principle. then i think we have to recognize, and i say this to temper what i said about republican judicial nominees, the four justices who were prepared to strike down a whole lot, who felt betrayed by the fact that chief justice roberts changed his boat and try to prevail upon him not to change his vote, they deserve a lot of credit for that and for the fact that they refused to mention the chief justice of the opinion in their opinion. i don't think that has ever been done. they wrote an opinion that refused to mention the existence of the chief justice's deciding

opinion, and the government's argument. it was a deliberate statement by them appellate ended they were of how the case was decided. we have to be realistic about where our attention is drawn and where it is not on. is not a parks on everything. we have to be very calibrated and what we object to -- it is not a pox on everything. at least four of the justices did have that courage. >> you can see that randy is a professor because he asked to make one tiny point. >> d.c. a path in the future to challenge the constitutionality of this taxing power that the court created? -- do you see a path in the future? >> that is like asking what i

think about the quality of the cancer treatments that are being devised. i hope things would change in november and we will not have this problem. randy is also right. there are certainly analytical weaknesses in the courts taxing opinions. so yes, the first time there will be a use of taxing power, we can challenge it. how likely we are to succeed very much depends on the composition of the court and various other factors, but it is possible. the reason we have an absolute slam-dunk in terms of case law that has existed before. this opinion does not help us challenge it.

>> we are going to take a 15- minute break. please be back here at exactly 15 minutes after soaking it the next program going for c-span. there are restrooms on the lower level and on the second floor as well as this level. please join me in thanking our panel. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> defense secretary leon panetta discusses a new military strategy to build international

partnerships. then a look at the national security positions of president obama and mitt romney. that is followed by a justice to permit conference on the settlement with the glaxosmithkline drug company. later, what the supreme court health-care decision means for the constitutional powers of the executive and legislative branches. tuesday, british prime minister david cameron's appears before the british house of commons to talk about the effect of the european debt crisis on the british economy. you can see it live, starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern, here on c- span. defense secretary leon panetta said the military plans to display army units to strengthen security capabilities with nations around the world. the secretary delivered remarks

that the u.s. institute apiece for just under an hour. -- the u.s. institute of peace for just under an hour. >> good afternoon. we are delighted you are with us for a special presentation. i am the president of the institute. to start the evening off -- it is my special pleasure to welcome the chairman of the board of the institute of peace, robin west. [applause] >> thank you, dick. i am robin west, chairman of the board of directors for the institute of peace. good evening, and welcome to the acheson lecture. this is the fifth lecture.

we welcome you to the george shultz great hall of the headquarters of the u.s. institute of peace. this building symbolizes our belief that peace is restoring hope of humanity. it is located on the national mall. it is a statement of how we want to see ourselves in the world and the world to see us. this building was achieved through a public-private partnership. congress was supportive, as was the private sector. one of the first and most generous was lockheed martin. it has helped support the lectures as well. private citizens also contributed. tonight's speaker was a leader -- tireless leader -- in the effort to honor madeleine albright in albright wing.

we are deeply grateful for his assistance. the lecture was established by the board of the institute of peace to recognize a great figure in the conduct of america's relations with world. he was at the creation of a new national security structure to confront the rising threat of communism as well as one of the most enlightened and effective policies ever created, the marshall plan for the reconstruction of europe. in 2012, the old world is over. we confront different challenges than we did in acheson's day. it's bitter religious and ethnic disputes. the institute of peace represents an idea of profound importance that this country must find non-violent ways to

prevent and manage international conflict and develop the abilities to stable and reconstruct nations after war. we help find practical solutions for a dangerous world. this is what we are doing with our partners in the military and diplomatic community as well as non-government organizations. on any day, an average of one- third of professional peace builders are deployed around the world in challenging places such as afghanistan, iraq, yemen, libya, and sudan. peace is tough business in brutal places. the contributions of these people should be acknowledged. in an era of lowered resources and battle fatigue, i want to

salute the men and women of the united states institute of peace who go in harm's way for a safer, more peaceful world. the lecture seeks to recognize not only those new solutions but also the men and women responsible for implementing the solutions of protecting this country. they have come from both sides of the aisle, both sides of the potomac, and both ends of pennsylvania avenue. there are weight-bearing people. they have no choice but to decide and act. they bear tremendous responsibilities. tonight's speaker continues the tradition. i will turn the program over to dick solomon. he will introduce our speaker. [applause]

>> it is a special honor to have secretary panetta with us this evening. he is a unique and distinguished american, who gives luster to the lecture series. he is an exceptional public servant and a longtime supporter of the institute of peace and a secretary of defense and ex-officio member of our board of directors. he is a private citizen and a supporter of our permanent headquarters project. this facility is a monument to our national commitment to build

a more peaceful world, burdened as we have been this past decade by wars, it important to remember that the promotion of peace is our purpose with the world. peace building requires well- trained professionals. it demands dedication and risky work. it requires partnerships. it requires the work of the institute of peace. before introducing secretary panetta, let me say a few things about our origins. the national need for a proper peace establishment was envisioned by our first president, george washington, as early as 1783. however, it took two centuries and the trauma of the vietnam war for the congress to embody washington's vision in the institute of peace, which was

legislated into life in 1984. one of the unanticipated aspects of the growth of the institute is the active contribution that we now make to our country's national security. our work today with the military spans the whole spectrum of what we do here, from practical training in the skills of conflict management, to collaboration between civilians and military professionals as they prepare for their deployment aboard to be on the ground stabilization and reconstruction programs in zones of conflict around the world. the institute's activities on the ground over the past decade have enabled us to build strong partnerships throughout the military with the vision, brigade, and command staff and

with leaders. senior administration officials, and members of congress, and others make special requests of the institute, taking advantage of our standing as an independent, bipartisan, natural organization, a center of innovation in matters of conflict management. we undertake important policy assessments. the iraq study group was another notable project. citizen panetta was a distinguished member of the group before he returned to public service. one of our more recent contributions has been collaborating with the u.s. army's peacekeeping and stability keeping institute.

it has published the first ever army field manual on stabilization and reconstruction work, which is a how-to guide for the military and civilians who are rebuilding countries that have been ravaged by war. the world of the 21st century prevents dramatically new challenges to our national security, certainly when we compare them with the challenges we face in the violent century now passed. that is why i believe the most important work of the institute of peace is yet to come. in the 28 years since the creation, our mission has expanded because the role of the

united states as a world leader for security and peace has been dramatically transformed. the institute's contributions are more relevant as we partner with agencies in the government as well as with the private sector for conflict management. today, we deal with the world's challenges of nuclear challenges, ethnic and religious conflict, and the instabilities of economic globalization. the series provides a podium for our most important national leaders. let me say a few words about leon panetta. there are few officials in public service today who have secretary panetta's exceptional range of experiences. 16 years in congress were followed by service in the executive branch as director of the office of the budget, president clinton's chief of

staff, and president obama's director of the cia, and now secretary of defense. secretary panetta's public contributions extend well beyond the halls of government. before he arrived at cia, he and his wife directed the panetta institute for public policy based at california state university. it is a nonpartisan, not-for- profit center that seeks to instill the virtues and the values of public service. of all of his public service, i would suspect too much to say that the highlights of his career have been his contributions to the iraq study group and his support for the construction of this permanent headquarters for the institute of peace. every day as i come to work, i see from my office window the hallowed ground of the national

cemetery. i see the roof of the pentagon and abe lincoln is watching us from his memorial close by the korean war and the vietnam veterans memorial. this dramatic building and its special location makes us aware of the challenges and opportunities and responsibility for us to better fulfill our congressional mandate of making the united states a world leader in peacemaking. with those words of welcome, secretary panetta, thank you very much for giving us your time and your wisdom. please join me in welcoming the 23rd secretary of defense. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you, for that kind introduction. thank you for the invitation to deliver the fifth dean acheson lecture. dick, let me start by commending you on two decades of leadership at the u.s. institute of peace. i also want to wish you the very best as you prepare to step down after a long and distinguished tenure here. do not get too comfortable in retirement, comes from someone who knows what i am talking about. i am proud to have served in the house when we passed the bill that established this

institute back in 1984. under your leadership, this institute has changed itself from a research center into an organization that provides invaluable expertise to prevent, to mitigate, to manage conflict throughout the world, deploying staff to iraq, to afghanistan's, to libya, and other conflict zones. that is what was envisioned -- to have a facility that would actively engage in the effort to preserve peace. i did have the honor of serving as a member of the iraq study group, which was supported and staffed by the institute.

it was chaired by former secretary of state jim baker and former congressman lee hamilton. i believe that the report of the iraq study group made an important contribution to the debate into the strategy that ultimately brought that war to a responsible end. the institute's work has saved lives. it has enhanced our national security. in doing so, it has stayed true to the spirit of the man whose legacy we celebrate tonight, dean acheson.

one historian once observed that in a city of gray and anonymous men, dean acheson stood out like a noble monument from another and more vivid era. 60 years after serving as secretary of state, and more than 40 years after his death, acheson's unique blend of strategic brilliance are well- remembered in this town. having just enjoyed the hospitality of your cocktail reception, i am reminded of the time when a newly-elected president kennedy paid a call on dean acheson at his georgetown home. acheson offered him a martini, but kennedy declined and asked for tea instead.

that deeply offended acheson. after all, according to a friend, he never trusted a man who would not have a stiff drink with him. i know i would have been his very dear friend. [applause] in fact, i learned that acheson and i share more than a love of stiff drinks, we both rose to prominence in the executive branch when we were both relatively young, and we were both fired from our jobs. acheson was fired from treasury by fdr in 1933. i was fired from the office of civil rights by president nixon in 1970. in both of our cases, we first heard about it from the press.

acheson was eventually rehired by roosevelt at the beginning of his third term. i was never in danger of being rehired by president nixon. [laughter] go back to california. i made the wise decision to go back to california. the nation is very fortunate to have had the service of dean acheson. there is perhaps no span of time in american history when the country faced more international turmoil, uncertainty, and conflict than the decade during which dean acheson served at the state department. it began just months after pearl harbor in 1941 and extended to the truman

administration. despite our victory in world war ii, dean acheson became secretary of state in 1949. the global security landscape was ominous. stalin was at the height of its powers, and uruguay in ruins, and western europe was in ruins, and we face a crisis of berlin. the soviet union would test its first atomic bomb within months. north korea would invade the south. in the face of these challenges, and others, dean acheson helped guide the truman administration to take some bold actions from the marshall plan and the berlin airlift, to the intervention in korea that helped laid the groundwork for

an ultimate victory in the cold war. dean acheson was a leading proponent for asserting america's military might. dean acheson also strongly believed that america should not seek to shoulder the burden and costs for global security alone. instead he understood that a key part of a strong defense was to build the security capacity of our allies and our partners. that legacy is deeply relevant to the argument that i would like to make tonight. in order to advance the security and prosperity in the

21st century, we must maintain and enhance our military strength, but i also believe that the united states must place even greater strategic emphasis on building the security capabilities of others. we must be bold enough to adopt a more collaborative approach to security both within the united states government and among allies, partners, and multilateral organizations. from western europe and nato, to south korea, from the truman doctrine, to the nixon doctrine, working with key allies and regional partners to build their military and

security forces became a major component of u.s. national security strategy after world war ii. this approach has endured long beyond the cold war and for the united states military, it has gained new and appropriate important as a mission in the decades since 9/11. in 2006, the same year the iraq study convened, they recognized the critical importance of having the authorities and resources to perform what it called building partnership capacity. since then, as the united states helped turn the tide in iraq and afghanistan, confronted terrorism in yemen,

the philippines, the horn of africa, and participated in the nato operation in libya, the approach of working with and through others has only grown in importance to our mission of defending our country. in particular, the task of training, advising, and partnering has moved from the periphery to become a critical skill set across our armed forces. it is in many ways the approach that this institute has promoted for nearly three decades. standing up the iraqi security forces was central to our

ability to bring the war to a responsible conclusion last december. achieving our goal in afghanistan depends on building and afghanistan that can secure and govern itself -- the reality that is now guiding the strategy that general allen is implementing on the ground as commander of the nato effort. as the war in afghanistan begins to wind down, the united states has an opportunity to begin to focus on other challenges and opportunities for the future. as we do so, the united states is grappling with the deficit and the debt problem that has led congress to require us to achieve significant savings, nearly a half a trillion dollars in savings over the next

decade. unlike past defense threats, we have experienced those throughout the past, today week still confront many challenges in many threats, the continuing threat of violent extremism, even though we have done damage to al-qaida in pakistan, we continue to have terrorism in yemen, somalia, north africa. we confront the threat of weapons proliferation. we confront the threat of cyber intrusions. we continue to experience cyber

attacks every day. it is without question the battlefield of the future. we continue to see the destabilizing behavior of nations like iran and north korea, the rise of new powers across asia, and the dramatic changes that we have seen unfold across the middle east and north africa. these challenges, coupled with a new fiscal reality, led us to reshape our priorities with a new defense strategy for the 21st century. it is a strategy that places a greater emphasis on building the capabilities of others to help meet the security help meet the security challenges of