second, the tea party and when i talk to my older relatives, it is the white separatist movement, the same old white citizens council, states' rights, things from the past, from the 1960's that they see. as far as supporting mitt romney, why would you support someone -- jesus said if anybody comes with another revelation, you reject them. host: we gave our guest plenty to talk about. thet: let's start with racism part of his equation. this is addressed in my book. the tea party is not racist, but i explain exactly some of the concerns people have. look, he mentioned white supremacist movement. look, he mentioned white supremacist movement. if the tea party was racist and

all, would allen west be a hero and herman cain? that is one thing to think about. as for faith and the republican party, if 10 evangelicals on the street, people within the tea party movement, they will have something pretty negative to say about republicans. it's about anti-incumbency. it's not about republican or democrat. they do aligned more with republicans, but that's not the issue. if they are tired of republicans and democrats and the way washington works. that's the overriding issue. as for how faith fits into the equation, there are biblical absolutes of in the way teavangelicals see the world. is there something wrong with pushing your belief on someone

else when they have heard enough? absolutely. you need to be able to back off. that does not mean you cannot be principled or have your believes as it relates to the bible. >> "washington journal" errors lives every morning starting at 7:00 a.m. now for a discussion on the future of syria and the assad regime. >> power speaker shourd) -- power speaker should close his cellphone and blackberry, too. i am haleh esfandiari. i run the bareez program -- the middle east program for the center. it is a great pleasure to be

here. and to welcome our speaker from oklahoma, the director of the middle east studies at the university of oklahoma, and the author of a daily newsletter on syria. i have known him for a long time. we first met when i was teaching at princeton and he was a grad student working on syria. the professor has won the best teacher prize at his university, raised over $1 million for a new share in iran in studies, which is very close to my heart

, and helped bring a government- funded flagship program to the diversity of all,. he has lived for years -- of oklahoma. the has lived for four years in syria. the last time i believe he was there was just before the revolution began. dr. landis travels frequently to washington dc. he is very much in demand. joshua, many thanks for accepting our invitation and coming. >> thank you so much. your very kind. ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure to be here at the wilson center and to talk to you today.

i would particularly like to thank haleh esfandiari, who has always been to me the model of charm and intelligence. i have two parts to this topic today. the first part is looking at the larger context, a little bit of the history, and an evolution of my own thinking about syria. the second part will deal with what should washington be doing. let me begin with the larger regional context. almost a year ago, i wrote an article -- well, seven or eight months ago i wrote an article saying the regime was doomed, but it would be long and bloody. i expected assad to be in power in 2013. and the reasons for its been doomed is that it is the last minority areas -- minoritarian

regime. and it would also be long and bloody because it is a minorit arian regime. after the first world war, we have this mishmash of the sex, classis, and urban renewal. in many ways, powers are in different states haphazard way in which many states were forced to get along and they have a hard time nation-building. it certainly describes the 11th compared to average of. -- to africa.

in the 11th -- delavan to, all minorities enabled them to take power. in lebanon, you had those who were privileged over the rest. and the civil war for 15 years was about unseating that power by the muslims. it was about many other things, too. i am oversimplifying, but it was long and bloody because the minority did not want to give up power. and they still do not want to end the different sects sit across the divide and stare at each other. in iraq, the minority rolled over the majority shi'ites. america intervene and put the

shi'ites at the top and flung the sunnis down at the bottom. america left the power-sharing arrangement when it left, and that is being dismantled by the machine -- the shiite majority, and maliki. and the sunnis are fighting back and there are car bombs the door of every single day where the death toll is almost as high as it is in syria. excuse me, haleh. [unintelligible] casting down the minority is a long and bloody process. we can take israel. the jews were 30% when the british left. of course, the muslims thought they would be able to take over palestine and they went to war. they lost. we know how that ended for them,

and the jews were able to another, and they solve their problem -- were able to been gathered and they saw their problem by becoming the majority. now things are cramped. the palestinians still do not like it. they want a hug of that land, but that is the long and bloody. it is in some ways a zero sum game. people in the region have not figure out how to rule happily and share power happily. not in iraq, not in lebanon, not in palestine. the question is, how do they do it in syria? those in power there were not put into power by the french, but there were over recorded like mad by the army. and by 1956, we believe there were 65% of the noncommissioned

officers in the army were allied. eventually, they became the majority of the officers. they were able to achieve a majority and in a to take power. the last coup was 1970 when the assad family took over. the minoritarian element is a strength of the regime. it is a weakness, but also a strength in many ways. unlike mubarak in egypt, who allowed his children to go off and become international bankers and make money, the assad's have been preparing for this and they have put their sons in the military. they are prepared. every major industry that is important, and particularly the

security apparatus is dominated by family. in contrast to what happened in iraq, the assad's i understood that syria was not a nation in some ways. they went for family values. they understood it would take a village to rule syria. they relied on traditional loyalties. they are plugged into every major security. then they use tried and village affiliations -- tried and village affiliations, and ultimately the different sects. at the core of the success of the assad's was making the alliance with a series. that has unraveled only recently with defections at high levels.

there are other logics going on, but at heart, it is sectarian and that is driving this. the sunnis are slowly abandoning the regime and the minority that is left is being stripped down to the basic core of these traditional loyalties prevent when they are completely stripped down, the regime will fall precipitously. but it will take time. and frankly, they are frightened. there their backs to the walls and they have nowhere to go. they're going to fight. like the christians and lebanon, like the palestinians. like the sunnis. they do not know what the alternative is and they have convinced themselves they face a bleak future. that is why no major minority figures from inside syria have

defected so far. that may come, but it has not yet. was that heess relied on traditional values, and he solved a major problem, which was that it had become a banana republic. and syria had about 20 successful -- 20 different crews, some successful, some unsuccessful many say is our fault that he is -- is of fault -- is assad's they're not a nation today. and he has destroyed government in many ways. and in some ways that is true. syria was democratic. there were elections in 43, 47, and in the 1950's. it went not perfectly, but well.

the first utah -- the first coup today.was similar to the president faced a crisis in government history. after the 48 war in palestine, which syria lost, he faced a crisis in his government. everybody was demonstrating in the street. not unlike the beginning of the arab spring. all political parties and the democratic life, which was quite lively but, they wanted a new government. the leader faced a dilemma and he could have solved the dilemma through politics. which would have been a unity government. at allow the people's party to form a government. he would not allow it. he thought they were traitors.

and he said so to the person he made prime minister, which -- who wrote about that in his memoirs. he believes that they wanted to unite with iraq and become a greater syria. and he wanted to unite with egypt and the other arabs. you get this major split down the center of syria. and each political party thought the others were traitors and not nationalists, because they were going out of the country and making deals with foreigners. not foreigners, other arabs. syria was grew up politically, to put it short. he refused -- syria was screwed up politically, to put it short. he refused, majora role and he put the army on the street to break -- he refused to allow majority rule and he put the army on the street to break the

heads of the demonstrators. the first coup d'etat was carried off, and that was the failure of democratic politics in syria because the major parties could not compromise. that has repeated itself over and over again in syria until the assad's, took over through military might. even the closest intimates of the former leader said he constantly made them fight each other. they complained bitterly that he did not trust the party or the program. today, we look at the syrian opposition, we see the same traits being played out over and pick over again. in america, we said we well -- we will get this council up and

we will unify them and we will have something to replace assad with. that, of course, is the greatest danger in the policy side of things. there are also very important class divisions, rural divisions. the opposition was always week. let me turn now -- those are the major problems that syria has faced. and with this uprising, the assad regime has failed. it will never be able to put syria back together again. all of the numbers have gone the wrong direction. economic failure, terrible. the youth mold, terrible. the growing property rate -- the un statistics were 30. poverty rate is creeping up to 32. poverty means $2 a day or less. egypt is 40.

yemen is even higher. there are some terrible statistics out there for a party. the lower classes were being hammered. and with the population explosion, the authoritarian system under assad was designed for 7 million, 8 million people. socialism, the authoritarian bargained, take away the freedom of the people, but they have jobs. they have some security. subsidize basic products. and give them security. that was the slogan. and that work. until zero -- syria and iran out of water. as their became more and more people -- syria ran out of water. and as there became more and

more people, they could not take care of them all. the upper class got rich, but most of syrians suffered. this country was waiting to explode. assad did not have any answers, and he refused to really open up the system. he kept his father's model, which is to keep a few intimate around him, the people who are loyal, and to disregard the rest. and he had the option when he first came to power of rescinding the death threats of the huge muslim brotherhood, to try to draw the mint and reach a compromise. but he was frightened. and we saw this -- to draw them in and reach a compromise. but he was frightened. and we saw this recently in a wikileaks video. he says in an e-mail, we cannot discuss -- we cannot do this because the muslim extremists will get power at the local level and then they will want

power up the center. and this froze him, because he saw his people as extremists, many of them, and he refused to broaden the halls of power. this was the narrow nessun of the regime, very brittle, and refusing to reach out. -- the narrowness of the regime, very brittle, and refusing to reach out. it read a lot of dangers for america to just waltz in and try to -- it created a lot of dangers for america to just waltz in and try to fix it. our current policy toward syria, i think, is the smart policy. the question is, when is that no longer a smart policy? the reason why it has been a smart policy -- and our road in an article not long ago -- i wrote in an article lot of ago

for america to stay out of syria. it is not good for us to be nation-building. we have seen is in iraq and afghanistan. syria is not an easier country. it has the same divisions. and the minority in power are only 12%. and the sunni arabs are 70% of syria. there are 10% other minorities. the christians are said to be 10%, but they are more likely close to 5%. their numbers have been falling pretty precipitously. not good at nation-building, the u.s. is ready or active in the arab world. democracy is unlikely to be produced in syria anytime soon. the only two things that social scientists agree on as indicators of democracy promotion are fairly old populations, over 30 or over gives you in more than 50%

chance of locking in a democracy. syria is 21. the only other places that are younger, gaza strip and yemen. trees yet is 30. egypt is even older because -- tunisia is 30. egypt is even older because they had a good family care in place. and then wealth, syria per- capita gdp is about 3.2000 a year. -- 320,000 a year. democracy is unlikely and expensive to rebuild. the syrian opposition ask for

$12 billion in startup funds once they breeze -- they defeat the regime. but that would be tiddlywinks. we are spending over $4 billion a month in afghanistan. we were spending up to $7 billion in iraq at its height. americans are broke. they do not want to get into this kind of thing, if we get sucked in. but the most important thing is there is no nation, really. people get mad at me for saying no nation. i'm not saying there is no bond between syria. but there is not a tradition of unified leadership. and there certainly has not been a unified leadership produced out of the opposition. that is dangerous for america. if you waltz in and destroy the regime and you decapitate it as you did in iraq, the death could go up. the major argument for doing this, other than the strategic

interests and hurting iran is the humanitarian argument. you go in and you will stop the killing. and what happens if the killing goes up? it did in iraq. once we destroyed the regime, the death rate went up because civil war started. will america defend going into syria to stop the civil war, or will they just turn their back on syria if there is no government? that is the danger of getting sucked in. is america prepared to interpret -- intervene? in a perverse sense, war is a nation-building process. there is an organic process to struggling against your enemy, the assad regime, that brings people together. you look at the major nation

builders of the new middle east, whether it is ataturk, saudi arabia, iran or even in israel, almost all of them were out war for 10 years before they became leaders of their countries. they became national figures because they defeated, because they unified their country, and they produced an army that would back them up. they became heroes. in syria, there is no person like that. there may emerge out of this battle -- one would hope that if you give assyrians time, a leadership will -- you if you give the syrians time, a leadership will emerge. you have all of these new committees that are being formed. you've got the coordinating committee, exiled groups, all eight committees.

a new civil society is the merging and not just in villages, but between villages and towns, and internationally. and that takes times. that will produce differing leaders. there are over 100 militias organized in syria. they are not cooperating. there is no central command. maybe that will emerge. of course, the danger is that they will not emerge, that assad will kill them, that this war will be very destructive. and rather being and -- an organic process for building, it is an organic process for destruction. that is what many fear. all that is why they are asking for intervention. but i'm jumping ahead of myself. those are the dangers. it's that we cannot do this well and we do not know how to do it.

and there is logic to allowing syrians to build a new nation out of this process of fighting, and that good leaders will emerge because they will be successful on the battleground, and it will make alliances, and those malicious " eventually get some -- of those 100 malicious will get melded into one. and then when they defeat assad, there will not be chaos, like there was in iraq. there will be a government in waiting. and a national military making sure there is not wholesale looting and that people do not do bad things. that would be the ideal. and i would be the rationale for the obama policy -- that would be the rationale for the obama policy. there are other rationales for

it, of course, like he does not want to be george bush. multilateralism. the russians said no, you do not want to go into afghanistan. many people would say it was stupid that we did that. we should have said come out too bad, we cannot go into iraq. america would have been better off. and you could have -- you can make a lot of arguments that america should not have taken leadership. we would not have got ourselves into $2 trillion worth of expenses that turned out to be not so good for america. there are other reasons for arguing to stay out. let me wind down by saying i was very strong on staying out. many of my closest syrian friends, even those who are of

the minority ruling party, are saying this is terrible. assad is a loser. he has lost. he is going to lose. he is destroying the country. look at how many refugees there are. outside, but also internally. those lives will be destroyed. it will be hard to put them back together again. the damage to the cities, to the towns, to the people is immense and it is going to get worse. and russia and iran is still backing them, and that is partly because america is prevaricating. they argue, send a cruise missile into the palace. finish it. the place could collapse like a house of cards. assad will begin to deal and understand that we mean business and the whole thing will come tumbling down. the problem with that is that it is wishful thinking. what if it does not happen that

way? you get sucked in -- you get sucked in and then you have to bomb military headquarters and you begin destroying a lot. where did that and it? that was the argument in iraq. we will just talk them and the place will fall apart and we will emerge happy. i am very turk -- very torn. i was a big advocate of non- intervention. i still believe the opposition is getting stronger every month. americans are providing help. the saudis are providing help. although there does not seem to be enough arms for the opposition. we have seen recently. we have seen articles about success stories, success stories -- today in the

"washington post" there was an article about a town that has been living under opposition role very happily with christians and muslims. there is another article about libya. there was an election and yes, it is a chaotic country, but the worst has not happened. maybe decapitation can work. the trouble with syria, it is a much bigger country. it has problems that others do not have along sectarian lines. diyala -- the leadership has not emerged in alternative leadership. the opposition has been getting stronger. you could say, just be patient, give the opposition of little bit more help, but they can do it. the fighting has now gotten to damascus the last few nights and in damascus, there has been a lot of fighting, all around the outskirts.

so far, this battle has been one of the angry young men in the countryside. it started with the poor countryside areas that are known for their poverty, because they are the ones that syria has failed the most. the opera glasses have not joined in, really. but increasingly, they are defecting. increasingly, the fight is moving into the cities and when it does, this regime will be overwhelmed. i will end by saying the argument for staying out, for not getting sucked in our very strong. i think they are still compelling. i think the opposition is getting stronger every month. the trouble is, the regime is becoming more violent. it still has support from russia and from iran. and that is allowing assad to believe that he can weather this

and defeat it. the levels of violence are getting more and more horrifying at some point, you have to ask where the tipping point is. i'm not sure we have arrived there. it seems clear we are going to stay out of this for the next several months. and hopefully, we will see the opposition unify and beginning to develop a leadership with a better command and control, so that they will be able to do this on their own. thank you very much. [applause] >> we are going to open the floor to your questions. we will not take any comments. we will just take questions. there was -- there will be an overflow on the floor and we will take comments then.

just wait for the microphone. yes, thank you. >> barbarous flavins from the atlantic council. -- barbara slaven from the atlantic's council. obviously, obama does not want to get involved until after the elections, but life could intervene. what if the regime uses chemical weapons against its own people? we have seen reports that they are moving chemical weapons around. if there is a mass atrocity, what should the response be and what would the response be? >> obviously, public sentiment drives policy to a certain degree. these would create a groundswell of sympathy and horror at what

the regime is doing. it is already quite developed. can america improve the situation? this is really unknown. if you do send a cruise missile into his palace and begin to hunt him down like you did gaddafi and altman to kill him, how long will that take? -- and ultimately kill him, how long will that take? and then the big question is, does the death rate go up? if it does, then we can say, we have achieved our strategic goal, which is to hurt iran, and we can go home now. that is a little bit like what we have done in other places. that would be my fear. i do not know if america has the staying power. the regime is going to ration out violence. it is going to come. i do not know if it will be

chemical weapons. i doubt that. but who knows? the levels of violence get worse all the time and it is clear that assad is increasingly living in this little world where he is convinced that everybody is an extremist and he is standing for good. you know, i rose in the desert. -- a rose in the desert. >> we are taking quick questions here. and also an overflow. is there any evidence -- christians and other religions are growing supportive of the fnc after a change in its leadership. >> the minority in general has been supportive of assad and they are fearful of others.

i think many christians believe this regime can only so trouble from now on in. they are only hurting everybody in syria because there is no way for them to win. the longer they stay and syria is prevented from trying to get on with the next step, the more damage will be done. i do not think the druse and the christians are going to be. of course, they're worried about their way of life, but their way of life under the assad regime is going to change. syria has changed. syria is never going to go back to those days. it is very hard for anybody to get used to the notion that life is going to change.

and syria will go straight time of chaos. many more people of today of minorities are embracing the fact that it will have to go through that time and it is better to get on with it. i know many in the minority ruling party that have talked to me about the notion that something needs to be done, you know, internal intervention. >> can you tell us a little bit about the support that the iranians provide for the syrians? the russians, we know where they stand. but the iranians, what kind of support today provide? >> it is very secretive. i do not really know. but we have read the articles about the billions of dollars that iran gives, but i do not think people know what the aid is. it is clear that iran understands that it is under attack not only by america, but the sunni major states, saudi

arabia and the gulf. and it sees syria as the cutting edge of a defense against this larger onslaught. and the west sees syria as the weak point for iran. if they can take down syria, then they can get iran. and our policy is a regime change in iran, as it is in syria. i think there is a big fear of this domino effect that iran sees, that they will be targeted once syria goes down. and i think russia and china believe the same thing. i do not think syria is that important for either country. what they do see is iran cosseting their afterwards. and for china, 20% of their energy comes from iran and they have invested billions there. they see this as a great factor of instability. if america has its way with syria, this will keep a dynamic that is bad for china.

i was in china not too long ago on an east/west confab of energy think and i was shocked at the number of diplomats who turned to us and said, why are you pursuing this anti-chinese policy? we are trying to lift hundreds of millions of chinese out of desperate poverty into the middle class and we need energy to do it. our entire economic miracle is fuelled on energy that has come from the gulf. new up put sanctions on it -- from libya -- put sanctions on libya, sudan, every major country that we get oil from. this raises the price of oil and it will cause our economic merkel to slow down. and that is hurting chinese people. we immediately turned to the chinese and said, we are the good guys and you are the bad guys. you are immoral and we are trying to help the good people in the middle east and heard the bad people. you are doing the opposite.

and obviously, you have two different views of morality. they're concerned about helping the chinese and we are concerned with helping middle eastern people. maybe that is not quite the way it is, but we had to have it, this argument over who is more moral. and our intentions are good. and the chinese were clear, they see this as anti chinese policy. and i think that is what they believe. and i think syria is at the cutting edge of what they see is a larger position in the middle east that will be undermined by american action. iran is clearly at the front end of that, and they see syria and they have convinced themselves that syria is very important to them, and they will subsidize it. syria had about $18 billion in reserves 16 months ago. nobody ever saw it, but that must have run out.

they are still paying salaries. they are still paying the military. they are still paying some subsidies. it is unclear where they are getting this money from. it is going to be turning to iran. that is the main place iran is supporting. there has been all this talk about hezbollah and soldiers. i do not think that is true. but i think they are helping in whatever way they can without putting soldiers on the ground. >> away in the back. please, be very brief in your questions. >> good to see you, and good to hear that you are thinking assad is going down. like any other government, when a dictatorial regime existed,

when it collapses, it is going down, by a intervention or not. this is a counter argument for being used to prevent another invasion. a successful election has just taken place in libya. >> whatever side you are on, i want to defect to it. muhammed was a refugee placed in the oklahoma city. , and friends of ours called me up and said, can you help the guy, -- some common friends of ours called me up and said, can you help the guy? he is in oklahoma city. [laughter] i guess that was grounds for handing out.

-- for him needing help. i saw him a number of times. i'm glad that you done so well. i have always been on your side. yes, i know the arguments, the no-fly zone, and just a few well guided cruise missiles. the libyan model. hund the guy down and kill him, and it will be over. -- hunt the guy down and kill him, and it will be over. we will do the rest. you just do not know what is going to happen. that is the trouble. and clearly, america feels for. obama feels like he's got other things to do. america is tired of nation- building. and it feels like a fool's errand. and what is more, hillary clinton keeps on saying, we are winning. strategically, everybody in washington believes we will get to fill our goals.

i think everybody in the opposition believes they are winning. they say, every month we are getting stronger. there is no compelling interest to intervene. you can give them better intelligence and do things like that. of course, our policy is to starve the regime through sanctions, and to feed the opposition with money and arms. and we are doing that. you try to moderate that by squeezing harder with more and more sanctions, which is what america is trying to do, and we are trying to shame rush into doing so as well. and then get better intelligence. in libya, it is different. you do not want syria to be liked iraq and afghanistan. it is possible that it could fall quickly, the regime, and new leadership could happen very quickly.

many are saying, they're winning anyway, so let the syrians and do the heavy lifting. and in fact, going slow has certain benefits, which i outlined. it is an organic process. you cannot hurry it along. the syrians are very divided. you were there at one point and you don't it. presumably, because you did not like what was happening there. i could turn to you and say, look, make me a believer, unite, get along. do not disagree over the most fundamental things. like, how much islam are going to have come are outsiders brabant -- how much islam are we going to have? are outsiders bad? >> a question from the overflow,

the red cross and the civil war this weekend, what is the implication? >> people have been announcing civil war for a long time. i think syria is in a civil war in many ways. it is not an even civil war. increasingly, it is going to be the minority ruling party against the rest. it is not there yet, but it will eve of in that direction. i guess, the implications are legalistic implications before taking people to world court and so forth, because crimes against humanity -- i do not really understand all of the legal things. but there are legal ramifications. you can take people for crimes against humanity more easily if it is seen as a civil war and there is no recognized government.

>> identify yourself. >> my name is mohammed. i am syrian, from damascus. a very brief question -- how do you explain the 10% or 8% christian population. at the beginning of the century there was a muslim leader that they protested for. our knowledge is subjective. you think that you are married to a woman who belongs to that sector influences your thinking in any way? >> let me take the second part of the question. [laughter] i am married to an alueitte.

my father went to syria as a young man appeared he -- there was no education when my grandfather built the for school. at the age of fourth grade he was able to begin school. and he got into the navy, which is white -- which is what they did. he graduated in alexandria. there was no naval academy in syria. and it was unification. he was a nationalist, and has been ever since. he retired about 20 some odd years ago. and has been pretty much in active, drinking tea on the balcony since then, because there is no role for people who are retired in syria.

and there is not much civil society, even in the minority areas. mdot been married to a woman of that minority influences me. i know them. i understand them. but my ideas about syria were formed really, before that. they were formed from growing up in beirut, and from living and teaching in beirut during the civil war. when i watched christians and muslims kill each other in big numbers, and people who were very sophisticated. then i watched the iraq war. and everybody said, just not of the regime and it will all be good. everybody will get along. it did not happen. and my first year living in syria was in 1981-'82. i live in the dormitories at the university of damascus.

i watched syrians -- every room in my dormitory was/sec. there was a true 0 -- and we talked about -- this was a druze room and we would talk about that. people would come and visit from the different sects, but they would change the conversation. if a particular set came into the ramat it would change the conversation. that is what made me so worried about syria. yes, this regime -- there was never any illusion that it was ruled by force. and assad threatened to turn sarratt into 100 afghanistans if he was taken down -- turn syria

into 100 afghanistans if he was taken down. and syria is paying an incredible price for it. i did not have illusions about it being a very hard landing. the first article i wrote in the beginning of april last year was "there is no soft landing for syria." and my second was "deeply sectarian regime. shahram most of my -- "deeply sectarian regime." and most of my friends attacked me for this. and you are my friends. and i still love you. but they could not believe that there are a society where sectarian. clearly, i do feel for the ruling minority. and i understand them. you want to avoid having lived

through lebanon, having watched iraq, the hope is that syria can somehow avoid this kind of destruction to society. i was fearful. i was a coward. and the minority have had the -- their foot on the necks of the majority. there is no denying that. you -- it is not that i'm married to a woman of the ruling minority, although i'm sure that has made me more sensitive to minorities, i suppose. but it has also made me more pessimistic about the future of syria. that is what made me so tentative to jump in. i wrote my dissertation, and most of my riding is on this, and i saw how the golden vision of syria as a nation with democratic until the ruling minority came along and roy it.

it was not like that. mr. news reported for its -- came along and ruined it. it was not like that. the sunnis are ruined it for themselves first. there is not a syria like that that is waiting to come back. this underlying sense of pessimism under -- over iraq and lebanon and syria is what may be hesitant to jump in. >> no follow-up. nothing. >> i will get it afterwards. >> there is a question from the overflow. where does al qaeda stand in syria? >> al qaeda will try to make as much hay as they can in syria. no doubt about it. in iraq, everybody said that everybody who attacked him was al qaeda appeared and assad is

sang the same thing. he is not the original. there are al qaeda in syria, i do not doubt it. but they are not a dominant factor. many people said, if we went in and intervene, there will be no al qaeda because syria is going to get radicalized. i think the syrians will find their justice in time. our major intellectual argument for going into iraq was democracy. it would not stop any of that and we did not create democracy. a lot of people are trying to use it as a reason not to get involved in syria. i do not think that should be a leading reason for making your to regulations on syria.

>> my question was answered. the cracks in the back. >> -- >> in the back. >> what are turkeys goals in this crisis? and are they likely to be realized? >> i think they are going for a big education on syria. i think they knew very little when it started out. they'reerd one -- have been reactions very good. he wants to shift power from the south in the gulf of to the north and the middle east, and have turkey be in the center. and that is what he was doing very successfully. syria and screwed it up by getting into this terrible arab spring. he went down to try to talk to assad and it did not work. he got mad and he had to decide

-- he had to side with democracy, and the same way that america has to side with democracy when push comes to shove, because it is the national religion. but once he got his feet in, he realize how dangerous it is. that is what all of the neighbors have been doing. indeed kkk is -- the kkk is still a very powerful party there and many are worried that turkey will gain influence in syria. the minority ruling party in syria, they are shiites who tend to sympathize with the shiite regime. entering in directly into syria, you would at open up sectarian issues in your own country. it is a lose/lose for turkey.

they can only get more kurdish problems, more sectarian problems, and it will lose their money. that is why they said they would come in behind america, but they will not go in first because it is a swamp. >> very brief questions. >> i come from a christian background. if we live -- leave the united states not to support some groups there, but we will support islamic extremists in the country -- the people there are very secular and very diverse. by having the west outside open up things for groups that do not have any support in syria.

>> i think america is trying to pick winners. if they do not have any support, then there will not be any support. this is one of the difficult problems. we did what we did in syria and afghanistan in the 1980's, which is to go 50/50 with the saudis, do a sort of sharing program of funding the prejean to bring down a regime we do not like. we have not given them stingray missiles yet, but maybe we could get there. the al qaeda question is important, and the sense that it does cover in the thinking of how america will do it. and the cia has clearly been sent to syria to say, do not let in as honest extremists. we've got -- islamic extremists. we've got to pick some winners. clinton announced that all funding would go to the syrian national council and that saudi

arabia had agreed to do that. which would mean that america would be able to pick the winners, and it would not go straight to the muslim brotherhood or tonow, that broke syrian national council had its heart attack and jettisoned, god and a kurd and everybody attack the kurd for being powerless and bad and they all began to stab each other in the eyes. americas plan bella part in its hands. the weapons are not getting in in the numbers it hope. they all talked about having a tag team group that would make policy but i think that policy is probably not coming together the way america once, which is leaving the door open for people to fund the they want to -- not coming together the way america

wants. that is a concern. obviously christians are going to worry about that. the thing is, assad is a loser. he will make syria worse in the short term. he will kill lots of people, destroyed the place, and he is not going to be there eventually. he is going to lose. where would leave the questions? the questions will deal with muslims and they will deal with some islamists and syria will be much more islamic than it is today. now, the syrians are going to back to suck it up -- i mean, the christians are going to have to suck it up. i just don't see any other way. they are going to have to decide whether they can lead in a new syria and have faith that the syrians, as they say, are easy going, not wahhabi, and will not

be saudi arabia. and they will not be iran. they will be more like turkey. even if they are not turkey, they will be more like turkey and christians will be respected as they are. everybody sees the christians as the successful -- there are a little bit angry at them because they named themselves john and other western names and always attack you for being not arab or not -- ever the enough, but if you can't -- and withstand that, it will not be that bad. turkey sold a lot of their problems by ethnic cleansing. if there had been 20% christians, as there were almost 20% before 1920, and the others either killed the armenians or kick them out. and a lot of syria's christians have gone through the expulsions. they are frightened for good reason. let but none got to be democratic and was able to win

elections in part because there were no questions. if there had been 20% christensen voted with karmalists -- erdogan would have not succeeded. they will say erdogan was as long as -- you can see it, and syria has the problem because there are aliwites and christians and others frightened. look at what happened in iran, turkey. the middle east in this century has been very bad for christmas. their fears are not completely fabricated. but what can you do? christians are going to have to make their bed with the new syria and it is better to do it faster than slower. >> we have run out of time. please join me in thanking our

speaker. >> thank the woodrow wilson speaker.

>> more from the wilson center in a little less than an hour from now with a forum on u.s. border security and management strategies. that is at 2:00 eastern here on c-span. we are getting an event later today about the so called this cliff, a budget cuts and then -- and expiring tax provisions at the end of the year. senator patty murray will speak live at the brookings institution about that at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. federal reserve board chairman ben bernanke is testifying on capitol hill tomorrow and wednesday when he delivers his monetary report to the senate and house. he is expected to talk about the so-called fiscal cliff and the manipulation of international libor lending rates. we will have the testimony live tomorrow here on c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern. a draft proposal from senate democrats would keep income tax

rates which currently are for families earning below $250,000 year and individuals making less than $200,000. president obama has proposed. democratic aides said the senate will debate the legislation as early as next week. the associated press writes that republicans say the increase will hinder job creation are virtually certain to derail the measure by forcing democrats to produce 60 votes to prevail, which they will not be able to do. when the debate occurs, republicans are expected to offer their own measure extending tax cuts for the entire year for everyone. >> pandora is personalized internet radio. behind the scenes, panasonic has a wide array of products. >> you can think of it as computer hot glue gun -- you extruded through the heater and labor -- layer by layer.

>> a look at the latest in technology and technology -- technology devices at the technology fair on capitol hill. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> the green party held its national convention in baltimore over the weekend hearing lexington, massachusetts, a physician jill stein was the president to nominate. following the ballot vote, she gave her acceptance speech and outlined her green new deal. it includes a moratorium on foreclosures, for giving student loan debt and creating community-based jobs. so far, the green party have qualified for the ballot in 21 states with a hope to double that by november. >> wow. let's have another round of applause for those next leaders of this country. [applause]

nothing ever goes easy for us from the neighborhood. and very few people know, but these guys traveled -- they got ready to leave at 4:00 in the morning to come up here and be here today. the story gets even better. of course, nothing goes easy for poor folks -- they got a flat tire on their way here. but they are here right now and they are not going anywhere. i bring you greetings from poor and working people in the united states of america. i stand here today as a formerly homeless mother, a single mother

of two children, mark and guillermo santos, and i proudly accept the green party nomination for vice president of the united states. [applause] this journey began many years ago for me, watching my poor mother struggle to survive and provide for five hungry children. i never knew why we had to go hungry, especially when i saw so much food in my home state of minnesota.

i didn't understand. i grew up watching my mom cried night after night about the bills. i grew up watching farmers lose their farms. and i grew up watching indigenous family's struggle for something as basic as their land. something just did not seem right to me. especially that today when i had to tell my nine-year old son mark that we were no longer going to be living in an apartment. instead, we would have to move into our car. but on a cold winter night in minnesota, i lost my home, the car, when i parked my car and a drunk driver hit and told it.

unable to find shelter in the bed of the winter in minnesota, i faced an important decision. occupy a heated abandoned house or risk freezing to death on the streets of america. i chose to live, and i chose to keep my son alive. [applause] so, we moved into that abandoned house. and we moved thousands of families into abandoned houses for the last 25 years. but something changed to be down

inside me that night. my hungerford justice was born. i figured that if me and my son mark were left to just die on the streets of the united states of america, this had to have -- be happening to other families across this wealthy country. here i stand today, some 25 years later, now i have a burning flame for justice. we now suffer from the worst economic equality ever. the new movie "the hunger games" makes the fight for the basic necessities of life look like a cake walk when we look at what is happening in our country. one in every two people are in

poverty, 6 million families have lost their homes. we spend more on building prisons than educating our children. the disabled, it immigrants, youth and our elders have been told loud and clear from our elected officials that they just don't matter. but you see, they do matter. [applause] so do the 40,000 children that die every day around the entire world. they matter. and we, the green party of the united states of america, are here to stand up and take on our

historical role in history. we will refuse to proceed -- the politics of scarcity. we know that we live and a man -- land of abundance, a land controlled by the corporations, the 1%, and the greedy. were both political parties are controlled by wall street. but we also know that we live in a land where people love their children, love their country, where we will no longer sit by while one that, glenn, who said on the front row, lose their homes to the banks. we will no longer set by as the united states of america continues to have politicians in the u.s. house of representatives proposing cutting 300,000 children from

free school lunch programs. we will no longer sit by and watch as family members are deported. we are the new and unsettling force that of dr. martin luther king spoke of perry -- spoke of. and the doctor and the woman and the doctor who will help lead this new an unsettling force to create another country and another world that values the human rights of all of human beings, it is my distinct honor to introduce my running mate and green party nominee for president of the united states of america, dr. jill stein.

♪ ♪ ♪ [chanting "jill, jill"] >> i love you back, all of you. it has been such an honor and an inspiration to get to know all of you or nearly all of you over this past year. together we are unstoppable.

[applause] i am so very honored to be your nominee and to be running on the ticket with cheri honkala. together we are the 99%. this is the time we pay our country back. -- this is the year we take our country back. something wonderful is happening across america. i have seen it traveling across the country this past year. in the face of severe hard times, oppression and intimidation, people are standing up and speaking out. we are occupying our city squares, our imperiled schools, and work places.

our threatened homes, and now with this election, we are preparing to occupy the voting booth. [applause] the need could not be more urgent. so many people know who are in this room. we're at the breaking point for our economy, for our homes, up for our democracy, and for our planet. the heat is rising. the ranks of the poor are swelling. our young people are drowning in debt. there are not enough jobs. wages are shrinking. the rich keep getting richer and the rest of america gets poorer every year. an entire generation has grown to adulthood knowing nothing but a social decline.

the establishment parties have taken turns leading the way. bush, clinton, bush, it now obama. while the party labels change, at the labels have stayed the same. -- while the party labels change, the policies have stayed largely the same. on most key issues obama has embraced the policies of george bush and gone further with more massive bailout for wall street, more free trade agreements that send our jobs overseas and depress wages at home. more threats to medicare and social security. more foreclosures in student debt. -- foreclosures and student debt. more attacks on our civil liberties.

>> rights, medical marijuana. more plundering of the environment's end in less illegal wars. have we had enough? [applause] we have had enough. that is why people like you and me are standing up in a way the world has not seen in generations. we are a movement that is alive and well across america. we are here to stay. let me tell you why i am standing up and how i come to be standing here today before you. 30 years ago i was a new doctor starting off the medical practice. even then it was easy to see

that our broken health care system was failing the system basically need it. -- failing the people who desperately needed. as a mother, i was deeply disturbed by it be a new epidemic of disease descending on our children. the rising tide of obesity and diabetes and asthma and cancer and learning disabilities and autism and more. these were new. i became impatient with pills and sending people back to the very things that are making us sick to start with. i'm everything from pollution to poverty to industrial and nutrition and violence. i thought it only our elected officials knew of the amazing solutions that save lives and 10 money and create jobs while

saving the environment. surely they would do something. like supporting local farms and clean energy instead of pouring our tax dollars into a toxic poison as of fossil fuels. [applause] i slowly realized that if you want to persuade electric officials, forget all that cost -- persuade elected officials, forget all that cost saving job-creating stuff. that is not really count. what you need are giant bundles of big campaign checks. that was my wake-up call. if we want to protect children's health or anything, at the health care we need are the education or the job, we need to first that the broken

political system. that is why i now say that i am practicing political medicine. it is the mother of all illnesses. we have to get this one to fix everything else that ails us. i went to work to try to fix that problem. i joined a broad coalition in massachusetts to get big money out of politics. we won. so we thought we did.

we passed a referendum to provide public financing for political campaigns. we passed it by a huge margin. our legislature which was about 85% democratic repealed the law as soon as it was passed on an unrecorded voice vote. so no one could be held accountable for defying the will of the people. [boos] that was my real wake up call. if we want to change the broken political system what we need is not just a new law or lobbying efforts or a fresh face and a corrupt system. -- in the same old corrupt system. we need a new unbought political party that can put people of integrity into office.

[applause] we need real public servants to listen to the people, not to the corporate lobbyists that final campaign chests. -- funnel campaign checks into the big war chests. this is what brought me to the only national party that is not bought and paid for by corporate money. here is why my resolve has only grown stronger. as a mother and a doctor, the concerns that captivated me 30 years ago have only intensified.

i see that our young people are still struggling in every aspect of life, settling for good health, decent schools, -- struggling for good health, decent schools, struggling to stay safe on the street, struggling to afford a college education. struggling to get a job, to get out of debt. struggling to have a climate that they can live in for the future. they are losing the battle on every front. when people ask me why i keep fighting political battles and a bridge system the answer is simple. -- in a rigged system, the answer is simple. when it comes to our system, mothers to not give up. -- when it comes to our children, mothers don't give up.

[applause] do you know what back neither do fathers -- do you know what? neither do fathers or sisters or brothers or sons and daughters. young people haven't given up. they are the ones carrying the burden of this system. if they are not giving up, we are not giving up. [applause] we are not only not giving up, we are doubling down and rising up.

we are a movement toward democracy and justice that is alive and well across the country. we are eviction blockades or brink of america protests. -- eviction blockades and bank of america protests. we are in protests against shoot first, in mass arrests at nuclear power plants and civil disobedience to stop mountaintop removal and stop the keystone pipeline. they all market game over for the climate. we're not good to settle for that. -- we're not going to settle for that.

to quote alice walker, the biggest way people give up power is by not knowing they have it in the first place. we know we've got it. we are going to use its. one of the ways we're going to use it is by having a voice in this election in a choice at the polls that is not bought and paid for by wall street. [applause] voting for either wall street candidate gives a mandate for four more years of corporate rule. every boat to they recede is be deadly to structure we are on for the american people -- every vote they receive is an endorsement of the shift delhi

-- endorsement of the deadly trajectory we are on for the american people on the planet. it is time to change that plunge into catastrophe and that the change starts with a voting for real change. [applause] every vote we receive is a vote for democracy, for the 99% and survival for the planet. to achieve that future, as president i will work to deliver a green new deal for america. a package of emergency reforms to put 25 million people back to work and the jumpstart the green

economy. and the that the economy will put a halt to climate change, a halt to the unemployment and make war is for oil obsolete. -- wars for oil obsolete theor. the green new deal reforms not only our economy but the financial system and our democracy, and it's not just an academic idea. it is based on a program that actually works. the new deal that got us out of the great depression of the 1930's. it is time to bring it back and put it to work. these reforms create living wage, community-based jobs, and communities decide what kinds of jobs they need to be sustainable -- not just ecologically, but economically

and socially. so, that means, for starters, jobs and the green area of the economy. clean manufacturing, local, organic agriculture, public transportation, and clean, renewable energy. i want to tell you about a young man whose life was transformed by this kind of job. his name is ricardo and i met him in holyoke, massachusetts, touring some of the green small business is thriving. ricardo had dropped out of school after being held back three times in the ninth grade. like most kids in poverty, his classes were too big, underfunded and too dominated by less than inspiring test prep.

but he found a training program in an efficiency and solar hot water and still is a program offered by a remarkable green energy corp. recalled call what power in western massachusetts. -- co-op power in western mass. he was hired by a small green and into business where he became a crew leader in one year and this high school dropout, held back three times in the ninth grade, entered a ged program and graduated even before his own high school class received their diplomas. at age 20, he has now been leaders of -- a leader of his crew for three years, supporting his family and his young child. this is a triple win. ricardo pulled his life

together. the community gets lower energy costs and cleaner air. and the climate gets a little more stable for us all. under the green new deal, these win-win jobs will be the rule and not the exception and they are coming to your community. so, the green new deal not only creates jobs like ricardo's that makes up -- makes as ecologically sustainable but also creates jobs that meets our social needs. let's hire back those 300,000 teachers who lost their jobs in this great recession. hire all the nurses we need and the child care and the after-school and a home care and senior care and the violence and

drug abuse prevention and rehabilitation and affordable housing construction. yes. these jobs will be nationally funded and locally and democratically controlled. they are community-based small businesses and not big multinational corporations. and they are worker-owned cooperatives and public works and public services, so instead of going down to the unemployment office, you can just go down to the employment office and get the job you need. to be cleared, the green new deal ends unemployment in america.

this would never occurred to washington politicians, and you can imagine why. their corporate backers depend on the threat of unemployment to hold wages down and their profits up. but ending unemployment and more is front and center for americans who need jobs, so it is front and center on the green agenda. as greens, we are committed not only to jobs but also to improving social conditions for everyone in america. the green new deal will create an immediate moratorium on foreclosures and

evictions. we cannot afford to have even one more round of thrown out of her home. we are going to put an end to that -- we cannot afford to let one more rhonda thrown out of her home. that is why the green new deal also guarantees health care for everyone and the human right through medicare for all. this not only provides quality, comprehensive care for everyone, but it will restore your choice of provider and put you back in control of your own health care

decisions instead of having them made for you by a profiteering insurance co. ceo. and it will save trillions. it doesn't cost us trillion's but it saves us trillions over the next decade by streamlining the massive wasteful health insurance bureaucracy and putting an end to runaway medical inflation. as part of the green new deal we will forgive the crushing student debt burden. and we will liberate an entire generation of young people who

have been turned into a indentured servants. and we will provide tuition- free public education from pre- kindergarten through college. this is an investment in our future and it pays off enormously. we know that from the g.i. bill after world war ii that provided $7 in increased economic benefit for every dollar that we, the taxpayers, invested. in order to create an economy that works for the people, we need not only jobs and secure

working conditions. we need a financial system that is free from domination by big banks and well-connected finance sears who hijacked our economy and democracy -- financiers who hijacked our economy and democracy. instead we will create a system that is open, honest, stable, and serve as the real economy, not the phony economy of high finance. we will end the bailout and corporate giveaways and ensure the resources are available for investments in our community -- for consumers and small businesses and cooperatives. through these reforms, we will break up the big banks that are too big to fail.

we will restore the glass- steagall separation of commercial and speculative banks. we will regulate all financial derivatives and require them to be traded on open exchanges. we will democratize monetary policy to establish public control of the money supply and credit creation. and we will tax capital gains as income, tax wall street transactions to stop reckless speculation and put a 90% tax on

bonuses for bailed out bankers. in order to secure these reforms, we must also enact political reforms to give us a real functioning democracy. because, as you know, we don't have that yet. so, to start with, we must end the domination of our and actions by corporations and big money which makes the government of, by, and for the people on -- impossible. for this reason, we urgently need to amend our constitution to make clear that corporations are not persons and of money is not speech.

-- and money is not speech. those rights belong to a living, breathing human beings like you and me and not to business entities controlled by the very wealthy. the green new deal will also undercut the power of lobbyists and billionaires to control elections. and we will do that by enacting a voter bill of rights. in so doing, we will guarantee a new voter-marked paper ballot for all voting and require all votes are counted.

we will bring simplified same day voter registration to the nation so no qualified voter is barred from the polls. we will replace a partisan oversight of the elections with non-partisan election commissions and we will restore the votes of 1.4 million african-american men who are barred from voting because they are ex-felons.

and we will implement election reform like instant runoff of voting and proportional representation that can truly reflect voter sentiment. and we will take money out of politics and replace it with full public financing and free and equal access to the public airways. and we will guarantee equal access to the ballot and to the debates and for all qualified candidates.

[crowd shouts "let jailbjill dee "] occupy the debate, exactly. they don't know what they are in for, but they will find out. so, in summary, the green new deal is a comprehensive program to pull us back from the brink and moved beyond the current state of emergency for our

economy, our environment, and our democracy. and there is much more to it. i won't hold you here for the next three hours about that, but you can go to our website jillstein.org to find out more about it. but there is more to be done beyond the universe of the green new deal. that is why i am committed to emergency action in other areas as well. so, first, i will bring the troops and no war dollars home -- the war dollars home. "bring theuts ope

troops home"] we need to bring them home from these illegal and immoral war is, including the proliferating drone wars and the soldiers and over 1000 bases and over 140 countries around the world where we don't need to be. foreign policy based on the militarism and the protection of oil resources will be replaced. replaced by diplomacy, diplomacy based on respect for international law and human rights.

i will restore our in periled civil liberties by repealing the un-american provisions of the patriot act. and it's not only the patriot act, as you know, but it is also the national defense authorization act. and the anti-trust and terrorism acts which criminalize protests and directly to spy on nonviolent dissenters. and i will prohibit the department of homeland security and the fbi from conspiring with local police to suppress our freedoms of assembly and speech.

i will also work to legalize marijuana. and put it into a safe regulatory framework, because marijuana is a substance which is it dangerous because it is illegal. if not -- it is not illegal because it is dangerous. >> free the prisoners. >> and finally, i will and the bipartisan war on immigrants --

end the bipartisan war on immigrants. i will stand up against discriminatory republican laws like the remnants of arizona's s.b. 1070, and i will stand up to the racist demagoguery that wrongly blames immigrants for the unemployment brought on by wall street's abuse of the e economy. misnamedl end obama's secure communities program.

which has deported over 1 million immigrants heartlessly splitting families and taking thousands of children away from their parents. this issue also gets my blood boiling. with that track record, the obama white house has been the most anti-immigrant administration in a century. -- obama did a pre- election about-face last month and gave temporary work permits to a the limited number of immigrants youth. and even this fortunate group will still face deportation at age 30.

it is not a solution. on taking office, i will immediately issue an executive order to end the deportations now. and i will be vigorously support passage of the dream act, and i will work to provide a welcoming path to pull it = citizenship -- full equal citizenship who are vital members of our economy and our community. and i will work to replace the

corporate so-called free-trade agreements which generate economic refugees in of the first place. these will be replaced with fair trade agreements that respect workers in this country and in that latin america. now, we need these solutions. and the public support to them by substantial majorities in poll after poll. we got in them? -- gotten them. there are big fear campaigns that have been waged over the past decade that have been telling us to just be quiet and vote your fears.

but we have done that and long enough now to see that the silence is not an effective political strategy. in fact, the politics of fear has brought us everything we were afraid of. what democracy needs is not fear and silence but the voices and values. it is time to answer the politics of fear with the politics of courage.

as those in massachusetts radicals did when they took on the british east india company and dumped the t. and the harbor and declared themselves free of king's law and corporate rule, by the way, like the abolitionists bid with the liberty party, and women's severed just did with the women's party, has working people did with the people's party and the socialist party and the progressive party. in each of these cases, independent politics was critical to formulate the political demands which as frederick douglass said so famously -- it is essential because power concedes nothing without a demand. it never did, and it never will.

by bringing that demand into the presidential election, we can advance of the movement toward democracy and justice and drive these solutions into the political agenda. the history of progressive politics is filled with social movements belied with independent political parties that made his together. ga that made history together. abolishing slavery, securing women's right to vote, the right to form unions, the 40-hour work week, campaign finance laws, child labor laws, safe

workplaces, social security, the new deal, and more, and that is what this campaign is all about. standing up and reclaiming our political voice and our political courage. because the moment we do, they're real aspirations of the american people can no longer be denied. we will have a base from which we can build and we can start to drive forward those critical solutions that people broadly support and which wall street politicians have kept off the table and which we are the only vehicle for in this election and the foreseeable future. we will give the people a choice and a voice in the voting

booth and enable them to go to the polls and vote for the green new deal and vote for the reforms that will improve our lives right now. so, i ask for your vote but i asked for something much more. help our balance access drive, help us raise money, helped form new green party locals all over the country and help support our local candidates, ensure that the voice of principled opposition will be heard now and into the future by standing up and pushing forward with this campaign for economic and political democracy, we signal to the world that we the people, the 99%, have taken the stage, political stage, once more in the united states of america.

we will take the lead in our campaign has in our democracy. we will create an unstoppable movement and we won't rest until we have turned the white house into a greenhouse. and -- [applause] and together, we will take back the promise of our democracy that people will get the green of future we deserve. thank you so much. [applause] ♪ comingrevolution is

a revolution is coming ♪ [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> go, green, go! go, green, go! go, green, go! go, green, go! [cheering]

>> i want to point up the people who have not been introduced. erica, the associate canteen manager. -- campaign manager. the director, so much more, a leader of the student movement, both nationally and in wisconsin. we're going to have an incredible evening tonight. later at 8:00 in this room, there is going to be a party. i want to see everybody back here. i want you to bring papers so they can be notarized. i want those there -- i want those here to. -- here, too. you can join, you can donate, you can spread the word. let's get this party started

the. [cheering] [rhythmic clapping]

[unintelligible] >> thank you, everybody. >> whoo!

>> this green party convention was held over the weekend in baltimore. we're going live to another convention at the wilson center, this one on u.s. border strategies. all we wait for our live coverage to get underway, live on c-span3, it just started -- a

discussion on the so-called fiscal cliff. again, you can see that right now on c-span3.

>> this discussion on border security expected to get underway momentarily. the speakers are coming in now.

the senate will vote later today on a campaign finance legislation. "pete can find -- campaign finance reformers are targeting independent-minded group of republicans. that is the initial cloture votes this evening. all action groups will be asked to report the names of donors who give more than $10,000. if the democrats cannot get the necessary 50 votes, they will talk for another day and have another cloture vote tomorrow." the senate just dabbled in and our live coverage is on c-span -- gaveled in, and our live coverage is on c-span2. >> good afternoon. welcome, everybody.

thank you for joining us on this discussion on the 21st century border, the notion of how we move towards the smart border, the multiple issues including trade, movement of people coming immigration, and security, which often involves trade-offs, but also can involve, and solutions on the u.s. border. we are here to welcome you at the woodrow wilson center. we are very pleased to have alan bersin. we are very pleased to be presenting with the border legislative conference. we're very pleased to have with us my colleague from santa ana, calif.. as well as two colleagues from

sg west. i would like to turn it over for a few opening remarks as well to mr. flores. >> welcome, everybody. on behalf of the border legislative conference, we would like to welcome all of you to today's important conference, how to build a 21st century border. my colleague and counterpart from california is with me, and we are sure this will be very interesting. thank you very much. >> you will be watching today the beginning of a single -- of a series of papers. we're doing this with the north

american center for transborder studies. we have partners from telenorte. our colleagues have been leading this effort. i believe chris and lee have been a leading this effort. we also had some interesting ideas in this paper on u.s.- mexico relations from a group of senior policymakers, notable from the united states, civil society leaders, and some of these have to do with the border as well. i would call your attention to that. now i would like to introduce alan bersin, the assistant director for diplomatic affairs. he is the former secretary of education in california, former u.s. attorney in san diego where

he was known as the border zara -- czar. and really for the last 20, 25 years, as long as i have followed mexico actually, is someone who has been involved in two sets of interrelated issues. has looked at quality of life issues, but also how we make the border and a more intelligent and effective way. i would like to turn it over with a few thoughts on how we can do this going forward and what the current policy is. >> thank you. >> what to go up there? >> i will be referring, and characteristically, to some slides. i want to thank andrew and the wilson center, be it council for state governments for this

opportunity. and also to acknowledge my colleagues from dhs who are here. the counsel to the secretary, lou alvarez. the deputy assistant secretary. john, don, i'm glad you could make it. the panel will focus on this extraordinary economic relationship that has developed and the social relationship that has developed between mexico and the united states, long rooted in history. but when you pull out the report, you start to see astounding figures with regards to the economy. eric, lee, chris pointed out in a working paper for the first time in 2011, the imports and

exports between united states and merchandise and services actually hit the $500 billion work in terms -- $500 billion mark in terms of exports. 75% are carried by truck. that has quintupled. this is an extraordinary set of economic data that shows how tied we are to mexico. what i would like to do is, in fact, i would project that this kind of economic growth scenes -- for the first time in american history -- it has an enormous implications not only for the american border, but for

american history. when you think about american history, most people think of the 18th-century on with an east-west access. it was settlement of the west. movement out west to the atlantic seaboard that determined much of what happened in the united states. what, i suspect, for our younger colleagues in the u.s. as well for my children and grandchildren, what will determine the next 50 years of american history is a north- south influence. is what we do with respect to mexico and canada that will determine quality of life. there are those who will say indeed not withstanding the prejudices of the foriegn policy, where in fact there is a disproportion between the commitments we have made elsewhere in the world and what we do with respect to mexico,

and arguably with respect to canada. when you look at that, the north american free trade association on on canada, united states, and mexico, north america has the largest free-trade area in the world and accounts for one-third of the world's gross domestic product. we get a sense of the potential and the power of north america. and i submit for economic competitive reasons as well as security reasons will be the main part of reference for the next generation or two of americans. certainly the cultural and demographic nature of our life here in the united states is remarkably, as robert kaplan point out, build on our

relationships with mexico. i would like to leave that for the panel discussion and rather talk about security with respect to the border, and i do that for the following reason. in order to harness the economic power of north america, in order to make that experience work for canada and mexico, we are going to have to exert efforts that are massively bipartisan in nature. that require not only the cooperation of canadian leaders and mexican leaders, canadian and mexican people's, but also will require the american people and american leadership comes together to recognize the importance of north america. in order to build the infrastructure, something pointed out in an earlier discussion, we have week times

at the border, a huge bottlenecks at the border. these are problems we must overcome to meet the challenges of economic competitiveness if we are to compete with east asia and the indian subcontinent and brazil. how can we possibly accomplish that if you project the political gridlock that appears to exist in washington? i always say this becomes more apparent to me as i get older. we must always avoid projecting into the indefinite future. -- into the indefinite future the existing state of affairs. it is not merely an optimistic view. i think one grounded in experience, as well as the

logic, that we will find the political bipartisan capacity to fill the border out in terms of the economy. the evidence i have for that is we have just completed a 20-year effort doing that with regard to the south-west border. -- southwest border. in 1993, we began an effort to restore the rule of law to the u.s. border. to take a rule that had been neglected on both sides of the border. millions of people were crossing in a disorderly, and regulated way. -- on regulated way. -- unregulated way. if you fast forward to 2011, he

relies the clinton administration, the bush administration, and particularly the emphasis by the obama administration, we have an order that has been transformed dramatically. we have gone from of order budget that was several million dollars to one that is close to $10 billion per year in terms of border infrastructure. the number of border patrol agents has gone from 3000 in 1990 fell to -- 1990's 2 20,000 to dec. i want to point out and emphasize this was a bipartisan effort. demonstrating we can, in fact, engaged in noble, bipartisan, a constructive national efforts when there is a sufficient

consensus to achieve a particular and. indeed, when you look at the condition of the border in 1993 and today, it would rank as one of the greatest assertions and exertions of national power, comparable to other large efforts and our national history. were bringing this border under control -- bringing this border under control is a chapter of american history that should be better understood. we attempt to apply the same effort to be expediting trade and lawful trade and travel between our countries. what i would like to do in summary form is to take you through three phases. in 1993, a congressman from all

tasso -- el paso who was the border control chief in el paso did something that had never occurred. to put -- he put border control agents on the border. right on the border. in order to control the passage of thousands of people from juarez into the interior of texas. that began the effort. the first phase was in 1993. that was until 2000. let me ask you to put up these -- it shows the apprehensions between 1993 and 2011. they are actually very

interesting to analyze. let me put aside those who say, well, apprehensions do not tell you anything about actual numbers of people trying to cross. in fact, if you look it any enforcement situation, the first thing that happens when you have a lot of police officers in the community, the akron engines -- the apprehensions' go up because the police officers are able to make more arrests. over time, you see the apprehensions go down because the criminals move elsewhere. they will not stay in areas where there is high police activity or presence. so, what you see in el paso in the fiscal year 1993 when sylvester reyes started, 200,000 people arrested in el paso that your. in san diego, 531,000.

they were arrested in san diego that year. that is where people would cross. it is easy to cross from tijuana to san diego. it was easy to just crossed the river at low tide, as it is in the case in el paso -- juarez. there was no stopping. patrol agents got on the line and deterred people from crossing. in 1994 operation gatekeeper, the same principles to place in san diego and texas in 1997. what these numbers show is the

impact. if you watch over the 20 years, from 565,000 last year -- from 565,000, last year, there was our rate of 42,000. the difference was in 1992, many more people were not arrested. those people the border patrol did not arrest were simply avoiding the border patrol and going up the freeway toward los angeles. the same thing in el paso. by the time you see the border by fiscal year 2011, that number represents a much higher percentage of people trying to cross. in fact, i believe the record is pretty clear. the same thing has happened in

el paso for the last 20 years. to under 50,000 people being arrested fiscal year 2000 -- 250,000 people being arrested fiscal year 2011. what happened over the years is the traffic was moved to different places on the border. that is what these will reflect as we go ahead. the main movement, if you go to to second slide -- let's go the third one. you can see this is the el thank you. the blue is the old tasso apprehension rate. -- you can see this is the el paso. the green is laredo, further down from el paso.

the yellow is the del rio. for two years, the traffic tended to move to the east. what you had an 1993 until 2000, you had two basic phenomenon. traffic was being moved from all tasso east -- el paso east, and that is what the laredo, rio grande valley -- the rio grande valley is mcallen and other towns. you say -- you see the same thing happened in san diego. there is the imperial valley

east of california. they start to go up and tucson goes up and el centro goes up. you begin to see the number of apprehensions total in 1992 were 1.1 million. the sectors move this way. 49% of the apprehensions in san diego. 22% in el paso. if you go to fiscal year 2011 where the apprehensions drop by 75%, you see that 13% of the arrests are being made in san diego. 3% in el paso.

38% -- the largest number -- in tucson. that is why when president obama took over in 2008, all of this activity, all of this traffic was pushed to the east in california, and all of the traffic east toward the rio grande valley, and what you saw was a consolidation of traffic in tucson. and that was really the second phase of the border control effort. you could control the traffic in the larger urban areas. by increasing agents, increasing technology.

what in fact, you did was he pushed it into some of the most inhospitable, some of the most beautiful territory in the united states in arizona, up from the sonora desert into the arizona desert. some of the most beautiful, but inhospitable territory in the united states. use of this consolidation of traffic -- you saw this consolidation of traffic from 1996, 1999, all the way through as more and more of this traffic was going through tucson, the tucson sector. if you go back to the first slide, you can see that number of apprehensions. look at the increases. 1995 -- 227,000. 287,000. by the year 2000, 616,000

arrests being made in tucson, which is then still more than any of the other sectors. tucson becomes the only sector that actually has a triple digit number of apprehensions. in the tucson sector, where its consolidated is shown by that graf -- where it gets consolidated is shown by that graph. this becomes the issue. one might reasonably deduce that senate bill 1070 happened in arizona and it was no accident that politically this was our response to the traffic that was taking place -- this was a

response to the traffic that was taking place in that sector. what was also happening though between 2000 and 2007 was the buildup of resources for the smart border initiative continues to build up, the assets being devoted to be a border action. so, when we get to the end of the bush administration, into the obama administration, the state really has to focus on arizona. arizona -- remember the theory in san diego and el paso was to get the traffic out of the urban areas. that is why you have height pedestrian -- high pedestrian traffic in the urban areas. when you get out into the

country, into the desert, you have vehicle barriers. what we saw was in order to bring down the numbers in arizona, we need to provide more resources and a concerted campaign. they gave directions to secretary the polish town of -- secretary napilitano for that to happen. the deviation of assets to patrol a very inhospitable terrain. that has the reaction we

expected. which is that the trafficking down -- the traffic came down. go back to the first slide, please. if you look at tucson, it hits the high point in 2000. then there is a decline, but not -- look at the difference. tucson has 50% in the year where there were 858,000 arrests. it accounts for 378,000 of those arrests. book of what happens from 2008, 2009, 2011. 241,000, 211,000. last year, 122,000 arrests. bringing it much more into line with other sectors.

so, the first question you should be asking is, we did have the fiscal crisis of 2008. dozen the economy explain -- does the economy explain that decline? i believe it does have a major role to play. to suggest it is only a function of the economy, i think, belies the fact that what has been happening since fiscal year 2000. back to that. this 1. so, this measures 1993 until fiscal year 2011. the red line is apprehensions'. the blue line our seizures of marijuana. the green line are the number of agents. if you see the decline in the number of people being arrested, the flow of people across the border, it begins in fiscal year

2000. when you start to see the long term decline. uc -- you will recall that between 2000 and 2007, we had quite a robust economy, notwithstanding that fact -- and notwithstanding that fact, the people trying to cross illegally went down significantly. this is not to deny that the economy as our role. it does. but if you looked at earlier to the recession in 1992, 1991, in the early 1980's, the reagan administration, you see the numbers declined a bit, but they recovered with the economy quite quickly.

so, too, here, this national bipartisan effort to detect -- protect the border and change the pattern of migration has been a major factor. let's take a look at what we can expect in the future. and then i can wrapup. the future of the u.s.-mexican border is going to change significantly for a number of reasons. first and most importantly, the changes that are taking place in mexico today are the foundation together with the independent efforts of the migration institute, the woodrow wilson center to sketch a dramatic change in the socio-economic conditions that, for the most part, served as a push out of

mexico, together with a magnetic pull to the united states with higher wages and more economic activity. but the decline in the fertility rate to 2.41% is a further decline in the last decade compared to the 1970's, when large scale illegal immigration to united states really began for the first time in our bilateral history, suggests that the number of people in that age gap that applied so much labor to the united states, that group of young men -- for the most part, although not exclusively men -- from the age of 20 to 28 is not available.

when you look at that in the mexican economy and other conditions affecting the use, including the increase of the youth literacy rates, secondary school enrollment, and most dramatically, the growth of the mexican economy, you begin to see that the push and pull factor that defined this border for the last few decades is changing and changing dramatically. when that happens over the next 10 years to 15 years in i'm most important white. for many -- -- most important way. the first impact of the industrial revolution is to move immigrants off the land into the

city's. in places where there was insufficient employment, it led to the migration patterns like we have seen in the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's. we also see the conditions of education and health increase, so we see the number of mexicans under the official poverty line in mexico declined from 69% in over 51% too just the. -- today. dramatic and impressive economic growth. what that will mean as we go forward, we will see a decrease in the number of mexicans who

are coming across the border and we will see something that the pew data showed for the first time. this is the flow from the united states to mexico in 1995 to 2000. it is just under the -- just under six times the flow. over the last five years, we have seen something remarkable. for the first time, we see a net outflow of mexicans voluntarily immigrating from united states to mexico, along with the number of people coming into united states from mexico. it suggests that more and more people come up migrants have

determined -- people, migrants have determined not to attempt a further reentry. the implications are very dramatic for both countries. the problem, so-called problem of the mexican illegal immigration really begins in the 1970's and comes pronounced -- becomes pronounced in the 1980's and 1990's. we see the number of mexican- born population in the united states declining. that number is expected to continue. so, too, with the mexican-born population in the united states. we see the number decrease by just under 1 million in terms of the last number of years.

we see them remaining relatively stable. so, can i go to the two slides? do you have the picture? so, go to the next one first, if you don't mind. this is what the border look like in 1993. this is in southern california, by the pacific ocean. this is in san diego. you can see water over here. this is what it looks like today with roadwork and infrastructure. the next picture though, for all

the enforcement pictures, it does affect the quality of life between our two people's. -- peoples. this is the story when it was not so difficult to cross. this is the largest border crossing area in the world. that is the next challenge for the american people. for the american -- for the american people, the people of mexico. we must realize the extent to which our continental force and our economic competitiveness as a nation requires that we solve this. we were able to solve,

increasingly with the cooperation of the government of mexico, the problem of illicit activity at the border having to do with the close of migrants. i suggest that this is the next great project. to build a border that works from the standpoint of commerce, as well as the passage of people lawfully back and forth. why don't i stop it there and pick it up with the panel? >> thank you. that was a fabulous presentation. i think he will get some questions on how we turn this into something that is different five years from now. but let me turn it over to my colleague, and we will have a few questions for the secretary. thank you very much. raise your hand and identify yourself, please.

>> alright. thank you at very much, mr. secretary. we will have a question and answer priod right now, -- period right now, and then we will have a panel discussion. if you will identify yourself, we have a microphone going around. yes? >> back here? well, i wanted to raise the fairly obvious question the senator from san diego had raised at lunch. that is, how you develop, how do you stimulate developing infrastructure that we need on both sides of the border to expedite both travel for tourism and trade? >> two answers in brief.

one is the way we have to change the way we process traffic and people. we segments low risk traffic from high-risk traffic or that traffic about which we do not know enough to make a judgment. the second is we need to build infrastructure in less cumbersome way is -- ways. the night states and mexico have opened up three ports of entry on the -- the united states and mexico have opened at three ports of entry on the u.s.- mexican border. while we rely on the government to build large projects were to rebuild the bridge of the

americas in el paso, we need to build into the calculus of public-private partnership that did of building -- method of building infrastructure. one example that is currently being worked on is in seen diego-tijuana. p rodriguez airfield -- the rodriguez airfield is immediately on the borderline. a group of entrepreneurs secured a permit from the state department and a permit from mexico to build a bridge that would basically go from the san diego side right into the airport. a fee would be charged, but it would expedite what is expected to be 2 million who will use rodriguez airfield to travel to

latin america. so, change the cargo and passengers and the pedestrians. supplement the public approach -- appropriations and construction projects with public-private partnerships. >> thank you. do you have another question or comment? >> not at this time, mr. secretary. [laughter] >> we have a question here. >> hi, i'm claire, a u.s. policy master students. we talked about canada and some of the successes on the canadian border. is there any plan to get some of those in terms of the mexican border? >> in terms of revenged -- re- engineering those, yes.

the same processes are being worked through. the obama administration is working with the mexican administration. they will do a pre inspection. which means stationing of u.s. customs border official in canada, in mexico so that cargo crossing from mexico into the united states will be pre- inspected in mexico. of the targeting and risk- management can be accomplished before the crossing of the border, and what that then permits is a cargo can immediately enter the u.s. transport network, the interstate system, without stopping at the american port of entry. so, yes, the pre-inspection is being discussed with mexican authorities.

as well as with canadian authorities, with the intent being in the not too distant future, an auto manufacturer of parts in southern ontario would be able to have those parts delivered to a u.s. assembly plant or one in mexico without stopping at any of the borders, and yet been fully secure because of the pre-inspection and the targeting that has taken place, the monitoring that is taking place as the product moves from canada into mexico and to the united states. >> alright. thank you so much, mr. secretary, for your wonderful work. i think we will move into the second section, the panel. thank you very much. [applause]

>> could we switch right here? thank you. and we can swap you guys out? would you like to go first? >> sure. >> so, joining us today is professor chappell lawson from mit.

on this issue and the issue of u.s.-mexico relations, he has worked for some time. we're happy to have you with us today. >> can people see? i am very grateful to be included with the wilson center, taking other academic ideas and turning them into policy or making policies' strong enough to withstand academic criticism. is a wonderful institution. most of what i am going to say is going to build on points that alan already made. years ago, a debate erupted in united states about how to handle trucks crossing into united states from canada.

the discussion was whether the truck could be physically over the line over the bridge and brought on to the u.s. side where it could be inspected, or the truck could not enter the u.s. at all and had to be subjected to secondary inspection in the middle of the bridge, there by backing up traffic for miles. you'll be happy to know that sanity prevailed. and of course, the way we work now is not the way he used to be. we face the same basic challenge in order management. supply chains, they are flexible, trans global. they are constantly changing. so, borders are not. borders are fixed. orders do not reflect economic realities, trading -- borders

and not reflect economic realities, trading patterns. this is a hard issue to manage. managing trade and travel is a key aspect of international competitiveness. we have to figure out the right regime. the countries that do not figure this out will lose. we will talk about this at the end. this applies not only to goods and people, but other aspects of the order management like natural resources. i am going to focus specifically on two thanks. one is the issue to which secretary bersin eluded. if we have time, i will come back to talking about natural resources management, at the end

of the presentation. the idea here though is the goal of order management should be to facilitate lawful trade and travel -- border management should be to facilitate lawful trade and travel. we keep up bad things well good things can get let in. we go from managing lines to managing goods and people. to shift from the unilateral approach to one that enhances public safety for all three care -- three countries and north america. the first test to do with segmentation. problem is -- the problem is, people are complying, 97%, 99% of travelers'. they are compliant with all existing laws.

and most of the violations that do exist are minor. someone with an orange in the trunk of their car for getting to declare as they drive across the border from tijuana. not drug-trafficking. as a result, finding something bad -- drugs, illegal migrants, people with outstanding warrants, whatever it is -- in this massive flow of people across the border is like finding a needle in a haystack. or maybe a better metaphor is finding a chromium-colored needle in a stack of silver needles. every person crossing the border and is subjected to the same high level of screening for inspection. obviously an enormously difficult and wasteful undertaking, both in terms of

the amount of energy expended to be compliant and not devoted to things that you suspect might be useful, but also the negative impact on law enforcement, saying over and over again things that are legitimate and getting accustomed to finding notes in the trunk of a car that is bad -- nothing in the trunk of a card that is bad. -- of a car. how do we get ourselves out of this needle in the haystack? take that large purple aero at the last -- arrow at the left, and put it on things that we know to be bad. a piece of cargo crossing the border.

and b, things that we suspect might be higher risk, even though we're not totally certain, right? and that should protect further scrutiny. in the case of goods and people. the same principles of risk- management apply to people. there will be a segment of traffic or a segment of individuals about which we simply know very little. it might be an unfamiliar shipper, a broker we have never heard of, a person we have never heard of. the goal will be to find out enough information to classify that person. do not expand law enforcement resources on those that we know are at the bottom.

the challenge is to blow off the hay. to get out of the system all of those people that we know are safe and all the cargo that we know is a reliable. the pharmaceuticals that get sent on exactly the same day in exactly the same quantity every month. that's not a risky shipment. in the case of people to -- trusted travel programs. best is the program that is analogous shipping. global entry for people who come -- you are not risks.

we want to spend no law enforcement resources on you so we can spend it on the 20-year- old who has recently traveled to pakistan. that is an extra level of scrutiny from people in this room. the strategy is take the haystack, blow off some of the hay. the second strategy would be -- i don't have a slight here -- the slide here. marshalling all the information available to the u.s. government, including information held by state, local, tribal, or foreign partners agreed to bear at the moment of query to decide whether that person crossing the

border or that shipment entering the united states deserves further scrutiny. finding effectively a score or rating or some metric that allows us to classify that shipment or that person as higher or lower risk. and focusing law enforcement resources on a relatively small percentage of travelers and goods that set off alarm bells and the system in some way or another. we can talk about exactly how that targeting regiment can be built or approved, and i believe we can make it incredibly effective without compromising the civil liberties. we can come back to that. the general principle here is that the good people of the system, don't devoting resources on them, and focusing on the

others and spending all your law enforcement time on those. better risk segmentation. the second has to do with international collaboration, in this case within north america between north america and canada and the united states and mexico. and shifting the focus from thinking about each sovereign entity protecting itself from scary crossings to enhancing public safety and prosperity in the north american region as a whole. let me just give you one example. there is no point in building a port of entry on one side of the border if there is no port of entry on the other side of the border. you can have a gold-plated, beautiful port of entry in the united states, but if the port of entry on the mexican side is decrepit or not functioning, you

are in trouble. if the port of entry on both sides is terrific but on one side there is a super highway with eight lanes, but on the other side you have a pot hole dirt road, you don't have much of a port of entry. what she wanted financial collaboration on the collateral -- what you want is financial collaboration on the planning. just thinking about defending our own borders to securing flows across the border with the north america. what does the ideal port of entry look like? i take the example of canada. of believe we can take many smaller steps along this path in our relationship with mexico. here we have the perfect port of entry, a big open space in the middle, and in the middle of the open space is a dotted red line.

on one side of the building you have canadian officers and on the other side you have american officers. one can yell or talk to the other officer immediately, and entry into one country, which by definition is an exit from the other country, so there is no need for any kind of double processing. you should be able to do both. if the canadian officers and the mexican officers and u.s. officers are looking to screened with were less the same information. there may be some information the canadians don't want to share immediately or automatically with their counterparts or vice versa, but basically all the other in permission is the same. they are located in the same space, looking at the same information that able to communicate with each other in real time. pedestrians or cars or whatever

just passing through this port of entry in have joined by u.s. and mexican or u.s. and canadian officers. just to give you a sense of all little steps one could take along the path to this ideal. on the vertical axis -- i am a professor at mit so i have to slides with vertical axis, etc. on the horizontal axis we have a greater joint this in operations. one can imagine a tremendous amount of jointness in operations. investigative referrals would be one example. it could have a tremendous amount of sharing of information without much jointness.

the communications systems can talk to each other, but they don't meet every day. and everything in between. you have cross deputized officers may be occupying the same building. the worst aspects of the status quo applied across the border. in the middle there are all these more modest measures. the officers from both sides meet regularly to discuss how to keep the port of entry running if there is an accident or shooting at the port of entry or some other incident like an overturned truck, whatever. but they meet regularly to discuss and develop protocols. coordinated hours, coordinated propofol, some source of --

coordinated protocol. significantly reduce significant amounts of shared data, for instance, license plates on cars. the idea is that we are taking steps in the direction of .reater joinetness we have made significant steps of with canada and mexico. i have now been out of government as long as i was in government. maybe we are not proceeding with the alacrity that we would have hoped. --th america's increasing facing increasing international competition with the supply chain. a big hit for our economy with regards to other international

supply chains, even europe and turkey, if we get it wrong. i think the goal should be forced to move much more rapidly to consolidate these sorts of changes. you have now heard the vision. i won't go into detail about all the obstacles along the way, but you have a sense of what measures we could take. i talked about flows and travel of people. managing the order is a lot more expensive and complicated than just travel and security. i will give another example before i close. sometimes a picture says a thousand words. here is an aerial the audio of the juarez and el pass so area. for many years it has been the most dangerous city in the

western hemisphere. it is a single urban area in the middle of the desert, bisected by a narrow ribbon of blue, a river that separates -- separates the mexican side of this population center from the american side of this population center. in what world health care management would make sense to inoculate the northeastern part of this area and not the southwestern part of this area from influenza? there is simply none. in what world would be rational to have a water treatment plant that just serve one part of this city and not the other part of the city, or an electrical generation plant. it is the same thing. or an offer that spanned the border and actually works and ifer that span aqu the city but was managed independently on both sides.

both sides basically sticking a straw in the same cup and not coordinating the way they do it. in the world doesn't make sense. collaborative management would be about figuring out a way to jointly manage resources, natural and otherwise, in areas that are effectively single city's spending the frontier. i am probably running out of time. some of the key issues of the 21st century, security of global supply chains, travel networks, migration, natural resource management, these are the heady, important issues. the should be particularly partisan issues. all the things i have suggested should be bipartisan. they should be regarded as just making common-sense, not as a

matter of politics. i am not totally ignorant of the political realities in washington. i sincerely believe that all the plans we put forward about collaborative border management an enhanced risk segmentation could be implemented by both parties. >> before i pass it over to my colleague who is the co-author of the paper i am about to present, he is also co-author of a report about security. i would go ahead and present our work, specifically on the economic issues.

the report chapter's called a state of trade, competitiveness, an economics. you can get a copy of that outside. it will be part of a larger report we are putting together that is more comprehensive and will come out later this fall. the wood for a war project will work at the woodrow wilson center -- we worked at the woodrow wilson center as well as in tijuana. we make up something called the border research partnership. we get support from u.s. aid. thank you for being here with us today in making a lot of this possible. jumping right into our research and findings, just to show the overall picture, a starting

point is very simple. bilateral trade between the united states and mexico matters to both the united states and mexico. it is of enormous importance to both sides. we have gone to this milestone, and service trade numbers are not out yet for 2011 but i think we've got into this milestone of a half trillion dollars of goods and services and trade between the two countries last year. just enormous. obviously important to the mexico -- to mexico but also extremely important to the united states. craig has quintupled since 1993 -- trade has quintupled since 1993. oh wanted to remember as we move forward that it is growth and trade, this rule line that grew steadily. there are some terms that mark defining points in the way the border has been managed and in

our economic relationship between the two countries as a whole. you can see around the 2001 marker, there was a slowdown in growth of trade. another of around the economic crisis in the united states that produced an enormous recession in mexico, even stronger than in the united states. a huge bid in 2009 and the recovery with remarkable growth happening in the last couple of years -- a huge dip in 2009. the flow of people back and forth across the border is also a trade and has a huge impact on our economy's, both nationally and especially locally in the border region. mexico has the second-largest number of tourists entering the united states of any country and the fourth largest in terms of spending. i think those numbers don't actually reflect the entirety of what is happening. if you have been to the border

or live-in and border community, where the city's, there is really no difference if you live in tijuana or san diego. it is a single urban area. all you do when you cross the border is maybe take out a different bank card. mexico is one of the largest spenders in tourism dollars in the united states. that cross -- cross border retail is the lifeblood of a lot of border towns. this is a vital part of the border economy is how these crossings work. you need border crossings that work to maintain this cross border retell that is happening all the time. this shows the projected los of highway traffic, a trade coming across the u.s.-mexico border.

these transportation corridors is where trade is happening. 80% of trade crosses the southwest border could 75% of bilateral trade crosses by truck. it is the point at the border where they cross that are the key to managing the flow of goods throughout the region. a lot of it is coming from the industrial heartland, the midwest, the united states automakers. detroit, is the largest city exporting goods to mexico. that is the auto industry, obviously, but the east coast is also a huge. the point here is that we also produce goods together. we don't just trade finished products with one another. for example, as we create a

car, the idea is somewhere between six or seven or more times, parts that are inside that car have crossed back and forth across the border as that car is being made. we have imports from mexico to the united states, 40% of the content was actually generated here in the united states. as opposed to 4% from china. if we buy something from mexico, 40% of what we are paying mexico stays right here in the united states because those parts were built and generated in the united states. derrek or american manufacturing jobs -- there are american manufacturing jobs attached to the imports into the united states. it is a different nature than our trade with any other part of the world. our economies are connected in a way that is different than with any other part of the world, except perhaps canada, where we

have a similar connection. it means that our destinies are linked in a certain way. we experience growth and recession together. more than just ups and downs cyclical, our long-term competitiveness is also linked. any action that improve the competitiveness of mexico has an impact on the competitiveness of the united states, because 40% of the content comes from the united states. that means a similar situation, if we export a car to the world. what matters is the price we can generate that car at together. we need to think about how we can together make our economy more competitive. it also has another consequence. this back-and-forth of production sharing has a multiplying effect on any difficulties you have across the border. you have goods crossing the border six or seven times as they are being created. every minute you have to wait in line to cross the border

multiplies it by six or seven. every dollar you have to spend pulling out customs forms, multiplied that by six or seven. we think of them a small delays, small challenges. with a huge multiplier effect to come up with several billions of dollars of consequences to our economy. trade is growing, so you would expect that we have a number of crosses between the two countries' growing in a similar manner. you would expect the number of people crossing the border is growing over the years, but that is not the case. we saw that trucks, which is the bottom line here, grew from 2.9 million a year to four 0.5 -- 4.5 million after nafta was

implemented. but it has relatively trail of. even as we are seeing this huge growth in trade, there is not a corresponding growth in the number of trucks crossing the border. for some reason, these companies are having to figure out ways to pack more value into each truck. i think that is because they are having a harder time getting goods across the border. there is an incentive to use more efficient use of your resources because it is more challenging to get them across the border. in the other numbers, the green line in the middle as pedestrians coming across the border. the most dramatic is the passenger vehicles which is how most people across the border. it grew significantly throughout the 1990's and has declined significantly, especially since 2006-2007.

several factors play into how these lines get drawn. not least of which would be the security situation in northern mexico. it has caused people to stay put, to move back and forth across the border or less and less. you have the economic crisis that hit both sides of the bore very strongly and cause another decline. we have not seen the return in traffic yet. we will have to see what happens. the point is that the border has thickened over the years. it has resulted in congestion and that congestion has a cost. lots of studies have been done about what that cost is. the take away is a very simple, it costs several billions of dollars to our economies. i would taking in these numbers with a grain of salt, but

nonetheless we see study after study finding significant economic costs to increases in congestion at the border. it means we need solutions. we need more efficient border management but we need to do that without giving up the security gains that we have in place since 9/11. there has been a change in the way the border has been managed and that has created gains in the security at the border and points of entry. we cannot give those up. nobody is going to say we should trade one for the other. the point is we need to find a way that one does not come at the cost of the other. creative ways to have gains in both security and efficiency happening at the same time. during the bush administration in the u.s., that was called a smart border agreement. we had them with both canada and mexico.

we said we can have security gains and efficiency gains. the 21st century border means a lot of different things. would it really was was a strong declaration of the two administration's and the architects of it saying that we can make gains on competitiveness, on efficiency, without giving up on the side of security. we can do both at the same time. in border communities, there is a big focus on the need for infrastructure investment. cvp has said there is approximately $6 billion deficit or need for more infrastructure to fully modernize the border. in the current budgetary

environment, which is very constrained and restricted, we don't need to just have people coming to washington say my border community needs more money. we need a message that is more fine-tuned. we need to talk about a new strategy, ways to have better use of the resources that we have. it means a strategy and that is exactly what the concept of the 21st century border is. we have these trusted traveler and shipper programs that offer gains in efficiency by expediting the traffic at low risk and help with gains in security by having more resources to focus on the traffic that has been unknown or a higher level of risk. i guess i should say, i think the name of the game in post 9/11 security is intelligence.

if they want to enter the united states, we need to know who they are. these programs are companies and individuals just walking up to the u.s. government saying let me tell you who i am. that we give you intelligence. you walk up to a window and an office in you do that. to the extent that these programs can be a free source of massive amounts of intelligence, who is entering a the united states, i think we would be crazy not to invest and put a lot of value in to them. importers and exporters don't have to wait in long lines and disrupt their supply chains across the border pick that and therefore focus more intense attention on the traffic. we saw growth in the enrollment

from 9% of total traffic crossing the border to 18%. that is good progress. war could be done there. a higher goal could be shot for. the program for companies to it trusted supply chains is also up steadily increasing in enrollment. the program for truck drivers which carry most of the goods across the border has not had that same corresponding increase. there was an increase but there has been perhaps a decrease over time in the number of truckers involved in those programs. it means we need to focus more attention on what is happening and ask ourselves why is that happening? the drivers themselves with other cost enrolling in that program but they sometimes do not see the benefits. you need to figure out ways to

have the incentives to meet the requirements that are there to get involved. you need to be promoting these programs. that has happened -- more in some areas of the board and others. in the case of san diego and tijuana, the enrolment levels there seem to be much higher than some of the other areas along the border. that gives us an example to look at and say how can we do a better job of getting people enrolled in these programs. the final issue of want to talk about is focused on the ports of entry themselves and the areas between the ports of entry. mark rosenblum is in the audience today and have to give him credit for this slide. the green on the chart is the border patrol.

there is the border patrol that monitors the area between the ports of entry and areas where blue uniforms modeled the areas at the ports of entry. we of seen a buildup in the area between ports of entry without the corresponding build up there at the ports of entry themselves. that buildup between the ports of entry has led to something that does move the flows and even reduced the flow to a certain extent. we have invested in that and now the time has come where reconstruct thinking about the ports of entry and we have an opportunity to invest in the ports of entry. it seems a lot of the harder drugs are coming through the ports of entry. a lot of illicit traffic comes through the ports of entry. the risks are as much or more at the ports of entry asks between

the ports of entry. we have already talked about other ways, several different proposals and the paper of how you can improve border management. a lot of them have been touched on such as public-private partnerships. i encourage you to take a look it that, but i will leave it there for now and we can pick things back up in question and answer. i will pass things on to my colleague now. he is associate director at arizona state university and a great colleague and partner on all our border work here at wilson center.

>> i am derrek lee, pulling double duty, i worked on the state of competitiveness project with kris wilson. it was a lot of fun to work on it. u.s.-mexico cross border trade is very counterintuitive. not many americans know how important mexico is to our nation's economy. eric olson asked me to collaborate with him on our upcoming state of the border report. the chapter that chris talked about this part of this. this is another chapter in that report that we will roll out this fall. i am still optimistic that we can do that. one thing you will see is how if you have not seen it already in these three fantastic presentations is out interconnected these issues are. that makes a really tough policy area to work on and move the

ball down the field on. thanks very much to eric and chris for the kind invitation, inviting me back to the wilson center, the mexico institute. thanks for the support on this and related projects. i appreciate the secretary for his insightful comments and his service to the united states as well as his willingness to take on some of the lease straightforward policy areas known to mankind. superintendent of public instruction in california was more difficult than your past job, but it is really remarkable the positions you have had and

how difficult these policy areas are. these chapters are meant as snapshots and to try to break down a large, complex topic for a broad audience and at some insight and value to the various segments of the audience. we try to get a number of people in audiences. this is not an academic project. we are not writing to a large literature. this is not going to take 18 months to publish. the purpose of this is to set a baseline for measuring border security. this chapter sets a baseline for measuring border security between the u.s. and mexico, from an independent analysis. our plan is to reexamine the issues on a simi regular basis and make judgments for the methodology and criteria as needed. to initiate the process with a settled on four major areas and a broad, catchall area including major related factors.

these include the incidence of terror related activity, levels of violence on both sides of the border, an assessment of how these might be linked to drugs, money, and firearms at the border. a number of related and often subjective factors. we have the hard evidence on one side, but what you quickly realize and working in this area is there is a whole nother -- another whole area of subjective factors that influence how this policy area is perceived and talked about in the public debate. these include a number of things, local politics, including a very fierce state level politics such as we find

in arizona. feel free to ask any questions you would like about arizona. rule of law efforts in mexico and issues related to perceived security and cross border collaboration. also discussing in future reports security strategies, border patrol just came out with a new strategy, 2012-2016, that supplants the current one. mexico hasn't ruled out specific strategies from the federal level to deal with the violence in the border region as an example. the impact of technology is a fascinating area about which we have done a couple of reports and have made some very surprising discoveries, we think.

you can see all that influences what we talk about when we talk about border security policy. our principal finding, one thing we tried to get across to as many people as we can when we talk about this issue is that the state of border security, really when you look at it closely, it is as varied and asymmetrical less the border itself. it is a very, very large geographical area. it is an arguable point whether or region really exist. you could make a good argument that if it does not exist, it it is basically a collection of integrated north-south trade corridors that happen to find themselves along an international boundary. they compete with each other

ferociously. the opinion on where you are, urban versus rural. the security situation in major cities along the border, which we touched on earlier, is quite different than the situation in the rural areas. that is partly as a consequence of u.s. security policy. west versus east. and just wanted to make the point at the outset that it is insufficient to talk about the border region being secure without specifying precisely where you are talking about. in terms of our preliminary findings on the objective measures, i will just focus on a

couple here. terror related activity, falling 9/11, a lot was made about are perceived the vulnerability at the u.s.-mexico border. this was one of the major driving forces behind -- this was an additional driving force behind increasing staffing and infrastructure at our border with mexico. a specific interest in the report or what we call special interest aliens. these are countries that are either designated state sponsors of terrorism, such as iran, countries were terrorist organizations are known to operate, such as colombia or pakistan. according to the latest data we have been able to focus on, arrest by border patrols increased between 2007 and 2011.

during fiscal year 2011, the number of arrests was down to 380, a decline when compared with 2010. the trend line june 3, 2012 shows they are down another 32%. the majority of the rest occur along the southwest border. the data available seems to indicate that it is in decline. the statement provided by the u.s. intelligence community and the permanent state suggests that while there is potential risk, there have not been any terrorist entering in the united states over the southwest border.

shifting to levels of violence, in terms of the level of violence, we have had a tremendous discussion about the safety and security of the southwest border. in spite of the fact that on the u.s. side, the fbi crime statistics show declining numbers in almost all cities along the border, including phoenix, where i live. this includes san diego as well as el paso. from 2007 forward to just recently, the situation on the mexican side of the border was quite different. that is shown by a slide here.

there is the difference between the east and the west there. we have seen an increase in violence and ciudad juarez has come down quite a bit. a major crossing point for fruits and vegetables. nogales is the biggest headache for folks in sonora. even nogales pales in comparison with cities in the east.

way back in march, erich hennen chris and i made a visit to elpaso, a field visit for purposes of research on this project. we met with a number of major stakeholders in the region including fbi, border patrol. we met with state prosecutors on the mexican side. our esteemed friends in the chihuahua state contrast. jorge conteras ordinates an effort that arose out of very

dangerous security situations in late 2010, and is noted for his input from local, state, and federal actors as well as folks in civil society. basically one thing they were trying to do was establish a at ciudadto look just tha juarez. this is in the area of homicides. that is by far the most controversy ill, the most talked-about measure. they measure other things as well, like carjackings, distortion. in general,, is headed downward,

which goes back to what the assistant secretary said about the difficulty of projecting forward from current events. this is very notable. ciudad juearz being the most high-profile and problematic puzzle on the board. i do not have statistics at this point, but things aren't looking not quite as good in places like monterey, those northeastern cities in mexico that are the current flashpoint of conflict between these transnational criminal organizations. we are also going to talk a little bit about apprehensions. this goes back to the other

slide. it is borne out by several studies. just looking at some specific sectors, this is worth going into. el paso, which in the early , prior to the policy changes there, had 117,000. that is a peak in fiscal year 2005. in 2011 and had an amazingly low apprehension -- amount amazingly new low number of apprehensions.

the staffing of the el paso sector is that well over 2000 agents. you are at a situation where you might be overstaffed in the el paso sector. you cannot move people around very quickly in the federal government. we are seeing a situation where we are seeing diminishing returns from our investment, particularly in that sector. san diego, down from a peak of 81,000 in fiscal year 2009. tucson sector has fallen off a cliff practically. is that 111,000 apprehensions for fiscal year 2011.

we talked a little bit about the flow is being pushed eastward from san diego, folks trying to reach those southern california labor market and into the arizona corridor, which up until that point had been a relatively sleepy immigration corridor. we talked about the reasons for this. the very strong mexican economy that chris touched on. an increasingly dangerous situation for migrants passing through northeastern mexico in late 2010. those are the main, hard figures i am going to talk about today. in general, i think this approach has reached a point of diminishing returns. i think that is worth repeating.

a don't think we can continue to staff between the ports of entry in a way that is not as expensive. your getting diminishing results overcome time, for all these reasons that we talked about. in terms of the subjective measures that i talked about, i think while i have you here today, i want to talk about the concept of moving the border away from the border. i think you would call this a metaphor. we talked about a lot of the last few years in terms of how to decongest those ports of entry and make them more functional. a lot of talk about in terms of enhancing the ports of entry, creating inland ports in mexico. the idea of joint customs

inspections in mexico with u.s. agents, i don't think there is a lot of movement there. it seems like we are stalled out there. i think it is more useful to think of moving the border away from the border in a broader context. issues of cross border collaboration, how do we enhance collaboration not only between the u.s. and mexico? i understand it is much improved from where it was just a few years ago. but how we measure that an advanceddax -- how we measure it and advance that? how come we enhance not only vertical collaboration but interagency work? in the old days it was not very functional.

how can we facilitate legitimate flows? chris talked about tourism. in the southwest, we really need those mexican tourists. there is not been a more recent study than 2008, but the economic impact in arizona was at $3 billion, really, really enormous. this is a flow of tourists that is difficult to count, for interesting reasons. mexican shoppers can use a lot of cash. how do we focus on the flows that work for us and make sense? how do we enhanced technology so it is a potential game changer? i think there have been a number

of technological innovations. it was such a political disaster for the u.s. government, which just completed a small study that looked at -- we did interviews with several people in southern arizona and they all decided it was great. it goes completely against the grain of how this was ordered in the media. the bottom line, going back to the title of this panel, the bottom line on how to build a 21st century border, i think we have a very complex border situation on the ground and the federal government's efforts in the current form only really have some control over this. this is an area that is ripe for innovation and new approaches. we are past the point of diminishing returns on this in terms of staffing between ports

of entry. and know you love to talk about that, assistant secretary. i do not think we have maxed out the approaches on the outside, or the softer approach hes, anything that can be done to strengthen that is worth serious consideration. circling back to the economic side of this, we are cosponsoring a big event in september in tempe. we are doing this in conjunction with the u.s. department of commerce western hemisphere office. i would be glad to talk to anyone hear about that in terms of participating with us.

thank you. [applause] >> as usual for people like us, we have gone on way too long. we have time for just a couple of questions. maybe we can take two or three questions and then have the panel respond. please raise your hand and identify yourself if you have a question. there is one question in the back. >> i just want to ask the assistant secretary, there was talk six years ago about cancun and cabo san lucas. is that again now? >> in canada when you fly in from montreal and a number of

other canadian cities, we have officers who will clear un to the united states won or in canada, so that when the plane arrives, you need not be admitted for immigration purposes and your baggage is not inspected. in mexico, we have been talking about instituting similar kinds of projectsin. cancun, the issue was determined to be one of security, and also the need to continue the kinds of reforms being worked on in terms of mexican immigration. we have now been operating in mexico city at the airport and i think it is scheduled for cabo san lucas, is to have global

entry kiosks in the airport. for the first time, mexican citizens can join a global injury and be vetted by the federal police database. mexico is creating its trusted traveler program, and americans will be able to join that program, so that when you get into mexico city will not have to wait on line, go through the kiosks and basically establish a link between your biometrics in your passport, and you answer some questions on a customs and immigration and you pass through. the pre clearance and the way in which it takes place in canada is not yet ripe in mexico, and probably if we can get the scale, as kris wilson and derrek

lee suggested, we can get the scale of these programs. it will not be required to have cpp officers there, simply providing the ability to be a trusted traveler and be cleared from a mexican airport. >> we will get you a microphone. >> will last 20 years, a lot of folks have been talking about securing the border since the early 1990's. as you look at it, some of the technical solutions are there. what is missing is certainly the political will to address those solutions. in 2001, obviously september 11

created a punctured equilibrium, changing the dynamics in a way that you address security. what will be the next thing to get us to a 21st century, or what will be the type of change or event that will get us to achieve that political will, to get us where we need to be? >> i will take a swing it that. i don't think it will be any one big event. i think it is your first suggestion, a matter of continual pushing for appointees and setting a vision that corresponds to collaborative border management, which is what will get us there in the end.

in this case it is to our three governments. >> without disagreeing, i would point to an event that is already occurred, which is the global economic crisis. i think it was a lot of opportunity and is still causing us to think in the united states about a rebalancing of priorities, in a certain sense. if you look at the political debate going on right now, it is all about the economy. that is a new era that we are in, and there's a lot of opportunity to have discussions about how north america as a region, and the competitiveness of north america as a region, can be one of the building blocks of the economy for the next century. to get there, one of the many things that need to be addressed, structural reforms in the u.s. and mexico, one of the

things is clearly border management. it certainly can be a driving force for some of the changes in policies that have been discussed today. >> big, historical changes take generations. i talked about what happened on the u.s.-mexican border in 1993, to of 2012 now, 20 years. i tell my mexican colleagues all the time that i remember when we were fighting the mafia in the united states. it took us 30 years to beat the mafia in the united states. when the fbi was given the tools and local and state law enforcement, it takes time. it just does not happen. what is important is to identify

trends, not to be too impatient with the way in which the world works. that is not something any of us are going to change, but the idea is to build the momentum. you begin to see a trend line established. the relationship with mexico and canada is simply not what it was five years ago. certainly, not what it was 10 years ago. without detracting from the proposition that it takes work, the fact of the matter is that we see trends that are considerably more favorable to

this division -- a vision than what existed a short time ago. >> in terms of factors rather than events, i would not discount the role of local actors who can make the things happen very quickly. it can take generations or it can happen like that. i think it happens in 18 months, that presidential permitting process. >> i am not suggesting that individual projects need to take up generations. >> i think we can in did on that note -- and it on that note. -- e nd it on that note. >> i want to thank the panelists

today. as we talked about this been more of a political decision -- i would say that as elected officials, you need to have faxed to move ahead. -- facts to move ahead. the economy, jobs, economic security of the individual citizen, these are issues that all of you have to shed light on. otherwise, the folks out there will continue to just listen to one side of the debate. i encourage you to keep talking the talk that you are talking. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, senator. thank you for coming today. have a good one.

[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> a forum on border security wrapping up here in washington. in the capital today, the senate is in session. a vote is scheduled for 5:00 eastern. a bill dealing with campaign finance disclosure rules. some democrats have said they will hold a midnight vigil today about those disclosure rules.

lives in its coverage is always on c-span2. the house begins legislative work at 2:00. it is scheduled to go into effect in january. work on the defense department spending bill for 2013. white house coverage tomorrow on c-span. -- live house coverage tomorrow on c-span. we will hear more about the fiscal cliff when the ben bernanke delivers his monetary report on c-span beginning at 10:00 eastern. switching gears to presidential politics, a top advisers says mitt romney could name his running mate by the end of the week. a senior aide says he has not settled on anyone, but could make his final decision soon.

he had no public events scheduled today, but he appeared at a louisiana fundraiser. president obama continues his campaign swing in ohio today. it is this 23rd trip to the buckeye state as president. earlier this afternoon, he held a town hall meeting at the cincinnati music hall. [applause] >> hello, cincinnati. [applause] it is good to be back. everybody have a seat if you have a seat. i think most people have a seat. it is great to see all of you. i want to acknowledge -- first of all, i want to make sure that i acknowledge your outstanding

mayor. [applause] he is around here somewhere. there he is. good to see you. i know that some of you think that i came to this music called to saying -- to sing. [applause] i have to tell you, there is no concert tonight. at least not this afternoon. michelle has told me i should not be singing in public all the time. what is your name? how old are you? let's sing happy birthday to adam. [singing "happy birthday"]

yay! [applause] there was a concert after all. >> [inaudible] >> what is your name, sir? congratulations on being 101. [applause] dr. harvey looks good. i have to follow them around and see what he eats. 105 right here. [applause]

105. what is that sweet ladies name -- lady's name? god bless her. 106 next month. she is beautiful. i guess folks do a pretty good down here in cincinnati. you have 105, 101. god bless you, we love you, too. anybody else over 100? you are not over 100. all right, number birthdays, that is it.

-- no more birthdays, that is added. i am not going to saying. -- to sing. we're turning this bill is a poem is a call into a town hall. -- music hall in to a town hall. i want to spend as much time as possible and answering your questions. i do want to say a few things about what is at stake. four years ago, we came together, democrats and republicans and independents, interested in restoring the basic bargain that made america the greatest nation on earth. we have gotten so much to be thankful for. incredible military. there is great wealth in this nation.

what really sets us apart is -- has been that we have the greatest middle-class -- [applause] and the basic idea that at the heart of this country, if you work hard, you can get ahead. if you are responsible, you can live out your dreams. you are not confined to the circumstances of your birth. a basic belief that if you are doing what you need to do, you are able to find a job and support your family. get a home you can call your own. you are able to send your kids to get a good education and allow them to go to college and

they can achieve and succeed in ways you might not even imagine. that he will not go bankrupt when you get sick. that you will be able to retire with dignity and respect. [applause] that is the idea that built this country. that is the idea that turned us into an economic powerhouse. what we saw for about a decade before i took office was the sense of that dream was slipping away to to many people. incomes and wages were flat lining while the costs for everything was all going up. our goal was to turn this around and we knew it would not be easy. we knew that it might take more than one term, maybe more than

one president, but we had to get started to reclaim this ring. what we discovered, because of economic policies that have failed and a lack of oversight when it came to regulation, we inherited the worst financial crisis and the worst economic crisis since the great depression. millions of people lost their jobs, lost their homes, lost their savings. a lot of folks are still struggling. here is the thank, americans -- here is the thing, americans are always tougher during the tough times. this crisis has not changed our character. it has not changed what we believed in. it has not change the basic notion that everybody should get a fair shot and everybody should do their fair share and everybody should play by the same set of rules. [applause]

even though over the last 3.5 years, are central focus has been how do we recover from this crisis and get people back to work and make sure small businesses are doing well again and they're getting financing, despite all those things, at our goal has not been just to get back to where we were before the crisis, but to build an economy that lasts. to build an economy dead says, no matter what you look like, no matter what -- to build an economy that says, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, you can make it if you tried in america. [applause] everything i have done since i had been president has been focused on this central issue. that is the reason i am running

for a second term as president of the united states. [applause] part of the reason i'm here today is i want to remind everybody that the challenges we face are solvable. the problem is not a lack of big ideas, not a lack of technical solutions, but the problem is we have a stalemate in washington. between two fundamentally different ideas about how we move the country forward. this election is about more than just two candidates or to

political parties. it is about two different visions about how we build a strong economy. the good news is, you are the tiebreaker. the choice is up to you. the choice is up to you. governor romney and his allies in congress believe in an economic theory that says folks at the very top are doing well, and not spread to everybody else. -- that spreads to everybody else. right now, their main prescription for growing the economy faster is an additional $5 trillion in tax cuts, most of which would go to the wealthiest americans, even if you would have to gut education programs

or turn medicare into a voucher program, or eliminate investment in basic research and science. that is there a division -- vision about how you growing economy. eliminate regulations that we have put in place to make sure that wall street does not engage in the same reckless behavior that got us into this mess in the first place. [applause] i have to tell you, it would be one thing if they had this theory and we have not tried it before. the truth is, we tried it. for almost a decade. it did not work. the track record resulted in turning surpluses and deficits. we ran two wars on a credit

card. job growth was the most sluggish in decades. the average wage and income of working families went down during this period. it culminated in to this crisis. i do not know about you, sometimes i do boneheaded thanks. -- things. when i try something that does not work, i did not try it again. [applause] you do not go back to doing something that did not work. got a different idea. for example, the governor said he would extend the tax cuts to the wealthiest americans

indefinitely. until he puts a tax plan in place, but his tax plan is not just to keep all the bush tax cuts. he wants to put another $5 trillion -- it is almost impossible for you to bring down the deficit and deal with the debt with that kind of tax plan. nearly 40% of these new taxes would go to the top 1% of all households. we have not found any serious economic study that says his economic plan would create jobs. until today. today, we found dow there is a new study by a nonpartisan economist but said his economic plan would create 800,000 jobs. there's only one problem. the jobs would not be in america. they would not be in america.

[applause] they would be in other countries. by eliminating taxes on corporations for an income, his plan would encourage companies to shift more of their operations to foreign tax agencies. this should not be a surprise because his experience has been investing in pioneers of the business of outsourcing. now he wants to give more tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas. i want everybody to understand, ohio, i have a different theory. we do not need a president who plans to ship more jobs overseas. we want to give more tax breaks to companies -- i want to give taxpayers to companies who are investing right here in ohio.

investing in cincinnati. investing -- i want to give incentives to companies that are investing in it you, the american people, to make american goods, selling around the world, made in america. that is why i am running for president of the united states. [applause] the different extents -- it is also individual taxes. we do not need a president who is going to give himself a big tax break. we need a president who is going to cut your taxes. four years ago, i promised to cut taxes for the middle class. i kept that promise.

the typical family tax burden is $3,600 lower than it was when i came into office. i want all of the oppressed to notice that. -- press to notice that. you hear all of these crazy accusations -- obama is raising taxes. no, here are the facts. typical middle-class families, your taxes have gone down $3,600 since i have been in office. a couple of weeks ago, i called on congress to extend these tax cuts to 90% of the american people. -- 98% of the american people. their income taxes go up not one single dime.

i should point out, by the way, 97% of small businesses would also not see their taxes go up because they do not burn more than 250,000 -- earned more than $250,000. if you are fortunate enough to forhe other 2%, and diai am, those folks, we can afford to pay a little bit more in taxes. by going back to the rates that were paid under bill clinton. that will help us reduce our deficit by about a trillion dollars. everybody says the deficit and the debt are important, and i agree. [applause] i want to point out the last time we did that, when bill

clinton was president, we have surpluses, created 23 million new jobs, and we created a lot of millionaires and billionaires, too. when an economy is growing from the middle out, and from the bottom up, everybody does well, including people at the very top. that is how you grow an economy. [applause] when teachers and firefighters, police officers, construction workers when folks were putting in a hard day's work, when they do well, everybody does well. that is how america has always succeeded. we believe in individual initiative and self-reliance, but there are some things that we did together. growing and economy is one of them. my grandfather, he went to

college on the gi bill. bad generation help to expand the middle-class. we we invested -- vast generation helped to expand the middle class. all those things benefited everybody. that is the vision i want to carry forward. when the auto industry was on the brink of collapse, one at of eight jobs in ohio depend on the auto industry. a million jobs across the midwest are at stake. i am going to bet on american workers and ingenuity and how the general motors is back on top and chrysler and ford are on the move. [applause]

let me close by saying this and then we can get to some questions. my vision says we will invest in education and we will hire new teachers, especially in math and science, open up to a million more -- we already held to make sure student loan rates, but now we have to work more to lower tuition costs said that young people are not burdened with debt. [applause] we're going to invest in education. we're going to invest in american energy.

yes, we want to continue to expand our production of oil and natural gas, but i want to make sure we are the leaders in solar and wind, the energy of the future that can help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. american manufacturing, change our tax code, provide incentives for companies that invest here, invest in basic research and science so we are the cutting edge. whoever has the best technology book ultimately have the best economy. -- technology will ultimately have the best economy. rebuilding our infrastructure. i know you have some bridges around here in need of repair. let's put construction workers back to work. [applause] i ended the war in iraq, as i promised. we are winding down the war in

afghanistan. we have decimated al qaeda. let's take half the money we were spending on war and dissemination building right here at home. -- and do some of nation building right here at home. [applause] >> four more years! reduce our let's deficit, reduce our debt, let's do it in a responsible way that allows us to continue to make these investments we need to grow and make sure that everybody is doing a little bit to help the country.

that is my vision. it contrasts with the other side. you were going to be the tie breaker, this is going to be your choice. there is going to be a lot of paid advertising. there is going to be a lot of money. people right $10 million checks to get me out of office. i note is not you. -- i note is not you. even though my hair is a little grayer i still have as much confidence as i ever had in the american people. one of the great privileges of being president, you get a chance to travel across the country. you meet people from every walk of life. wherever i go, what i am always struck by is the decency and goodness and hard work and

responsibility and faith the american people have. i will always died on the american people. i am confident -- i will always bet on the american people. we have an honest debate on what needs to happen in this country and what future is best, we will finish what we started in 2008. we will remind the world wide the united states is the crisis -- is the nagin -- is the greatest nation on earth. thank you. [applause] >> all right. ok, everybody take a seat so i can see who wants to ask a question.

there are only a couple of rules. you have to raise your hand. if you have a question. i am going to call girl, boy, girl, boy, just to make sure that it is fair. if you have a chance, stand up and introduce yourself. there are folks in the audiencee so everybody can hear your question. i want to get in as many questions as i can, at least six or seven. so if people can keep their questions short, i will try to keep my answers short. but if you ask me, you know, how do you bring about world peace, that is a big question. [laughter] so trying to keep the question one that we can be 6 think about. i am going to start with this young lady right here in the pink blouse.

introduce yourself when the microphone comes up. and is that the birthday boy? he is getting a lot of attention today. >> my name is anna, and my son is openly gay. he is grass roots and speaks for a lot of lgbt communities. we would like to know, since you are for the lgbt, what are your next steps? what are you going to do for us? [applause] >> look, let me say this -- first of all, i think the american people have seen and made such progress on recognizing the idea of equal rights, equal dignity, equal respect for everybody. that applies to everybody. [applause] that is a bedrock principle of

america, and when i came into office -- everything from making sure that same-sex couples could have visitation at hospitals just like everybody else, making sure that we ended don't ask, don't tell, because fighting for the country you love should not depend on who you love. [applause] being clear that doma is something that we should repeal. across the board, i have tried to constantly align myself with what is best in our tradition, and that is you treat everybody fairly. americans are about fairness, and that does not mean that folks have to agree with everybody on everything. we do not, you know? but we want to treat everybody fairly. now, i think it is important to recognize though that our gay

and lesbian brothers and sisters are still subject to discrimination. that is why we passed hate crime legislation, and we have still got to fight for that. i think it is important for us to respect decisions that states make with respect to expanding treatment of same-sex couples in marriage. but, also what i want to say is that gay and lesbian families are like everybody else. what they are also worried about right now is making sure they can pay the bills. you know, so my strong belief is that it is important for us to focus on individual issues of fairness but also recognize that we all have common interests as well. your son is 18. i am assuming he is going to get some more education. i am assuming you are worried right now about making sure he does not come out with a whole bunch of debt.

>> miami. >> outstanding, congratulations. [applause] so we want to treat everybody fairly, and we also want to make sure that the economy treats everybody fairly. and i am going to be fighting for that as long as i am president of the united states. [applause] all right, this gentleman right here. does anybody have a microphone? ok, very good. i am impressed. >> mr. president, i am jim reilly. tenures as an elected city official has shown me a real change in with the republican party has been doing to us -- 10 years. they have taken away our power to protect our national -- natural resources, water and air, from the oil and gas drillers doing fracking here in ohio. the more you do and the

administration to protect us from the efforts of drilling for natural gas. >> it is a great and important question. a couple things i want everybody to know. first of all, if you hear anybody say that somehow we are impeding the development of our energy resources here in this nation, i want you to know these facts. oil production, higher than it has been in eight years. natural gas production, higher than it has been probably in our lifetimes. oil imports, actually lower than they have been in 16 years. in fact, our oil imports are less than 50% now for the first time in a very long time. so we are moving in the right direction in terms of energy independence. now, part of that is this boom in a natural gas, and this is something we should welcome,

because not only are we blessed with incredible natural gas resources that are now accessible because of new technologies, but natural gas actually burns cleaner than some other fossil fuels and is an ideal fuel energy source that we potentially can use for the next 100 years. so i want to encourage natural gas production. the key is to make sure we do it safely. and in a way that is environmentally sound. now, you always hear these arguments that somehow there is this huge contradiction between the environment and economic development or the environment and energy production. and the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of folks right now that are engaging in hydraulic fracking who are doing it safely. the problem is that we have not

established clear guidelines for how to do it safely and inform the public so that neighbors know what is going on and, you know, your family, you can make sure the in your area, they're being responsible. what we said is, look, we're going to work with industry to established best practices. we're going to invest in basic research and science required to make sure this is done safely and in a way that protects the public health. and for responsible companies, they should be able to operate, make a profit, and we can all benefit and put people back to work. but if you are and irresponsible company that is not doing the right thing, we're going to hold into account, and that is how we should develop this incredible resource, which, by the way, if we do it properly, could end up

changing the economics and politics globally with energy in a way that is actually very good for us because we will be less dependent on what happens in the middle east and our economy will be less subject to the kinds of spikes we saw earlier in the spring in terms of gas prices. all right? thank you for the question. [applause] all right, it is a woman's turn. the young lady in a white t- shirt right there. hold on, hold on. >> i and my husband small- business owners. he actually has a question that he needs answered. >> wait, no, no, you cannot do that now. i called on the young lady. that is what is called a bait and switch. [laughter] no, the rule is that i am going to make sure that women get equal time with men.

[applause] >> i am not asking that -- >> well, like -- >> no, no. >> ok, his question was, he is a small business owner, and he wanted to know what you can do for the self-employed businesses with less than 10 employees working with them. >> ok, here is what i am going to do. i am going to let him go ahead and ask his question. [laughter] then i am going to call on two women in a row. [applause] we got cheated here. go ahead. >> ok. >> next time, you stand up. do not send your wife out first. [laughter] >> ok, i am tony white. hello, mr. president. >> good to see you, tony. what kind of business do you

have? >> barbershop, a beauty salon. i have been in business for over 10 years now. what i am trying to find out is, what will you be doing or if there is anything you will be doing for the self-employed and businesses with employees, with less than 10 employees? also, when can i cut your hair? [laughter] [applause] >> well, first of all, let me answer the second question first. you know that you would not want a president who was disloyal to his barber. right? [laughter] [applause] i mean, a man and his barber, that is a strong connection. >> i know, i know.

>> so i am not going to let you cut my hair, because my barber would be hurt. >> just one time, just one time. >> maybe i will let you give me a line. [applause] all right, in terms of small business -- look, small businesses are the lifeblood of our time. they account for most of the new job growth. we have got, obviously, a great big businesses. in this area, proctor and gamble is an example of an outstanding large business. but a lot of the job growth happens with small businesses who then become a medium-sized businesses and then maybe it's some point become large businesses. so, ever since i came into office, one of my biggest priorities was how to support small businesses, which is why we have actually provided 18 different tax breaks just targeted at small business since i have been in office. it is the reason why we have

pushed the small business administration, especially when the recession had just hit, to extend additional financing and to waive fees for small businesses, because one of the biggest challenges for small businesses is getting credit lines. and we have actually been pushing the banks to say, look, taxpayers pulled your backside out of the fire. it is now important for you to step up and make sure that small businesses are not finding their credit restricted, especially if they have been in business for awhile. the other thing we have done is to say, you know, what are the critical needs of small business -- a lot of times when of the biggest challenges is to make sure that you as a self- prop., that you can get health insurance for you and your family. >> correct. >> so when you hear about the

affordable care act, obamacare -- [cheers and applause] and i do not mind the name, because i really do care. that is why we passed it. [applause] you should know that once we have fully implemented it, you're going to be able to buy insurance through a pool so that you can get the same good rates as a group that if you are an employee at a big company, you can get right now, which means your premiums will go down. we will also give you an additional tax credits for if you are providing health insurance for your employees. we will give you tax credits for that. right now, one of the things we're pushing congress to do is to give you a tax credit if you hire additional workers are you

get folks who are working for you a raise. we want to give you incentives to do that. [applause] but this is an example of where there is the contrast between myself and my opponent. as i said before, his basic tax plan is to give folks at the top a tax break. now, we could have that debate, but what i have said is -- in of meantime, let's get 98% individuals and 97% of small businesses some certainty right now by going ahead and passing a law that says your taxes will not go up. because if congress does not act, by the way, by january 1, and everybody's taxes here are going to go up by an average of about $1,600. if congress does not do anything. so what i said is if you really

want to help small business right now, give 97% of them the 70 that their costs will not go up -- the certainty that their costs will not go up. and then we can have a debate about the other 2% to 3%. the other thing i will say is you will hear republicans say, you know what, if you tax, let's say, somebody with $1 million income, you are going to be crushing the small-business jobs created. first of all, i explain 97% of small businesses make less than $250,000 a year. setting aside that, the way they describe small businesses, half of the fortune 400 richest americans in the country would qualify as a "small business." hedge fund managers would qualify as small business, even if they were pulling in $1 billion a year.

this is an example of what i mean when i say we just want everybody to be treated fairly. you know, michelle and i were talking the other day, and her father works as a blue-collar worker. he was at the water filtration plant in chicago, worked there all his adult life. and he had ms, so that -- so by the time i met him, he could barely walk. but he barely missed a day of work. he had to use two canes and had to help getting dressed, but he never missed a day of work. and he held pride in being at the job, even if he did not feel well. and he used to tease folks who were lazy. he would say, these people are so lazy, they will not even go to work to pick up their paycheck. they want it mailed to them. [laughter]

stayed atle's mom home when the kids were young, and then she went to work as a secretary. she worked as a secretary most of her life. we were talking about how they do not envy people who had a lot more. there was no sense that somehow, well, you know, our lives are less because we're not millionaires, we're not making huge amounts of money. god bless folks who are successful and doing well. the only thing that michelle's parents, my mom, my grandparents, the only thing they did not like is when they felt like folks at the top taking advantage of their position and not following the same rules as everybody else. and keeping other folks down. and we do not want an economy in which some are being treated differently than others.

that is all. and that is especially true when it comes to our small business folks. i want them to have some of the same advantages, because you probably cannot afford the same number of lawyers and, you know, accountants and all that stuff that a working all these loopholes. and i want to make sure that you're getting the same good deal as everybody else. all right? [applause] ok, i am going to call on this young lady right here. she seems like she has an urgent question. hold on, wait for your microphone. we're getting the next generation involved in this. [applause] right here. >> what is your favorite girl scout cookie? [cheers and applause] >> i have got to say, this is one of the toughest questions.

what is your name? >> julie. >> and you are a member of a girl scout troop? how long have you been a girl scout? >> i think only this year. two years. >> have you been having fun? >> yeah. >> you know, i have got to say that i am pretty partial to those mint, uh -- [cheers and applause] that is just me. i did not mean to create controversy here. there was somebody booing. [laughter] who was booing up there? you had a difference of opinion. what are you, oatmeal? [inaudible] peanut butter is quite good, too, but i am going with mint.

thank you for the question, thank you. all right, remember, i said i was going to go two lady's right now. right here. >>go ahead. do not fall now. go ahead. >> my name is susan. welcome to cincinnati. >> thank you. >> given how divided the country is, if elected, how do you plan to try to unite to everyone? >> well, i will be honest, sometimes people ask me, what is my disappointment since i have come into office? obviously, we're always trying to grow the economy faster, put people back to work faster, but one of the disappointments i have had is that we have not changed the tone in washington the way i wanted to. [applause]

part of this just has to do with the fact that the other side had a basic political theory after i got elected, and this is not my opinion. i mean, this has been said by the leader of the senate minority in washington. and the basic theory was, you know what, we kind of screwed things up. obama is really popular right now. if we cooperate with them, then he will get credit. so we're better off just saying no, and if we do that, then over time, folks will forget the mess he inherited in we can go after him and hopefully that will help our politics. again, this is not my theory. this was explicitly their strategy. what is true is also we have got, as i said, two different visions about how to move the country forward. but my hope is that this

election allows us to, once and for all, resolve some of the bigger questions about how we move the country forward. because, right now, we have many choices. i believe in investing in education and transportation and science and research and bringing down our deficits in a balanced way and changing our tax code to make sure the companies that are investing here are doing better. mr. romney has the opposite view on almost almost -- almost all those positions but of things like don't ask, don't tell, he wants to reverse but on issues like immigration, i believe in conference of the immigration reform. he does not. on issues related to women. i believe that planned parenthood does a lot of good and women should be able to control their own health care decisions. [applause]

you know, he does not. on iraq, he said me ending the war was tragic. i said, i think it was the right thing to do. [applause] on afghanistan, i imposed the deadline of timetable for when we are going to bring our troops home. he wants to extend their stay indefinitely. on all these issues, we have profound differences. ultimately, there are the arbiters of this agreement. in this election, if the american people decide, you know what, we want to try what mr. romney is offering -- no, that is the great thing about democracy. people can vote and make up their minds. so if that is the case, then you can count on mr. romney implementing the plan that he and the republicans in congress

have put forward. $5 trillion in tax cuts, massive cuts in a lot of the programs that are so important from my perspective to growing the economy -- those will be eliminated. medicare will be voucherized. they will implement what they say they are going to implement. but if i am 8 elected, not only do i think that we will be able to continue the progress that we have made over the past 3 1/2 years -- if i am selected, i think that a lot of republicans, since this will be my last election, they will not be as interested in just beating me, and maybe they will be more interested in moving the country forward. that is my hope. [applause] and i have to say, you know, the truth is, on most of these issues, there should not be so

much partisan rancor. because most of the positions i have taken our positions that used to be supported by republicans. and if you want just one good example, health care. [applause] the bill i passed is, in all respects, it's similar to what mr. romney passed in massachusetts. it is working really well there. he should be proud of it. instead of running away from it. and the original idea of using the private sector to make sure that everybody had health care, that originated as a republican idea. and i said, fine, i am willing to work with your ideas to make progress.

so, i actually think that there are a number of republican members of congress who right now feel as if they have to walk the party line, but it the object -- if the objective is no wonder just beating me, my hope is that there will be more open to funding common-sense solutions to the problems that our country faces. and i know that is absolutely a goal of mine, because in the end, we're not democrats or republicans first. we are americans first. that is what i believe. [applause] all right. now i have got time for two more questions. this gentleman in the blue shirt right there. all right, i will end over here. go ahead. >> mr. president, i have been

teaching for 21 years. [applause] >> congratulations. >> thank you. i.t. jedd a vocational school, career tech school -- i teach at a vocational school. we have been talking about jobs and kids. i know you want every kid to go to college, but not every kid is going to go to college. we need people to work. we need to have plummer said to have people build bridges and those kind of things. -- we need to have plumbers. i believe it. we do miracles at our school. we take kids with very rough lives and make them productive. the problem is that they're not getting enough chances to get to go to work right away. we have a advisory boards, but these advisory boards are free. these people are not getting paid. what we need, and i was hoping that you could tell us if this is something on your agenda, can we have people come in, you know, give tax breaks to these companies to come and help

schools, to teach the schools what they really need for these kids? that is what we are looking for. [applause] >> well, first of all, thank you for teaching. most important job there is. [cheers and applause] we appreciate that. second of all, i want to be very clear, when i say everybody needs a higher education, i do not mean everybody has got to take a four-year college education. the point is that, these days, if you want to ifa pl -- if you want to be a plumber, electrician, are to be working in a factory, you will generally need a little more training than high school provides. which is why our community colleges are so important. but, you're absolutely right that one of the, i believe, mistakes we have made -- 20 to

30 years ago, was to start deemphasizing vocational education. [applause] because not everybody wants to sit in a classroom with a book. a lot of folks want to do stuff. right now, we have got shortages of folks in fields that need technical training but do not necessarily require a four-year college degree. so part of what i am talking to secretary of education arne duncan about is how we work with high schools so that young people who have an aptitude, whether it is in graphic design or in electronics or you name it, that they can start getting on a path away so that they are being trained for the jobsnd