overruns. i want to get your perspective on what the root causes of those might be, what the plans are to overcome those, to get those things back on track. that is a critical element of long-term success in meeting the 2014-2017 milestone. >> i think they ig report highlights different areas that are the root causes with regard to schedule and delays. you have heard some of the challenges. i mentioned data conversion. the training aspects, all of which we absolutely are taking action to ensure that we understand very acutely what the root cause of was down the steps we need to take to correct

those. for each program, there is a slightly different scenario which is driving the schedule change. those are consistent, in particular the data conversion and they change management aspect. with the implementation of these solutions is we have learned it cannot be just the accounting team with the financial management solution. it must be the entire operation understand it the role this capability place within their overall execution. that has been one of the most challenging things. how do we use these systems to execute our business? it requires a change in what we do every day. we must move away from the years of practices that we have had into the new environment and there are a lot more controls in the new system.

a nice new modern system sounds easier than a legacy system but there are a lot more internal controls and complexities such such a cut referential data, integrity, and those other things that are so important to achieving full accounting of the money. >> i have received some feedback from contractors working with the navy about the new accounting systems and some of the elements of timeliness in payment. apparently, there has been some delays and -- but i think some of those delays have been addressed but not totally reduced to a satisfactory level. can you give me a perspective on the navy's efforts -- it is an illicit -- it is a new electronic system which is challenging but there is a concern out there about timeliness. previously, there is a great

amount of attention paid to making sure the parents got out on time but apparently with the new system, there are problems with that. i want to get your reflections on what you see as the challenge and the solutions in the future. >> i am not really aware of any delay in payment within the department of the navy. we will deploy our erp system fully in october. we will go live in october. i am not aware of any delays in payments. we're making our payments on time. we are, in fact, moving more toward electronic payment so that we take the hands on out and it becomes a more automated process. >> take that question for the record. >> i will happy to look -- i will be happy to look into it. >> i thank my friend for

yielding. i apologize for being slightly late this morning but happy to be with you. the chairman asked a question about the legislation of the -- the pentagon act. i appreciate the difference in approach that chairman conaway and the sub chairman have taken on this position. we believe that rather than pass the act audit pentagon, the hard work you have done, we appreciate it. on this committee, the focus on this for a number of years has been the cause of this. i want to get into the progress we're making and the problems we have found on the active politicking the pentagon prefers to do with the problem of the beginning balance. -- the act

auditing the pentagon. you inherited this problem. if we have had a history of no audits for decades, getting a good beginning balance is not an easy thing. what steps are being taken to try to deal with this inherited problem of the beginning balance? >> the problem is the ability to document transactions. the way to financial management, some of the transactions can go back 10 years or more. you have five years of obligating money for shipbuilding and then to expand the dollars. we just don't have the records or cannot get them quickly enough. the otter furs expect a reasonable time limit.

-- the auditor is expected reasonable time limit. for this year, we will focus on current sources. the plan would be to build a better documentation gradually as we move toward an audit effort which will cause us to retain the documentation so a few years from now, we will have more ready access to the documentation. it will take a while before that is implemented. >> i think you are leaning in the right direction on this. it is important to know where the money has been but it is important to know where it is. by focusing on the where it is question before the where it's been questioned, i think you have made the right judgment. this is not an historic review. it is meant to be a useful tool for the present and future. the second question i want to

ask is about the problem of software that would give us access to usable data and that is double erp issue that the inspector general looked at recently. i want to know what lessons we have learned thus far. it has only since -- been since july 1? >> it has been fully deploy. >> what have we learned since full deployment? what is working and what isn't and what lessons can we take to make sure we can make it a success? >> it is all about folks changing their practices to what is aduitable. one of the way as you approach change management is you trained and trained and trained. training becomes very important one of the lessons learned in

the beginning is that we did not train enough. you may have heard this, that they needed more training. that was a big lesson for us. we need to be very mindful of training, online tools, providing -- >> to what extent that you think the training provided by the vendors is worse than training provided in house? what is the quality? >> it is very good. we just need to continue to reinforce it. that is where our internal staff comes in. we have the super-users, but folks who are reinforcing that good trading that was given. this has to be continuing. >> mr. chairman, i want to say i

have seen personally that secretary panetta and mr. hale have worked diligently on this project. i know they are committed to overcome these obstacles and i am proud of them and commend them for it. >> thank you. i walked in the room and a couple of movies occurred to me and one was "the blues brothers" where they say we can get the band back together and the other one is "groundhog day," where things happen over and over again. >> as long it is -- as long as it is not "titanic." >> you have been very forward- leaning during this project. i have seen that percolate through many levels of the organization and i hope we have

the momentum going so that whatever changes occur in management, one of the things i hope we can get the senate to focus on as well as house members is the new leadership and making sure they are as committed to making this work as you and your team have demonstrated over and over. we cannot grow weary of doing good. this is such a daunting task and it is taking so long. i watched the video yesterday. it was the navy publicity pitch. i hope we get more people to watch it. good job on that. one thing i perked up on in your testimony was you have a challenge and have you walked a

fine line between continuing to maintain legacy systems to get audit-ready by 2014 and spent pivot to the permanent systems that will be in place? can you give us a sense as to how you will balance between getting rid of the legacy systems by 2014 and moving on? >> certainly, thank you -- up until april of this year, as you are well aware, the air force strategy was to be audited-ready in 2014 with the full air force implementation. implementation. when we received a challenge from secretary panetta to accelerate the statement of budgetary resources, we knew we were going to have deems

deployed to meet the time line. we have gone back and look to our legacy systems to determine which of those we need to do some remediation on to achieve the secretary's goal of audit- readiness in 2014. the systems themselves, for the most part with some small modifications, will support fbr readiness in 2014 where we have had to do a lot of work is on the people and the processes. the controls, in order to remedy the use of the legacy system, the controls in many cases lies outside the system themselves. in addition to that, there is a lot of interfaces' we have had to closely monitor to, document and implement tighter control on. through a combination of those efforts and training those people which is another thing --

we have done some distribution, sometimes it is an issue of understanding what it is we are trying to do and detained. we have a number of things where we have pulled fund managers in and conducted training courses and show them that this is a process and they are carrying those issues back. some system remediation on the legacy and we are continuing our forward progress on deems because we want to achieve full audit-readiness in 2017 that is sustainable. >> about this time last year, you put in place requirements that the senior staff need certain requirements for evaluations.

when will those evaluations begin to happen and when can you report to us where folks have exceeded expectations and/or not made progress. ? and as myart colleagues to continue -- we have performance goals in the ses plans across the department for the members of the senior executive service that out of its involvement. it is not the primary goal of logisticians. it is part of the subsidiary goals. the performance evaluation process starting now, within a few months, we will have that. i'm not sure how much we will get from that. >> i understand.

>> we are watching it and would like to try this to deal with the assessments and bonuses so there are tangible rewards for success or some change in behavior. i thank we've got people's attention. i -- they are beginning to believe they know what they need to do. i think it is a major step forward and i am hopeful about the changes we will pull off the next couple of years. you have heard various words like moderate risk and we have over promised and under delivered for a long time. i want to try to meet these goals. >> i would just add that the performance period ends at the end of this month for the senior executives and the evaluation

process starts. probably a month and that have before that is all finalized. >> if i may, 250 of our 303 senior executive leaders have an audit-readiness objective in their performance plan. with the cooperation that i am getting, i believe they are performing and they will continue to perform. i think we all see the benefit of all that-readiness not just to produce a by annual statement but to improve our business processes across the board. i am getting very good cooperation within the department of the navy and i think those senior executives, the fact that we have been audited-readiness objective in their plan, that they are taking it seriously. >> thank you.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to clarify -- you talked about the retirement of legacy systems. did you say 200 or 2000? >> that is approaching 200 for 2012. >> i must have zoned out. these legacy systems -- i would like to ask the service representatives out well -- this is part of the move to auditablility was the move toward the enterprise resource plan -- erp. you mentioned you cook confident that you will meet the time frame -- need goals in the time for an allotted. are we going to have a mix of

systems and how does that play out going forward? >> there is a mix of it solutions and capabilities that auditability to happen. it is not the same in the department of the navy or the marine corps. with the air corps, with their schedule delays, it is how they get to 2014 and how they get to 2017. at the end of the day, it is a combination of the entire business capabilities, be it the new or the legacy.

some of the legacy is still pretty good. it is not just the system peace, it is understanding how you do what you do and the execution of your business process and how they it enables that to happen. it is important but you don't know how to do what do, the it is not nearly as relevant the data flow is extremely important. all departments are focused on that. >> would your analysis be that most of legacy systems were populated through the different branches or was it more focused at the pentagon and the overall management of it? >> definitely the former. it was not necessarily at the head of the department level. it was a bottom up local needs.

they had a function they needed to perform and they did what they needed to do to execute their peace. the difference today it -- i have seen this in the last few years -- we're taking an enterprise perspective of looking across the organization not only of the military department level but also at dod level. we want to achieve the business outcome. we're talking about what it- readiness. regionaduit-readiness. >> we need to drive to a auditability so will help us plan and help us work with you in future planning. i have a concern, as we drive to these reports, the separation of items that have to remain at the secret and top secret level and

how these reports will impact the cross pollination. will we have to be that much more cautious when it comes to making sure that the data cannot mined to determine the secret information? >> we are finally getting better systems and visibility of our data. that is a problem. very conscious of this problem we are actively looking for ways to solve it. it may mean that we have separate systems that are classified. there may be other approach is. es. i am being able that. >> i realize but it is a concern. >> is an issue and one we are

addressing. >> thank you. >> thank you all for being here today and thank you for your service to our country. it would seem to me that every branch of service is allowed to do its own contract in in terms of computer systems. it seems we have these disparate systems. i understand you're trying to consolidate now. are we moving to a single system when it comes to financial management? >> if you mean throughout the department of defense, the answer is no. the departments of different business practices. i believe it would be a bridge too far to be on one single system. it would frighten me because it would be so large in size that would be a problem in terms of

implementation. we are trying to move too many fewer systems. we are trying to retire a lot of these legacy systems and greatly reduce the numbers. >> we hope we -- we are taking a standard base approach. you mentioned the standard financial infrastructure instead of mandating a said it solution, we are mandating the implementation of standards. at the end of the day, this is so you can aggregate that data. it is a standards which is process-based and implementation of standards. >> where are we in that process? >> with regard to the standard financial information structure which is the main financial , allard, all of theerp's

of the department's have implemented the standard information structure. i believe we have 90% compliance with standards. it is not only the financial system. logistics and other systems feed the financial system. we completed bat in the last couple of months. >> are we aware -- it is mentioned that some are auditqable and the majority is not. is there a list is dod of those major commands are programs that are auditable/ >> yes, it is not commands.

all the departments a auditable statements. within the services, it is pieces so far. the marine corps is the furthest along. as you heard, the strategy we have taken is to try to bite off pieces of this and get independent public accountants and auditors involved. as we bring them in, we often learn a great deal. we learn a lot from the marine corps. pieces of the service have been done. >> i would like to add that the corps of engineers has beenauditable for a few years now.

we abusing their approach to guide us so they are a huge success. >> i yield back. >> mr. andrews? >> thank you for giving us further opportunities. i want to ask about the personal training in a bit more detail. one thing our work together has taught us is that we can have really well thought out software systems and we can clean up some of the other problems of people are not properly trained to use the systems, it does not work. what would each of you identify as our principal problem right now in the personal training area. what is our biggest deficiency or flop? what do you think we need to do to fix it? what would be the number-one problem you would point to? >> i will start.

have a free market in the defense financial community that allows us to require training across the. board we have a lot of courses and i think our training is generally pretty good but there is not a framework. one of the things we cannot do easily is ensure that everybody gets appropriate training to the needs. everybody does not need to be a cpa. everybody should have some familiarity of the importance of this and their general role. >> is that a collective bargaining issue? >> we started this course-base certification which is what the acquisition community did a few years ago and we got authority to do with a couple of years back. we will establish a framework where we sat levels for each position and, depending on the

level, they will need to complete certain courses and requirements in order to be certified at that level. one of the things we will do is to create a101 course. part of that a will haven audit module. this may be all they need to know for some people. there will be more substantial requirements for programming groups. this is financial training for financial ready this. would you like to start? >> one specific example in an area we have learned a considerable amount recently is with the implementation of deems.

the operational assessment pointed out that we had some issues in change management particularly in the area of training. as we peel the onion back to find out what the core issue was, we talked to the work force that was using the system. but the thing they provide us feedback on was -- utah's about the software and how to use a but you did not teach just how to do our job with this new system. in response, we have developed training manuals for each of their respective jobs and they have that training manual on their desk. additionally, our plan going forward is we will forward deployed people who have implemented the system before on location to help people when they receive new software and help them to learn to use along with training manuals.

sometimes, our challenges we are introducing something new and we think because we have been in the development process that the people who receive it will understand it the way we do. >> this is the cultural change that you mentioned in your testimony? >> yes, sir. any other takers? >> i would like to comment -- we have done several things to make sure our work force is trained in theauditreadiness. we have done several training sessions for our non-financial managers, to train them on what it meant au to bedit-ready. >> that is not just accounting and financial people have to be ready, it is already pretty good as all people. >> absolutely.

>> it is not just a financial practice. >> absolutely, we have regular office hours where we have people who can call in and we can have discussions about the things we need to do in audit- readiness. we have some enterprising and an energizing people who are working for us. we found that they would like to establish ways they can get the job done quicker. however, they don't realize the impact that it is having on the overall organization when they invent their own methodology and practices. as a result, we have done a major effort to standardize our process and to publish those standards of that everybody knows what they need to do.

it has been very beneficial. we have had lots and lots of discussions. it is not something that is new to them. it is not something we're pushing to them. there have been engaged in the process throughout. they themselves had the a part in determining what that process would be. >> that you very much and thank you mr. chairman. >> 1 follow-up thing -- it will be patently unfair -- we have to convey to our constituents and others how far you have to go. with respect to thesbr - can you give the committee and their

constituents a sense and maybe percentages -- we have to have something to take away this morning that says we are halfway there, 2/3 there, some thing. we want to talk to folks who want the answers. >> i will regret this but we've got some momentum on our side. we did not practice this answer. i think we are crudely halfway there. we are on the offense. >> what do you think? >> in terms of dollar value, i think we are probably about 30%

of theithere are big areas contract vendor pay and military personnel pay. those are big areas for us. i think we're about 30% there. i am encouraged by the momentum i have seen in the department of the navy. we are working those issues constantly to make sure. i am reasonably optimistic that by the end of 2013 that maybe we will be audit-erady for its statement of budgetary resources. >> we are going through three exams right now. we have finished the first exam. the second exam is under way. the third exam starts next year.

i believe we are about midfield and start -- in terms of getting us ready. as far as implementing our erp, we are there. the only part that is not in the system is a sensitive activities and we are waiting for that to be able to start working on this. we are almost there in terms of fully deployed. some activities are not done but we are making a lot of progress in terms a looking at ourselves. >> the air force statement of budgetary resources is divided into 15 units. of that, we have completed all the assertion on five. we have several others that are in progress and one that is very close.

i think midfield is probably a fair assessment of where we are. >> all right, anything else? >> one more thing -- the defense agencies are almost 20% of our budget. we have not paid as much attention to them as we should. we are now acting to try to get all the departments to move on to audit-readiness. there are a lot of small problems. i think we are making progress there. >> please convey to the hundreds

and hundreds of people seated behind you and throughout the system our heartfelt thanks for not only what they have done up to this point but that hard work yet to come to get to that red zone. i know how hard it is. i know what the scope is which is stunning. thank you so very much for what you have done already and we're looking for to the success of getting more done. >> mr. chairman -- i want to raise one objection on the record. the washington redskins reference i found offensive. [laughter] >> i stand by my remarks. >> as a devoted philadelphia eagles fan, let the record show

my objection. >> we are leaving this discussion at this point and you can see it in its by entirety on our website. now we have remarks from the former ambassador to of kasten, ryan crocker. this is on future challenges and opportunities for afghanistan. >> it was nice to come back to washington after another alteration in diplomatic service. i first encountered ryan almost a decade ago and i don't think he knew it. i had just finished a stint in denny's and was getting ready to return to washington. we decided we would visit afghanistan. we were going to take jobs that involve the work ethic --

connected to of dennis stanford we went to the chancery for two or three days. this was the old u.s. chancery during the wars. one day, during the two days of meetings, i walked to the ambassador's conference room and in that room are a series of photographs going back to the u.s. to -- ambassador. the photographs were put out but not necessarily the names. i tried to look at the gallery of faces and trying to make sense of who i could identify and who could not. bob came up behind me and put his finger on ryan crocker's forehead saying forget about the

rest, this is the only star. i thought the bob being bob. i discovered very quickly that ryan had a long and illustrious career and was the premier specialist in the middle east. if you looked at who he served, it is like a who's who. kuwait, syria, pakistan, iraq -- i met him in person finally before he was going to pakistan. we spent half a day with him. everything that happened, everything composite to his description -- ryan finished in

the last years of the bush administration, presided over a transition that was complex and difficult and retired with the highest title of career ambassador. he came back to texas and worked as the dean of a school. at that point, he was looking at a life that would be his own. fortunately, for the united states, the president called again. in very difficult moments, president obama asked him to come back to national service. being the patriot that he is, he did. he left the school and went back to afghanistan as america's ambassador in a moment when we were beginning yet another

transition period this afternoon, we have been very blessed to have him come to carnegie to make this stop but his return from afghanistan. he will speak to us about what the transition in that country holds, what the prospects are at why afghanistan still matters to the united states. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in extending a very warm welcome to the man -- ryan crocker. [applause] >> thank you, ashley. i think.

ashley notes that before it went to pakistan in 2004, he very generously spent much of a day with me. to give me some perspectives on part of the world with which i was not very familiar . my career leaned toward the west. pakistan clearly was a different phenomenon. i have always been grateful for that. i am particularly grateful for the fact that the depth and range of your briefing, i can't read every single mistake i

made on the new person. [laughter] the circumstances of the time required me to begin on a somber note. my good friend and colleague and a friend of many of yours, along with three of his colleagues, recently returned from libya to enter this after the assassination in libya. chris stevens was one of our best and brightest. we have a lot of great foreign officers. we have very few who are equally adept at managing complexities of washington as they are about

as in the complexities of the region. chris was one of that small tribe i feel his loss very deeply. and personally. it is a reminder that diplomacy in the hard parts of the world. -- those parts are growing tremendously. it is not stuck could keep things -- pin stripes and those who ride with you on these missions. i was an ambassador six times- lebanon, kuwait, syria, pakistan, iraq, afghanistan.

in three of those six -- six countries, half of them, the predecessor was assassinated. i don't need to tell this audience but you're foreign service is and has been and can't -- will continue to be not just on the bromides of the plummeted of from lives of the conflict. it was suggested to be that i talk a bit this set to an that the the juror get a sedan in u.s. interests. i'm no longer in government service.

this will be a collection of reflections. i hope to ensure that there is ample time for questions. i realized there is more expertise in this room on this subject and i could ever hope to bring to bear myself. i am grateful for the opportunity but i approach it with modesty. let me begin with some perspective which is something we americans are not overly brilliant at. we are all about today and tomorrow. that is the spirit that built

this great country, don't for me with the past. i am here to make america and it takes longer than the day after tomorrow, we will move on to something else. we tend to lose track of how important history is elsewhere in the world and how it shapes the president and enforce the future. in the reason risk than my career, william faulkner family said once ,"the past is not history. the past is not even passed. t." so it is in afghanistan and the region around it. our relations with afghanistan up until 1979 were characterized by a kind of

benign neglect -- which don't really want to say. -- but our interactions were limited. not just up until the end of world war two, are in -- interaction of the middle east were quite limited. world war two and the birth of israel and the cold war confrontation between the united states and the soviet union in particular what is front and center in iran and the arab states. i don't think it carry over to afghanistan. in spite of its poverty and some of its hard ships, there is not

too much going on. it began to change a bit better -- in the fall. it change with the communist and changed dramatically as the soviet invasion of afghanistan in 1979 took place. then you notice. as someone who has practiced of -- in the foreign-policy arena for decades, i would remind you that when administration's face complex situations, they come not as simple sorrels but often in waves.

the carter administration in late 1979 was also wrestling with the repercussions of the takeover of the american embassy in 1979, the mecca shootings, we lost to americans in islam but come november, 1979 and, of course, in december, the soviets or in afghanistan. a number of you have been there but for those of you who have not -- life in the national security council or indeed in the state departed is not quite play out.

we put together a complex alliance. if there is a single unifying theme that brought together, it was the notion that a jihad against the gobblers and there was probably the single most pointed unity. externally, we looked at a path with the pakistani the also the saudis. you know what? it worked. in 1989, the soviets had all the paint they could step in a gas that.

at a time when it was clear to the leadership that their problems at home were somewhere beyond serious and the pershing critical. we could not afford it anymore. as opposition group. in the closing years of the cold war, we won, let's go home. home we went. we were not engaged with conventional forces on the ground in the afghan campaign but we were heavily engaged by a variety of means. that engagement stopped in

afghanistan but also in the region, particularly in pakistan. in the space of a little over a year, pakistan went from being the most allied to the most sanctioned u.s. adversary. that was through the administration's decision not to renew with your requests -- waiver requests on the pakistani nuclear program which we knew all about since the mid-1970's bus. we found it expedient to say we've got more important issues. the issues went away and there were amendment waivers.

the arrest, as they say is history, a predictable history with the 7 named jihadi groups and no russians left to fight among them. any informed observer could reasonably predict how kabul has changed hands, at least three. it was not our issue. a new mid to-70's,

movement saw blood in the south in canada are. saul light in the south in kandahar. there was international in difference, war-weary mass on the part of the afghan population, pakistani support. we desperately wanted to see someone bring some stability to a country of borders. clearly, their ideology was not harmonious with ours. we have lived with other disharmonies around the world. we had a series of ever to engage them. while these efforts were under way, increasingly they looked

attractive. their relocation took place in the 1990's. there was east africa bombings, really toque and missile strikes -- token missile strikes and it was brit -- business pretty much as unusual. until 9/11. and then all the sudden, we cared. my modern store with afghanistan goes back to that day. some of you have much longer and

more continuous narratives but i have a microphone so this is my story. i was on a u.s. air shuttle at 8:00 a.m. from reagan airport to laguardia. i was the newly appointed deputy area -- deputy secretary of state for eurasian affairs. i have the portfolio called iraq in 2001. my job was to convince the chinese, the russians, and the french that our way was the right way. that could take half a day. it was while we were making our approach into a boarded that we could see smoke coming out of the first tower. atlanta, all of our cell phone support off -- were off.

they went off with news that the second tower was struck and it was clear that it was not a misguided private aircraft or some other accident of navigation. it was an attack. i was stuck in traffic on the queens borough bridge when the towers went down. 3.5 months later, i was part of a small u.s. contingent raising the american flag over the .pposite end of ground zero this followed a quick military campaign to oust the taliban. i did not spend those intervening 3.5 months unoccupied. i was on one of the first planes

out of dulles after it reopened airports following 9/11. i was bound for geneva and conversations on the the u.n. flag -- under the u.n. flag. those of you who are into trivia, i would not suggest to admit to you are, just get counseling. [laughter] you may have heard of the heard of the geneva group. it was a forum to talk about the radical futures for afghanistan and the features that brought together countries with significant political or refugee afghan populations. like italy, germany and a run and the u.s. and it was never taken seriously

by s until after 9/11. then the near east bureau took it over and i was sent to have our delegation and begin discussions with the iranians. ok, we warned you. now look at what you've got. what are we going to do about it? those discussions led to the bahn conference and the selection of hamid karzai to leave afghanistan had to a u.s.- korean decision for which data -- for which jim tom bentz, i for colleague and friend -- jim dobbins, a former colleague and friend deserves credit, the jury

knows pre-attack discussions -- you remember the air war began in early october, the iranian thrust was what do you need to know to knock their blocks of? you want the order of battle? here is the map. you want to know where we think there week pouring its are, hear, hear, hear. want to know how they're going to react to let air campaign? do you want to know how the no. alliance will be saved? ask us. we have been working with them for years. this was an unprecedented time since the revolution. a u.s.-iranian dialogue on a particular issue where we very much had common interest and common cause. it was our cooperation, and i don't mean to diminish or minimize that of other actors.

i've already mentioned the united nations, but the entire international community rallied a around the composition of the afghan interim authority. our conversations continue unless you fear of going to give you every week between late 2001 and current time, i'm just setting the stage here because we so often leap to the present without remembering the there is a past and everyone except us has a focus. geneva, paris, new york, we were very portable. and kabul.

my senior interlocutor got posted their about the same time i showed that. we were able to talk about where al qaeda might be in iran and what they might do about it. not without some effect, we talked about development, who could deal with which roads. we even got into such issues as this standardizing the composition of asphalt. we talked about how we might work together to reduce the influence of the warlords with him each of us have respect of influence. but then came access of evil state of the union, january 2002. i remember fairly clearly my next encounter with my riding and a colleague.

there is things in life that are least pleasant stay with you the longest and with the greatest clarity. that was not a happy encounter. that was the time -- and he is abrasive -- gracious enough to inform me that the iranian government chose to export [inaudible] back to afghanistan and we are still missing him in the kinetic sense, but in a sympathetic cents. this was also the point -- and here i am indulging and conjecture. it's great to be a free man and i can do that. this was the point where the iranians made a strategic decision which is can't work

with those sons of bitches. told you all along. can't do it. i think up until that time, the notion that maybe we can't find common ground on certain issues and see or they go maybe was held in the rodney and revolutionary guard corps. including by its leader. to the extent it was there, i could only see its reflections in the individuals i was talking to. it certainly was not there after january of 2002 although talks continued, but with increasingly less results and increasingly

less authoritative representation on the iranian side. i mention all of this to illustrate something i will come back to. the law of unintended consequences. in that international arena, particularly in that complex parts of the world where so many of us have chosen or been blackmailed into serving, it's not just obvious stuff that anyone with a high-school education if they looked at it for half an hour would have figured out. it is the unintended consequences, not of second and third order of the 20th and 30th order. that is when major actions are

set in motion and no action is more major than a military engagement. sometimes diplomatic engagement. decisions to go and decisions over what to do that and set in motion currants and forces that the most astute among us cannot begin to predict. when these decisions are made, it is not simply a question of thinking through the implications carefully, it's asking how much risk am i ready to assume? how much of the unknown and unknowable am i prepared to absorb to deal with that which has already struck me or the threat me? a certain degree of modesty and humility on the part of those of

us who advise or make policy in terms of what we can presume to know and predict would well served the national interest. i was yo-yoing about a good bit at that time. taking some leave of absence from my iraq responsibilities. not all that much. i was in northern iraq in december of 2001, suggesting to our kurdish friends that it would be nice if they did not start the war before we were ready. actually getting the call across the border say we need you to be in afghanistan a week from friday. i came back from afghanistan in

the spring and immediately went back to northern iraq. a case of badly divided attention -- i will remember my arrival in kabul just a few days after new year's and 2002. i had never seen anything that looked like afghanistan at the beginning of that year a decade and a half ago. when we finally got their, kabul looked like parts of berlin in 1945. whole city blocks obliterated, no power, no water, no services, as security forces, no nothing.

we didn't do it. the taliban did a little bit. not a lot. the soviets didn't really contribute much. it was the afghan civil war that we had chose to ignore. the incredible devastation the anti-soviet she hot rock on their country and citizenry when there was no longer a unifying force to unite them or international presence and a commitment as said let's look for other ways. karzai had gotten there about 10 days before i did in december

and he has been there ever since. as the history of afghanistan gets written, rewritten, revised and redacted, and otherwise colorized, i hope attention is given to the role of hamid karzai because he has personified the post-taliban afghanistan and it -- from that time until this. god willing, until the 2014 election. several things struck me about him. first, his incredible courage in taking on a job that was somewhere beyond impossible. as he struggled to come up with someone who might be capable of

actually running a province, that wouldn't let a coup at the same time or steal whatever little may be left to steal, while he was doing around on a breakfast napkin, trying to design the new afghan flag, in addition to his courage and determination, i was also struck by something that still strikes me today -- in my view, he is a committed afghan nationalists. by which i mean he thinks in national terms. he knows his base liza's tunes. he knows the future of afghanistan lies with all of its significant population, be that

based on sectarian, ethnic, or gender identity. they feel they have a home in the future. he worked from that date to this in a five dimensional chess game to try to maintain and foster those balances against extraordinary odds. it is a question that afghans and friends of afghanistan need to be asking themselves as we look ahead to the 2014 elections. there are not many people to think like that in afghanistan. more now than a decade ago, but still a minority.

beginning in 2002, here we are, on the ground. international consensus behind an interim authority. so now what? you are out there, figure out. i did not arrive with a detailed set of instructions as to what the administration wished to have accomplished in those initial months. in fact, i arrived without any instructions. just go figure something out. this was regime change on the cheap. that sounds a little familiar. maybe it is. my first rule when it moving

into conflict or a immediate post conflict is to lashup tight with the military commander because he has the guns and guns can be very useful in staying alive. i couldn't find one. we have a special forces commander who covers the northern part of afghanistan. we have special forces commander who covers the south. we have a marine expeditionary unit commander who has his brigade and guess what? there were colonels. none of them reported to each other. none of them coronate with each other. they didn't have a requirement to coordinate anything with me or even pick up the phone when i called it, which i couldn't do

because there were no telephones. we did not even have an approach to unified military command in afghanistan until the 10th mountain division arrived in late february, 2002. even then, not everybody was reporting to him. a great british officer named john mccall was the first commander. he was the major-general at a time. not finding an american counterpart, i said you are a commander in speak english, we led a successful revolt against you, let's talk.

we looked at the warlords and militias out there and the absence of any kind of ability by the chairman to extend authority and said can we do better than this? how about if we put a reinforced company in each major population center back by the air mobile brigade that could deploy anywhere in a matter of an hour to? we plus up a brigade, but our reach, our influence and are capacity to maintain security goes up exponentially. we sent this off in record time. we that similar instructions

back for our capitals which was basically go sit under a tree until that idiot idea passes. we are putting nothing else in to what has been a successful campaign. it i will let you fast forward from that date until the announcement of the surge in december of 2009. let me say one preliminary word about the insurgency and and i will fast-forward. the insurgency surprised me, not because it came or because it came when it did. but because it longer to develop than i thought it would. i was present for operation anaconda. you can mention that to your counselor when you see him about

the geneva talks. that was our first large-scale effort to mop up the taliban and al qaeda rents in the mountainous east. the general have lots of advice from every echelon above him. lots of advice, lots of it -- lots of superior commanders, most of whom were not in his chain of command, but that did not slow him down. very few forces. what we found in anaconda is we have a much larger, much better armed and prepared and

tenacious and me than we thought we did. we also did not have some of those useful things like tanks, not a good idea to carry out major ground operations if you don't have armor. just a civilian, but what do i know? we had to borrow tanks from the northern alliance. unless theyn't much are against an adversary doesn't have anything. they seemed useful and my job was to negotiate their passage through's 2-controlled areas with supporting crews to support us on anaconda. that almost did not happen because the's tune leader of the area later met an untimely death, or timely, depending on how you look at it, or wait too late, depending on how you look at it, refused passage and said

if they tried, they would be destroyed. it took an all-night negotiations to say you come after these tanks, we're going to come after you. if you have not been on the business end of an f-16, you have about half a second to experience it. he said ok. we prevailed, kind of sort of. by the time we had enough power to make the outcome decisive, most of who we were fighting had exited. the other moment for me back then, late february, early march 2002 was particularly in the early days of the campaign, the filtration went to ways. we were picking up young afghans

who were trying to cross our lines to get on the fighting side to join their compatriots in the fight on the center. and that's what i thought there could be trouble down the line. what do i know? i have to go worry about iraq. hindsight is. it's beautiful. remember having that concern, as we have seen and as our predecessors have seen for hundreds of years, the conflict in a given foreign country in the eyes of our adversary has not even really started until we think we have gained a decisive victory. we sought in afghanistan and in iraq. france sought, morocco, algeria, the brits, throughout

the region, over and over and over. we operate on different time lines, none more profound than this -- our enemies capacity too late -- to wait, our capacity to think, move on to the next small country that needs help. a lot more background that he needed, but it doesn't get told often. i thought it might be useful to review -- you're going to kill me. in part because of what today is. avid "new york times" readers also subject to therapy, you

will have seen an op-ed piece today, recalling for us this is the 30th anniversary of the massacres which notes in passing that a young foreign service officer named ryan crocker was the diplomat who walked in to those camps who sought reported those massacres. the israeli invasion of lebanon, going back to my 20th and 30th order of consequences, set in motion a chain of events we could not or they could not possibly have dreamed of. nobody could have imagined when they crossed the line of departure in june of 1982 that he would have that massacre. at least i could not. that invasion led to this cementing of the iranian-syrian a strategic alliance that has persisted to this day and maybe

in some jeopardy, one may hope. although what may come after the assad regime may not be good. it also led to the birth of hezbollah, which has not only bedeviled us and the israelis, it has killed hundreds of both americans and israelis. the law of unforeseen consequences -- again, 30 years later. i won't go back. that's it. i promise. where are we today? first, i believe since i was out there for a lot of it and saw the consequences, the surge ordered by president obama, the addition of 38,000 troops, had a huge positive impact on

security. now, as we draw down to the pre-surge number, it is extremely important we take the time general allan has recommended for a careful, methodical assessment of where we are, where the afghans are, where our adversaries are, what does the battle space look like going forward before we make any more decisions and a merciful element here is that kind of assessment will carry us past november 6. the status of the afghan national security forces -- an amazing achievement in a very short time. it's not just a little over a decade, it's just the last three

years or so that we have been engaged in a truly serious effort to build a capable, multi-faceted set of security forces, both police and army, close to their maximum strength of 200 to 2000. -- of the 252,000. they have shown their abilities in action. you will remember the inadvertence desecration of the carotid in the early part of this year -- of the koran that led to demonstrations, some of the more violent, forces could not -- we could not even use advisers, it would simply be gasoline on the fire.

they were not prepared for that. they were not trained for that were equipped for that. there is nothing harder to ask of an armed force than to go into action against its own population. yet, that they did, and they did so, given the circumstances, with extraordinary effectiveness. they saved countless lives, they saved american lives, protecting our presence at installations around the country. the loss of afghan life, while regrettable, a total 29, that includes afghan security forces, are less than it might have been. we saw not a dress rehearsal, we saw the curtain to what without rehearsal. and a very credible performance by afghan security forces. why do i start with this?

because if you look back at a post-soviet era, the government and central authority did not come crashing down when the soviets withdrew from afghanistan, did not when soviet advisers were withdrawn from afghan security forces. they did a very good job holding their own, on their own. it all came crashing down when they stopped being paid, when the money stopped. the army disintegrated, they fall on their ethnic or sectarian affiliations, and the rest is history, and not a very pretty one.

so, in confidence, certainly by afghan standards, a committed force, but certainly, it helps to keep paying your troops. i will come back to this when i talk about u.s. interests. what else is different, from 0's and 200's?000 -- 2000's. well, you have to see for yourself. it really is a metropolis. the streets are packed, traffic is horrendous. schools are open. we have gone from 900,000 kids in school when i got there, all of them boys, to the beginning in 2002, over 8 million today.

enormous strides forward in the education sector, certainly in helalth. life expectancy has increased. transportation. not every project has been a success, but getting around afghanistan today is the world's difference than decade ago. tele-communications, electricity, all almost immeasurably better than there were a decade ago. lots of problems, lots of mistakes, missteps, but overall, the progress has been incredible. there is an intangible in this, too. it is the attitude of people. an attitude of when and -- women.

you hear that through clenched teeth, nobody is going to put me back into a birka. you see girls who never experienced it -- whenever i had a bad day and afghanistan, which would be every day, you can always buck yourself up by visiting classrooms. asking the students what they want to do. virtually all of them had great dreams and wanted to see them fulfilled and afghanistan. i was amazed at the number of girls that want to be doctors, engineers, fighter pilots, -- there is a new spirit among women and young people out there. as we look at 2014, watched that young generation, watch the

females. but you will hear from the 20- somethings -- our parents and grandparents destroyed this country. we are going to build something that is entirely different. good luck to them. their grandparents, in many cases, unfortunately, are still healthy. n the positive of ledger. one thing that we touched on was elections. the good news here is, everyone wants to be involved. everybody is maneuvering, has been maneuvering for the past year, like primaries, straw polls, see where your alliances are, check your adversary's

strength. in either case, it is murder, so it is a wash. there is the northern alliance in iraq, kurds, and the northern alliance in afghanistan. they want to play in the center. they want to be governors. they like having it both ways. they would like to be kings, but i do not think many of them expect that at this juncture, but king-makers. they want to have the sizes --

decisive voice is in who leads the country, and how they do so. on like the -- unlike the kurds, is for the guys that took a couple. although they say it is their right to rule the state as president, it is different. it is our right to live as free and equal citizens in the state and to have a role in shaping the state that does take account of how we stood, where we stood, and what we did during the dark days of the 1990's. there are exceptions, but by and large, i think, this is a key point. what will you be looking at in terms of contenders? i am not going to name names. it would be meaningless at this

point, in any case. i think you can see structures. personalities will count hugely as they did in 2009, but so will coalitions. i think there is a prospect, certainly for those who see advantage in cross-cutting coalitions. not the 20-somethings, but the early 40-somethings. i am a tajik. i need to hook up with costume -- pasthoum. you are not going to see the agenda-based parties. maybe in the election after this one. beyond platitudes, beyond a chicken in every pot, i still think development has a ways to go before that happens.

let me say a word about the role of karzai. here are my fearless predictions, since i am utterly irresponsible. i can make any prediction i want. unless circumstances change dramatically, i am quite confident president karzai will not seek to amend the constitution or to find some kind of extra constitutional mechanism that would allow for prolongation for reelection. he said it publicly, privately, in a number of conversations, i heard and talk about the future he envisions. the future he envisions is a future, one in which he is actually alive.

sitting here with our election losers going into opposition, is equally likely or both, going into a highly lucrative law practices, making money and then coming back another day. this is the part of the world that coined the phrase, two men, one grave. it is you or me. i see some knowing smiles. that goes back to the days of bhutto. losing an election in embryonic or on stable democracies is no joke. president karzai -- this putin

stuff just kills me. president karzai is a lot of things. he is not vladimir putin. afghanistan does not work that way. but he is going to want to see an election outcome that he literally can live with, where a successor will not have them brought up on capital charges, which could happen in a state where the rule of law does not exactly well-established. not a king-maker, but looking to see contenders emerged with whom he can coexist, very likely on the same compound for security reasons. so the elections, again, a huge multifaceted challenge. will be the first big challenge for the karzai era, something

afghanistan has not experienced since the fall of the taliban. it is worthy of our attention and deep interest, which is not the same as interference. that may say another word about hamid karzai. i got to know him immediately after we both arrived in kabul, developed a high level of respect for him at that time, maintained the relationship over the years. i was ambassador to pakistan from 2004 until 2007, expressed to president karzai, in my view, the pakistanis and their leadership were not destroyed -- out to destroy him and afghanistan. he said, yes, they are, and then we would move onto a more pleasant conversation. we maintain a relationship.

karzai is a nationalist. it takes two forms. i talked about one of them. this touches on another challenge, which is reconciliation. president karzai believes in this, i believe in it, general allen, commander now in afghanistan, believes in it. you did not kill your way out of an insurgency. at the same time, president karzai is aware that you cannot have reconciliation with your adversaries, and in the process, lose your allies. in other words, you cannot be on terms that alienate the minorities because they feel their rights have been part in the way -- bargained away, and you cannot do it on terms that threaten what women and afghanistan have achieved. the best indication of where the

president's mind is on this is the painful process he pursued to select a successor as chairman of the high peace council after one of the members was assassinated a year ago. a couple of individuals perceived as pashtuns wanted the position. the president decided that it would be one of the sons of the one that was assassinated. he eventually prevailed, not without asking certain western powers interfere blatantly in afghanistan's internal affairs, which i happily did. the two individuals, afghanistan

older statesman, the professor is considered a pashtun. then you have the other who is also considered a pashtun. is a tajik high piste leader going to be instantly empathetic with taliban who want to cross over? not likely. but again, it shows where karzai's priorities are, in my

view, which is hang on to the solidarity, the unity you have. do not risk it going after what you do not have. we have talked about security and security forces, simply to say the threats that we have seen are very much there, whether it be that coordinated attack that destroyed a number of aircraft. only 15 or so gunmen, but they clearly knew what they were doing. the high-profile attacks, which have not worked out well, by and large, headline-grabbers, after the attack on the embassy last year and again in april. and the very troubling green on blue attacks. i am not there. but i would put the percentage of attackers who have some affiliation with the taliban rather higher than the percentages i have seen. i think they are finding that a relatively easy to do -- and our

own vetting in the military is not so great. let's face it. that is why we have prison barracks from people who never should have been there in the first place. how is it in afghanistan? i think the taliban have found a niche. obviously, not the whole story. i do not ignore the rest of the cultural sensitivity of it, but we under estimate, at our peril, -- and our own vetting a brazilian enemy g a new mechanism -- resilienct ay finding a new mechanism. we have talked about reconciliation. the economy -- i would just say, i do not think 2014 is going to be as calamitous and economic development as many believe is the case, assuming there is a

virtual, complete drawdown of international forces. an awful lot of the money spent on contract and has gone offshore anyway. what the afghans are attempting to do through their industries and elsewhere is build up what they need to do, in any case, mechanismindigenous growth cap. let the private sector do what it does the best -- no, not steal money, that is the government. it is great not to be an official anymore. [laughter] generally april. and the, let the economy work. there is a significant amount to work with. internationally, engagement, engagement, engagement. we had three important conferences during my tenure --

actually, four. the conference last december, that was an affirmation of international political support for afghanistan. the chicago summit was an affirmation of international financial support for the afghan national security forces in the out years. and this is key. no more 1992. and then, of course, the tokyo ministerial, which focused on economic support, as important as the commitments as the international community were, the commitment of the afghans was also extremely important in recognizing and agreeing to take on the challenges of regulation of government, corruption, and so forth. they are not blind to these issues, and the president was very public on it. the international dimension,

going forward, very key. we know how the movie ran at the end of the 1980's and 1990's, and then iraq. general petraeus and i in front of congress, 2007, what the hell did we know? i thought we told a good story. in afghanistan, we do know. the same adversaries are in that country as in the 1990's and they want it back. they are committed, brazilian, they are tough, smart. -- resilient, they are tough, smart. after all, we have killed all of the stupid ones. in my judgment, taliban and how can a linkage, mother might be some who have a different view, still pretty solid.

tell them get back, stand by for al qaeda. they might be weakened, but afghanistan is the field of choice come in a way that yemen can never be, for reasons that both of you who know yemen will understand. you will never get a homogenous in many view on anything whatsoever in the world, let alone the desire billet-doux have al qaeda as neighbors. it with different in afghanistan and it could be different again. i would conclude be, for, reallg after i should have. what kind of future in afghanistan that is good enough to maintain stability in a precarious region, with security forces good enough not to eliminate every security threat, but to be the force of first

resort in dealing with it, and afghanistan with good enough governance that its people look to it for services. expect they will never be happy with those services, as are we, but sees that government as legitimate, both in terms of how it was chosen, but far more important, in what and how it delivers. and how it looks, after all of its citizenry. that no major element of afghan population ever again feels that an afghan government is persecuting it, or worse. president karzai has stood with uneven results, because he has had the worst job in the world. i hope his successor can carry that forward.

why is it important? two quick points. one of them is just three members, 911. it did happen, it could happen again. if it did happen again, the most likely way it would happen would be from a taliban-controlled afghanistan. it may cost the international community $4.5 billion a year to field a reasonably well sized, well-equipped afghan security force in the future, but that is pretty cheap insurance, given what 9/11 cost. second reason, i think, is an argument that should resonate with americans. if we decide we are done before the afghans really do take a grip, if they start seriously

slipping, the various parts of taliban are gaining and gaining, who gets in the net? it starts with all the people that we promised things too. i was there when some of those undertakings were made, in 2002. you have women all over government now. women running companies. when in educating other women. -- women educating other women. to see what will happen to them is something that we would have a lot of trouble with -- i say hope so because it we are americans. likewise for the 20-somethings and early 30-somethings who want to achieve a different afghanistan and have it within their capability, if there is enough time to do so.

so for those reasons -- and i could go on -- we need to maintain focus, we need to remember the past, we need to make the commitment and the investment for our national security, and i define national security as also encompassing very much our moral and human values. let us new -- not lose sight of the region. i have not covered the region because you would have given me the hook. i would be happy to talk about iran, the stans, particularly pakistan, but before everyone falls asleep, i will leave whenever shred of time is left for questions. [applause] >> we have a few minutes of

questions. i want to give people an opportunity to ask questions. i will ask that they be pointed and specific. wait for the microphone, please. >> it is good to see you again and listen to the enlightened conversation. i have been meeting with the investment every time. many of us came together. you had mentioned exclusively about afghanistan, but the problems in that area are bigger. even the stability of afghanistan and pakistan has become interdependent, in many ways. how would you shed light on this?

there are so many killings being done by the taliban. the same taliban is doing the same thing inside pakistan, u.s. army people, nato forces, civilians. what did you figure out, exactly their intentions? how come they have only become killers with no motive? maybe you could help us figure out how you connect the stability, and independence of stability in pakistan and afghanistan. >> i am going to take a few questions at a time so that we can get as much coverage as we can. >> thank you for that sort of force. you mentioned the dangers of

ignoring a situation like we did in afghanistan. he mentioned the dangers of unintended consequences. now that you are out of government, what prescription would give the west regarding syria? >> nice to see you, ryan. you described iran, saying something you did not -- you described an adversary that had come and interests with the united states. you served in pakistan, a friend with interests in afghanistan that do not track those of the united states. what kind of strategy would help the united states deal with this paradoxical situation? >> again, great to see you, doctor. good to see that you are fighting the good fight. not an easy one these days. i can appreciate that.

there is a great variety of militants loose in the land of both countries, some of them over linkages with each other, some not. by and large, i do think they do have a discernible motive, which is bringing down the established orders in both countries. it is a negative motive. i do not see much, except in the case of the taliban, who want to go back to the days of the old days and islamic emirate of afghanistan. i do not see much vision for the future except everyone being dead oregon who does not think like them. i have been saddened by what i have seen occurring in pakistan since my departure in 2007.

the growth and strengthening of an indigenous pakistani militants say that is aiming, as you put it, at the pakistani government establishment, military, and the population. what this tells me, and what i think all three governments are aware of, afghanistan, pakistan, and the united states -- whoa, it is bad out there, bad for all of us. pakistani soldiers are dying in the tribal areas, numbers higher than ever before, fighting the same guys that are killing afghan and international forces in afghanistan.

we have been through the ground lines of communication and the incidences that precipitated it. this is the time for the proverbial deep breath -- again, marc grossman just out in the region. ok, we have huge lists of grievances between and among us. set those aside for a minute so we are not arguing over them while the worldhow can we fashia practical, coordinated approach? in my long experience in the region, we have not done is evolved a working trilateral mechanism that is senior and the to carry weight and authority, but not so senior

that it cannot, on itself, make proposals or shape decisions. you know, we are talking about a couple of levels down. we have done that sporadically, not sustained. i think that this is the time. india and pakistan have done it for years. perhaps great successes have not been registered, but great disasters have been avoided. i would like to see a trilateral machen it -- mechanism. it exists. i do not think that the participants have had adequate mandate. this is the time, precisely for the reasons stated. that is why i would like to see all three governments focused on

moving forward. i will not get into the complexities on the pakistani side. you know me better than i do and we do not have that extra hour and a half. to the ambassador, i guess i will give you a flip answer that is not completely flipped. first, it is not 2001-2002 anymore. it was after 9/11 that the president musharaff, on the over supply routes, he basically lined up with the u.s. against the taliban and al qaeda. he took these decisions and implemented them. before there was even a whiff of an insurgency.

that came several years later. so, we've got to compare the times. where we were with pakistan then, which was a reasonable place, and where we were with afghanistan, which was also showing promise. they both went south in very different ways at very different levels of magnitude in subsequent years. i think that the real question is -- ok, is there a way to return to some kind of e-mail discussion with iran? i think that there may be. here is why i think that is important.

the iranians have always pull their punches in afghanistan. they could have been a lot worse than they have been. the only explosively formed project go that killed so many americans in afghanistan have ever found evidence of in iraq, the only one we ever found evidence of was in merge. we believe that it was -- inner t. we believe that it was left for us to find. they're not doing that because we are fundamentally nice people. i think that it is a signal that there is, you know, there is still something to talk about. i would like to see us explore that, if we can. they tell you, i have one great

quality i have always brought to the soaring -- foreign service, which is my inherent expandability. i maintain the authority to engage the iranians. obviously, i have not gone back. i had it again the whole time i was in iraq. i could not find any iranian ready to take me up on it. standing in front of their gates saying -- i am the american ambassador, want to go for a cup of coffee? i think that it is still out there, were creating minds and pursuing. syria, i was ambassador to syria

for three fun filled years. that included the transition. our fearless prediction at the time, as i got to know bouchard -- bashar before his father died. my arabic was better than his english, even though my arabic was not very good. he had gone to classes and studied his lectures, read his text books. he has since become quite good. he is like a father, but worse. less flexible. board doctrine. less agile. aware that he does not have his father's support. i think that this could be a fight to the finish.

no happy villa for him. i would like to be wrong on that. but even if there is, we have already seen the signs. just like what happened to my friend, chris, and his colleagues, the arab spring there is bitter fruit. and nowhere, l.i. afraid, could it be more bitter than syria, where we are already seeing signs of sectarian divisions, tensions, and service, even with him still in the palace. again, the past is the past in syria. the day before yesterday was the annihilation of a city to get

the muslim brotherhood. 1982. sunnis will settle scores. i would not want to be a member of the defense formation there. i am very much afraid that other minorities are going to get caught up in this. i would like to be wrong on this, but i spent one decade between lebanon and syria, and that would be my fear. >> i am from china center television. in afghanistan, do you think that this is a reflection of the obama failure of policy in the middle east?

>> let me go behind. just switch the microphone. >> thank you. >> i and some of your trouble zones you mentioned, -- in some of her troubled soane's, you have mentioned libya, should it have had more of crossover between the diplomatic and military? >> center for international policy -- what are the prospects for promoting a political settlement? distasteful as it may seem, some sort of taliban deal must be in place, else why is the civil war will continue and the good enough afghanistan will not be good enough, as you suggest.

and they are not about to be defeated according to the banking. >> great questions, all great questions. we have seen, and i have referred to them, protests before in afghanistan over perceived affront to islam. you know, what has just occurred does not really surprise me. there will be trouble in pakistan as well. there is kind of a fuse on these things. libya is a wild card, we still do not know that much about it. hell, they do not know that much about it. but you get something pretty quick in lebanon and egypt. syria has their hands full. and then later still, south

asia. i think that this is kind of following a progression. i think that out of all of these is the broader middle east, which is complicated. there has been genuine outrage, as it is understood. a lot of these people are illiterate. they are not part of political cultures. they live where governments do not make and release videos, is the vehement opposition of the government. if they do not know of, that is not the way the world works. at the same time, as the libyan government investigation goes on, it will have to be borne out. you create an environment where people are already in the streets. and then if you are part of a

really organized anti-u.s. element, you hijacked or put your elements behind it. you take the plan off the shelf and use a mob reaction to cover more specific attacks and we will have to sort it out. the afghan thing does not look like that. it has died down for the moment in the arab world south asia. libya, again, we are going to have to see where the joint investigation leads us. i do not know, at this point. i think that implicit in my remarks is -- be careful where you put your troops and to what

end. beware of those unforeseen consequences. there was a lot of criticism at the time of the decision to use an air campaign plus ground supply to unseat colonel khadafy rather than boots on the ground. i do not know how it worked, but you could still make the argument that if we had boots on the ground, we would have been more able to determine political outcomes. you know, my instinct is -- no. other than those, you know, brief views, be very proud of the marines and the team's from

our security guards. i hope that we reactivate the force of the expeditionary mattel and that came into being after the east africa attacks. it is not the size of the forces there, it is their ability to carry out the counter-terror protection mission. they are specifically trained for it. but i think it would want to see a military presence going in. there has been some discussion already the day before chris stevens -- but hindsight wonderful. thank you for the question of it

was just -- yes, there does have to be a political settlement. if it is going to be durable, it needs to be a settlement between the u.s. and the taliban. the taliban will use that -- our deal was not with them, it was with doing what we have to do, as we know we have to do now ok, whose and as you point out,

pakistan plays a major role here. as they have now learned, many of those guys that have been given safe harbor have links to guys who are killing our eyes you are right, you will not get, issue ever can and now without full cooperation from -- from pakistan, which has some concerns that need to be addressed. i have said this 40,000 times, it is really complicated how

they got there, i did not want to know. and i sat down to sit -- i will not confirm or deny anything and

a new element of instability and threat is added rather than support. >> [inaudible] >> thank you for your service. welcome home. my question is in the realm of unintended consequences but perhaps foreseeable consequences. this town is debating about escalating conflict with iran. it is done under the cloud of campaign spirit, of course. what risks do you see to interests throughout the region should escalation continue?

>> why did you call on her? [laughter] thank you for your service. we have been playing through the worst places in the world for three decades. you know, there is one thing worse than iran with nuclear arms. that is iran with nuclear arms that someone is trying to prevent from obtaining them by military force. iranians have had more than three decades to contemplate what happened in june of 1981

and they have three decades to figure out how to render nuclear weapons capability, virtually invulnerable in its totality to an air mobile assault. . don't know what they have i would like to think that someone in government does. but whenever they have got is designed to survive, in its essence -- they may lose peripherals, but in essence a chapter on iraq. you know, a very senior israeli

official told me about the unholy date. as you look at the iraqi >> appeasement them luck >> with two administrations and two levels of strength. you keep the economic pressure on and you keep going back for tighter sanctions. you do what you can to make the people feel the pain. or you fuel a debate within iran about how smart it is anyway. look at what is happening to the quality of education, health

care, economic opportunity. gradually but steadily, you raise the price to achieve nuclear weapons capability, while keeping it clear that should they continue on the course, some really unpleasant things are. happen that their own people may hold them accountable for. that is about where i would have it until after november 6. hon>> thank you. [inaudible]

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

>> well, president obama is on the road in ohio today. in the last hour he finished up a campaign appearance in cincinnati. he made news announcing new treatment for some sanctions against china. you will be able to see what he had to say shortly, here on c- span. he has another round scheduled at 4:20, which confined online.

he will be in new york city tomorrow. later this week he is on to battleground states. of romney campaign is making headlines, clarifying that he would leave the country if elected. mitt romney is in california today. at 3:15 eastern he is addressing hispanic business leaders at the hispanic business leader chamber of commerce in los angeles. tomorrow he is in new york city. wednesday he travels to florida. you can follow the road to the white house on the c-span networks. this group is organized by the hart research associates.

responding to what the undecided have to say. that is at 8:30 eastern, here on c-span. again, mitt romney speaking live to supporters in los angeles. that starts at 3:15 eastern. we will have it for you here on c-span. until then, a look at school nutrition programs in u.s.. host: every monday on "washington journal," we take a look at your money. taxpayer dollars and what programs they're going towards. today, looking at the federal school lunch program. our guest is jessica donze black, the kid's safe and healthy food director project for pew health and group. the national school lunch program in 2011 cost $11 billion. at lunch is served, 32 million per day. what is the school lunch program? guest: it is a federally funded program that makes lunches

available to students all of the country on a daily basis. and actually started in the 1940's so it's been around a very long time. the standards for recently updated this past year. host: how did it start? what was the reason? guest: our children were relatively malnourished and there were concerns about national security. during the truman administration, they decided to do something to ensure that our children were actually healthy. as a result, they started the lunch program so children could have at least one solid meal. host: there have been recent changes, but how does it work? guest: it works in different layers. depending upon a children's ability to pay, they reimbursed

the school at varying rates. the department of agriculture has always been responsible for setting nutritional standards and the update them every five or so years in accordance with updates in nutritional science. the last updates and in 1995 prior to 2012 so there is a little bit of catching up to do. in january, the department of agriculture issued updated nutrition standards for the first time in 17 years and it sets the floor for what the lunches need to be. host: this is what the usda gives for each launch served. the federal government reimburses $2.86. a reduced price lunches, $2.46. those who pay for the launch,

the government reimburses 27 cents. does the school dictate what is served for lunch? guest: the actual decisions about what to serve happen at the local school district level. the usda says how much nutrition needs to be in the launch. what types of foods need to be there and the nutrients provided. beyond that, it is absolutely a local decision. host: the government reimburses only to a certain amount. after that, you have to pay for it on your own? guest: the have to be with children's family and come and how ever many qualify, that is how the school gets reimbursed. this year, as a medium dated nutrition standards, they get a little bit more money. they get 6 cents more to help compensate for additional costs. host: because healthier food costs more? guest: potentially, yes. there may be a little bit higher costs and thus more money associated.

host: look at the requirements. increases in whole grain-rich foods, limiting calories. reductions of saturated fat, trans-fat, and sodium. how are these changes going over? guest: in general, it has been positive. they are seeing similar things, to what have seen in past years. it may have gone from standard to all grain, using different cheeses come other things to tweak the calories or fat. they're seeing bigger portions of fruit and vegetables. we're finding that a lot of kids are eating them as the go forward. host: as part of the "your money"series , we're talking about the school lunch program. parents, 202-737-0001. administrators, 202-737-0002.

who qualifies and who does not? guest: they define income levels. there are different ways to qualify. if they qualify for food stamps or medicaid, they can require -- they can apply for free or reduced lunch. host: 1 other support does the usda provide for the school lunch program? guest: the school lunch program is not the only thing they provide. there is a breakfast program, an after-school snack program, and in addition, there is

training and technical assistance provided, grants available to states to help with nutrition education or farming in school programs. there are a lot of wraparound programs that help the make this accessible to the students. host: are they primarily taken advantage of in urban cities verses rural? guest: it's pretty ubiquitous. we see it all around, pyrrole, urban, suburban. it varies the number of qualified, but there are many children who buy their lunch at school because it is still a pretty economical option in most cases when the lunch is $2, which many would say is a pretty good deal compared to what they might find buying it in other places. host: $11 billion spent on the school lunch program. how does this impact this on the state side of the ledger? weather problems for them to come up with money for the school lunch program or was a totally funded? guest: it is self sustaining to a large extent.

lulz -- whether it be breakfast, lunch, they get money from the federal government and there are kids to pay in to the program. they do additionally supplement those bonds in order to keep milk costs in order to provide more access. host: it is provided by the school in school. we look at chicago and the strikes happening there. it is going into its second week. guest: the have set up places where kids can still access lunch. for many kids, that is the meal they count on. there is also the summer feeding program at schools, camps, other programs can apply to help meet those needs in

various situations. caller: good morning. my children went through the st. louis public school system from pre-k through high school. they are starting their first year of college now. the meal quality had gone down from the time they were in elementary school to middle and high school. when they were in elementary school, i was able to buy a lunch and it was enough to satisfy me, the calorie content and the value of the food. yet, by the time they were in late middle school and throughout high school, they were getting, i would consider to be, some standard meal. breakfast would be a breakfast bar and a four ounce glass of

orange juice. that's not what i schooler needs to start the day with. -- high schooler needs. we were partial subsidy due to low-income. even if they had been painful price, but this was not an adequate meal. the quality, as i said, went down. host: jessica donze black. thingsthey're very few we should be thinking about. -- there are a few things. what the usda sets is just the basic nutrition standards and the school determines how to

move toward. we have been hearing about this as the usda has set standards on calorie limits, that is only this year. they set that to keep portion sizes more reasonable. in some cases, they may look smaller to people than what they perceive as the right portion size to be. it's important to note that portions are aligned to meet with the regulations for the dietary guidelines of america which sets the nutrition standards for all of us and it's based on what the average child needs. there may be kids who need more or less, but it is designed to meet with the average child needs moving forward. host: a parent from atlanta, georgia. caller: midmorning. i was listening to some of the financial aspects of the school lunch program and i saw the $11 billion price tag and the 32 million lunches served. that comes down to $343 per meal and you said the cost of the meal is about $2? that is $340 per meal

unaccounted for. i and just wondering how much of that as labour and distribution. it seems like it's really high, administrative costs, and you look at a lot of non-profit grits and a lot of times ordinations is looking at how much of your donation is actually mission dollars. how much is the administration. when administrative costs are in the 90% that's a red flag. so i'm just wondering. guest: i'm going to be honest and say i'm not an expert on usda economics and exactly what's included in the numbers. it's possible that is inclusive of things far beyond the direct service of the meals and other things involved. we would have to look in on that a little bit more to get the specifics on that math. caller: next caller from texas. robert, good morning. go ahead with your question or comment.

caller: can you bring your own sacekd lunch? guest: there is nothing about the usda standards that prohibits a parent pack a lunch and letting their child bring whatever they want to school. host: a question off of twitter. guest: in the past few years, we are hopefully seeing obesity rates plateau among young people. much of that is likely due to the increase. philadelphia just came out with research.

new york city has had a research to show that with multifaceted intervention they have been able to reduce the obesity rates among children. we are potentially moving in the right direction. we will have a little bit more time to see that play out. host: what stops a child avoiding the lunch and going straight to the vending machine? guest: the rest of the environment is a really important conversation. the usda sets standards, but there are lots of other things available. school stores, vending machines. some districts have set standards for those so that the snack environment is just as healthy as the meal environment. others have not. to the extent that they are less healthy and potentially more appealing, children may be more likely to go and get these snacks. the usda will be issuing a baseline for the rest of the school food environment in the near future. many times, it's a place for parents to get involved in their local schools.

>> you can continue watching out of mind, c-span.org. -- online, c-span.org. we will have live coverage of mitt romney in los angeles here on c-span. president obama in ohio this afternoon, he will be speaking in ohio at 4:20. earlier today, just about one hour to it -- one hour ago, the president was at a campaign rally in cincinnati, where he announced efforts to put an end to campaign subsidies -- put an end to manufacturing subsidies to china. [applause] ♪

>> hello, cincinnati. [cheers and applause] thank you. [cheers and applause] thank you. thank you. thank you so much. it is good to be back in cincinnati. it is good to be in ohio. it is great to be in this beautiful city.

it seems like we should have a picnic. [cheers and applause] who has got the chicken? [cheers and applause] love chicken. loved the qaeda salad. [cheers and applause] -- love of potato salad. baked beans. [cheers and applause] can everyone please give andrew a great round of applause? [cheers and applause] he did great. let me say, first of all, we could not be prouder of andrews service to our country as a veteran. we are grateful to him. obviously, we're very proud of the work he is doing and the work he has done with his union. the thing i am most proud of is

the fact that he has triplets and is still standing. i had a chance to meet his wonderful wife and -- triplets? that is serious. you cannot play man-to-man defense. you have to go into a zone. we are very proud of him. and we hear that your outstanding mayor, mark mallory, is in the house? and it is a great to see all of you. thank you. thank you. [cheers and applause] now, you may have heard that there is an election going on. and over the past couple of weeks, each side has been able to make a case. they have their thing in tampa. we had ours in charlotte.

now, ohio, starting october 2, you guys can start voting and you have a big choice to make. [cheers and applause] honestly, i honestly believe that the greatest choice of a generation is not between two candidates or political parties, but two fundamentally different visions of how we move forward as a country. and our vision, our fight is for that basic bargain for the greatest middle class in earth. it says that if you work hard, the hard work will pay off. that responsibility will be rewarded. that everyone should get a fair shot. everyone should do their fair

share. everyone should play by the same rules. from main street to wall street to washington dc. four years ago, i ran for president and i saw that basic bargain is eroding. too many jobs being shipped overseas. to many families struggling with the cost of everything, from groceries to gasoline. racking up more and more debt just to keep up with expenses. because of bad debts, it made things that much harder. when the housing market collapsed in the worst recession since the great depression, we saw millions of americans lose their jobs, homes, life savings. we are still fighting to recover from that tragedy. on the other side, i am more -- they are more than happy to talk

about what is wrong with america. they want to tell you how it started. they are happy to talk about that. what is wrong is they do not do much to tell you what they're going to do to make it right. they want your vote, but they do not tell you the plan. the reason is is that it is the same plan they have been offering for decades. tax cuts. tax cuts. cut a few regulations and then try some more tax cuts. tax cuts in good times. tax cuts in bad times. tax cuts for peace. tax cuts for war. you do not need the new iphone. try tax cuts. [laughter]

trying to lose those extra pounds? try tax cuts. they have got an answer for everything. now, i have cut taxes too. for folks who need it. [cheers and applause] middle-class families are paying $3,600 less in federal taxes. i cut that, like i promised. small businesses, i have cut that 18 separate times. i do not think that another round of tax breaks for millionaires will bring jobs back to ohio or pay down the deficit. i sure do not believe that firing teachers or taking students of financial aid will help to grow our economy.

after all that we have been through, does anyone believe that rolling back regulations on wall street is going to help the small business person in cincinnati expand? or help the construction worker who has been laid off of? let me tell you, we have been there, we are not going back. we are not going back. [cheers and applause] we are not going back to trickle down. we are not going down to top down, you are on your own economics. because we believe that we are all in this together. we do not think that the economy grows from the top down, we think it grows from the middle out. from a strong working class. when people are doing well in the middle, then everyone does well. what happens when you have a

little bit more money in your pocket? you spend it. meaning that businesses have more customers. they make more profits. they hire more workers. we have a virtual a fact. we're going forward. we are not going backwards. we are moving forwards. i want you to know, cincinnati, i would never promised that the path we are on is going to be quick or easy. as bill clinton reminded us at the convention, it will take a few years to solve the challenges that have cropped up over decades. let me tell you something, i know that we will get there. when i hear the folks from the other party talk about the

nation, they are wrong. we still have the best workers in the world. we still have the best businesses in the world. the best scientists and researchers. colleges and universities. there is not a country that would not change places with the united states of america. our challenges can be met. the path that we offer may be harder, but it leads to a better place. i am asking you to choose that future. i am asking you to rally around a set of plans to create new manufacturing jobs in ohio. to create a new energy strategy in america building on what we have already done. a true education to bring down deficits and turn the page on a decade of war. that is why i am running for a

second term. [cheers and applause] now, i want everyone to be clear, these goals are concrete and achievable. the first part of the plan is to export more products and outsource fewer jobs. after a decade of decline, this country has not created -- has now created half of a million and manufacturing jobs in the last two years. a lot of them right here in ohio. some folks said we should let detroit go bankrupt. they said that we should walk away from an industry that

supports one out of a jobs in ohio. i said, we are not going to go that way. i bet on the american workers and three years later the american auto industry has covered itself with more jobs. 350,000 jobs. [cheers and applause] now, we can give more tax breaks to corporations who send jobs overseas, or we can start rewarding corporations and companies for offering new plans, training new workers, creating jobs right here in ohio, right here in the united states of america. right here. i understand my opponent has been running around ohio. don't boo. vote [cheers and applause] vote.

he has been running around ohio, talking about rolling up his sleeves and taking the fight to china. [laughter] here is the thing. his experience has been owning companies that were pioneers in the business of outsourcing jobs to countries like china. he made money investing in companies that of routed from here and went to china. pioneers. you cannot stand up to china when all you have got is sending them our jobs. you can talk a good game, but i like to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

[cheers and applause] and my experience has been waking up every single day and doing everything i can to make sure that american workers get a fair shot in the global economy. when other countries do not play by the rules, we have done something about it. we brought more cut -- more cases against china in one term than the previous administration did in two. every case to be brought that has been decided, we have one. when governor romney said stopping on fare surcharges on chinese tires would be bad for america, we ignored his advice and we got over 1000 americans back to work making tires right here in the united states of america. [applause]

earlier this year i set up a new jobs program to aggressively go after programs that harm our workers. they have already delivered. today my it ministration is launching a new action against china. this one is against illegal subsidies that encourage companies to ship autoparts to manufacturing jobs overseas. they directly harm working men and women on the assembly line in ohio, michigan, and across the u.s.. sharon bradley has fought harder than anyone to stop this, and we will stop this. we will not let it stand. [cheers and applause] american workers build better products than anyone.

made in america means something. like kantor said, when the playing field is level -- like andrew said, when the playing field is level, america will always win. but we need someone who will walk the walk, not just talk the talk. we do not need folks who worry about an election -- who worry about trade practices only during election time, who are otherwise taking a vantage of these trade practices. ohio, if you stand with me, we are going to help these factories and small businesses double their exports. sending programs -- products around the world stamped with -- made in america. we can do that, but i need your help. [cheers and applause] now, that is not all that we are

going to have to do to rebuild the economy. we have got to train our workers to fill those jobs. the second part of my plan is to give more americans the chance to earn the skills they need to complete -- compete. education was the gateway of opportunity for me, for michelle, and for a lot of you. studying to get degrees right now with programs that we expanded. we have constantly got to build up our cities. it is the gateway to a middle- class. today millions of students are paying less for college. billions using banks and lenders as middlemen. we have been able to help millions of more young people get an education.

so, you have got a choice. just to pay for more tax breaks for the wealthy. that is another thing. we can decide that no child should have their dreams deferred because of overcrowded classes. no company should have to look for workers in china because they could not find any with the right skills in the united states of america. [applause] cincinnati, i am asking you to help me recruit 100,000 new math and science teachers. help get 2 million workers a

chance to learn the skills they need that lead their luck -- directly to a job. let's work to keep tuition down. cutting in half the tuition costs of the next 10 years. that is the future that we can choose. i have a plan to control more of our own energy. we have raised fuel efficiency standards so that your cars and trucks would it twice -- go twice as far on a gallon of gas. and helps national security and the environment. we have doubled the amount of renewable energy that we generate from wind and solar. a thousand americans have jobs now building wind turbines.

we are less dependent on foreign oil than any time in the last two years. now, you have a choice between a plan that reverses this progress or builds progress. i am not going to let them keep collecting $4 billion in corporate welfare. we will keep investing in wind and solar and clean coal technology. we will help farmers harnessed new biofuels. let's put construction workers so theywork waste less energy. nearlyot to develop and hundred-year supply of natural gas beneath our feet.

we can do it in a way that is safe. if you choose this path, which can cut our oil dependence in half by two dozen 20. that is a plan for the future, not a plan looking backward. number 4, we will reduce our deficit without sticking it to the middle class. i put forward a plant that will reduce our deficit by $4 trillion. an independent analysis has looked at this. just in case you are skeptical, we have got real numbers behind it. i have worked with republicans in congress to already cut $1 trillion in spending, and we're willing to do more. i do not want a government that

is wasting money. it has to make sure it is focused on the people that are working hard, but need a ladder up. there are programs that do not work. i want to reform the tax code so that it is simple and fair. i have done my own task. i do not know about some of these other folks, but i have done none. i know we can make this a more simple and fair system, but we have to ask the wealthiest households to pay a little bit more on incomes over $250,000, the same rate we had when bill clinton was president, the same rate when the economy created nearly 23 million new jobs, the

biggest surplus in history, and we helped millionaires to boot. if we are helping middle-class families, what happens? you are going to spend the money. middle out, not top down. but upon it as a plan when it comes to taxes. -- my opponent has a plan when it comes to texas. one thing is missing from it -- arithmetic. they talk about -- they say the most important thing we have to do is reduce the deficit. then the first thing they do is to spend trillions of dollars more on tax breaks for the wealthy. not just the bush tax cuts. on top of the bush tax cuts, $5 trillion more.

they must have skipped math class when they were in school. that math does not add up. whenever you have to explain the plan, they will not. they will not say how they will pay for $5 trillion in new tax cuts. sometimes this money gets all mixed up, millions, billions. $5 trillion over 10 years means $500 billion every year. $500 billion is about the amount of our entire defense budget. everything we spend on our military, everything, troops, planes, carriers, it is about $500 billion. they are saying they are going to give a tax cut equivalent to our entire defense budget every

single year. they cannot tell you how they are going to pay for it. and the truth is they cannot pay for it without raising taxes on middle-class families. but then on top of that they want to spend another $2 trillion in new military spending, they say, without adding to the deficit, but they do not tell you how they are going to do that. the only thing they can do is keep trying to bluff their way through until november, and hope that you will not call them on it. but understand, cincinnati, i want to work with them to reduce the deficit. if the republicans need more love, if they want me to walk the dog or wash their car, i am happy to do its. -- it. and i genuinely believe that most americans -- they just want

us to solve problems. so i am ready and willing to work. but i refuse to ask middle-class families to pay over $2,000 more so that millionaires and billionaires can play less. -- can pay less. i refuse to cut clean energy investment and put 125,000 clean-energy jobs here in ohio at risk just to give me or romney a tax cut. a refused ask more than three and 65,000 of hustings to pay more for college or take children out of head start programs or eliminate health insurance for millions of americans who are poor or elderly or disabled just to pay for a tax cut for wealthy folks who do not need its.

-- who do not need it. and i will never turn medicare into a voucher. you know, folks have worked hard their whole lives. they should not be spending their golden years at the mercy of an insurance company. they should retire with dignity and respect, and yes, we have to reform and strengthen medicare, but we have to do it by reducing the cost of health care, not by dumping the costs on to seniors. we will keep the promise of social security by taking responsible steps to strengthen it, but we will not turn it over to wall street. now, rebuilding our economy is essentials, but our prosperity

at home is linked to our policies abroad, and current events remind us of that. four years ago i promised to end the war in iraq, and we did. i said it is time for us to wind down the war in afghanistan, and we are. we have got a new tower rising above the new york skyline easy -- even as i al qaeda it is on the path to defeat and osama bin laden is dead. what happened this past week underscore is that we still face threats in the world. we cannot pull back. we have to stay engaged and involve for our security. we have to remain vigilant. that is why so long but as i am commander in chief we will have the strongest military that the

world has ever known. we will do what root is required to keep our personal safe around the world, and when our troops come home, when they take off their uniforms, we will serve them as well as they have served us, because in america no one should to fight for a job or a roof over their heads when they come home if they have fought for america. again, you have a choice because my opponent said it was tragic for me to end the war in iraq. he will not tell us how he is going to end the war in afghanistan. while he wants to spend more money on military programs that are -- that our joint chiefs say will not keep us safer, i will use that money that we are no longer spending on war to pay down on our debt and to put more

people back to work rebuilding some of these bridges around cincinnati, rebuilding schools and runways. after a day cad of war, it is time to do some -- after a decade of war it is time to do is a nation-building here at home. that is a choice you face. that is what this election comes down to. 15 -- 50 days and you will start making that choice. over and over again we have been told by our opponent that their way is the only way, that's its government cannot do anything -- everything, they should do nothing. if a company is polluting the air your children breathe, that is the price of progress. it cannot afford to start a business or go to college, our money from your parents.

[boos] don't boo. vote. you know what? that is not who we are. that is not what this country is about. as americans we insist on personal responsibility. we insist on individual initiative. we cannot help folks who are not even try to help themselves. nobody is entitled to success. we believe in somebody who is starting a business, the drivers, the dreamers, the risk takers who drive our economy. that is what we believe in, and the free enterprise system, the greatest energy for prosperity, but we believe in this country as citizens we accept certain obligations to each other. and to future generations. as citizens we understand america is not just what can be done for us, it is what can be

done by us together as one nation, as one people. all of you understand that. the election four years ago was not about me. it was about all of you. it was about us. you are the reason that there is a cancer survivor in the damedia that can afford their health care plan. you did that. you are the reason that young man in columbus whose mother worked three jobs to raise them can afford to go to college. that is because of you. you are the reason a young immigrant who grew up here and went to school here and pledged allegiance to our flag will not be deported from the country that she has known as home.

you are the reason we did not ask the not -- we don't do don't ask don't tell. you made that happen. cincinnati, you can turn back now. if you buy into the cynicism that says change is not possible, then change does not happen. if you give up on the idea that your voice matters, and somebody else -- folks who are riding the $10 million checks cannot try to buy this election, that folks who are trying to make it harder to vote, washington politicians who want to make the this is about who you can marry, tell women they cannot make their own health care decisions. that is who will fill the void.

only you can make sure that does not happen. only you can keep this country moving forward. it depends on you. it depends on you. you've got to register to vote before october 9 that. it depends on you to start showing up and voting october 2. if you do not know how to do it, look at that signed there. to go gottovote.com. find out how and when to vote. the the thing is then you can spend the rest of your time getting other things -- the other folks to vote, because we have to come too far to turn back now. we got to been a good job to create. we got too much home grown energy to create. we got great teachers to hire and schools to build. we have more troops to come home, and more veterans to care

for. we got more doors of opportunity to open for everybody who is willing to work hard, everybody who is willing to walk through those doors. we have got to make sure this is a country where in america, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, the matter what your last name is, you can make it if you try. that is why i am asking for a second term, ohio, and if you are willing to stand with me and knocked on some doors for me, and make some phone calls for me. and vote for me, we will win ohio. we will win this election. we will finish what we started. and we will remind the world what the united six of america is the greatest nation on earth. god bless you and god bless the united states of america.

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

♪ >> another rally in a high today, in columbus, and there you see mitt romney on the stage in los angeles, speaking out to the u.s. hispanic chamber of commerce. >> the key so much for that warm -- thank you so much for that warm introduction. and congratulations to christina as well. thank you. good to be home. i have a son here.

hi, guys. it is an honor to be your guest and speak to you as we begin national hispanic heritage month. i am pleased to represent the party of governor susana matinez and ted cruz. these leaders are republicans for the same reasons as millions of other hispanics. they see ours is the party of opportunity, the party that will restore america's prosperity. our convention, governor martinez describe that experience that is so familiar. at the beginning of her career she was a democrat, and she got an invitation to go to lunch with a couple of republicans.

the words democrat and republican did not come up. they talked about issues. such as how to keep welfare from becoming a burden to work. said i will be darned, we are republicans. i like to hear stories like that. i am convinced the republican party is the rifle home of hispanic americans, but my speech today is not about my party. it is about the country we love and the future we want to build. during the course of the campaign i have travelled across the country, seeing people who have fallen into poverty, living paycheck to paycheck, people who are tired of being tired. over 23 million americans are out of work. the number of people on food

stamps has risen by almost 15 million since president obama took office. median household income has fallen four years in a row. seeing such a poor jobs and income picture, the federal reserve has announced it will print more money. the fed knows this comes with a high cost and risk for the future. it feels it has no other choice. our leaders in washington have failed to produce a real recovery. no one is exempt from the pain of this economy, but the hispanic community has been particularly hard hit. while national unemployment is at 8.1%, hispanic unemployment is over 10%. over 2 million more hispanics are living in poverty today than the date president obama took office. in 2008, candidate obama promised us a world of limitless hope. what we got instead is a world where hope has painful limits,

limits that make it hard to start a business, to grow business, where to find a job. the administration promised us that its policies would have brought unemployment down to 5.4% by now. they have not. unemployment is still above 8%, and the difference between the 5.4% they promised and the a points% they delivered is -- and the a. 8% unemployment rate we have is millions. i have a plan, and my plan for a stronger middle class will create 12 million new jobs by the end of my first term, and it will raise take-home pay. my plan is premised on the condition it is freedom that

drives our economy, that free people creating free enterprise as is what creates the jobs with good wages. government supports the job creators, but it cannot take their place. my plan has five key steps. first we will take advantage of our oil, gas, and grenoble's to achieve it north american energy independence in a years. that will not only give us the affordable energy we need, but also create nearly 4 million new jobs. it will bring manufacturing back to our country. [applause] second, we got to give our fellow citizens the skills they need for the jobs of today. we got to give our kids the education they need for the careers of tomorrow. there are too many of our kids

trapped in failing schools. as president i will ashore every child from every background receives quality education. i will empower the parents of our low-income- and special- students to choose where they go to school. at the same time we will crack on nations that -- and jump- start our economy by expanding trade with latin america, and hispanic businesses will have the most to gain. president obama has not initiated a single new trade agreement with latin america. i will. i will pursue a comprehensive strategy to confront china's unfair trade practices and do that from day one.

the president may think that announcing a new trade lawsuit will distract from his record. american businesses and workers struggling on an uneven playing field know better. if i found it took only to run an ad, i would have done one along time ago. fourth, we have got to cut the deficit and put america on track to a balanced budget. i believe it is immoral for us to spend more than we take in and to pass our debts on to our kids. i like to spend some time talking about this issue. as businessmen and businesswomen, and as hispanics, you understand the threat his spending poses for our future.

many hispanics have sacrificed to help build our country and economy, and a brighter future for their children. to date those sacrifices are being put at risk. the president likes to claim you reduce the deficit by $4 trillion. what he does not tell you is it is included in that figure over $1 trillion of cuts that have already been put in place where he is cutting deficit reduction for 12 years trip that includes five years after he leaves office, even if he were to be reelected. under president obama federal spending peaked at 25% of the total economy. that is a level we have not seen since world war ii. i propose to being spending back its historic levels, and i will pursue a 5% cut in non-security discretionary spending on my first day in office. it is time for a president who

is committed to cutting spending, and i know how to do that. i have done it before. we have balance my budget in my business and at the olympics and every year in my state. i will put the government on track to a balanced budget by eliminating programs, eliminating programs that are not absolutely essential, and cutting subsidies for things like amtrak and the corporation for public broadcasting and the legal services corporation and the national endowment for the arts and humanities. i like some of those things, by the way, but we cannot afford them. my test for each program is this -- is the program so critical it is worth borrowing money from china to pay for it? if not, i will cut it off. in addition i will send a number of programs that have been

growing uncontrollably fast back to the states, limit their rate of growth to the rate of inflation. i will look to sharply increase the productivity of washington by reducing federal government employment by 10% through attrition by combining departments, to reduce the overhead, by cracking down on the $115 billion a year in improper payments to the government programs, and also aligned government compensation with that in the private sector. you do those things that i just described and reduce federal spending by $500 billion a year by the end of my first term. the president i am convinced has put us on a road to greece. i will put us back on the road to a stronger america.

number five, and you will find this of interest, to get this economy creating the jobs we need an more take-home pay, we have to champion in this country small business. i started a business myself. we began with 10 people. today it employs hundreds of people. our business was investing to help turn around or grow or to start up other small businesses. today over 100,000 people work at companies that we helped start, companies like state polls, the sports authority. small businesses often grow into large business. 2/3 of american jobs created over the last 15 years were

created by small business. i know small business. not because i studied it at school, because i lived small business. i know that small businesses are being crushed,'s policies. too often regulators treat businesses like they are the enemy and crush them with an avalanche of regulations. business can deal with that, but small businesses cannot. i met and entrepreneurs in the electronic industry in st. louis who said that he and his son had gone through a calculation to determine how much they paid to the government. in federal income taxes, payroll taxes, state income taxes, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, and real estate taxes, it amounted to over half of what their business earned. over half. you think about that. the likelihood of success of a small business is not real high, and if you are successful, the

government wants to take more than half. no wonder business start-ups are at a 30-year low. the president plans to raise the federal income tax on small businesses even more to 40%. that will kill about 700,000 jobs. we need more jobs, not less. a recent study concluded that my plan which reduces the tax rate on small business will instead create 7 million jobs. we talk about "obamacare." the chamber of commerce survey 13 of its members and found that 3/4 of them said they are l ess likely to heart people -- to hire people because of "obamacare." id or replace consumer choice with government choice and will cause health insurance premiums

to skyrocket. "obamacare" and replace ait open the doors to more new jobs. if we take advantage of our energy resources at home and we fix our schools and open more trade and we cut the deficit and we truly champion small business, our economy will come roaring back. we can do better than this lackluster economy. we can create 12 million jobs and rising take away. my confidence comes from the entrepreneurs i met across the country. we're in a room full of them right here. in 1988, a person founded a

spanish-language weekly, a classified ad and she became an expert in search-engine marketing and she turned it into an on-line powerhouse. we're joined by another successful entrepreneurs, who oversees one of the nation's top construction management firms. she has been collecting so many awards that we're lucky she did not have a conflict today. i happen to believe that entrepreneurs like martha and doreen the future for america. i believe the credit for their work goes to them, not the government. i sure did not believe the government should take more of what they earn away from them. this is at the heart of the difference between president obama and my vision for the future of america's economy. he wants government to tax more

and regulate more because he believes government can do a better job than you can. i believe in you. i believe you can do a better job than government. i believe -- i am confident you and your dreams and your freedoms will build a stronger future for all of us and for our children. this belief in free people and free enterprise as is the american heritage. it is why americans outperformed economically over every nation on earth. i want to say a word about immigration. americans may disagree about how to fix our immigration system, but we can agree is broken. for years, republicans and democrats have been more interested in playing politics with immigration than fixing it. candida obama said one of his highest priorities would be to

fix immigration in his first year in office, spike his party as having maturities in both houses of congress. the president never even offered up a bill. like so many issues confronting our nation, when it comes to immigration, politics have been put at a people for for two long. i will work with republicans and democrats to permanently fix our immigration system. we will never achieve a legal system that is efficient if we did not get control our borders. what we need are fair and enforceable immigration laws that will stem the flow of illegal immigration while strengthening legal immigration. i want to make the system for more simple and transparent. you should not have to hire a lawyer to find out how to legally emigrate to the united states. i want to shift our diversity

these is to bring together immediate family members and i want to structure our temporary worker visa programs so these meet the needs of our employers. if someone gets an advanced degree, i want them to stay here come so i will give them a green card with a diploma. america is a nation of immigrants, and immigration is he sent it to our economic growth and prosperity. 1 million immigrants legally enter america every year. the largest number of any country in the world. i like that. i want to preserve our heritage of robust legal immigration and i want to make sure those who abide by the law and wait in line and do so legally are not at a disadvantage. that is why i oppose amnesty

because amnesty will make it harder to strengthen our legal immigration system. it is why my administration will establish an employment verification system so every business can no whether the people who are hired are legally eligible. there will be strict penalties for the businesses that do not. in the midst of the campaign, president obama created a stopgap measure for children who were brought here illegally through no part of their own. i will pursue permanent immigration reform and i will start by insuring those who serve and our military had the opportunity to become legal permanent residents their country. those who have risked their lives have earned a right to make their life in america.

i spoke about my father, who was born to american parents living in mexico. when he was 5, they left everything behind and started over again in the united states. my dad grew up poor. he believed in a country where the circumstances of one's birth were not a barrier to achievement. a place where hard work could turn dreams into reality. he went from selling paint out of the trunk as his car to becoming the chief execu of a great car company, and ultimately to become the governor of the state of michigan. my wife's father was a first- generation immigrate, and he manufacturingnounding company. many of you in this room have similar stories. that is the american store, one

that is told, over and over and over again, the story of the american dream. the american dream is not gone. it has just been put a little further from reij root i know what it takes to bring it back, to have inspired children just as it and fight -- inspired our fathers and mothers, who sacrificed so much that we could have as part of our lives, and now it is our turn, a responsibility to restore the opportunity and prosperity and dreams that have invigorated this nation from its beginning, and is a responsibility to will fulfill together. nike so very much -- thank you so very much. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. thank you. >> mitt romney wrapping up his event in california. both candidates are busy this week.

♪

>> you see mitt romney in the crowd there in los angeles. he spoke in front of the e spanic chamber of conflimmerc

national convention. both candidates busy this week. here is a look where they will campaign the next few days. president obama visits new york city tomorrow. he will also visit florida, virginia, and wisconsin. the crummy plans to visit -- mitt romney plans to visit new york also before visiting florida on wednesday. tonight, a focus group with virginia voters who are either undecided or those who could change their minds before november, with both supporters of governor romney and the president. we will follow best focus group to march from political reporters, including dan balz,

plus your phone calls and tweets, conducted by hart research associates, starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the country faces the starkest choice for president in my memory. you see, president and i have fundamentally different visions that governor romney and congressman ryan. and a different value set that guides us. >> under the current president, we are at risk of becoming a poor country, because he looks to government as a great benefactor in every life. our opponents even have a new model. they say "government is the only thing we all belong to." i do not know about you, but i have never thought of government as something that i belong to. >> watch and engage with c-span as the campaigns move toward

the october debates. the vice-presidential candidate will debate october 11, while the presidential candidates face off on october 3, tuesday september 16, and monday october 27. follow our coverage on c-span, c-span radio, and online at c- span.org. >> i think the fourth amendment can be construed to be a privacy amendment. i strongly think that the privacy protections that our founders took for granted in the internet, telecommunications age, you can take for granted, and you have to legislate them to make them hhappen. i still strongly the information about yourself is yours unless

there is a lot-and for some reason or some overwhelming public good reason to go around a privacy screen. >> the question of technology and privacy with congressman joe barton, tonight 8:00 eastern on c-span2. both chambers of congress return this week, but not until wednesday due to today's observance of rosh hashana. the house gavels in at 2:00 p.m. eastern. on the agenda, a resolution of disapproval and at blocking the initiation's recent changes to welfare law. also at packets of energy and environmental bills aimed at boosting energy and job creation. the senate gavels in wednesday at 10:00 p.m. -- 10:00 a.m. eastern, with a procedural vote scheduled at noon. also next week, a 2013 federal

spending. the house passed a continuing resolution. live senate coverage on c-span to. -- c-span2. next, bob woodward discusses his new work, "the price of politics." host: bob woodward is the author of "the price of politics." what is the story you're trying to tell here? guest: the daily reporting is exceptionally good or the long pieces capture a lot but we run by history and we do not know what really happened and i have the luxury

of time and can dig back in and this is an examination of what obama and the congress have done for this period -- for 3 1/2 years, from the beginning of the administration to the summer. host: what is the central part of this story? guest: the drama is this affects everyone. get control of the spending instead of -- we are on a binge now, a spending binge. we cannot keep borrowing all of this money. it describes in painful detail the meetings and phone calls and the internal discussions. a lot of discussion inside the white house.

you see what they are doing. last summer on the effort to get congress to increase the authorization for spending and borrowing. the president has a private meeting with his senior staff. it is called by the people in the white house the king solomon moment. the president says that he is like king solomon. he cannot divide the baby. he has to do something to stabilize the economy. he has less leverage in these negotiations. that realization is accurate. you can see his reasoning and the debate within the white house. host: the role of john boehner last year. guest: he went to the president and he proposed tax reform, and

the president said he was willing to go along with the entitlement reform. half the book is this 44 days, and economic cuban missile crisis where they are trying to do something. the end result is to push everything off, all the tough decisions to 2013. host: they come up with the sequestration plan. now we're at a point where automatic spending cuts go through january, 2013. we went back into the c-span archives to illustrate your coverage. president obama comes before the cameras and so does john boehner. the reaction to that. [video clip]

>> i did not see a path to a deal if they do not budge. if the basic proposition is, it is "my way or the highway, we will probably not get it done." if in fact mitch mcconnell and john boehner are sincere that they do not want to see u.s. government default, they have to compromise, just like democrats have to compromise. >> the president continues to insist on raising taxes. they are not serious about entitlement reform. i want to get there.

i want to do what i think is in the best interests of the country. it takes two to tangle. -- to tango. >> this will take political capital on both sides. i am willing to take my fair share of it. rightstep up and do the thing for the country. host: what is going on behind the scenes? guest: so much. they having meetings. he goes down to the white house. they have a meeting on the patio off the oval office. boehner is having merlo and having a cigarette in the president is having ice-t and chewing a

nicorette. -- idead tea and chewing a nicorette. they start the process. politics intervenes. the politics is the president cannot control the democratic party and boehner cannot control the house republicans. it is fascinating to hear their internal debates in the capital and then down in the white house. you see them coming together and i have elaborate notes from meetings and discussions. you can see there is a level of seriousness and engagement that no one had the stamina to do the details and make sure that this worked.

it was convenient for everyone to put off until 2013 so it would not be an election issue, so no one would be having advance or enacted a law that involved pain. host: fast for 11 days later. president obama comes out before the cameras. take a look. [video clip] >> this was an extraordinarily fair deal. if it was on balance, it was on balance in the direction of not enough revenue. but in the interest of being serious about deficit reduction, i was willing to take a lot of heat from my party. i spoke to democratic leaders yesterday. they were willing to engage in serious negotiations. despite a lot of heat from interest groups from the country

to make sure that we dealt with this problem. it is hard to understand why speaker boehner would walk away from this kind of deal. look at the commentary out there. a lot of republicans are puzzled as to what it could not get done. host: speaker boehner has his own response on the same day. [video clip] >> we have but plan after plan on the table. we had our plan out there. house passed the cut cap and balance. never once did the president come to the table with a plan. we were always pushing. sometimes it is good to back away from the tree and take a look at the forest.

i came back away from the tree to take a look at the forest. i consulted with my fellow leaders and others about the way to go forward. i want to tell you what i said several weeks ago. dealing with the white house is like dealing with a bowl of jell-o. guest: the back story is an laws. six senators propose more revenue for tax reform then obama was offering. it was house decided -- it is fascinating how this all occurred. the former campaign manager

deciding that the president should offer at least as much revenue as the six senators had, and that includes three republicans. the president picked up the phone and called speaker boehner the day before what occurred here. he said, let's consider $400 billion more. speaker insisted it was a demand. no one else was present. monumental communications lapse. it broke down on this day. the president was waiting for a call from boehner. boehner would not call him back. he said he was trying to work

out a deal with the leaders. the next day, the president calls the congressional leaders to the white house and saturday morning, 11:00 a.m., the congressional leaders asked him to leave the meeting. the president said he was not going to stand on protocol as they tried to work a deal at the white house. it work for a while. harry reid backed away from the congressional deal and joined forces with the president. it is in the details that the decisions and the negotiations

hung. host: lydia from illinois. go ahead. lydia, are you there? go ahead. caller: good morning. it was noted that reporters --cy things that they can include in books later on, which is what you're doing. newt gingrich devised the strategy outlined in that reporting of confining the house to the right of drawing up an agenda. the obstruction process was also outlined in a book, january

20, 2009, when newt gingrich was part of a group that met and devised a policy to obstruct. one of the tenants in 1995, following the process, in my opinion, i do not know if you have done it in this book. i want you to identify it now. we need to understand information after the fact. and all of this, you know -- guest: i get your question, and it is a good one. first of all, i assemble all of this in a book and present it before the election so that people can make an evaluation. the detail from what actually occurred over 3.5 years, if you do daily reporting on this you

cannot accumulate the information. i have found this to be the case over 40 years. the reactions to who obstructed or who did not, people have very different opinions. politically, this is a neutral presentation of what occurred. some people will say that the republicans were awful and not unified. speaker boehner and the tea party were out there, which she could not really control. others say that the president was not aggressive enough and could not control the democrats. in the end, i point the finger at everyone but make the point that is true in the history of our country, it comes down to presidential leadership. the president is the one who has to work his will or find a way to do that.

in this case, he could not. you asked about their past and the future. the future? the future is that we are back in this mess again. these exact issues are going to come before us in a couple of months because the congress authorized extended borrowing up to the point of -- well, we are going to be there probably in january of next year, where the white house or whoever is there, whether it is romney or obama, will have to go to congress and say that we need more borrowing authority to the tune of trillions of dollars. everyone had the knowledge that these are not sustainable pads. host: these comments come from our twitter page -- guest: ok, well, potus is

president of the united states. you can read it either way and see exactly what part this is in the miniseries. it explains it, it has the back channel conversations, the notes from the meetings and views from people, just to take an example this critical now, part of the solution last year was going to be setting up a super committee to come up with $1.20 trillion in cuts. in the private meetings, everyone said that this is definitely going to work. speaker boehner said that it was a sure thing. mitch mcconnell, the republican leader in the senate expected it to work. the committee had a mechanism

where the authority was to come up with these deficit reductions and, if you don't, we will have what -- it is an awful word -- sequestration, meaning force spending cuts immediately in 2013 in a way that is decided almost with a hatchet. so, everyone gets cut. the pentagon, medical research, you name it. of course, the super committee failed and that is what we are stuck with. host: walker, louisiana. caller: welcome back, greta. mr. woodward, one question. who is really calling the shots in the white house? the chicago machine? or the washington, d.c.-based

hillary rodham center for american part -- american progress machine? guest: good question. the president is calling the shots. no questions about that. he is definitely influenced, and one of the most powerful forces in the white house is david plumb, who ran the successful obama campaign in 2008, who is the senior adviser and has the office closest to the oval office. office allocation is very significant. plessey is a very skilled political operative at every moment. and i have charted this. when there is a decision to be made, he weighs in with the political angle. i would say on some of these things, his influence is high. valerie jarrett, she plays a

role. there are many other people, like rob neighbors, congressional liaison. he plays a significant role in these. i lay out exactly what happened. 40 years ago we used to call it the best obtainable version of the truth. often it is in technicolor and very emotional. at many points it is complicated. host: in the preparation, is there anything on joe biden taking over the group? >> he is critical in all of this, first going back to 2010 after the democrats lost the house. obama sent the vice-president to negotiate with mitch mcconnell in the senate. in the west wing, joe biden is

known as the mcconnell whisperer. the one with the decades-long relationship with mitch mcconnell to work out a deal. they work out a deal in 2010 to extend the bush tax cuts, cut the payroll tax, and extend some low-income programs. the philosophy is kind of old school, which is -- one for you, one for me. you get some, i get some. that is what happened in 2010 when the joe biden group was set up in may of 2011. he had these meetings and a key republican was eric cantor. they came up with lots of parts. there is a scene in which joe biden and eric cantor have a private talk and say that if we were in charge of this, we would

be able to work this out. they identified hundreds of billions of dollars in potential cuts, but they did not carry it over the finish line. host: in your book you talk about how the bite -- joe biden is put in charge of these talks, but joe biden did not like the budget or know much about it. >> he starts out -- host: -- guest: restarts out by saying he was in the foreign relations committee. in the senate he declined. he brought in the deputy from the white house and said to him -- you are going to be there every day and are giving me a tutorial, getting information on this. so, he did. if you read those meeting notes in the presentation that i have in the book, joe biden mastered

the issues. the problem is, as joe biden saw it, and it is a significant one, the republicans would not give on revenue. eric cantor said no tax increases. at one point, joe biden just yelled out -- you are asking democrats to sell their sisters. host: stephen, connecticut. caller: thank you, lady answer. that is pretty funny, by the way. i was struck by how you went with -- this is the obama-era, and not the eric cantor-era. what really stood out in the book to me was the return of speaker banner -- was speaker banner's office not returning the -- speaker boehner's off is

not returning the president's phone call. it is like these people think it is personal weakness for even trying. guest: relationships need to be built and, in this case, there were not enough of them and they were not stronger. president obama is right, when he complained that john boehner would not return his phone calls for almost one day. that is unheard of. the white house chief of staff current budget director during this time goes way back, when he was an aide to tip o'neill in the 1980's. he was just appalled that the speaker would not call the president back and made the point, internally, in the white house, that when o'neal was the speaker, if ronald reagan called, the phone call was immediately returned. boehner's argument was that he

had to put together a congressional deal and was worried that if he announced the collapse of these talks with obama in the middle of the day, it would affect the financial markets. that is his excuse. the president, when i spoke to him about it said -- look, why did he not call and say -- i am working on it, i will call back later. it was the radio silence that offended the president and white house staff. when boehner called to say that he was backing out, the president is on the phone and one of his aides who had worked with him for years and had never seen him so angry -- he was furious. speaker boehner said that he was spewing coals, like a furnace. and in the oval office that day the worry was that the president

was so furious when he was on the phone that he would literally break the phone. now, scott kelley, in an interview with the president he recently asked if the president was in a phone-breaking mood. the president said that he was very angry. host: you read about it in the book, and lack of deference for the president on the democratic side as well. or for the office. why do you think that is? guest: a lot of that has to do with harry reid in the senate, who goes to a meeting with the president on sunday night at 6:00, goes to the meeting and you can see exactly what happens. one of the most interesting meetings i have ever reported on. harry reid has developed a plan with the republicans. he has a detail guy, so he turns

it over to his chief of staff. david sits in the oval office and reads it out and literally says -- i am disappointed in this white house and in you that you did not have a plan b. they did not have a plan b. harry reid says to his chief of staff afterwards, as they are writing back from the white house, he says -- you did a good job. the president needed to hear that. no one was telling him that. of course, the president knew that he did not have a plan b. there was this scramble, this theory. very unusual motions in trying to get control of the situation. host: chris, you are up next.

caller: you being an insider of the political campus -- guest: not insider, i am an outsider trying to report on what happens. caller: trying to get past this political roadblock, trying to come up with a fix or what ever, throughout conferences they always talked about the gdp. it seems like those in washington, outside people are working and that is what really drives the american economy. they fail to understand also that this country seems to be going through a technological change.

the music industry, we have seen the decimation of it. guest: if i may quickly answer, you are right. the real world gdp, the services in the economy people are not hiring. we are coming to this fiscal cliff, as it is called, which is intentionally miss named. it is really a financial crisis because you can have a christ -- government-induced recession if these tax cuts are eliminated so that taxes go up and the spending cuts occur that they

have programmed in. in the book, the treasury secretary argues to the president vehemently in these discussions that the united states, if it defaults on its debt, straightened out in the short run or the long run, the impact on everyone is going to be giant. it will affect confidence. it will affect employment levels. anyone who has any money or anticipates getting any money that they have invested in their home or bank account, any kind of investment will be impacted by all of this. we are skating on or living on the sharp edge of a razor blade. this all explodes.

not this week, but in about three or four months after the election, if there was no fix, we are really in a giant mess. host: yesterday in an interview with david gregory, erskine bowles was asked about what was next, we were facing. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> first of all, i am frightened that we are one to take that high of a wrist on this fiscal cliff. it could lead to horrible economic results. i have met with the president. >> i did not take the axe. >> he said i did not want any jobs appear. i was not looking to throw it over the desk.

i am confident that after the election he is prepared to negotiate with the republicans and come up with a plan that falls within the framework of what we've talked about. >> i believe that too. guest: i asked the president about this two months ago. he said that the proposals that the some symbols commission included, the health insurance deductions, the mortgage interest deductions, the president told me that those would be wildly unpopular and would never pass congress. i think he is right. you need some sort of serious tax reform negotiation.

maybe even longer. when ronald reagan did it in his presidency in 1986, they were able to lower rates and actually get more money for the federal government. harder now, but possible that this expression of confidence -- erskine bowles and alan simpson deserve the congressional medal of honor for domestic survival. pushing on the issues here, the problem is politics. this book is called the price of politics because when it comes to political calculations, it is not about doing something painful or, to use the president's expression, mildly unpopular. people in congress, the same thing.

it had this kind of roll up your sleeves engagement in stamina that is required, which will become absolutely necessary in the coming months. host: bonnie, democratic line, new jersey. thank you for waiting. caller: it is amazing, all of those tax credits they wanted to eliminate happened to focus on people who work for a living. and that is the problem. and the last republican president with a balanced budget was nixon. we listened to eight years of dick cheney telling us that deficits did not matter. we had $3 trillion that was debt spending that was not put on the books that this president inherited. he had one year of working with the last president's budget, which was insane.

it was a mountain of bleeding jobs every month. a mountain and a shovel. republicans told him that he did not shovel fast enough. host: we get your point. guest: a fair point. i point out that the president was handed a faltering economy and very recalcitrant republican majority in the house, at least for the last two years. at the same time, step back. speaker boehner, even in the clips they ran, it is all about stepping back from the tree and looking at the forest. this country has an economy which is in trouble and stalled. compared to the other economies of the world and in china, we have got a lot of things going

for us. if this were able to be fixed in a way -- you cannot do it all at once, and you're quite right, you cannot put it on the backs of workers alone. you have got to spread out the pain in a way that democrats and republicans will not like. but if you did something like this, you would give a sense of coherence to taxing and spending policy. it is in those that it -- everyone says they do not know if they should buy a new car, if they should expand and hire a few more people. so, we are on the edge here. we should be asking the usual analogy, with shovels gone a little bit harder, republican

should have made the mountain probably less in size. i could sit here with 20 experts for one day and come up with a general outline of some of the things that needed to be done. in the end it is about political will. without the political will to get up and say that we have to take it, you will not get there. the memory that everyone has, particularly democrats, of walter mondale running, he said he would raise your taxes. walter mondale got slaughtered in that campaign. now no one wants to tell the full story or the truth. but government is going to have to get revenue. somehow.

host: donna, good morning. caller: in the end, mr. woodward, it is about who pays for the campaigns. first of all since the tea party republicans took over the house in 2010, congress has had its lowest approval rating ever. obama is going up in the polls. republicans controlling everything in november? they will make a voucher system out of everything. they are not going to raise the taxes on the rich one penny. guest: if the republicans take over everything, it will be on their back to come up with some plan. you make some good points there. there is a way, and some symbols

is on the road to some of that. and where we are now is in trouble and in peril. what i am trying to do the, in a way, in the end, for a reporter is not about the politics of it. it is not about the partisan decisions. it is trying to find out exactly what happened. there are things that the democrats do not like and things that the republicans do not like, but it is what happened. you can look at it and reach your own conclusion, and that is kind of the truth. that is of reporting tradition i come from. host: from the facebook page, they want to know --

guest: because the president is the leader. because the president has this power. there is a phrase that george kennedy uses in his diary. but the famous diplomat the came up with the containment policy, he talks about the treacherous curtain of deference. in the oval office there is a treacherous curtain of deference where people will come in -- my god, it is the president. he has an aura. he has the capacity to do things that no other leader does. you cannot kind of say it is the guy down the hall who is a staffer, a person who is the speaker of the house who do not

have immense responsibility for this. there is a way to leave. i have cited this before. go to december, 1941. pearl harbor is bombed. the united states enters world war ii. it looks gramm. it looks like we cannot possibly win this war. the roosevelts find a way to do it. leaders have to fix problems. i do not think that 1% of the people in the country will remember the speaker of the house during world war ii. the president has that responsibility. what is interesting is that i think president obama realizes that and i would expect governor

romney, if he becomes president, would realize that as well. that is where the buck stops, as has been said. host: a lot of people call in to talk about what mitch mcconnell said about the main goal of the republicans after the apollo win. you reported -- after the obama wind. you reported on the full context -- after the obama win. you reported on the full context of what he said. guest: he is a tough guy. he has been excoriated for saying that they were making sure obama was a one-term president. we have dug into the interview, we wanted to find out exactly when he said that. turns out what he also said was that he did not want obama to fail. that he wanted him to change. that he wanted him to be like

bill clinton. i think that that changes, or a very least puts the " in context. i was on "morning show" this morning and he said that we have strung him up for this time and time again, that i think we owe him an apology when you see the context. mitch mcconnell was saying that he wanted to work with the sky. that he wanted some sort of change. of course, change in the development -- direction of mitch mcconnell. >> -- host: this question comes from twitter -- guest: a good question. paul ryan did not play much of a role, although i have seen where he meets with eric cantor and they talk about -- my with obame

republicans are not going to like. the paul ryan budget was something that was held up because it passed the house and if obama does not like it, democrats do not like it. there is a meeting where president obama calls harry reid and nancy pelosi to the oval office to lay out what he is trying to do and nancy pelosi, the democratic leader, is deeply concerned and worried that the president is going to cut medicare and she says -- we have a plan and, if we actually cut medicare and democrats golan, it will make the republicans complete on the ryan budget, because it will eliminate a very clear distinction, at least in her mind, between democrats and republicans on the very important issue of medicare. host: another twitter message

for you -- guest: well, you do not know. different personality, different circumstances. when i left the oval office a couple of months ago, having interviewed president obama at great length on what happened at the key points in all of these negotiations, he just said to me -- you know, if bob dole had been the senate majority leader, as he was in 1990 through the clinton administration, or newt gingrich, i would have been able to work this out. so, whether that is the case or not, certainly the president has a very strong argument that there is less flexibility in the house republicans now than there was during the newt gingrich

years. host: there has been some criticism of the book. here is a piece -- guest: i guess this person did not read the book, because you repeatedly have themes -- for instance, when speaker boehner is considering whether to accept more revenue, as the president has proposed, he calls eric cantor and eric cantor's chief of staff down to his office on the second floor of the capital. eric kandel has the -- eric cantor has the ties with the tea party. john boehner lays out this proposal for more revenue.

the chief of staff to eric cantor, who is in touch with the two-party, to say the least, ask the speaker -- how many votes will you get for that additional revenue? the speaker says -- about 170. he says -- you are crazy. that is something that you do not see very often where the staffer tells the speaker to his face that he is crazy. eric cantor essentially agrees and they concluded they only needed about 50 votes for the additional revenue proposal. this is when john boehner essentially calls off any further negotiations or a deal with the white house.

so, the force of the tea party is explosive and real. host: donna, democratic line, west virginia. caller: in west virginia we had a governor who had a congressional house senate that would not work with him. therefore he was not able to do anything in the state of west virginia. what i have seen is a duplicate of that with this congress. this congress has failed to do exactly what they have sworn to do, which is support the constitution of the united states. when you are making laws, it is not your prerogative to put your party first. guest: as i point out in the book, there is scene after scene where the republicans showed that they are not going to budge on some of these things.

in their view, they are adhering to the constitution. in their view, they're doing what's necessary. the key point is that speaker boehner is the nominal leader of the republicans of the house, opening these negotiations with the president's through all kinds of offers and discussions going back and forth on this. so, you can see the detail. you may blame obama or the republicans. you may blame me for what -- writing about it. whenever it is. this is, if you will, the performance review. this is what they always used to call the best obtainable version of the truth. host: morris, republican, south carolina. caller: thank you. please let me state a few facts

and do not come in off. host: we do not have time for that. caller: first, i want to complement him on his book. the facts, i wanted to get this over. first, congress, they told everyone that for the last six years they have had a majority of the senate, but for four of the last six years democrats have had the congress. the republicans being a majority in the house of representatives. host: got to leave it there. guest: true. at the same time, the problem has increased, as we spend $1 trillion per year more than comes in. i guess the point of all of

this is that it is just not over. we will revisit these problems in the coming months. host: on that point, i want to show viewers this picture from your book. the look on their faces, if you could just speak to what happens next and the likelihood of these two coming together to talk again, like last year. guest: yes, i see the picture. they are not happy. this is when they voted the president out of the meeting in his own house. sometimes political leaders rise to the occasion and do things that are not in their personal political interest for their party's first -- or party interest, but in the larger national interest. you are always looking for the

leaders in those moments when they say -- we have got to do something here. i hate to be alarmist, but i will be a realist. you just cannot keep doing what we have been doing. the problem is -- you do not know when the debt crisis finally rises to the surface and the people out in the world and in this country say -- gee, those $16 trillion dollars of iou's out there, maybe the united states might not be able to make good on them. they might not be able to make those interest payments. suddenly you get this cascading explosion, like can happen in financial markets with bond

market crashes. people will say -- i do not want to have those iou's unless i am paid more interest. if they went up a lot, the federal government would have to pay hundreds of billions dollars -- hundreds of billions of dollar more in interest. just adding to the problem. it is not something to think -- that was last year. host: bob woodward, thank you very much for sitting at our table and talking to our viewers. appreciate it. >> tonight, a focus group with undecided voters. plus, your phone calls,

comments, and twitter messages. it starts live at 7:00 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> i think that the fourth amendment can be construed to be the privacy amendment. the right against search and seizure in your home, that due process, i strongly feel that the privacy protections that our founders took for granted, in the internet and telecommunications age, you cannot take them for granted. you have to legislate to make them happen. the short answer is that i feel very strongly that the information about yourself is yours unless there is some overwhelming public good reason to go around the privacy screen.

>> the questions of privacy with congressman joe barton, tonight at 2:00. >> the country faces the starkest choice for president in my memory. you see, the president and i have fundamentally different visions from governor romney and congressman ryan, with a different value set that guides us. >> under the current president, we are at risk of becoming a poor country. from our opponent even has a new model. "government is the only thing that we all belong to." i do not know about you, but i have never thought of government as something that i belong to. >> watch and engaged as the campaigns move towards the debates.

presidential candidates face-off in 390 minute debates on wednesday the third, tuesday the 16th, and monday the 22nd. follow our coverage on c-span, c-span radio, an online at c- span.org. >> last week, the senate judiciary committee held a hearing on the supreme court decision in citizens united, the case that allow corporations to spend unlimited funds in political campaigns. we will also hear about recent voter identification laws. this is one hour and 20 minutes. >> i know that a lot of many -- a lot of money has been given to

out of state cameras, speed cameras. unfortunately, they do not seem to have any money to coordinate their stoplights to do anything to help the taxpayers or drivers of the area. i saw those out of state speed cameras. those seem to be the only things that encourage them. before i give an opening, i know that senator tester is here from montana and wants to introduce a challenge, because of another hearing you have to be at. why don't i go ahead -- why don't you go ahead and introduce your witness? >> thank you for letting me speak this morning.

it is a pleasure to be here today. i am here with professor anthony john stone. an expert on election law, former solicitor from montana. he has a unique perspective on the dangers of supreme court decisions like citizens united. growing up and working in montana, at the turn of the last century one of the world's wealthiest men literally bought himself a seat in the united states senate. william clark, a mining barons from montana. he paid legislators to send him to washington. it changed the way that we ran elections. we passed a law in 1912 limiting the influence of wealthy corporations over our elections. professor john stone has argued before the country's highest courts and he has spent years

defending the law in montana. transparency and accountability keep people like william clark from being able to buy something that all americans are entitled to, the power to vote. it does not matter how much money they have, people and their ideas should decide their elections, not corporations and their money. earlier this year the law was struck down without even hearing the case by the supreme court. without taking the case, the court decided that citizens united send this back to where we were in the past, when seats in congress were up for sale. today fester johnstone will talk about the decision to overturn that law showing that this court is leaning strongly in the direction of favoring corporations over people and what it means for the values that we cherish. the professor and i share these

values, such as keeping special interests out of our elections. now, as i have talked around the state of montana and folks back here, some people think that citizens united should be left to rot -- left alone because it helps republicans, others with eliot that it helps the democrats or may in time. i will tell you that this is dissent -- this is simply a disaster for democracy. professor? >> we will get to professor john stone in a few minutes. senator tester, thank you for your statement. you told me the same thing privately, that you do not care who the law helps, you feel very strongly that it hurts democracy and i happen to agree with you. 225 years ago this week the

american constitution was formed and the path for a more perfect union was called upon by breaking down barriers and enabling more to participate in our democracy, sharing in the constitution and its protections. the right to vote, the right to have your vote count is a foundational right. and the effectiveness of the constitution. on the eve of an important national election, a supreme court decisions dramatically altered democracy by filing new rights for corporations to influence elections and at the same time allowing new barriers for the rights of individuals to vote. they have examined these

decisions. almost every american has seen the effects of the supreme court citizens united decision. few decisions hot from the supreme court have been as corrosive in the political process. five members of the court made this decision. the same five men double down and summarily struck down a 100 year-old state law in montana barring corporate contributions that was enacted after montana -- we will hear more about this -- got tired of the copper barons basically owning the state government and the judiciary. i think that these two visions -- two decisions turn the idea

of government by and for the people on their head. i am concerned about the power of money to corrupt elections. they examine specific evidence about the protection for a landmark voting rights act. six years ago members of congress stood together on the capitol steps to reaffirm our commitment to achieving full democratic participation by reauthorize and the voting rights act. most republicans and democrats, as well as president george w. bush, signed that bill. this committee played a key role in reinvigorating or reauthorize and that. seeking to preserve the progress that we made when lyndon johnson signed the voting rights act

into law. tales of judges appointed by presidents in both parties have found that texas intentionally discriminated against minority voters, and that without section 5 these changes to the election would be in effect. dr. martin luther king said that the article the moral universe in america needs to continue. because of the foundation of the constitution act, we have the bulova -- bill of rights embracing equal rights. guaranteeing equal protection under the law.

we continue with the 19th amendment expansion and the 26th amendment for younger people. reaching a crucial point on march 7, 1965. fellow marchers for trying to exercise their right to vote. as congressman lewis recently reminded us, the vote is precious, almost sacred. a non-violent tool to create a perfect union. i will put my whole statement in the record. i know there is a great deal of

concern in my statement, the way we protect the right of individuals, not corporations, individuals to make a decision. corporations, not individuals in that regard. otherwise, having elected general eisenhower as president, we may as well elect general motors. it makes that much sense. senator? this is a very -- >> this is a very important hearing. this is the basis of democracy encouraging political debate and discussion. the former spokesman for president obama criticized the ruling saying -- this decision opened the flood -- opened the floodgates, drowning out the voices of average americans." the president's criticism really is about the constitution.

i want to quote from 1976, when the supreme court was less ideologically divided. they had this to say. "the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relevant voices of others is foreign to the of first amendment." since that time, individuals have exercised their constitutional right to spend unlimited funds on campaign speech. that goes back to 1976. i do not recall anyone on the other side of the aisle complaining in 2004 that george soros was drowning out the voices of average americans. citizens to meaningfully participate in politics and seek to influence popular opinion must often exercise their freedom of association. many organizations and

contribute to public debate from all sides of the political spectrum. media corporation should not be the only corporations using corporate funds to influence political debate, but prior to this court decision, the newspapers could do that and they did do it, as they endorsed candidates. too many people on the other side of the aisle would like to limit who can speak and how much they can speak. following citizens united, the 2010 elections were very competitive. turnout was high in this year's wisconsin recall election, where a variety of corporations, unions, and individuals made for for expenditures -- corporate expenditures. this administration has argued that these funds expressed the defecate the fees of a candidate.

it also protect the right of eligible voters to cast ballots. keating in eligible voters from casting ballots. -- keeping in eligible voters from casting ballots. so important to public confidence and elections, this administration has fought them repeatedly. disregard for those who say that fraud, in my state of iowa, for example, the secretary of state can compare drivers license applications, which happened to indicate citizenship, with voter registration. he found 3500 foreign nationals were registered in the state since 2008. 1200 of these individuals voted in 2010.

the submission of false registration is a climb -- crime in iowa. normally voting or attempting to vote where one is not qualified to do so is a felony. we hear it over and over again from the other side, but there are few prosecutions of voter fraud. just because there are not many prosecutions, it does not mean that fraud or an eligible voting does not exist. there have also been prosecutions we have never heard about. when the iowa secretary of state attempted to use a database, the department dragged its feet in providing access to that list. the secretary of state is seeking to confirm the cizens of status, designed to ensure

the fairness of the eligible citizens to vote. the challenge has been processed on procedural grounds. i am pleased to see that the ira when attorney general is defending that process, since it will keep in eligible individuals from voting while ensuring safeguards to protect those entitled to vote. 113 individuals were prosecuted and convicted of knowingly casting a vote despite their and eligibility. fraud exists. the 1200 ineligible voters in the last election was more than twice the margin by which president bush won florida in the year 2000. in a close election, the level of fraud that we know exists can determine the outcome. this was as and acceptable as it was turning away ineligible voters.

the obama administration is fighting every effort to prevent illegal aliens and other non-citizens from voting and it is failing to make sure that an important group of citizens is entitled to exercise and their vote. the reason inspector general report shows the defense department is refusing to take the steps by law to make sure that members of the armed forces are registered and consequently could vote if they wanted to. this administration should not and should be careful to not appear to take differing administrative or legal actions depending on the perceived partisan status of the potential voters involved. in a poll last month from "the washington post," 70% of those surveyed expressed risk -- pr