attacked? >> senator dianne feinstein. we camp outside her home quite outside her home quite often. she stopped and talked to us. even though i ran against her, i find her and her staff are open to talking. >> our guest has been medea benjamin. she runs codepink. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> a reminder, you can see this interviewed in our video library at c-span.org. criminal!

>> the house foreign affairs committee meeting back in 2007. one of many disrupted by codepink. over the years. here on c-span for the next hour we are going to open up our phone lines and hear from you on your thoughts on the role of political protest and social movements in the political conversation. the phone numbers are four republican, 202-585-3885. for democrats, 202-585-3886. for independents and others, that's 202-585-3887. make sure you mute your television when you call. you can participate on facebook.com/cspan. we will be reading some of the

posts they have been posting since sunday night's interview. if you are on twitter, if you mentioned c-span, we will try to read those as well. we will get to all of your comments momentarily. joining us from irvine, california it is a david meyer, a professor of sociology at the university of california-rivine. irvine. thank for joining us this evening. of free speech and assembly and the right to petition the government, the first amendment, would we have to thank for that? >> you can go back and think about liberals like john locke was thought that the best protection for the people was the capacity to challenge the government. then the very clever james madison figured out that it was better to have your conflicts in the open rather than

clandestine. if you can bring it conflict into government, then you would make a government that was more stable. and united states has not always moot -- lived up to the highest ideals of free speech, but the basic premise, debate -- if debate is inside government, the less likely someone will take up arms to take over government. >> you talked about james madison, the history of american protest, going back to 1773 and the tea party. you wrote that james madison envisioned a government that would increase to send an offer malcontents the hope that they could get what they want by working through it. take some of the recent examples. take codepink and occupy and other movements. do you think these organizations are getting what they want by using the tactics they are?

>> it nobody in the united states gets all that they want, an act of its are always disappointed. but the challenge -- can you get better working within the system or outside the system? one of the really interesting things about codepink at the democratic national convention, codepink was there to remember about the war. a lot of activists on the left had voted for president obama, who promised to close guantanamo and and the wars. and both of those wars were going on kare. codepink remembered. similarly the tea party took to the streets and decided that the best way to be affected is to electoralthe campaigns of 2010. they made huge gains, but i will bet some of them will call today and talk about how they have not

gotten what they wanted from making those in roads if intellect world politics. again, it is this terrible balancing act. when you get inside the doors, when you get to testify before congress there is this promise, the temptation that maybe this is the most effective way to pursue an interest. and it is never enough. >> david meyer with us for the next hour to talk about political protest groups and their effect on the political conversation. that is what we are asking you -- what is the place of these movements? we go to michigan. and this is jack on ou republicr online. caller: i was going to make a comment that this pink group, i do appreciate freedom of speech. but i do not appreciate getting the facts wrong when trying facts wronga point.

two of the biggest shootings in america were down with hunting rifles and bolt action. the shooting of the tower on the college and president kennedy. 15% ofre theless than shootings done today with assault style weapons. the gun control debate. the issue of gun violence. where do see the tide influence going between groups that are calling for more gun control and groups that are defending gun owners' rights? guest: one of the big issues in american politics is that social movements are not confined to one side of the political spectrum. one of the reasons that activists get frustrated and mobilize their opponents. gun-control activists, people who want limits on assault

weapons or large magazines, are going to take to the streets. they're going to lobby congress, but they are not the only ones trying to influence government. and what winds up happening is that activist fight to get a stalemate. the immigration activists and the anti-immigration activists over the last five years have fought each other to a stalemate, and both sides are completely frustrated because they cannot get what they want by acting on a slate and mobilizing lots of support. there is another interesting thing that jack raised, what's true? stories circulate in activist circles. and it is very easy to get information only from people who already agree with you and lots and lots of misconceptions circulate on both the left and the right. that is the scary thing about

contemporary america. host: back to the group codepink. one of the ways they have been affected in getting into congressional hearings is they draw response from members, as is the case with the late senator bird. here it is. >> i would tell you that the number of troops would be a small fraction of those that are in the country today and i think no one really knows what the duration of their presence there would be. it would depend -- the contracts operate under the coalition, a provisional order 17, which says the non-iraqi contractors are immune from legal process is if their acts are pursuant to the conditions of their contract. >> my upbringing tells me -- that sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage between a man

and woman is immoral. that is what i was taught. that is what i believe. >> this hearing is adjourned. >> -- jail! thou shall not kill! >> clear the room. clear the room. we have had enough of this. clear the room. clear room. -- clear the room. [gavel pounds] that's enough of this. >> we've had enough of the war. >> i have tolerated all i can stand. i stopped it before you were born. i said stop it before you're ever born. i said do not go into it before you're ever born. get out of this place. let's go. host: back to our conversation of protest groups, social groups and their role and the political conversation.

this is david honored democrats lined. caller: -- on our democratic line. caller: i appreciate codepink. they may go too far. a lot of us are individuals that are not belong to any necessary group. we find that when we contact our representatives, we do not feel like our voices are that powerful. we feel like we are just a narrative and something they tolerate. i called my congressman in reference to a shooting were six police officers -- a person ran a stop sign. he pulled an ak-47 and blasted their car. they were not killed and returned fire. but the person in the congressman's office said that was outside his district. they were not willing to connect it to the trouble of assault weapons. they told me, that is not in his district. organizationslad

are protesting in making their point known at these hearings in these affairs like this? guest: the challenge for codepink is to get people to talk about their issues rather than tactics. if the story that comes out of codepink disruption is that the prison camp in guantanamo camp -- camp in guantanamo is open, then they win. if the story is that somebody in crazy clothes got hustled of the hearing, that is not a victory. both of those things, and it is the balance that activists have to way, whether the tactics. host: phoenix, we talked to george on the independent line. you are on the air. caller: i think the main problem -- that the

demonstrators are not heard enough. this is because the mainline media and also c-span to some inent does not cover issues depth and they do not give people like medea benjamin to give their views are often. the media has excluded many topics from discussion about politics and the drones and so forth. we are not getting information out to the american public to make decisions, and the media is run by the corporations who do advertising and they cannot do things that go against any of the corporations. and the military-industrial complex that president eisenhower talked about. host: what do think of his of you? guest: i think most media

corporations make a profit. and they understand that people are more likely to tune in to events rather than issues. and reporters cover events, and they do not talk about ongoing inequality or war or healthcare. they talk about what people are doing at any given moment. and groups like codepink try to use that by setting up in the event that raises an issue. but you guys in the media, c- span less than other outlets, need -- you call it that? some sort of event to hang a story on it, and codepink generates event. host: we simply tried to cover as much of congress and political conversation, from beginning to end, so it often happens that a codepink group will be at a hearing, particularly a high-profile

hearing that we are covering. a couple of comments on twitter. we are looking at folks posting and mentioning c-span. here is one -- who says good to know the extremes so one can compare. professor is right. teach madison, no marx. one of our viewers is posting a link to a program we did on the origins of the black panther party. we go back to calls. hartford, new york, john on our republican line. caller: yes. fact that agent provocateurs will often be used to disrupt peace groups and to make peace groups look like crazy people. and therefore, when i participated in peace activities against the vietnam war, i became reluctant to get

involved in some of those activities because the fbi and other law enforcement people became agent provocateur ors the crazy in some rallies. this caused problems because it makes the peace groups look like a bunch of idiots. in our society, it is a very difficult to get the peace message out, as the media does not seem to want to do that. it sounds on patriotic and i think the corporations who support the media feel it would be un patriotic to let peace groups have their say. so it is very seldom that people like ms. than to men who was on get a chance to talk on something -- ms. benjamin get a chance to talk on charlie

rose or something like this. guest: the use of agent provocateurs in policing social groups is very dangerous. the lead up to the 2004 conventions in new york city call all local groups said they were having young men with short hair cut come in and profess their new interest in disrupting the convention. it is hard for activist to know whom to trust and who not to trust. on the other hand, sometimes this infiltration leads to stopping grooves and stopping violence that we know about, like the fbi used undercover agents to infiltrate the ku >> klan in the 1960's. and the black panthers. it is a real dilemma for a democratic society. if we believe madison, to bring

all these groups into the open and rather than se nnd police into the group's. c-span3 from our democratic line -- kathy is in whyomin. yoming. what is the role of protest groups and the political conversation? caller: the role is exactly what they are supposed to be doing. they are saying we are the people. the government is supposed to be working for us, not corporations, not the military- industrial complex. they are working for us, the people. they are supposed to be standing beside us, the people. the people are crying out and begging them to understand, we do not want to be -- military bases all over this globe. we have over 700 bases. and we are infiltrating

everything and everybody that we can because we are paying the corporations that run the military-industrial complex. we are supporting them. we're not supporting the people. we should not be telling everybody. and all of these conservatives want to say they are against. excuse me for digression, but they are against abortion. but they have no problem sending our sons and daughters to other countries to kill or using kills, using drones to innocent women, children, men in other countries. living in their own homeland. and we are over there killing them, murdering them. over here, all of the christians and the republicans are screaming out that we should not givingng abortion, rights for women, but we have no problem sending our children over to kill other innocent

people in their own homeland. host: david meyer. she talked about abortion. what about the right-to-life movement? how effective have they been? guest: they have been affected at constraining the availability much of thertionin united states. that has sometimes been a headache, not only for doctors but for the republican party. abortionf the anti- people were the only people on the political field, they would win. but there is another side. they have been activists that have taken to the streets from the 1960's to promote access to legal abortion and contraception. and that has been activism, too. there are two side. i wanted to add something. most people would prefer not to

go to a demonstration. they prefer to do the easiest thing possible to present their interest. people take to the streets when they feel desperate, when they feel like they are not going to get what they what in any other way. it is a last resort. and that is what kathy was reflecting when she was talking about a host of issues that she cares a lot about. she is saying the government is not responsive. therefore, i have to do what ever i can to hit the system in the side of the head and waking up. host: has your research to look at, for lack of a better term, armchair protesters. one fellow who called us and liked the codepink protests. people who appreciate the fact that people are protesting, whether it is right to life or codepink or occupy, have you looked at the views of people who did not protest but are affected by the protest movement? guest: movements are the tip of

the iceberg of what is going on . forever demonstration that you see, left or right, where people take it for every demonstration that you see, each person represents a much larger fraction of people who are -- and may do one small thing to support the group. the people that give money to anti-abortion groups who would never stand in front of a clinic but they cheer on when people are there. there are people who would never turn out to disrupt the hearing, but they get excited and they turn on codepink's web site and cheer on what they are doing. that is part of the way american democracy works. maybe, maybe that affects how elections play out. the tea party is a very small fraction of people were active.

about 1/4 of the populists supported them and some of those people voted the tea party line in 2010. so activists want to speak for the 9-10 of the icebergs underneath the ocean. and it's always up to us to figure out how accurate that representation is. host: let's take a look at facebook and see what some people are posting. here is one from ray -- for the most part, all protests are a waste of time in a un- brainwashed side. every single time people try to ask questions to issues, the politicians call to have them pulled out, destroying their first amendment rights. the only question that arises is how all of you in office are afraid to let them ask. as a libertarian, i strongly support codepink and their struggles to bring the cause of liberty to the forefront of public interest.

here is in hawaii -- jeffery in hawaii. independent line. caller: thank you. i appreciate this show. my view on the issue is that everybody is screaming and yelling, you're taking our rights away. for guns, you are taking rights away to protect our borders. what about the rights of the people to go to the movies and be there safely? or to go to the grocery store and not worry that a stray bullet may come and kill your child. problem of responsibility out there, the lack of responsibility for gun owners in this country starting from the moment it is sold to the moment they are used.

someone should be held responsible. that goes for abortion as well. right to belive in the life, but i believe in the right to choose. i believe that 90% of it is responsibility. you take that responsibility when you go through that act. of thesetrue, a lot issues. not allowing people like us to voice our opinions. host: david meyer? guest: social movements set a broader agenda. if we take the gun issue, we know from public opinion polls that most americans support some of the restrictions that the national rifle association opposes. in normal politics, other issues

come to the four -- members of congress will be talking about the deficit or taxation or jobs, also important issues. and when people take to the streets, sometimes in reaction to a critical event, it kind of puts the other issues at the top of the agenda and a man's attention. and protesters -- protest is a good vehicle for doing that -- it demands attention. host: republican line, dwaine, welcome. caller: enjoy brian lamb's program today on codepink. veteran.etnam i went to washington d.c. in 1965 and it was impressed upon me that visitors in the galleries were not permitted to do anything, and it would be promptly rejected. that is what they should do with all of those codepink demonstrations. get them all out of there. they are abusing our democratic

system and denying the majority to hear the public hearings. i did a lot of research on a lot of these people, starting from the vietnam war. a lot of them, like bill lairs and his wife and kathy bodene. they do not go away. they stayed there. the same thing with medea benjamin and her ilk. they are going to be around a long time and they're going to get into a lot more mischief. anti-democrat, anti-american, doing everything it can to destroy the american way of life that most of us have grown up with. host: a quick answer to this,. house and senate run by a strict set of rule. if you interrupt senate business, you will be removed from the gallery. when it comes to house hearings,

the chairman and the subcommittee chairman pretty much run that room, and as you can see in the video showed, that is pretty much up to the call of the chairman. let's hear from cal -- in new york city. our democrats line. caller: thanks for the program. i wanted to comment on what i have always felt has been of visible lack of media sophistication on the part of the left ist protest groups. i'm afraid all lot of the footage had been showing has been proving my point. i do not think that any of the major protest groups over the last decade -- move on or codepink or the occupy rows minh -- embraced the idea of clearly communicating their message in that clear media language.

in the 1980's, the left turn against that kind of slick, polished michael deaver brand of messaging, because they felt that it was taken up by the right and they almost deliberately made an attempt to become less sophisticated, to contain or refer -- to convey a rougher message. i saw the program with medea benjamin. the images of signs that he could have secret because the auditorium is not wired for sound, you can't hear. it is the lack of sophistication of the communication of the message. host: will hear from david meyer. guest: in any kind of political movement, there are lots of people that it swept up and want to have their say, and some of

them articulate and some are not. and activist on the left on the right have wrestled with house with a message to produce. there is an organization called left, thatn the is trying to have cool online images. i want to come back to the point of the people that are dangers in trying to destroy america. everyow, historically, act of this group in american history has been described as the great unwashed, trying to pull down america. and the judgment of history winds up vindicating them. martin luther king was surveiled during most of his life. he was labeled a communist. and now you are in d.c., there is a monument to him. i think that judgment of history

vindicates some of these people who are disparaged during their lifetime. host: in addition to civil- rights, who would you say are the two or three other most successful movements in history? guest: i was thinking about women's suffrage to that. it was seen as un patriotic, on natural. the first convention to fight for women's suffrage started in 1848. the constitutional amendment that guaranteed women the right to vote was in 1920. i would say from the judgment of history, you look back and say that was a pretty good decision that was controversial for a v ery long time. i'm happy the abolitionist triumphed, also. it was the first issue discussed in the constitutional convention in 1789, when they wrote the constitution. the civil war to end it.

we have to have a longer-term view of history to see the impact of social movements. do you know what else? it is hard to think that the people who were opposed to the war in iraq in 2003 got it wrong. eirean, it seems like th judgment turned out to be better than some of the armchair strategists who were ready to weigh in and say this would take a very short time and be very easy. it's hard to make change. host: our guest is david miers, professor of sociology and political science. as we take your calls and comments about the role of protest groups in the political conversation. another half an hour. here are the numbers -- 202-585- 3885 for republicans. 202-585-3886 for democrats, and independence and others -- 202- 585-3887. before we get back to calls, a much more modern, current

issue, you write this week about same-sex marriage. in particular about the button that has been used by 3 million facebook users who have used the equal sign. compare the 3 million users of that button, how does that step up with 1 million marchers on the mall? what is a more effective way of getting their message across? guest: it is hard to figure that out over the long haul. and it is not one of versus another. i am sure some large percentage, some small percentage of people that are ready to change the profile to an artistic pink alson will also -- were contributing to candidates. it is never either/or. participation in politics tends to be cumulative. it is a great example of a movement that has been

extraordinarily effective in a short amount time. i mean, it's not hard to remember a time when civil u nion was seen as a radical step forward and a concession to gay activists. now is seen as a last resort of conservatives who want to stop them from getting to marriage. that is pretty fast. it does not seem fast to the activists who are struggling for marriage equality, but in the scope of american history that is effective. you have probably had some of the people who are responsible for this on your show. host: let's hear from tim on our independent line. caller: hosti wanted to voice ot about where independent press people like me have been squashed down from homeland security because of issues about

what you're -- what we are talking about, the tlaws ialws n place -- the laws that should not be in place. causes an issue for us independence try to get the right message out there. do not want to get stepped on by the government every time that we are trying to get our word heard or seen. that time, everyone gets to see what needs to be seen. even though the mass media does not respond. i have been doing it for 20 years. i got stepped on. that is not good. there is something wrong with that picture. somebody abuse their power, because they did not likely me-- like me video taping something that was necessary -- host: can you tell us what media organization you work for? caller: i am an independent photographer for all media

stations throughout the united states and around the world. host: tim. david meyer? guest: we are dependent on information. is supposed to be powerful. it is hard for many people to get a clear view of what the government is doing in all kinds of areas. and it is hard for most people to know exactly whom to trust. i think the dangerous thing that americans can do is decide that one source of information that starts with an agreement with them is giving them true facts. one of the dangerous things about the proliferation of social media it is it is really easy for anybody to click on a site and decide that is giving them gospel and not looked for a broader perspective. andalternative viewpoints, alternative media is one additional source.

i'm sure you agree, that the more people know, the better decisions we are going to be able to make. this is something james madison thought. host: here is alexander and maryland, calling on our republican line. u doing?how rae yoare yo i agree with the professor with what he said as far as martin luther king goes. some protests do help. at the same time, i think that some protest can be destructive, too, at times. especially -- today in the u.s., and how things are so unstable. as far as culture-wise. i feel like there are so many different types of cultures now. for example, you have people who

are christians, people are muslim, people who are all different types of religions, all different types races and that. people, they some become really -- about it. i think sometimes, what you are talking about with the media. reporting on these issues, sometimes they give these things that should not be given so much attention more attention than what they should be. that there like should be like more attention given to a peaceful protesters, instead of people who are violent. i believee time, that there has been -- moral asay in this country, as far

how people treat other people, as far as respect those picked and i kind of feel like things have -- not have gone well, things have not went as smooth as should, so far. host: you have put a lot on the plate. thanks for the comments. any response? guest: it is of the first country with lots of different people in interest. to find a way to communicate is a difficult challenge for anybody. again, there is a media issue, which is media companies want to generate audience for their advertisers. and that means if you go to a demonstration and you see somebody giving a three- paragraph long summary of what they think about immigration, that is less interesting than somebody who is holding up a sign or a picture of president

obama with hitler mustache. the one thing i would encourage all activists to do is leave the hitler mustache at home. host: he mentioned about groups getting more publicity perhaps than they do. maybe that is the squeaky wheel effect. can you think of a group in recent memory that got more media attention perhaps then the group deserved, or the issue deserved? guest: it is hard for me to say that something does not matter. i think that one set of activists that have not been doing demonstrations and has been effective are the people fixated on the deficit. the deficit is not something that is salient to most americans, but it is too small group that has invested a huge amount of money and activism and getting politicians to focus on it. when we talk about on

conventional politics and social movements, it is not only demonstrations on the streets. it is also calling in to programs like this, lobbying congress. it is doing all of the range of things that people do to get what they want. host: next up is pennsylvania. michael is on our democratic line. caller: yes. over the past four years or so, i have been able to go out -- over the past four years, i have been able to go to different things. it is interesting how the media can use things when they do cover them. i remember 10 years ago we were protesting the war that dick cheney and bush were promoting. it is still one of the ones we are in or something, but we were protesting because we are peaceful people. i remember it was a cold day in

pittsburgh. i had a long coat on. i do not have much hair, but had a beard. arf or run mymy sc head and we were marching and it was probably a four-hour march. and the protests. so i had to look however i looked pit disheveled and everything. there i was the next day on tv. because i'd betrayed the part, it looked as if i was a middle eastern person because i had my scarf on. it looked like i had a turban on. i was the backdrop on "good morning america" the next day. it is just amazing how, if they want to create an illusion, they can create an illusion that is opposite. the media has the means to do that. it.i think they do do

another time we were protesting something to do with the spending, and it was a big meeting. had a lot of different social groups there. i had a sign about how many military bases there worker all the sudden, someone said, can i take your picture? i said, i did not think anything of that. i looked on the back to see who it was. when i went on the web site the next day, i was nowhere to be seen. but there were a lot of other people's pictures. if i was so important, or i was such an interest, why didn't my picture show up on their website? or were they really for where there were from? the people they were saying they were. host: thank thee for your comment.

it back to -- there is the agent provocateur. what do suppose was up there with the photographer tried to take his picture? guest: television is a visual media. photographers look for good pictures, and editors tell them which ones are the best cure the best pictures are not the most representative. they are the ones that make images that will project to a large audience and our exciting. i do not know how many times i have seen a picture of somebody holding, wearing a tricornered bags.ith tea codepink has tried to play into the media stuff very aggressive the. at the democratic national convention, you recall there were dancing vaginas. the streets.

i saw that because that was an interesting visual. host: you mentioned the tea party patriots -- they have a newsstream. one of the story today is congress spends like it is going out of style. congressman spend, they said the huffington post reported that outgoing members of the house give large bonuses to their staffs. it is one of a number of articles in a ticker they have. to oregon we go. curtis is on our independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i respect social media and the power of the internet, because in this day and age, it is a solution to a couple of important problems. one of the biggest problems i see is the propaganda machine that has been in operation for years, since before world war

ii. this propaganda machine that convinces people that activists, the social groups are not what they really are. i had the opportunity to facilitate the occupy wall street movement in montana. i got many discussions with the city commissioners as well as the police chief. there were a lot of things that were done in missoula media-w ise, it painted the occupy movement is a homeless and hippie movement. but what we forget is that the media is owned by five corporations, down from 20. the media has painted the occupy movement completely opposite of what it is. the movement consisted of individuals from all backgrounds. steel workers, teachers,

students, homeless individuals, people from all walks of life that were taking advantage of their first amendment rights to stand up and speak out against injustice. here is another problem that i think it changes our country. it conditions people to believe these things that are not true. it stifles the movements that are geared towards improving humanity. there is a guy named mario -- in 1967. he sat on steps in 1967. there is a time when the operational machine becomes so odious, that makes you sick at heart that you cannot take part. after throw your bodies upon the wheels and the leaders in the gears and upon all the apparatus and make it stop. and you have to indicate to the people -- host: you said, you used the word stifle. do you think the occupy movement has been stifled? haver: over 2000 cities

popped up to support the movement to speak out against injustices, against not only americans, but people all over the globe. host: let's hear from david meyer. thank you. guest: if you want to go to the university of california-rivine, you have to apply. if you want to join occupy or the tea party, or any social movement, you show up in claim membership that affords anybody who is covering the social movement the flexibility to pick whatever image they want to project of that movement. when curtis says there is a huge diversity of the people in occupy, i believe it, but i saw many media sites taking out the most colorful, dramatic or offensive% and saying, this is what occupy is all about. and that is the danger of

democracy, when you let people in, there is no bouncer at a social movement activity. so there is a broad picture of lots of different things going on at the same time. what social media allows activist to do is to get the word out independent of what mainstream media wants to cover. that means that occupy wall street still has a web site, they have twitter. they feed out the information they think is important. and groups across the country are endangered in a range of issues. and they are getting much less attention from mainstream media, but there is stuff going on. your conversation, your calls on the roles of political protest groups and their piece of the political conversation. maryland is next up. our republican line.

caller: thank you for taking my call. i am calling because i have been urged to social media for a custody dispute i had, being involved with the father of my daughter for the last five years. each time i went to court and complained about the father's behavior with the child, the court silenced me. they first took away my legal custody. and i was involved with pro-life groups that i -- and had urged ot -- the father, we are n married. and when my child was born, he was automatically given equal rights to have her and his life. throughout the five years i had been in the court system, each time i had spoken out and contacted my congressman or different people to step in and and i goo the case,

back to court. it seems like i am punished the more i speak out about my case. host: are you punished, do you believe, because of your participation in pro-life activities? caller: i believe i am punished because i am speaking out publicly about my case, and the judge is angry that i have contacted some people. host: it sounds personal, but any comment you want to make about her case? guest: it is hard for me to say something smart about a custody case i do not know anything about. i wish her luck. host: you mentioned a while ago, about this organization called upward. the website says, things that matter. pass them on. what are they doing. guest: they are trying to be media savvy and have images that reflect the best a progressive or left of you. . and it-- left viewpoints.

here are things that will go viral to promote the ideas we believe in. reflected onm facebook a bunch of time. they come up with the right image that people want to be certainly. they are very conscious of being media savvy and image that it. host: berkeley, california, is next. our democrats line. caller: thank you for doing this. i am very much supportive of codepink. i think they are necessary to bring the issues to the public because the media is the corporate media. they do not cover these things. they will call up the heritage foundation or conservative think tanks i have never heard the call the left to ask their opinion or codepink.

so we have to have codepink out there. they have to change the dialogue from talking about the deficit to talking about the 99%. and they change the dialogue about drones. they are to be congratulated. the people that think this is not democratic, this is democratic. of course it is democratic. you have to bring these things to the public because the media is not doing it. host: david meyer? guest: margaret nailed it about codepink putting drones back in the news. rand paul tried to do the same thing in the senate. what successful social movements do is reset the political agenda. and codepink is pretty clear about its priorities, and

sometimes it is successful in keeping issues that a live that would be neglected. host: in beginning of the conversation with medea benjamin's, she said a couple of times about doing our jobs as citizens. do you think the first amendment, in addition to bestowing freedoms, implies implicit responsibility on the part of citizens? guest: the first amendment means we protect the right of people we hate to speak and promote ideas that we find abhorrent. so that calls on us immediately to be more tolerant than our gut reaction would call for. we would hope that everybody would be civil and accurate. but any first amendment absolutist knows that is not the way the political debate works. i think our responsibility as citizens is to try to keep the spectrum of debate as broad as

possible. host: here is a democrat in kentucky on our independent line. go aheada. caller: yes, i have a comment and question. i am not affiliated with any political -- i am not republican. i am not democratic or independent. i'm american, first and foremost. does not matter what my party affiliation is. my comment is -- why can't we come up with simple solutions? our government seems to make everything so complex. my question -- the protests are not working. so what is the best thing for americans to do? what is the best way that we can peacefully get our politicians to come together and work as americans, so that we can solve

issues like homelessness, hunger. we have so many things going on in this country right now that we need to fix, and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to fix these things. there are simple solutions. host: thanks. guest: boy, i wish there were simple solutions to everything we care about. i think the most important thing for us to do as citizens is to try to keep our politicians paying attention to the things they care about. and that means doing all the things you learned in civics. writing letters. now we do that on e-mail. that means of voting and talking to people you agree with. it is not that the squeaky wheel always gets the grease, but the wheels that do not squeak do not get anything. so we have to keep the issues that we care about on the political agenda. and codepink has been stalwart

at pushing the issues that its members care about. host: let's go to our facebook post. we have gone back to our conversation with medea benjamin. ian says -- i liked her. i do not agree with her interrupting hearings. she's wacked. why do people feel that they have the right to assault someone text from geoffrey, i agree with everything medea benjamin said, until she went off on gun control. the comments continue on c- facebook/cspan. our republican line. caller: i think it is a tavis: to miss use taxpayer -- a trave sty to misuse tax dollars. and any otherink

civil rights groups. they are using government surveillance to rest citizens. they may have an enemy list and you could be on it. in they could use this enemies list to intimidate and harass innocent people. i think it is a great thing. i think it for having this show. it is wonderful. ofst: again, the ideal american politics is to bring all the disputes out into the open where people can fight it out without picking up arms. and surveillance does not fit that model. host: let's hear from richmond virginia, are democrat line. lesley. hi there. go ahead with your comment. caller: i want to say that i think being -- it is a wonderful thing. without it, we're not speaking out, we are not making our voices heard. i am part of a women's group that is holding a big rally in

richmond, virginia on august 27. it's called women matter, use your power. i love codepink. i love all of the activist groups that are speaking out against the injustices that are happening in our country. host: so the rally you are having in virginia, what is that about? caller: we are focusing on the issues that affect women in our state of virginia. medicate extension, reproductive rights, equal pay, ratifying the equal rights amendment, all the different things that affect women in the state of virginia and our country. host: david meyer, it takes us back to the beginning what you said earlier today you had been thinking about the suffered movement from the last -- suffraagge movement. guest: that national women's party puts equal rights back in 1920.

it was considered in the united states in the 1970's and died in the 1980's. we learn from richmond, virginia, that the issue did not go away. it is still on the agenda. it is very exciting. host: david meyer is sociology and political science professor at the university of california- irvine. his book is "the politics of protest." thank you for spending time with us this evening on c-span. guest: it was my pleasure. host: a reminder, the conversation continues on line -- c-span.org or facebook.com/cspan. feel free to post your comments on the role of political protest groups in the political discussion. coming up tomorrow night at 9:00, we will open our phone lines. a different issue. we will talk about the health care for u.s. of veterans. u.s. military veterans,

including the cost to taxpayers and the types of treatment available off. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, you will hear from the former air force flight nurse linda schwartz. she'll talk about the challenges facing veterans returning from war. at 9:00, we will open up our phone lines for your calls. and we will have facebook and as we look as well, tomorrow night getting under way and it is live at 9:00 here on c-span. >> coming up on c-span defense secretary chuck hagel speaks. president obama talks about gun violence in his visit to denver. later, henry paulson on the economic and political pressures facing china. >> people like to ask me, how

did you come across this story? people always ask writers that. what happens a lot of time you find a news story when you are supposed to be working on something else, which can be frustrating at times. that is what happened to me. i was doing a little internet research one day. across.the photo i came was on the department of energy website. they put up a little newsletter and this newsletter was saying this month in outcome rich history, something along those lines. i looked at these machines with the dial and knobs and i was so sucked into it. the women looked so lovely and they have the nice posture and the 1940's hair dos. i read the caption and it said these young women, many high

school graduates from tennessee were enriching uranium for the world's first atomic bomb, however, they kid not know that at the time. >> one of the manhattan projects secret cities saturday at 11:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv. >> in his first major speech as defense secretary, chuck hagel talked about how the budget cuts will affect the readiness of the ilitary. >> thank you very much. thank you. general thank you, i'm very

proud to be here. i'm proud to be among all of you o give so much every day and will continue to contribute to our country and making a better world and i thank you for that service. for a fancy general to give such an overstated introduction to a retired army sergeant is -- rarelys something that i the ut i'm appreciative of generous introduction. to you and all of your staff and colleagues here, thank you for what you continue to do for our country in this important institution. an institution is as important, i think, for our country and the development not only of our

leaders but the leaders who are represented here today. i think it is one of the wisest investments our country has made and will continue to make in developping our leaders, helping other nations develop their leaders. based not just on military doctrine but on the principles respectey use of mutual and dignity and the rule of law. this facility, this institution has done that very effectively for many, many years. o thank you all. generations of military leaders have come to this institution here at fort mcnair to receive training and education. they needed to succeed not just in combat, but in their daily lives.

the responsibilities you all will take on will be immense. everyday, you will face decisions with real implications for the safety and welfare of our troops, and the security of our nation. as you move onward and upward in your career as, i would urge you to always keep three questions in mind before making decisions. first, does this help protect national security? second, is this in america's strategic interest, which include the economic, political, and moral dimensions of our interests and responsibilities? third, is this were the of the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and their families? these questions speak to the department of defense's most basic responsibilities, defending the nation, the advance in america's strategic interests, and keeping faith with its quiet heroes.

how we fulfill these interim responsibilities at a time of unprecedented ships in the world order, new global challenges, and deep global fiscal uncertainty, is the subject of y remarks today. i want to focus on challenges, choices, and opportunities. the challenges posed by a changing strategic landscape and ew budget constraints. the choices we have in responding to these challenges, and the opportunities that exist to fundamentally reshape defense enterprises to better reflect 1st century realities. ndu is inappropriate venue for this discussion today because the success of these efforts ultimately rests on the abilities and judgments of our military and civilian leaders. those here today will make those decisions and those judgments.

as president dwight eisenhower said during a visit to the ground more than 50 years ago, and i quote, the wise and prudent resources required by the the defense calls for extraordinary skill in measuring the military, political, and economic and social machinery of our modern life so that the greatest effective use is made of resources with a minimum of waste and misapplication. as a former army officer who graduated from this campus shortly before the onset of the great depression, eisenhower knew of what he spoke. the security landscape of 2013 is a far different character than the world of 1960, or even the world of a few years ago. but eisenhower's words still ring true today. the united states is emerging from more than a decade of war in iraq and afghanistan but the

threat of a violent extremism persists and continues to emanate from week states and and govern spaces in the middle east and north africa. there also stands an array of other security challenges of varying vintage and agreed to -- degrees of risks to the united states. the proliferation of dangerous weapons and materials, the increased availability of advanced military technologies in the hands of state and not state actors, the risk of regional conflicts that could draw in the united states, the debilitating and dangerous curves of human despair and poverty, as well as the uncertain implications of the environmental degradation. cyber attacks barely registered as a threat to a decade ago, have grown into a defining security challenge with potential adversaries seeking the ability to strike america's security, energy, economic, and critical infrastructure with the benefit of anonymity and

distance. the world today is combustible and complex. america's responsibilities are as enormous as they are humbling. these challenges to our security and prosperity demand america's continued global leadership and global engagement, and they require a principled realism that is true to our values. the united states military remains an essential tool of american power, but one that must be used judiciously, with a keen appreciation of its limits. most of the press and security challenges today have important political, economic, and cultural components and do not necessarily lend themselves to be resolved by conventional military strength. indeed, the most destructive and horrific attack ever on the

united stacaro fleets, ships, bombers, or armored divisions, but from 19 fanatical men wielding box cutters and 1-way plane tickets. so our military must continue to adapt. we adapt in order to remain effective and relevant in the face of threats markedly different from those that shaped our defense institution during the cold war. since 9/11, the military has grown more deployable, more expeditious erie, more flexible, more lethal, and certainly more professional. it has also grown significantly older, as measured by the age of of our platforms. and it has grown enormously more expensive in every way. today, america's defense institutions are emerging, and in some cases, recovering from more than a decade of sustained conflict while confronting new strategic challenges.

in doing so would significantly less resources than the department has had in the past. as this audience knows well, this process of change and a realignment is already well underway. it began under secretary gates, who recognized what he called the post-9/11 gusher of defense spending was coming to an end. under his leadership, the farmer -- department worked to reduce overhead costs within the military services and canceled or curtailed in number of major modernization program that were performing poorly, or poorly suited to the real world demands. the realignment continued undersecretary panetta who worked closely with president and the joint chiefs of staff to craft new defense strategic guidelines and a defense budget

which reduced the department planned spending by $487 billion over 10 years. even while reshaping the force to become smaller and leaner, this budget made in foreign -- important investments in the new strategy, including rebalancing our defense posture to asia-pacific, and prioritizing critical capabilities, such as cyber, special operations, and unmanned systems. so the department of defense had been preparing for this inevitable downturn in defense budgets and has taken significant steps -- steps to reduce spending and adapt to a new strategic environment. nevertheless, the combination of fiscal pressures and a grid lock political process has led to far more abrupt and deeper reductions that were planned or expected. now dod is grappling with the serious and immediate challenges of sequester, which is forcing us to take as much as a $41 billion cut in this current fiscal year. if it continues, we are projected to reduce spending by

another $500 billion over the next decade. the sequestered cut, because it alls heavily on operations and modernization accounts, is already having a destructive and potentially damaging impact on the readiness of the force. the department has already made many cuts, including cuts to official travel and facility maintenance. we have imposed hiring freezes and halted many important but not essential activities. however, we will have to do more. across-the-board reductions aside we are looking at will demand that we furloughs civilian personnel which could affect morale and may impact productivity. cuts will fall heavily on maintenance and training which further erodes the readiness of the force, and will be costly to regain in the future. as the service chiefs have said, we are consuming our readiness.

meanwhile, our investment accounts in the defense industrial base are not spare damage. as we also take indiscriminate cuts across these areas of the budget. these are the challenges that face us right now and i am determined to help the department get ahead of them. general dempsey has said we need to read through this crisis. i have told our senior leadership, the joint chiefs, the service secretaries and undersecretary of defense, we are all in this together, and we will come out of it together. the task ahead for the department is to prepare for the future, but not in a way that the collects, or is oblivious to the realities of the present. we are therefore undertaking a process to develop choices, options, and priorities to deal with further reductions in the defense budget that could result from a comprehensive

deficit-reduction deal, or the persistence of sequestered. all anchored by the president defends strategic guidance. my goal in directing the strategic choices in management review, which is now being led by deputy secretary carter, who is working with general dempsey, is to ensure that we are realistic the confronting both our strategic and fiscal challenges. it is not to assume or tacitly accept deep cuts, such as those imposed by sequester, will endure, or that these cuts can be accommodated without a significant reduction in military capabilities. at the same time, we cannot simply wish or hope our way to carrying out irresponsible national security strategy for its implementation. the department must understand the challenges and uncertainties plan for the risks, and yes, recognize the opportunities

inherent in budget constraints in more efficient restructuring. this exercise is also about matching missions with resources, looking at ends, ways, and means. this effort, by necessity, will consider big choices which could lead to fundamental change and a further prioritization of the use of our resources to retain that involve not just tweaking or chipping away at existing structures and practices, but where necessary, fashioning entirely new ones that are better suited to 21st century realities and challenges. all this with the goal of insuring that we can better execute the strategic guidance as set out by the president. in order for this effort to proceed with the to be steely-eyed and clear headed in our analysis and explore the full range of options for implementing our national security strategy. we need to challenge all past assumptions and we need to put

everything on the table. for example, is already clear to me that any serious effort to reform or reshape our defense enterprise must confront the principal drivers of growth in the department's budget, namely acquisitions, personnel costs, nd overhead. in many respects, the biggest long-term fiscal challenge facing the department is not be flat or declining top line budget. it is the growing unbalance in where that money is being spent internally. if left unchecked, spiraling costs sustain existing tructures and institutions provide benefits to personnel and develop replacement for aging weapons platforms while eventually crushing of spending on procurement, operations, and readiness. the budget category that enable the military to be, and stay prepared.

if these trends are not reversed reversed, former chief of naval operations warned that pod could transform from an agency protecting the nation to an agency administering and if it programs capable of buying overpriced equipment. thanks to the efforts of my predecessors and other dod leaders, we have made an effort in this crowding out in this budget and future budgets. much more hard work, difficult decisions and strategic prioritizing remains to be done. the political and institutional obstacles to necessary reforms overcome. engaged and

i'm concerned that pruning over the last four years that the strategy still require systems that are vastly more expensive and technologically risky than what we are promised are budgeted for. we need to continually move forward with designing an acquisition system that responds more efficiently, effectively and quickly to the need of troops and commanders in the field. once a that rewards-cost and efficiency so our programs don't take longer, cost more and deliver less than initially planned and promised. with full recognition for the great stresses that our troops and our families have and placed under, and been under for nearly 12 years of war and the contributions that civilian employees make to the departments mission, fiscal realities demand another hard look at personnel. how many people we have both

military and civilian? how many do we need? what do these people do? and how do we compensate them for their work, their service and their loyalty with pay, benefits, and health care? these are tough questions from a such as what is the right mix of civilian and military personnel across the department and its various components? within the force, what is the right balance between officers and enlisted? without necessarily accepting the off stated claim that there are more than 300,000 service members performing civilian and commercial functions, what is the appropriate distribution of troops performing combat, support and administrative duties? there will like lace -- there will likewise need to be a scrutiny of the command structure, most of which leads back to the early years of the cold war.

the last major defense reorganization was during the ajor defense bill the been focused on improving dryness and establishing clear operational change of command. cost and efficiency were not major considerations then. goldwater nichols strengthened the joint staff and the ombatant commands. it went about doing this by layering joint organizations and processes a top service rganizations and the top processes. the elevation of the former did not automatically lead to the diminishing of the latter. today, the operational forces measured in battalions, ship's, and aircraft wings have shrunk radically since the cold war. yet our support structure

sitting atop these smaller fighting forces have stayed intact. with minor exceptions, and in some cases, they are actually increasing in size and rank. it is still not clear that every option has been considered to pare back the war office back ffice. the fourth estate consists of the office of the secretary, the joint staff, the combatant commands, defense agencies and field activities and the missile defense agency that provides contract support. we need to relook at the funding for these agencies, which won't be easy. with respect to the fourth estate, former secretary of

defense gates compared the process of looking for savings as going on an easter egg hunt. secretary panetta was more blunt. he called the pentagon "a big damn bureaucracy of mine -- a big damn bureaucracy." it does not sound like leon panetta at all. [laughter] wherever you are, leon, we're quoting you. the military is not and should never the run like operation. but that does not mean we don't have a good deal to learn from what the private sector has achieved over the past 20-30 years in which reducing layers of upper and middle management not only reduced costs and micromanagement, but also led to more agile and effective organizations. and more empowered junior leaders. in light of all these trends, we have to examine whether dod a structured and incentivize to ask for more and do more. that entails taking a hard look at requirements.

how they are generated and where they are generated from. it could turn out that making dramatic changes in each of these areas could prove unwise, untenable, or politically impossible. yet we have no choice but to take a close look at how we can do all of this better. in order to address acquisition, personnel and overhead costs in smart ways, they have not been done before. we need time, flexibility, and support and partnership of congress during we also need long-term budget certainty. one of the biggest problem's the sequester has brought is that it is requiring immediate, deep and steep cuts. this means that the department will by necessity have to look t large cuts in operations and modernizations to find savings to be quickly realized.

the kinds of reforms the department needs in other areas would take some time to implement and take longer for significant savings to accrue. if we get time and flexibility to implement savings, we could limit the impact of spending reductions on for structure and modernization while still making a significant contribution to deficit reduction. i contrast, the cuts required by sequester afford neither time nor flexibility. these dramatic cuts would certainly require reductions in would have long been considered core military capabilities and changes in the traditional role in missions among the uniformed services. we will have to take a critical look at our military capabilities and ensure that our core structure and modernization plans are directly and truly aligned with the present strategy. that includes taking a new look at how we define and measure readiness and risk. and factor both into military requirements.

it also includes balancing the competing demands of capacity and capability. how much of any given platform we need and how much capability it needs to have to fulfill in real-world missions. the size and shape needs to be constantly reassessed come a mix of conventional and unconventional capabilities, general purpose and social operations units, and the appropriate balance between forward stations, rotation we deployed, and home-based ports. -- forces. we also need to reassess how much we can depend on our allies and our partners. what can we anticipate from them in the way of capabilities and capacity? and factor these calculations into both our short and long-term planning. a thorough examination of the way our military is organized

and operates will also highlight ur inherent strengths. including leadership development, mobility, logistics, special operations, cyberspace and resurgent film and. another course -- and research and development. another core strength is the ability to adapting. in the lean years between world war i and world war ii, during the great depression, a group of farsighted officers with virtually no funding or prospect of promotion -- you will remember in your history how long general eisenhower was a lieutenant colonel. a good example of what we are talking about. they conceived important new

platforms and operating concepts for armored warfare, amphibious assault, aircraft carriers, submarines, and long-range bombers. all of which proved decisive in the second world war. after the korean war, eisenhower looked into defense spending, xceeding 10% of our gross to -- gross domestic product. as the military grappled with challenges to morale and readiness after vietnam, it also made a transition to an all voluntary force and made should she just investments in stealth and platforms like the f-16 and the abrams tank. even during the 1990s

procurement holiday, we invested in satellite guidance, in networking systems and remotely piloted aircraft that had been game changers during the last decade of war. the goal of the senior leadership of this department today is to learn from the miscalculations and mistakes of the past drawdowns and make the right decisions that will sustain our military strength, advance our strategic interest, and protect our nation well into he future. let me now conclude with some comments on america and its role in the world. during this time of budget turmoil and after a financial crisis, in a decade when our country has grown weary of war and skeptical of foreign entanglements, questions arise about the merits of america's role in the world, america's global leadership.

america does not have the luxury of retrenchment. we have too many global interests at stake, including our security, prosperity, and our future. if we refuse to lead, something, someone will fill the vacuum. the next great power may not use its power as responsibly or judiciously as america has used its power over the decades since world war ii. we have made mistakes and miscalculations with our great power. but as history has advanced, america has helped making her -- a better world for all people with its power. a world where america does not lead is not a world that i wish my children to inherit. thisthan a century ago on campus, while laying the corner store and -- cornerstone on the building that now bears his name, roosevelt declared that the united states had "the mere

trend of events been forced into the position of world power." he went on to say that america "cannot bear these responsibilities are right unless it's a is coded for peace and justice with the assured self-confidence of the just man armed." what distinguishes america is not our power. the world has known great power. it is america's purpose and our commitment to making a better life for all people. we are a wise, thoughtful and steady nation. worthy of our power, generous spirit and humble in our purpose. that is the america we will defend together, with the purpose and self-confidence of the just man armed. thank you. [applause]

thank you. >> if you have questions that are not too tough, i will take a few. [laughter] and even if a general asks a question, i will answer it. [laughter] yes, there's one back here. >> hello, thank you for coming. jessica lynch from national war college. i definitely think that you will have the steely eyed vision to lead us through this difficult time.

but i do have a difficult question. i do appreciate that you said that civilians are important. but why are we still furloughing? in case your divisors haven't told you, it is affecting morale. >> thank you first for what you do. and your contributions to our security. your question regarding furloughs, i wish i didn't have to answer that question. i wish we had other options. but the reality is that we are dealing with 41 -- dealing with a $41 billion shortfall that not planned for. as also noted in my remarks, many of the accounts where we must focus our readiness and our first securing this country, those are a counselor we don't

have enough resources. operations, missions, we have had to cut training. are of you in this room aware of the wings we have had to stand down, other consequences. as we try to be fair and analyze where we take those cuts and we take them because we have no choice, and trying to minimize the hurt and the pain that these cuts are causing across our entire range of responsibilities and, first of all, people, we have had to look at everything. we have had to look at all of the accounts. we have had to look at where the money goes. weinitially thought that might have to make some

difficult decisions on furlough as long as 22 days. because of congress's actions a couple of weeks ago, passing a continuing resolution, we have been able to move some monies around with a little more flexibly. we still don't have a lot of flexibility. no matter how you look at it, we did not get any more money. so now we're looking at the possibility of furloughs up to 14 days. if we can do that better and less, we will, recognizing that morale will be affected. but the tough decisions i will have to be made and we will have to make them are done on the basis of what we think is the most fair way to do this. but our readiness and our capabilities have to always come first because it is the first mission and responsibility of this institution, the

protection and security of this country. so as i began my answer, which i know is not a good answer, i wish i did not have to answer that question. if we can do better, we will do better. and believe me, every person that the pentagon is working very hard to try to continue to minimize this issue for our civilian people. at the same time, i want to be honest with you and not this lead you about the reason -- and not mislead you about the reality that we find ourselves in. yes. >> thank you, sir.

i appreciate your remarks. i appreciate the news this morning that you yourself will be taking a pay cut as we go through this furlough. i very much appreciate the gesture. however, as we look into the future, you mention in your remarks that you are looking at strategic cuts that involve military benefits -- healthcare, retirement, how can station. -- and compensation. are those cuts imminent where they are coming as a result of looking into cuts in the future? >> it is their ability to sustain the commitments we have made to the men and women who joined the military as well as our civilians. we make promises. this country makes commitments

to people here in we will honor those. but i don't think there is anyone here today that has not heard of or aware of the fact that, if you play this out 10-20 years, we won't be able to sustain the current personnel costs and retirement benefits. there will be no money in the budget for anything else. willmiral ruffin said, we become essentially a transfer agency. how do we do this now to get some lead time on this so we can adjust to the realities that we know are coming? social security is the same thing. may care is the same thing. you can't sustain those

programs, those commitments. we know that. but that is not the question. the question is how do you then respond to it? we have time to get ahead of it if we start planning for it now. that is part of the review. it's not new. there is no one in this institution that has not been aware of the fact that we would have to start adjusting in some way. but what i believe is that your immediate question, as far as immediate cuts to health care and so on, no, i don't see those kinds of things coming this year. we will go forward in budget presentations and ask the congress to explore ways where it is possible to increase fees on different programs. i think that is fair. and i think that we have to look at everything. as i said, i'm sorry. i wish it was otherwise. but that is a fact of life. and the longer we do for these

things, the worse it will be for all of us. so let's be smart. let's try to get ahead of it. that is the whole point of why i directed our leaders to come up with a strategic review. we have resources. we will continue to have resources. but we have to be wise in how we apply those resources. your people are your most important product. without people, systems don't matter. it does not matter how sophisticated your weapons are. your people are everything in any institution. and you take care of your people. i am committed to do that. i think every leader here is committed or we wouldn't be here. your families, the commitments we have made, we are doing everything we have -- we're doing your thing we can to ensure that. and we will continue to do that. >> good afternoon, sir.

as much as i would like to complain about a pay cut, i have a different question. you mentioned the pivot to asia. i am interested in what you think we could do to build a better relationship with china to help work on containing the belligerence we see coming out of north korea. >> i had a long conversation last night with the new chinese minister of defense. general chang. it was very positive. we talked about some pretty tough issues, starting with

north korea, touchy issues like taiwan. as i think all of you know, general dempsey's going to china this month and secretary kerry will be in china this month. as you also know, secretary of treasury lou was in china in the last few weeks. so we are continuing to reach out and strengthen our relationship with china. china is a great power. it will continue to be a great power. we have many common interests. general chang and i talked about those common interests. he have differences. we will always have differences. we have differences with allies. it's not differences that matter. it is how you deal with differences. you build a platform of a relationship based on your common interests, not on your differences. and north korea is a very good example of a common interest. certainly, the chinese don't want a public hated and combustible situation to explode into a worse situation. it is not in their interest

that to happen. it is not in our interest or in our allies interests. like always, relationships are built face to face. they are built around common interests. institutional interests as well as personal interests. and using this institution as an example, 66 nations represented here in this room, this is the way you build understanding with each other. this is the way you start to accept each other as a sovereign people, respect each other's dignity as human beings. then you work out from there. i think we can continue to build a strong relationship with china, with our differences. and there are significant differences. but there are too many common interests for both our countries. and with why steady leadership, and i think the chinese have shown their leadership to the study, wise, careful, and the more we can exchange at every level, programs, especially military-to-military per grams, i don't know of a single --

military-to-military programs, i don't know of a single impact greater than building military- to-military relationships. the best example is egypt. i'm not sure things would have turned out the same in egypt over the last two years without that. you can't solve all the problems nor should you be expected to, but you can do an awful lot. and as i said in my remarks and no one in this room has heard this for the first time because you all live it and in your capacities as leaders, military leaders today, as valleys have been, but especially today, they are far more than military leaders. your diplomats. yourpsychologists in mentors. your educators.

your referees. -- you are educators here and you are referees. you are school board chairman. you have many possibilities. that is real. that is life. that is what makes the difference in people, in understanding people. so i am a bit of far field, but i am a former senator. [laughter] i will hear about this i'm sure at a hearing next week. [laughter] but i think it's relevant to your question. thank you.

yes. >> good afternoon, sir. i am when the joy from the department of navy, he civilian. like you for being here today. what do you believe are some opportunities that we have to partner with the department of state, the department of homeland security, and in order to secure and protect our homeland given the state of our budget? >> i think the interagency relationship is always a key part of any agency institution carrying out its responsibilities. your particular question

mentions department of state and homeland security. many times, secretary gates sounded like the secretary of state. why aren't we rebalancing priorities and the resources at state where some of these programs should reside and used to reside? in my opinion, he was right. state has a very important role to play in our foreign policy, obviously, but also in the interagency relationships that you mentioned, homeland security, which, as you all knew, is a new agency. but they all connect. there is not an interest, not a connection point that doesn't affect all the other connection points that serve our whether it's homeland interests, economic interest, diplomatic interests, and military interests, energy interest, cyber interest, whatever.

they are all connected in. omen security, the way it is structured -- and i was there in the senate when we rolled up agencies and the one -- has authorities in a rather significant for homeland security. we are still working through how we all work together. and that's ok. but i think another part of your question is how do you maximize and add value to each other for the bigger purpose and objective in this country? you are exactly right. you have just identified in my opinion may be the most important dimension of where we will all have to go as government leaders in this country over the next few years and beyond. we have not been getting a return on investment.

beenaxpayer has not getting their return on investment in how we connect agencies and departments and how we work together. we are getting better. everyday we are getting better better, far better today than five years ago. but we are kind of new at this. so you can continually overload the circuits like i think we have in the last 10 years in the department of defense and say, well, you will do it all and we will give you the money good but you have the resources on the 20's and the management and the people, so on and so on, go do it because you can

do it faster. and in all most every case get it done better. that distribution of labor and resources has to now be rebalance. because there is a bigger return that can come from all of that. so i think that your question is a very important one. it is central to everything that we will all be doing and continue to do, especially you young leaders who will be moving into very important positions in your careers. you are here at a special time. you really are. every generation has an opportunity to reshape the world. but some generations really have big opportunities. your generation has a big opportunity to reshape things. and it will be you. this audience. yes. >> secretary, thank you. i am a student at the national war college. i would like to turn back to the front page. if i scanned correctly the headlines this morning, you make comments related to north korea and nuclear capability. are understood it, you saying a specific level, where some level of nuclear capability will not be

acceptable. could you elaborate on that ? >> well, i was misquoted again. [laughter] thanks for the question. [laughter] george little is here and he likes that kind of question. he is the assistant of public affairs. so keep your answers short, he says. [laughter] [applause] and and i like hell. [laughter] -- and deny like hell. [laughter] thank you for your question. i'm not sure i said quite that starkly. here is the point. north korea has been a problem

for not just the region for many years. the responsible powers in the region, starting with national security -- permanent national security council and japan have been part of talks with north korea for number of years. we have been trying to work with the north koreans to persuade them it's not in their interest and certainly in the korean peninsula's interest -- the south koreans have been part of this as well -- to pursue nuclear weapons. they have nuclear capacity now. they have missile delivery capacity now. ratcheteds they have up her bellicose dangerous rhetoric, and some of the actions they have taken over the last few weeks present a real and clear danger and threat the interests certainly of

our allies, starting with south korea. and japan. and also the threats that the north koreans have leveled directly at the united states regarding our base in guam, threatened hawaii, threatened to the west coast of the united states. as secretary of defense, and beginning with the president of the united states, and all of our leaders, we take those threats seriously. threatsto take those seriously. i think we have measured, responsible, serious responses to those threats. as you know, we are undergoing

joint exercises with the south koreans now. we are doing everything we can working with the chinese and others to defuse that situation on the peninsula. but, as i said in a news conference last week when asked about this, it only takes being wrong once. and i don't want to be the secretary of defense who was wrong once. so we will continue to take these threats seriously. i hope the north will ratchet this very dangerous rhetoric down. there is a pathway that is responsible for the north to get on a path to peace, working with their neighbors. there are many benefits to their people that could come. but they have to be a responsible member of the world community.

and you don't achieve that responsibility and peace and prosperity by making nuclear threat and taking very provocative actions. ie last question here and will take one -- yes. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i am a kernel of the german army. you mentioned the generation of young leaders, especially foreigners who have the opportunity to stay here in country. for sure, me and my family will never forget this opportunity. it has broadened our horizons and deepened our friendship with your country.

so my question concerns -- wouldn't it you wiser to have the same opportunity for my american colleagues, budget cuts, the constraints, make them stay here, not allowed to travel, to make the trips overseas and to learn about other countries? [laughter] [applause] so, if i may say so, if i were one of your advisers, mr. secretary, i would say probably delay the delivery of a warship or a tank or f-35 about one year until we have overcome this challenge and let them go. [laughter] [laughter] [applause] what is your opinion about this, sir? yourrnel, you are well on way to making general. [laughter] i don't know how i add to that with this crowd.

[laughter] that is a magnificent way to end this. and you all very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> this is a third prize winner in c-span's student cam competition. his message to the president focus on government waste and the misuse of taxpayer dollars by some federal agencies.

ourt's no secret that government wastes more money than most americans could realize or even possibly imagine. >> every year we spend more than we take in. our national debt just gets higher and higher and higher, and at some point the future generations are going to have to pay for that. amountit's not just the of money government is spending that is a huge problem, but the amount of money we are borrowing each year. >> according to the u.s. debt cost, an incredible 36 out of the last 40 years, our government happens spent more money than it has brought in. for example, in 2011, federal tax revenue was $2,170,000,000. the federal budget was nearly $4 trillion, creating a deficit of $1,650,000,000. that was a huge factor in driving out our nation's debt

to over $16 trillion. >> $16 trillion of debt, where does it all go? the answers to some of it may surprise you. this piece of paper is circling around washington tonight. republican senator tom coburn said he's unearthed $18 billion in wasted government spending. >> we're subsidizing the promotion to consume caviar. waste the senator's report flags other controversial expenses. food stamps being misused for booze and spent on high-end starbucks coffee drinks and fast food runs. >> if you're looking at the food stamp program, it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that you're providing for people without means and then you're giving them junk food. >> i think 90% of the department of agriculture's budget now goes for food stamps. >> $1 million are being spent every year by nasa to develop a menu of food to be eaten on mars.

at a time of layoffs at that agency. and the lake marie airport in oklahoma, just one plate a month, but it gets $150,000 a year from the f.a.a. the oklahoma airport's commissioner told us the only reason he keeps it open is to keep getting federal dollars that he uses on other airports. >> is there anybody in the world that says no thank, government we don't want this money? >> when you think nonprofit you don't think the national football league. the nfl pulled in over $9 call n last year and they themselves nonprofit and they avoid paying taxes every year. >> what about studying the world of war craft on the memory of seniors? >> over $2 million per year is wasted by the department of energy for failure to turn off the lights. speaking of waste, the federal

government recently spent $1.5 million from renovating 36 toilets at the park of alaska. that is $40,000 per toilet. each year, government agencies in up almost $1 billion unnecessary printing expenses. >> this is the federal register. they are copied, bound, and sent to copies. no one reads this thing because it is available on the internet for years. , which means that taxpayers are funding door stops. >> we know trillions of dollars to china. a lot of that money borrowed from china is used for foreign aid back to china. for our inability to maintain our fiscal house we're losing

our position as a leader in the world. >> did you know that the department of defense wasted over $100 million in unused flight tickets and never bothered to collect the refunds even though they were refundable? >> you would think no agency would throw a christmas party at the taxpayer expense. what if they called a conference and shelled out $5 million. >> we caught f.a.a. officials celebrating the end of the year. with $81 a day with f.a.a. money. >> the facilities manager of the united states government. cost-cutting, a tax they felt

could be expresenced by a lavish three-day las vegas conference. >> more than $100,000 just to plan the las vegas conference. >> the money was for clowns and a mind reader. >> an exercise to put bikes together. >> a final head spinning price tag. if final event was a video contest and the winner thanked saying about his wishes to waste government money while his agency was wasting money. >> that was fun. that was amazing. i'm glad you won. step into the spotlight. >> did you attend the 2010, conference in las vegas? >> on the advice of my council i decline to answer on my fifth amendment of the constitutional

rights. >> they say i will look the other way on what you're doing if you look the other way on what i'm doing. >> we're facing a serious fiscal situation. we've experienced deficits over $1 trillion a year. >> we're running trillion dollar deficits, the way you get rid of it is a trillion dollars at a time. >> the system has to change for the wests generations to slow down some. >>i think you will find both sides, my party has to is a no to entitlements and on the far right they will say no revenue whatever so ever. it will be between the 40-yard line. >> when reagan was president and tip o'neill was speaker of the extreme of is the

both parties but they were willing to compromise for the good of the people. >> we need to get rid of the stupid spending that does not benefit anybody. >> it is not accept fabble it constitutes waste. >> you can't be efficient all of the time but the level it is at is unaccept. >> there is no question that our government's waste go beyond anybody's normal definition of acceptable. >> so i asked you, mr. president, how do we get rid of the debt and restore generations in this great country of ours? >> you can find this video and the other winning documentaries at studentcam.org. >> coming up on c-span, president obama talks about gun laws in a visit to denver, colorado. that is followed by national

rifle association president david keene. then henri paulson discusses the politics and economy in china. >> north korea has threatened military action against south korea. on our next "washington journal," we'll get an update on north korea. we'll talk with the "foreign policy" magazine and john kerry's upcoming trip to south korea. we'll look at some of the recent developments on the korean peninsula. later, former ambassador to south korea joins us. he served during the bush administration from 2001-2004. we'll take your call, e-mails,

and tweets. "washington journal" every morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. a wayshe was out there in that i indicated before, that respectable women did not do. this is the time that the women 's movement was under way. interesting enough, someone like her sort of fits in to a certain extent. she's very conservative in some ways but in breaking through the traditional ways that a woman should behave she's doing it in a away that other women were not. >> our conversation on the second wife of president john yler is available at our website c-span.org. president obama visited denver today. colorado moved to require

ackground checks for all gun purchases and put limits on all ammunition purchases. this is an half hour. ♪ >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you, everybody. everybody have a seat. thank you. it is wonderful to be back in colorado and in denver. i want to thank chief white for that introduction. you have some outstanding officials here today. i want to acknowledge them. a wonderful governor, john hickenlooper. [applause] next to him, joe garcia, an

outstanding lt. governor. one of the finest young senators, michael bennett is ere. terriffic members of the house, ed pearl mutter. and -- and your own mayer, michael hancock is here. [applause] >> i -- i want to say thank you to the denver police for having me here, and for the outstanding work you do each day to serve our communities. and before i came out there i sat down with law enforcement, holder and the leaders i mentioned, the mayor of aurora,

sportsmen, parents. loved ones. of the victims of the shootings in columbine and aurora. we talked about how to protect our citizens from gun iolence. we've wanted law enforcement to hape the discussion. law enforcement lives this every day. law enforcement sees this -- with lives lost and lives broken and communities changed forever. they are often in the line of fire. law enforcement knows what works and what doesn't.

we wanted that advice. and we hear from mayors like steve hogan because he is on the front line and he is dealing with these issues under sad circumstances. i came to denver because colorado is a model of what is ossible. it is 120 days since the murder of 20 children in newtown, connecticut which shocked the country and galvanized parents. they said, 'we have to omething.'

more than 100 times as many have fallen to gun violence in the 100 days. 2,000 struck down, often because they went around their daily route. they didn't do anything special. just shopping, going to chool. every day we wait to do something about it, even more of our fellow citizens are stolen from our lives by a bullet in a gun. the good news is colorado has deterimined to do something about it. [applause]

>> this state suffered two of the worst mass shootings. 14 years ago in columbine and last year in aurora. and this state treasures their second ammendment rights, with proud sportsmen and the governor says there is outstanding elk hunting. a strong tradition of gun ownership from generation to eneration. part of the fabric of people's lives. they treat gun ownership with respect. i believe there doesn't have to

be a conflict in reconciling these realities. between protecting citizens and ur rights. i have stacks of letters from gun owners who tell me how they cherish their rights and don't want them infringed on but want something to stop the epidemic of gun violence. i appreciate each letter and learned from them. colorado shows practical progress is possible due to gov. hickenlooper and some of the legislaters. aurora is a purple city with a majority city council that came

together to learn something had to make sense. o we've seen enacted tougher background checks that won't infringe the rights of the second amendment but will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. [applause] in january, a few weeks after newtown, i put forward some proposals along the lines of what happened in colorado to reduce gun violence. in my state of the union address i urged congress to give them a ote. before we asked, i signed numerous orders. doing what we could to make sure

that guns don't fall into the hands of the wrong people. if we're going to tackle this problem seriously, then we have to get congress to take the next step. next week, they will be oting. every senator will vote on if we should have background checks for anyone wanting to purchase a gun. some say we have background hecks. those background checks have kept more than two million dangerous people from buying a gun. the loopholes that exist allow too many criminals and folks who shouldn't get guns, it allows them to avoid background checks

entirely. that makes it harder for law enforcement to do their job. it is not fair. it is not smart. it is not fair to responsible gunowners who play by the rules. nobody talks about a new ystem. we talk about sealing the porous system that isn't working. if you want to buy a gun whether it is from a licensed dealer or someone else, you should at least pass a background check before buying one. that is just common sense. [applause] during our last session with gov. hickenlooper, he was in the midst of a passionate debate and some people said background

checks won't stop everybody. it won't stop everybody but as he pointed out, there's a bunch of people who have been stopped. law enforcement has stopped people who were convicted of murder, people who were under restraining orders for violent omestic abuse. and he mentioned to me law enforcement has arrested people who came to pick up their gun because they were criminals. they were wanted. this does work. wouldn't you want to know that -- the person you're selling to on't commit a crime?

these background checks won't stop all gun crime but will prevent some. this is common sense. by the way, most gun owners more this % gun owners agree makes since, 90% of the american people agree, most of the n.r.a. agree. there is no reason why we can't do this, unless politics is getting in the way. there's no reason we can't do this. every senter wil have a chance to strengthen school safety and help those with mental health problems get the help they need.

and they will see if we can crack down on those who buy guns for the people who mean arm. it would make life safer for those behind me. every senator will get a say on whether or not we should keep weapons of war and high-capacity magazines that facilitate mass killings off our streets. the type of rifle used in aurora, for example, has one purpose, to pump out as many bullets as possible as fast as possible. that is what allowed that gunman o shoot 70 people and kill 12. i don't believe weapons for war have a place in movie theaters. most americans agree with that.

[applause] >> most of the ideas are not controversial. 90% of americans support background checks that prevent dangerous people from having guns. more than 80% of republicans agree, most gun owners agree. how often do 90% of americans agree on anything? [laughter] yet, there are some senators back in washington, floating the idea they might use obscure procedural students to prevent or delay any of these votes on reform. they aren't saying they won't vote no, they are saying they will do everything they can to

prevent even allowing a vote on overwhelmle at the people support. they are saying your opinion doesn't matter. we knew the change wouldn't be easy and voices would do everything to ignore the american people and collapse under fear and frustration and people would stop paying attention. the only time this is different is the american people demand, this time it must be different to protect our communities and our kids. [applause] we need parents, teachers, police officers and pastors, we need hunters and sportsmen.

americans of every background to say, we've suffered too much pain to allow this to continue. we won't wait for the next newtown before we act. i genuinely believe that's what the overwhelming majority of americans, i don't care what party they belong to, that's what they want. they want to see some progress. during the conversation a number of people talked about -- the trust issue. part of the reason it is so hard to get done is because both sides may not listen to each other. the people who take absolute

positions on both sides -- they won't concede an inch of round. one of the questions we talked about is, how do you rebuild trust? how do you rebuild trust? i told the story of two conversations i had, when ichelle did some campaigning and she had been to a big county with a lot of farmland. she said, if i was at a farm in iowa, i'd want a gun, too. somebody just drives up in your driveay and you're not home. you don't know how long it will take for them to respond. i can see why you would want

some guns for protection. that is one conversation. i had another conversation a few months ago with a mom from chicago, evanston, ill. whose son was killed in a random shooting. she said -- i hate it when they say he was shot in the wrong place in the wrong time. he was in the right place, going to school. he wasn't in the wrong place. he was where he was supposed to be. now, both those things are true. we are so divided between rural and urban, folks whose hunting is part of their lives and folks hose only experience with guns

is street crime and the two sides talk past one another. more than anything, what i want to emphasize is they are good eople on both sides. but we have to put ourselves in the other person's shoes. if you're a hunter, a sportsman, if you have a gun in your house for protection, you've got understand what it feels like for that mom whose son was randomly shot. and if you live in an urban rea, you have to understand -- what it may be like if you were on a ranch and your dad took you hunting all your life.

ll of my experiences have been positive but for others, it may ave been negative. if we start listening we may get something done that is constructive. [applause] we should be able to get that done. one last thing i'm going mention. during this conversation, i hope you don't mind me quoting you, joe. he made a point that the opponents of these laws have caused fear among responsible gun owners with nothing to do with what is being proposed, nothing to do with the facts but

feeds into this suspicion about government. i need a gun to protect myself from the government, you hear. we can't do background checks because the government will take my gun away. the government is us. [applause] these officials are elected by you. i am elected by you, constrained as they are by a system that our founders put in place, a government for the people. so surely we can have a debate not based on the notion that your elected representatives are

trying to do something to you other than potentially prevent another group of families from grieving the way the families of aurora and newtown or columbine ave grieved. we have to get past some of the rhetoric that is perpetuated and breaks down trust and is so over the top. that it shuts down discussion. it is important to say, "hold on." if any gun-owners hear someone is taking your guns, get the facts. we don't propose a gun

registration, we're proposing background checks for criminals. don't listen to what advocates or folks with an interest say. look at the actual legislation, that is what happened here in colorado. hopefully, if we know the facts and we're listening to each other then we can actually move forward. that is what members of congress need to hear. many of the members of congress are home in their districts and many are holding events so they can hear from their constituents. find out where your member of congress stands and if they're not part of the 90% of americans who agree on background checks, ask them why not? why wouldn't you want it to be more difficult for criminals to get a gun or close the loopholes

that allow them to do this without background checks, and why wouldn't you want it to be easier for law enforcement to do heir jobs. many law enforcement members know what it is like to look into the eyes of a brother or a spouse who just lost a family member to gun violence. some of those families are here today. as police officers, you know there is no magic solution to prevent every bad thing from happening. you put yourself at risk every day and you try to do the best you can to protect the people you are sworn to protect and serve. how can the rest of us do

anything less? if there is one step we can take to prevent more americans from knowing the pain that some of the families that are here have known, don't we have an obligation to try? n't we have an obligation to try? [applause] if these reforms keep -- keep one person from murdering innocent children or moviegoers, a span of minutes, isn't it worth fighting for? [applause] i believe it is. thta is why i will keep working and giving my best efforts but i ill need help. this is not easy and a lot of

members of congress, it is tough or them. those opposing any regulation -- affecting guns, they are well organized and very well financed. it can be done if enough voices are heard. i want to thank the police officers who are here for giving their best efforts every single day. i want to thank governor hickenlooper and all the leadership and all the families here for your courage and being willing to take out of this tragedy for something positive. i want to thank the people of colorado to come together in a sensible ways, let's see if we can get the whole country to do so. thank you. god bless you and god bless the

united states of america. [applause] >> later this evening, n.r.a. david keene also talked about gun laws and votes being considered in washington. it was at a dinner hosted by the republican party in pennsylvania. this is a half hour. it's a to say that real pleasure to be here. you in pennsylvania. i have a soft spot in my heart for pennsylvania. rich was talking about the pittsburgh annual meeting that we held a couple years ago here. that's where i was elected president of the national rifle association and got to know rich. i can't think of anybody who i would rather have introduce me.

this is mr. gun rights in this state. [applause] it is a particular pleasure to be here but pennsylvania is a great state personally and from the standpoint of the national rifle association. many of you probably know this, there are more n.r.a. members in pennsylvania than any other state in the union. texas doesn't -- [applause] my wife is from texas and texans don't like to hear this but it is true. you know pennsylvania's supportive of the second amendment rights has gone a long way. the folks who live here seem to get it regardless on what part of the state they are from, particularly those in the middle part of the state. i remember some years ago being on the panel with james, you

remember him. he described pennsylvania as pittsburgh and philadelphia separated by a third world nation. [laughter] i said i beg to differ, it is pittsburgh and philadelphia separated by america. [applause] so i can't think of any place i would rather be this evening. i have to tell you i was the cabela's. .e.o. of he said i have to tell you how come wayne lapierre gets to go to the turkey federation and the mule dinner and they send you to harvard? i said i guess that is what happens when you get second choice. tonight, i had a chance to meet many of you. i thought this was a lincoln day

dinner and i see this is a gathering of n.r.a. members and i truly appreciate that. [applause] noun the national rifle association is not a partisan organization in the sense that the republican party is. i happen to be a proud republican. in terms of the second amendment, the second amendment and the right to keep and bear arms in this country is not, never has beens, and should not be a partisan position. the n.r.a. has had its support over years and has had its influence, not because we're a conservative organization or a republican organization, because we're an american organization. n.r.a. members include democrats, factory owners, farmers, businessmen, lawyers -- yeah, lawyers too. people from every walk of life hat one can image.

this is a lesson for politics, the strength of the n.r.a. stems from the fact that those who believe strongly in the values that we all share have something in common that goes beyond party, beyond whether they are a liberal or conservative, beyond position, beyond class, something that mr. obama understands and this is a dedication to american valley use and principles and freedom that gets them to step forward whenever they are challenged. this is a country, that strength derives in large part from the fact that americans have never been obsessed with politics. i have been, some people in this room may have been but most americans are not obsessed with politics. they are obsessed with their families, living their lives, takes and they want

to do that without having to devote all of their time without political activity. but the one thing that has distin wished americans that when those values are threatened our willingness to step up to the plate, whether it comes from the abroad or whether it is here at home. that's what has marked on those who believe in the second amendment rights, when our values are threatened we do what we need to do to step forward. politicians, many politicians, -- i was told by someone i won't name out of courtesy but someone you would be familiar with but the only reason for a party to

exist is to get hold and exercise power. my response to that was that is why we got into politics in the first place. that's not why we got active in the political speer. we got active, not so we can hold a job, not so we can exercise power, not so we can aggregate power to ourself but we believe in things. we believe in a view of america that goes back hundreds of years and we believed in preserving the values that we inherited. we believe and do believe we want to pass on the nation and the society to the next generation that we inherited from the last. that's why we're here tonight. not simply because we're republicans. not simply because some of us are running for office or because we hold office but because we believe. a successful party, a successful political movement has to be

based on principles and bleefs, values, and tradition -- beliefs and values and traditions. that's been the strength of the national rifle association. that is the strength of a successful political movement. it is something we must all do all the time, in every way we can. no political movement worth its sexual assualt changes its values to suit the womens of the day. -- whims of the day. a successful organization meets the needs and the policy goals. before this last election, the n.r.a. was criticized, particularly in the media because wayne lapierre and i and hris cox eerns went around saying if -- and i went around

saying if barack obama won a second term he would threaten the rights of american. we were told that was a ridiculous view. chris mathews suggested on the air that wayne lapierre was insane to suggest that. during the campaign, the president said i will never take your rifle, i will never take your shotgun, i will never take your side arm, i'm a believer in the second peament i was asked why i did not like that comment, it meant he had to go against everything he ever said in his political life and every action he has ever taken, even before he was elected to political office. i did want think he believed it. i received letters from n.r.a. members, remember when we

preveeve our rights and values are threatened we step up to the plate. i received letters saying i listened to the president and he sounded fine. i saved those letters until election day, the day which i hoped would turn out differently but didn'tpy sent all those folks a note. noting that within two hours of barack obama's victory speech his state department notified the united nations they would like a small arms trade treaty for signing just as humanly possible. the negotiations that were going on in the u.n. at that time to come up with a treaty that they voted on this week was coming to a conclusion in august. at that point the white house and the state department contacted the unite nation and said that the american

administration would like those negotiations put on hold. somebody noticed that if things are progressing as they were, a small arms trade treaty would appear on the president's desk in september and would become an issue in the president's campaign. the one thing they wanted to avoid was second amendment issues. if they weren't able to avoid them a lot of people would step up to the plate and do what they needed to make sure their rights were safe. right after the election, the president said he wanted the treaty. i wrote to those members and i said the fact that it took two hours to send that letter is a conclude. it is conclude that this guy is -- clue. it is clue that this guy is going to go after your rights. in newtown, connecticut they thought they saw that opportunity. the tragedy that took police

there in the minds of the people at the white house and in new york, that was an opportunity to achieve policy goals they have been seeking for decades. to begin taking guns they could, registering if they couldn't, and limiting the choices that american people have in purchasing firearms if they had to be limited to that. right after the tragedy, the president and others suggested that we needed to ban a list of guns, we needed to have all kinds of measures to keep honest americans from exercising a fundamental constitutional right, all in the name of saving the children. but, in fact, when the president named his vice president to head a task force and invited various people to meet with him, we sent our director and he closed the

door and said the president and i know what we want to do and we're going to do it. so let's talk about something else. it did not shock us, it did not surprise us. it is what we expected. it is our position and i think the position of the american people, that the president and his folks were asking the wrong questions. in the wake of the knewtown, they were not asking how do we protect our children? they were asking what do we do about guns? isn't this a chance to do something about guns? the n.r.a. and others suggested that was the wrong question. the result of that we asked former congressmen from arkansas, former u.s. attorney, former head of the drug agency and the former number two men of homeland security to put

together a task force and right the ask questions and that question was how do we protect our children? the task force included people like the head of the secret service. they came forward with a series of recommendations, one of which is the one way you protect your children is providing armed security to them because there are people in our society that they so mentally disturbed are likely to do anything. the day after the newtown tragedy, i found myself israel touring a facility where school security officers were trained. ack in the 1970's israel had a hole spade of shootings. at first, veterans and others rallied to the cause as volunteers and provided security

in their schools. over the years that system morphed into something more institutionalized. today, israel schools, each school hires in some way through the school budget or local financing private security to protect the schools in that school. they don't use the military, they don't use the police, they use trained, often veterans but trained people, especially trained to provide security in the schools to solve that problem. when i came back we suggested that is something that should be looked at in this country. a number of people said we were crazy. then they looked at it and realized out of 137,000 schools over 30,000 already have armed security so they did not want to suggest those people were crazy. finally, the president said now was skeptical of the idea. we put together this task force and the task force agrees with what the american people said.

the gallop poll shortly after newtown, asked people what did they see the problem that created this? the number one problem they saw was a mental health system that doesn't work because the kinds of people who involve nems this sort of thing are crazy. they are not criminals in classic sense. they are looking for some place to vent their fantasies and hostilities and that is someplace that is not protected, among those places are movie theaters, shopping malls and the like. second, american people said the problem was we're not providing security to our schools. we provide guards at meaningless office buildings. we have armed guards at banks and jewelry stores but not at our schools. perhaps our children are not as important as those things.

we decided we need to look into this and that is why the task force was put together. this week they came back and said among other things, every school in the country, with every local law enforcement agency, with teachers, administrators, and parents, look at their facility and look at the things they can do to protect their children under their care. one of the things they should look to is providing the presence of an armed security officer. those officers could be financed through local grants, state grants, school budgets, they could be volunteers, they could be part of the administration that exists today, but they should have the training necessary to do what they need to do. we're not talking about arming every teacher and every principal, we're not talking about simply letting these folks have firearms to do with what they will but providing the real training necessary in a shooting

situation in a school. the empirical evidence suggests at in shopping malls and elsewhere, when there is someone there armed that school shootings are stopped, shootings in malls are stopped because the people who engage in this are not looking for a battle they are looking for a killing field. when the killing field is denied them they go away. we made those suggestions. those suggestions are on the table and we think will be taken seriously. interestingly, one of the parents of the children killed at newtown called and asked if he could come to the press conference and we said he could come and say what he wanted. we did not urge him to do so. he came and he said specifically that he wanted to thank the n.r.a. because we have taken the problem that resulted in what happened in newtown seriously and have take an look what the

could be done to prevent future tragedies of this sort. that's what we're doing. we take our responsibility seriously. we take our defense of the second amendment seriously. we take the concerns of our members and the citizens of this country as seriously as any organization that any of you have ever seen. most of you here, many of you here are members of the n.r.a., many of you are life members, many have been member for decades. those who aren't and even some of you who are, when you go on the street and ask someone about the n.r.a., they think of us in term as the advocacy mission. we're the organization that defends the second amendment. that's a core part of the mission of the national rifle association but that is only part of it. the n.r.a. was formed in 1871 by a group of former union generals who saw during the several war

that the american understanding and facility with firearms had decreased as people from europe who moved in with no firearms background, from a culture who did not use guns and the n.r.a. was the answer to that to make you are sure that americans in the future would have the same skills and same familiarity and the same appreciation of the second amendment. two of the founders were general , and between 1871 and 1970, the national rifle association never endorsed a candidate. we didn't have a lobby organization. we didn't have a lobbyist. we didn't need a lobbyist. we didn't need a political operation. there was widespread agreement in this country that the founders knew what they were doing when they included the

second amendment in the constitution. like members of the n.r.a. included everyone from kennedy to roosevelt to humphrey. there was no partisan divide among gun owners. that changed as the culture wars in the 1970's broke out. all of a sudden, hostility to the second amendment became an ideological card to many in this country. it was a democratic member of congress, a man who is still serving from michigan. he came to the n.r.a. and said you can teach as many people as you want about gun safety, you can teach as many people as you want about gun handling, you can train as many shooters an you want, you can provide as many trainers as you can train, but unless you defend the second amendment, there's not going to be any hubtsers, there's not

going to be any competitive shooters because it will be gone. because of that the institution of legislation was founded. because of that the n.r.a. got into the role, which many people see as key to our efforts today. despite of that, 90% of our funds and our efforts go into the traditional things that we're always involved in. we're involved with boy scouts, the girl scouts with competitive events and the like. we have 92,000 shooting instructors in this country. one of the things we're going to do as a result of what the group suggested is we're going to take seriously on to ourselves the development of best practices set of training for people who will be involved in school security, whether they are

police. we do train a lot of police today. whether they are school officers who are assigned to schools and one level or another, whether they are private security people or if they are school personnel. we're going to develop and provide to the extent that we can the training that these people need to be certified as having the skills necessary to protect our children. the n.r.a. has always been interested in these kinds of things and always will be. we will never and i say this before a partisan audience, we will never surrender our principles. someone criticized me because i met with someone during the course of the argument. i said i will meet with anyone, i will talk to anyone but i won't surrender. we do need, all of us, if we believe strongly in this, we need to talk to people, we need to educate people. the one thing we don't need to

do is surrender our principles and the two things are mutually exclusively. you can talk to those who don't agree with you but you don't have to surrender. members of congress don't have to surrender and legislatures don't have to surrender. this is an example of a guy who would never surrender. when i talk to partisan groups when i talk to gun group, that is what i tell them. if you're involved because you believe never, ever surrender your beliefs. think about ways to get other people to join you. think about ways to increase your numbers. think about ways to win. that's what a party does, a proper party does. that's what a movement does. that's what people interested in affecting the future of the country do. you know, i would like to -- i'm

accused of going on too long so i'm not going to do that. i want to tell a story. we're in a position today, and i know in this room, probably 99% of the people here feel as i do about the second amendment. i was talking to a group of congressmen last summer. was asked by one -- it was at a breakfast, he asked me what would you say the s the greatest accomplishment of the national rifle association? the n.r.a. can't take credit but the entire second amendment community and the sports community can take some credit. we live in an era if you talk to people they will talk to you about how the american culture is deteriorating. but in terms of the second amendment, the american culture has changed for the better.

1968 asked someone in after the passing of the gun act or two years later when the comfy case of all side arms us with passed, if you suggested then that we would have the rights under the second amendment that we have today, people would have laughed at you. we have those rights because we stood up and demanded those rights. we organized. the congress is not doing what the president wants it to do on second amendment issues because thousands of upon thousands upon thousands of american citizens have been calling and contacting their congressmen and senator sage don't you dare. i talked to a good friend from a gun-friendly district, a member of congress who has been a-rated by the national rifle association. he says in the last three weeks

i had my staff count, i received 5,000 phone calls from my own constituents and their general message is we now you've been a-rated. that was yesterday. we want to know what you're going to do today and what you're going to do tomorrow. he said i'm going to do what i did yesterday. at the end of the day, politicians listen to the people that elected them. they listen as long as those people make their opinions known. that is our job to make those people involved in the political process. that is our job as the people of america to realize that vision. people who work for us know what we expect them and what it is we want them to do. if we do that we will success. at any rate, i said in answer to this question, i said you know, nobody would have guessed it would be today. when we face the last

have five million people. barack obama delivered his statement on the second amendment, 58,000 called and joined. we didn't put him up to that i want you to know. it's because so many americans out there share our values and share our concerns are willing to step up, and i said, what's happened over the last few decades is more and more americans are involved in the shooting sports for the first time in three decades, the federal government study of the outdoor sports found that more hunting licenses were sold by about 8% in this last five-year period than any five-year period in recent memory and a lot of those were young people. that hadn't happened before. more people are going to the range to shoot than ever before. high school shooting teams that were abolished in the 1970's

and the early 1980's are coming back. we know because we provide grants for many of them for uniforms, firearms, transportation and the like. so i said there's a big difference between now and then, and that is that today firearms are cool, and people are enjoying the shooting sports as they never have before. they're buying guns not just for self-defense purposes but to take to the field to hunt, to got toning -- go to the range, to shoot, to have a good time. 10, 15 years ago, could i have gone -- could anybody have gone to a gun store and found a pink gun? think about that. [laughter] gun manufacturers don't just get up some one morning and say, i think i'll make a pink gun. they do some market research. and our biggest growth up until this current spurt as a result of what's taking place now over the last few years have been women who have been taking to the field, taking competition, buying firearms for personal

protection, getting involved in the shooting sports. i talked to the organizers of a gun show in virginia that do a lot of these east coast gun shows and they keep track of these things and they said five years ago 8% of the people who attended their shows were women. last year it was 38%. go to an n.r.a. annual meeting and see how many women are there. that wasn't the case 20 years ago, 30 years ago. when i finish this presentation, this was during the summer, this young lady came up to me because the members had their interns at this breakfast and she said, mr. keene, she said, you know, you are absolutely right. she said, i'm going back to school and she said, at my sorority every friday we go out to the range and shoot and i looked at her and said, you know something, 45 years ago at the university of wisconsin, if i called up some sorority girl and said, hey, it's friday afternoon, why don't we get our guns and go to the range, i don't think i would have gotten that date. [laughter] so the world has changed and

it's changed in some ways for the better and we're not going or let a group of ideologues financed by a crazy mayor of new york roll back those games not now, not ever. [applause] i'm here tonight for the same reason you're here tonight and that is because the folks who you organize for and you -- who participated in their campaigns and help knock on doors and provide the funds for their campaigns believe as we all do, they believe in these principles. they deserve your support. they deserve all of our support. and if they get that we are going to be able to pass on to future generations the nation that we inherited. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> tonight on c-span, former secretary treasury henry paulson discusses the economy and politics of china.

and then we'll talk about political protests in america. and later, a speech by defense secretary chuck hagel. >> on c-span form, the brookings institution hosted a discussion about the challenges facing our women in the middle east, north africa. their guest will be undersecretary of state for ublic diplomacy, tara sonenshine. that's at 11:00. of then at 12:30, society american business editors and writers spring conference. how journalists can use social media. at 3:00 a key note speech from the c.e.o. of a.o.l., tim armstrong. it's live all afternoon on c-span and c-span.org. >> people always like to ask me, how did you -- how did you come across this story? people always ask writers about that. what you find in news stories

while you are supposed to be working on something else, which can be a little frustrating at times, and that's exactly what happened to me. i was doing a little internet look h one day and just at this photo. it was on a department of energy website. and they had put up a little newsletter for one of the department of energy facilities, and this newsletter was saying, this month in oak ridge history, something along those lines. this one i just loved because there seemed to be a beautiful vanishing point at the end of the room and i looked at these machines with these dials and knobs and i was just so sucked into it. i also -- the women just looked so lovely and they got the nice posture and the little 1940's hairdos and i read the caption and it said, "these young women, many of them high school graduates from rural tennessee, were enriching uranium for the world's first atomic bomb. however, they did not know that

at the time." >> this weekend, the lives and work of women in atomic city, oak ridge, tennessee, one of e manhattan project secret cities. on american history tv. >> it's really significant that this mound has been preserved through all these years. at one point there were probably about 30 to 40 of these mounds around the salt river valley. and only a couple of them have survived. most of the mounds were much smaller. about a third to a quarter of the size of mesa grande, and its sister mound which survives also, pueblo grande. so a lot of those were destroyed, and these two great mounds did survive. and it offers us an opportunity to study the tribe, learn about their lifestyle and hopefully learn how complex their social and political organization was.

i've always thought with arc yoling one of the great -- arkeyology one of the great things we have about archeology, we see them building these canal systems here, i think it gives you hope for the future because if they could do this in the desert with digging sticks, what is it we can't do? >> this weekend, book tv and american history tv tour the history and literary life of mesa, arizona, including a look at the great temple mounds built by the indians between 1100 and 1400 a.d. saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv and sunday at 5:00 on american history tv on c-span3. >> at george washington university, former treasury secretary henry paulson talked about the economic and political challenges facing china. he also addressed their environmental problems and

u.s.-china relations. mr. paulson is now chairman of the paulson institute at the university of chicago. this is an hour. [applause] >> good afternoon. it's a pleasure to welcome you to george washington university where we are honored to host today's conversation, a preview event for the 2013 "fortune" global forum which this year will be held in chengdu, china. each year the forum brings together chief executives and global thought leaders to discuss national commerce and other global issues. this year i am delighted to announce george washington university will become the first and so far the only educational partner for the "fortune" global forum. the forum will provide access to our students and faculty and alumni to some very important content that is developed there, but

also "fortune" will have access to our faculty expertise. it is now a pleasure to introduce today's speakers for this preview event. henry, better known as hank, paulson, was sworn in as the 74th secretary the united states department of treasury n july 10, 2006. as the secretary, he was the president's leading policy advisor on a broad range of domestic and international economic issues. in 2011 he founded the paulson institute, a nonpartisan center at the university of chicago, committed to promoting sustainable economic growth and a cleaner environment. before he entered public service, secretary paulson held several leadership positions at goldman sachs, including that of chief executive officer. secretary paulson has long advocated the building of a stronger relationship between the united states and china. while at goldman sachs he established the firm's china presence and promoting collaboration between the two largest economies has been the

core purpose of the paulson institute. he has written numerous articles on u.s.-china relations, on the nature conservancy's asia-pacific council and supported research on chinese investment in the united states. andy serwer was named managing editor of "fortune" in october, 2006. his responsibilities included overseeing "fortune" magazine and fortune.com with a combined audience of more than 11 million readers and the digital media and "fortune" conferences. under his tenure, "fortune" was named to ad age hot list in 2012. in 2010, "fortune" won the society of business editors and writers award for best in business general excellence. that year the magazine also received a global war and new york press club award for the 2009 reporting on bernie madoff.

he joined "fortune" in 1985 as as an intern from colombia journalism school and served as reporter and editor on stories about wall street, investing, information technology, and entertainment. he is a regular guest on msnbc's "morning joe" and cnbc's "squawk box." from 2001 to fwix he was cnn's editor for "american morning." join me in welcoming secretary hank paulson and mr. andy serwer. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much, president knapp, and thank you to everyone here at george washington university. thank you to all the students and everyone else who has come here today.

we are delighted to see you all. and also thank you, secretary paulson, for coming. and having this conversation with us. let's get right to it. the conversation today, of course, is about china and the united states relationship with china. as president knapp suggested, hank is uniquely qualified to discuss this given his role in government at goldman sachs and the nonprofit world. each one of those roles is salient in a unique way to what is going on in china and the relationship, the u.s.-china relationship. i think you will see that. let's get right to maybe the most important topic with regard to china right now, mr. secretary, the changeover in leadership. i know you have said the good news is that president xi jinping is a strong leader. the bad news is that he has to be one. i wonder if you can explain exactly what you mean by that.

>> yes. andy, and let me also say, it is good to be back in washington. if only for a day. particularly good to be here with all of you. andy, you stole my line. yes, he's a strong leader, and they have a strong leadership team. we can talk a little bit about that. but i think they've got some real challenges. this leadership team is going to be tested by challenges domestically and internationally over the next 10 years. managing that economy, the scale they have to manage it given the pace of change is just unprecedented. their current economic model, i think, is running out of steam. i think they need to reinvent that. he has some other major hallenges.

he really needs to make some big changes in governance. institute the rule of law, which is very necessary for continued business, economic, and political success. the environment is a big area of concern and protests. needing to address the dirty air and the dirty water. corruption, again, which is infuriating a lot of chinese, particularly over issues like property rights and so on, it s a big challenge. this leader i think it's particularly strong. he standing committee, which

is the senior leadership group of the party, the standing committee of the politburo is now seven rather than five. it will be much easier to reach consensus. xi jinping, the president, and and the premiere are two members who are not term limited so they will be there presumably for 10 years. the other five are really good getting things done. and expectations are very high in the country. you would have to look back and just remember how high expectations here after president obama was elected. they are high because there is a general perception which i agree with, reforms which stalled for at least five years. there's a lot to be done. they are high because his leadership style is very appealing, very different.

he speaks extemporaneously. he has said when people meet with him, bureaucrats aren't to come in and just read talking points. that he has really spoken out against some of the abuses of power and some of the perks. he wants to do away with so many of the motorcade that -- motorcades that disrupt traffic. you are not to have sumptuous entertaining. when i had lunch at the embassy here a couple of months ago to say goodbye to the ambassador, i came away a little bit ungry. instead of the standard eight, nine courses, it was four courses and a soup. he said there would be no more hard liquor served when the military entertains. liquor company stocks dropped

10% the next day. there's not as many people in the v.i.p. waiting rooms and the casinos at macau. so, he's done some things symbolically. he understands the role the private sector has got to play. i think expectations are high. but there's a lot that needs to be done. it's really a difficult challenge running an economy, where you just take a look at what happened. never in the history of the world has there been a country of that size that has had so much change so quickly. and the expectations of the chinese people are continuing to grow. so, to continue to manage the change, and to put into place reforms on the scale in which he is going to have to do it, and the place of a vested interest -- and people are going to be fighting for the status quo -- his leadership team has his work cut out. >> you touched on a number of challenges in terms of the economy switching him a

-- from a production economy to a consumption economy, the environmental factors, the political factors vis a vis some of the neighbors. you haven't even touched upon. but i want to talk about corruption. when i talk to some people in china, they seem to indicate it could be problem number one. the feeling among many people in china, many people in china, perhaps, is to get ahead in china you don't play by the rules. the feeling that that is something that has changed and is different from what it was 10 years ago, and that this is something that president xi needs to address and is very keen on addressing, do you think that is correct? >> let's step back and little bit and talk about rules. the reason i started off when i talk about the challenge, i talked about instituting the rule of law. as you look at the history of

china's economic reform, they moved very, very quickly. and so, to move that quickly, they use pilot programs. they encouraged innovation and various activities, which were really at head the rules they had in place. it has been a country -- it is a country ruled by men as opposed to law. that is probably an oversimplification. ut i think the reason that i and so many others went as frequently as we did to china was relationships were very, very important. the country is now at a size and a scale where, for them to be successful, they are going to need to engage in institution building to be able

to implement, not only to have laws in beijing and roles but to be able to implement and enforce the rules across a wide range of areas. from the environment to securities laws, and so one. -- and so on. a lot has to do with not just rules and institutions but it has to do with good governance nd transparency. i really believe that the only way for this to work is both the leaders and citizens have got to be invested in the rules-based system. o, now you come to corruption. this is a serious problem and it is infuriating people. i would say the biggest source

of anger -- there are a number -- but one of the biggest sources has to do with property rights. nina civil officials -- municipal officials taking and selling land, which is one of the big financing vehicles for urbanization. but going after that corruption, the head of the disciplinary committee and a member of the standing committee is the man we know well here. he was my counterpart at the s.e.d. he's been one of the top economic reformers in china. he knows how to get things done. >> it's the strategic -- >> excuse me, strategic economic dialogue. so he's a doer, and this is not an easy challenge because you have to go after it. i am sure, looking at it systemically. and then they will need and

already have had some very well-publicized examples in terms of government officials, ood business people. this is a significant problem, and as xi has said, it is a significant problem and they are taking it on. not just in china. in much of the developing world, this is a significant problem. >> perhaps gets magnified by the rate of growth. >> because china is so large. don't think there is more corruption in china than there is in india, for instance. or many other places in the world. but because china is such a big engine in the world economy, and there's so much change

there, that it is a huge issue. >> i do have questions from all of you, or some of you, that you submitted, and we will get to those. a lot of things we want to touch on first. sustainability, i mentioned, is something you are very keen on. something that is really the focus of the paulson initiative and the paulson institute. having a sustainable economic growth plan, a model, perhaps, advising china and the united states on how to implement sustainable economic growth. we hear about the environmental problems in china, mr. secretary. i am frankly a little bit surprised they haven't been addressed quicker, and i think i share that feeling with maybe some others. in fact, the problems it seemed to be getting worse over the past couple of years, accelerating over the past couple of months. of course, the pollution in

beijing, the dead pigs in the river in shanghai. and then seeing stories in the paper this week about these problems. what will it take for china to really begin to address it? it seems at some point, the cost of not doing anything will exceed the cost of sitting still -- or changing it, i should say. >> andy, as you said, the paulson institute is a think and do tank, it's not-for-profit. it is focused on u.s.-china because we are the biggest economies in the world, biggest consumers of energy, biggest mitters of carbon. so a lot of it is focused around -- our focus is on having economic growth and having it be sustainable. everything from investment in the u.s., encouraging chinese investment in the u.s. that leads to more jobs in the u.s.,

to leadership practices, best ractices in business for the leaders of the state-owned enterprises and other big companies in china that are seeking to become leading global companies. and then a big part of it is focused around sustainable urbanization. because that will be, in my judgment, the biggest economic event of the first part of this century, with another 300 million chinese to go to the cities. that is going to be a driver of economic and environmental outcomes. you are right, we need a new model of growth. but let's get to your question specifically about the environment. because as i explain it to people, the chinese have done some extraordinary things in terms of the amount of an

investment they have made in alternative sources of energy in the clean technology. he largest user of wind. they are going to be a huge user of the solar. they've invested -- they've got a big percentage of manufacturing capacity of solar in the world. they've shut down many more dirty power plants than we ave. but they have been winning some battles but losing maybe the overall war because the good things they've done have been overwhelmed by the pace of their growth. and i think they now recognize it. he public is demanding it. and also growth -- sustainability, i think, too

many people just been a buzz word and i think people are beginning to really understand the growth model isn't sustainable. i mean, what's mohr point of g.d.p. worth if people are dying from dirty water, dirty air? there's all kinds of estimates about what the drag is on economic growth from the dirty environment. are a some people believe several percentage points. but it is clearly not sustainable. and i think all of us in the world need to really rethink some things. you know, economic growth and environmental protection are not at odds, not -- opposite sides of the same coin when you look at it on a longer-term view and you are looking at onger-term prosperity. and i think the chinese and all

of us need a new economic framework that basically says that we need a model of economic growth that lets us increase our standard of living while recognizing the scarcity of resources, natural resources, and not undermining he ecosystem and environment we need for water, food, the air we breathe, for energy. i think we are close to the tipping point globally in these issues. and of course, the chinese are focused on this big time. and they need a new model of rbanization. and i believe they will achieve one. that is why i am spending the amount of time i am spending there. >> do you get the feeling i'm a though, the alarm bell has gone ff recently? >> yes, i think first of all,

they've been focused on this for some time, they understand it. but what you see, the dirty has gotten a lot of attention. of course, the air in beijing s dirty. largely because of there is a cold winter and you've got hese migrant workers who don't have the same economic benefits that others have in china. there is something in the neighborhood of 300 million my grants from the farms that come to the cities and they don't have the same economic benefits, they don't have the to education benefits, and keep themselves warm they've been burning dirty coal -- coal, which is the cheapest coal they can find, to stay warm. and if you look more broadly,

you know, i spent a lot of time with people that are my contemporaries and some of whom discount climate change. when you are looking at 50 degrees below in russia, snowing in istanbul, burning tires to stay warm in kuala lumpur, the coal in beijing, i think this is a serious global problem, and i don't think we can solve this in the u.s. alone. the only way to solve it is to develop new clean technologies in a an be rolled out cost efficient basis in scale in the developing world, particularly china. >> migrant workers -- not just cars on the coal-fired power plants? >> i just say this -- because i

will get to this -- when you say what are the things that china needs to do in terms of economic model for reform, you started off by saying -- which is true -- they need to move to ore economic growth and biggest services sector and less reliance on exports and heavy government investment in infrastructure and resource -- exports. but they also need to normalize the labor market, which is a tricky thing to do because -- but if they do it, and if they take the restrictions off, you know, mige grant -- the migrant workers as they go to the city and if that's done properly there will be a consumption dividend so they got to do that. that's probably the second thing i'd say they need to do. the third thing i would point out, which we talked about, is to deal with these environmental issues that are so tough.

they also need to continue the reform of the state-owned enterprises. and they need to reform the financial markets, which we've talked about, and this urbanization -- they need a new model for urbanization. where they're going to continue to be able to -- this process on a magnitude and scale which is unprecedented and do it where they minimize some of these social, environmental and economic stresses and part of it will be municipal finance because right now they're land sales.nt on taking the farmer's land, selling it, and ok means of finance. so you need to come up with a system where mayors and governors, whether on budget that is transparent and they've got authority. so, they've got a lot to do. >> let's switch over to another difficult subject, quite

frankly, which is hacking. a tricky subject when it comes to u.s.-chinese relations. a couple of questions. s the chinese government behind hacking the united states, institutions in the united states, companies and governments? if so, how bad is it? and if so, how should the u.s. respond? >> ok, well, let me start with a little background. first of all, i think all governments engage in intelligence gathering vis a vis other governments. so the big point of friction and tension comes when a overnment or a company gathers

ntelligence through hacking, gathers intelligence, trade secrets, from u.s. companies. and that's the point of fiction. and here i started off by saying i think it's really important for all companies to do everything they can to protect themselves against cybertheft of all kinds. and it's also the responsibility of the government to help ensure, you ow, that this economic security. so now, let's move to china. his is a major area of tension with chinese and right flee -- rightfully so. we desperately need some

international, some global protocalls in ways of enforcing this and we need to find common ground with china on these things, because it's in make ne's interest to re that economic security is maintained. ow, as i look at it, the china have the same strong interest that we do and every other major nation has in preserving our global economic system and not have it collapse because we can't agree on rules to enforce conomic stability. this, to me, is something that -- is really an important area.

>> so, what do you think -- just to follow up on that -- do you think the obama administration -- the obama administration has been slow to criticize china or call china on this, i guess you should say, but recently they did. do you think that is an appropriate response? >> i think the obama administration has clearly got a responsibility to help our ompanies protect their intellectual property and their trade secrets. and i think as we look at what we need in this country, we need, i think, stronger laws. we need to be able to enforce he laws. i think businesses need to do a much better job of hardening their computer systems.

so they are not as vulnerable. and i think they need to do a better job of reporting and attack immediately. and we need the laws and we need to enforce those laws. >> in your book "on the bring" -- and you are working on a book that should be out early next year -- in the meantime, everyone should have read i believe your first book, is that right, "on the brink," which is about the financial crisis, one thing i point out is in september of 2008, things were bad obviously, deteriorating very fast in the united states. vice premiere en

to give him an update on what was going on here. you kind of warned him and he said, maybe things are ok, and you -- he said, actually, hank, maybe things could get worse. i thought was a fascinating interchange. how and how closely do the chinese monitor the u.s. economy? >> well, i think, of course they monitor it carefully. they were highly reliant on exports. i think the financial crisis was the first wake-up call they had. i think the second one was the european crisis. and i think now they just really understand -- what is their economy? $8 trillion now. and if you look at europe, the u.s., japan has $35 trillion. and so they just can't insulate

themselves from what's happening in the broader world when they are as reliant as they are on exports. and so i think that's another reason why they're working so wide o have more domestic growth. the chinese were very aware of what was going on. as you know they were big investors of securities. they are the largest holder of our treasuries. the largest foreign holders of fannie mae and freddie mac securities. so they had a big interest, and frankly, i think that the relationships we maintained and the level of trust we built up through the strategic economic dialogue really led to a very constructive relationship and they behaved in a very responsible way throughout the crisis. nd we communicated frequently.

even to the point that when george bush made a very important decision, which was to -- when he called the global leaders meeting to deal with the crisis, he made a decision to go with the g-20. you know, heretofore you had the g-7 finance ministers, the g-8 leaders and there was a g-20 group that had central bankers. so he decided that the g-20 was a much more representative of he global economy. he rightfully had some concerns and said, would there be a constructive outcome? one of the things he asked beforehand was to -- he asked to take a quick sounding the president to see whether the chinese were willing to assume a leadership role and play a constructive role and

they got back very quickly which i think then made it easier easier for president bush to decide to go with the g-20 which obviously made a lot of sense. >> sticking with the financial sector -- what is the number one priority in terms of reform that china should look to in he financial sector? >> to come down to number one, i think, is difficult. there are several things that they need to do. one thing i would look at to see how serious they are about reform is to say, will they open up their markets to foreign competition?

because i can't -- i don't know of a single market where there -- efficient, world-class capital markets where you don't let the best institutions come in and compete. it's hard to run a world-class institution as a joint venture. so the argument that i've made to the chinese, if you let foreign banks come in, they are going to be regulated by the chinese. they will be employing chinese professionals. and it is only by doing that you will have world-class financial markets. hings that i think are important to the chinese are that right now the private sector is not getting the capital base in the current capital it needs in the current system and having really efficient capital markets you're going to come up with a more efficient allocation of capital to the private sector and the other thing is investors.

investors in china -- you have a bit of a real estate bubble. because you say, where can they invest their money, it's real estate that's one of the few areas where they feel comfortable investing, and to be able to, i argue, having world-class investing institutions in there will help china become a nation of investors, not just savers. and right now you have oversavings in china for two reasons. one because it's fear-based savings. adequate safety nets, social security and welfare, and the other thing is they don't get really good returns on their investments. so interest rate liberalization will be really important. what happens is chinese investors got few places to go,

i said, other than real estate, or you could put it in a bank savings account and not get the rate of inflation. and that's a subsidy that really gets past on to state-owned enterprises in terms of lower borrowing rate but it doesn't help the private sector and it doesn't help the chinese saver or investor. i say interest rate liberalization will be one thing to really look at. opening up to competition so you can have world-class institutions. >> do you think they are likely to happen? >> i am optimistic because when , look at what they've done the chairman of the pboc, their central bank, was given -- he was -- reached retirement age and he's been asked to stay on. nd he's been a big advocate of financial market reform.

another, a real reformer, working with juan je in the old days and is now the minister of finance. the chinese s.e. cremplet will had aired by a man who been previous -- i know him. he was chairman of the bank of china. again, i think these are all very knowledgeable professionals, pro-reformers. but it remains to be seen. because i would say anywhere you have success, a certain amount of success, there is resistance to change. o, i would just simply say, we have a vested interest in our system. they have vested interest in

their system. and so they are going to be anti-reformers. >> i want to switch over to some questions from the audience. this one is from luis. he asks -- what are your thoughts about the recent apple-china dispute? do you think it was necessary for tim cook to issue a public apology to the chinese people? >> luis, i read the same "wall street journal" article and "financial times" article you read. so let me put it in perspective. china is a huge market. and u.s. companies and all sorts of companies are benefiting greatly by participating in that arket. so apple historically had looked at china as sort of the factory of the world.

o, apple -- computers, iphones and so on, were assembled in china and sold in the u.s. and around the world. but what's happened, as with economic growth and greater prosperity in china, it's become a big market, end market. i think it's well over $20 billion of sales this year. it's their fastest growing market. some people think it's the fastest market for smartphones n the world right now. so apple's got a big percentage, a big stake in that market. i think what you're going to see is foreign companies -- and there's a good number of u.s. companies and other foreign companies who got leadership positions, they are going to be under a lot of

scrutiny. they are going to be held to a very high standard by regulators. there's, you know -- i'm not saying all of this is fair, but the l tell you when chinese look at what happens to some of their companies in the u.s., they don't always think it is fair. would say the good news for apple and for the u.s. and for the chinese and for the world is that's our fastest growing export market, that's our market that's growing very quickly and it's very important to apple. and what happened is they were criticized on state tv. they started off arguing that their customer service and business norms were the same in china as elsewhere. and at the end of the day, you

know, cook ended up apologizing. this is a big, important market. >> this is a question from a g.w. graduate student. there are two questions here. i think you touched on the first one. do you think china needs to make political reforms in order to achieve a sustainable -- achieve sustainable economic growth? and the second -- what is the next most important economic growth engine for china in the next few decades? maybe the second one is something -- >> first of all, i didn't talk about political reform. i talked about -- so i do believe that -- and i've always believed that economic reform, economic freedom, greater economic integration with the rest of the world quite naturally will

lead to more personal liberties, which it has over time and political reform. now, the chinese political system is still evolving. the last transition, the one before this, the first time a sitting leader did not select a successor. this was the second one. i think the way to understand china is, they look through the lens of political stability. so when making any tough decision, whether it's in international relations, whether it's in economic issues, environmental issues, whatever, they're going to say, what is the path that's going to give us the greatest stability? and the argument that i make is speeding up economic reforms and political reforms rather than undermining stability is going to be the quickest path

to stability. and i believe that will be the case, will prove to be the case for political reform. there is a lot of discussion and debate in china how the political reforms will take place. i think the general view is that will take place first within the context of the arty, and experimenting with local elections, village elections, maybe giving more real authority to the national congress, the people's congress. so i do believe that's another challenge, and i believe that for economic -- for real economic stability, t is going to continue political reform is necessary. >> what about china's military, mr. secretary? should china expand its

military and make it bigger? i ask you that given the backdrop of the pinnacle islands which is i believe the u.s. name for the islands that are disputed between china and japan and, of course, what's going on in the korean peninsula. >> ok, i give you two sentences on the second one. you ask what's the biggest driver. i think it will be urbanization if they get it right. >> ok. >> in other words, i think the productivity, if someone goes from the farm to a second-tier city and their income goes from equivalent of $40 a month to $100 and if they go to a first-tier city, $200. if they get it right and they get the consumption boost, that will be the biggest driver coming up with the urbanization model of economic growth going forward. ok.

so, you've got a bunch of questions in there. ok. >> i do. i threw them all in. >> whether china should continue expanding their military is -- what i think about it or what you think about it is irrelevant. they will keep expanding their military. >> ok. >> and from their perspective, our military spending exceeded the -- exceeds the top 15 countries put together. so i always explain to them and to everyone, it's important for us to be strong in asia and around the world economically, diplomatically and militarily. and our presence in the asia pacific has been important to everyone including china,

because it ensures stability. and you've got this trade and economic cross-investment and growth that has benefited all of us. now you see the two troubling things that are going on. ne, in the east china sea, the dispute between japan and china -- the japanese call it the senkaku. the chinese call it the d.o.i. when you look at the merits, it is easy to understand it from both sides. if you look at history there is merit on both sides. but this is dangerous. i think the points that the u.s. make continually to both sides is there needs to be really good control right down

.o the boat commander level great channels of communication at the top political levels, top military levels, because there has been a lot of tension. ow, i am optimistic that the ew foreign minister is a -- is someone who speaks japanese, is a japanese expert and that he's selected to go into that role and to -- and they will -- and that both sides will be able to de-ess can late because this -- de-escalate because this stability is totally necessary for the kinds of economic growth that asian needs and the -- growth that asia needs and

the world needs and for stability in the region. and then, of course, in the south china sea, that is different because this is territorial. china has territorial disputes with just about everyone. philippines, vietnam, indonesia and various countries have territorial disputes among themselves. and there we don't take sides. we just simply say, listen, it's just unacceptable, as it is in -- in the east china sea with the japanese that these be resolved peacefully. not with force, the threat of force or coercion, that they be esolved peaceably. we need some solutions in both the south china sea and the east china sea. >> and korea, how long is china going to let that situation continue to go? >> again, i am reading the same

newspapers you are. but looking from the vantagepoint of watching it closely and watching it when i was treasury secretary, in one respect, this is -- although virulent more extreme orm, north korea's customary disruptive, outlandish, threatening behavior. this is the worst form of what we have seen, number one. now you've got to take it seriously when you've got a rogue state developing nuclear weapons. and i look at this with your oint in your question. this is a case in point of why u.s.-china relations are so important. one of the reasons when i talk

about it, i say it is hard to think of any major problem in the world that isn't going to be easier to solve if the u.s. and china work together and isn't going to be much more difficult to solve if we're at odds with each other. and so i think when looking at almost any problem, one way we should think about it is what does it take to get china aboard and if we can get china aboard, it will be easier. now, on this one it's been difficult because on -- you know, on the one hand, the chinese are very angry at the kinds of behaviors you're seeing with kim jong-un and that regime. on the other, they've propped it up economically because they don't want a collapsed state on their border and south korea right on their border.

and so the way i tend to think about it, it is highly important we be communicating regularly and doing contingency planning in terms of how to deal with the worst outcomes. because if at the highest level we have the same interest, because if at the highest level we have the same interest, which is peace, stability, economic growth in china, asia, and around the world, but we need to be prepared in terms of how we are going to deal with -- even if they are not high likelihood outcomes, outcomes where north korea uses force or you have a collapsed state or what have you. >> we are out of time, but i do want to ask you just one more question from the audience -- what potential role, if any, do you see for international students and asian-americans in bettering and strengthening u.s.-china ties? >> well, that is a great question. i would just start off by

saying the reason that i set up paulson institute is because i believe there will be ups and downs in our mutual relationship based upon what the issues of the day are in beijing or in washington. and to come back to andy's point, one of the disturbing things about military relations with china is our two militaries don't like each other that much and we don't have the same level of trust as we have in the economic arena. and economic arena, there is tension, but that is the good news. 40 years ago we didn't have economic relations with china. we had no tensions. you always have tensions with your trading partners, but if there are problems there all kinds of trust in channels of communications. we need ways the two militaries

to work together on humanitarian missions, these dialogue which we are pursuing need to work better. but there's nothing like students. and the more knowledge we have of each other, the more we know about each other, the more we trust each other, the more we will like each other. you don't make adversaries -- it is hard to become an adversary of someone you understand. and one of the biggest problems we have is we have very different systems and very different cultures. theone of the things that united states, what we don't do particularly well, is others -- understand others' cultures and systems. we are so proud of our system and the way we are that we think what we have in every way is what is best for every other society.

studentsg american spend time in china, get to know chinese, and vice versa. this is going quickly to -- i think it is very important for u.s.-china relations going forward. >> i think it is a wonderful know to end on. obviously we covered a lot of ground, much more to talk about but we will have to save it for another day. so, please join me in thanking secretary hank paulson. [applause] thank you to everyone here at gw. [applause] >> today, the u.s. announced it was sending a missile defense system to guam to guard against possible attack from north korea. defense secretary chuck hagel discussed the military threat

posed by north korea. korea has been a region,for not just the for many years. the responsible powers in the starting with national security, permanent national and japan havel been part of talks with north korea for a number of years. withve been trying to work the north koreans to persuade them it is not in their interest, and certainly the korean peninsula's interest, as they have been part of this as well. to pursue nuclear weapons. have nuclear capacity now.

they have mulct -- missile delivery capacity now. so as they have ratcheted up their bellicose, dangerous rhetoric, and some of the actions they have taken to the a realw weeks present and clear danger and threat to the interests, certainly of our allies, starting with south korea and japan, and also the threats that the north koreans have leveled directly at the united states. ,egarding our bases in guam threatened hawaii, threatened to the west coast of the united states experience as secretary of defense, and beginning with the president of the united states and all of our leaders, we take those threats seriously. we have to take those threats seriously. i think we have had measure

responsese, serious to those threats. are undergoing joint exercises with the south koreans now. can,e doing everything we working with the chinese and others to diffuse that situation on the peninsula. said in a news conference i guess last week, when asked about this, it only takes being wrong once, and i don't want to be the secretary of defense who was wrong once. so we will continue to take these threats seriously. ratchethe north will this very dangerous rhetoric down. there is a pathway that is responsible for the north, to

get on a path to peace, working with their neighbors. there are many benefits to their people that could come, but they've got to be a responsible member of the world community. and you don't achieve that responsibility and peace and prosperity by making nuclear threats and taking very provocative actions. >> we will be showing you chuck hagel remarks in their entirety in about an hour. you can do it any time at our website, c-span.org. north korea will be the topic on tomorrow's "washington journal." "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern time here

on c-span. is important to remember a central banker, his tools are limited. a central banker cannot control everything that goes on in the economy. it is important what writers do, and they do shape the course of economies and the world. that said, at the end of the day, they do have finite powers they can use. they have a dial and they can say we are going to put more money into the economy, or less. it is a lot more complicated than that, as you and i know. they can influence things in other ways. but to think that everything that has gone wrong is their faults -- alan greenspan probably got too much credit for the great moderation, the many inrs of strong growth we had

the 2000 boss. it is easy to blame alan greenspan and the federal reserve. >> neil orlin on the creation of the world's central banks and other managers developed global power, sunday night at 9 eastern, part of book tv this weekend on c-span2. >> earlier this evening, we discussed political protests professor david meyer. david meyer, as professor of sociology and political science at the university of california irvine. he is the author of the books " the politics of protest." thank you for joining us this evening. >> the right of free speech, assembly, and the right to petition the government, who do

we have to thank for that echo >> you could go back and think about liberals like john locke, who thought that the best wasection for the people the capacity to challenge the government. jameshe very clever mattis and figured out that it was better to have your conflicts in the open rather than clandestine, that if you could bring conflict in to government and dissent and destruction into government, then you would make a government that was more stable. and united states has not always

moot -- lived up to the highest ideals of free speech, but the basic premise, debate -- if debate is inside government, the less likely someone will take up arms to take over the government. host: you talked about james madison, the history of american protest, going back to 1773 and the tea party. you wrote that james madison envisioned a government that would embrace dissent and offer malcontents the hope that they could get what they want by working through it. take some of the recent examples. take codepink and occupy and other movements. do you think these organizations are getting what they want by using the tactics they are? guest: nobody in the united states gets all that they want, and activists are always disappointed. but the challenge -- can you get better working within the system or outside the system? one of the really interesting things about codepink at the democratic national convention, codepink was there to remember about the war. a lot of activists on the left had voted for president obama, who promised to close guantanamo and end the wars. and both of those wars were going on. codepink remembered. similarly the tea party took to

the streets and decided that the best way to be affected is to invest in the electoral campaigns of 2010. they made huge gains, but i will bet some of them will call today and talk about how they have not gotten what they wanted inm making those inroads electoral politics. again, it is this terrible balancing act. when you get inside the doors, when you get to testify before congress there is this promise, the temptation that maybe this is the most effective way to pursue an interest. and it is never enough. host: david meyer with us for the next hour to talk about political protest groups and their effect on the political conversation. that is what we are asking you -- what is the place of these movements? we go to michigan.

and this is jack on our republican online. caller: i was going to make a comment that this pink group, i do appreciate freedom of speech. but i do not appreciate getting the facts wrong when trying facts present a viewpoint. two of the biggest shootings in america were down with hunting rifles and bolt action. the shooting of the tower on the college and president kennedy. there are less than 15% of shootings done today with assault style weapons. host: the gun control debate. the issue of gun violence.

where do see the tide influence going between groups that are calling for more gun control and groups that are defending gun owners' rights? guest: one of the big issues in american politics is that social movements are not confined to one side of the political spectrum. one of the reasons that activists get frustrated and mobilize their opponents. gun-control activists, people who want limits on assault weapons or large magazines, are going to take to the streets. they're going to lobby congress, but they are not the trying to influence government. and what winds up happening is that activist fight to get a stalemate. the immigration activists and the anti-immigration activists over the last five years have fought each other to a stalemate, and both sides are

completely frustrated because they cannot get what they want by acting on a slate and mobilizing lots of support. there is another interesting thing that jack raised, what's true? stories circulate in activist circles. and it is very easy to get information only from people who already agree with you and lots and lots of misconceptions circulate on both the left and the right. that is the scary thing about contemporary america. host: back to the group codepink. one of the ways they have been affected in getting into congressional hearings is they draw response from members, as is the case with the late senator bird. here it is. [video clip] >> i would tell you that the number of troops would be a small fraction of those that are in the country today and i think no one really knows what the duration of their presence there would be. it would depend -- the contracts operate under the coalition, a provisional order 17, which says the non-iraqi

contractors are immune from legal process is if their acts are pursuant to the conditions of their contract. >> my upbringing tells me -- that sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage between a man and woman is immoral. that is what i was taught. that is what i believe. >> this hearing is adjourned. >> -- jail! thou shall not kill! >> clear the room. clear the room. we have had enough of this. clear the room. clear the room. [gavel pounds] that's enough of this. >> we've had enough of the war. >> i have tolerated all i can stand.

i stopped it before you were born. i said stop it before you're ever born. i said do not go into it before you're ever born. get out of this place. let's go. host: back to our conversation of protest groups, social groups and their role and the political conversation. this is david on our democrats line. caller: i appreciate codepink. they may go too far. a lot of us are individuals that are not belong to any necessary group. we find that when we contact our representatives, we do not feel like our voices are that powerful. we feel like we are just a narrative and something they tolerate. i called my congressman in reference to a shooting were six police officers -- a person ran a stop sign. he pulled an ak-47 and blasted their car. they were not killed and

returned fire. but the person in the congressman's office said that was outside his district. they were not willing to connect it to the trouble of assault weapons. they told me, that is not in his district. organizationslad are protesting in making their point known at these hearings in these affairs like this? guest: the challenge for codepink is to get people to talk about their issues rather than tactics. if the story that comes out of codepink disruption is that the prison camp in guantanamo camp -- camp in guantanamo is open, then they win. if the story is that somebody crazy clothes got hustled of the hearing, that is not a victory. both of those things, and it is the balance that activists have to way, whether the tactics.

host: phoenix, we talked to george on the independent line. you are on the air. caller: i think the main problem -- that the not heardors are enough. this is because the mainline media and also c-span to some extent does not cover issues in depth and they do not give people like medea benjamin to give their views very often. and the media has excluded many topics from discussion about politics and the drones and so forth. we are not getting information out to the american public to make decisions, and the media is run by the corporations who do advertising and they cannot

do things that go against any of the corporations. and the military-industrial complex that president eisenhower talked about. host: what do you think of his view? guest: i think most media corporations make a profit. peopley understand that are more likely to tune in to events rather than issues. and reporters cover events, and they do not talk about ongoing inequality or war or healthcare. they talk about what people are doing at any given moment. and groups like codepink try to use that by setting up in the event that raises an issue. but you guys in the media, c- span less than other outlets, need -- you call it that? ame sort of event to hang story on it, and codepink generates event.

host: we simply tried to cover as much of congress and political conversation, from beginning to end, so it often happens that a codepink group will be at a hearing, particularly a high-profile hearing that we are covering. a couple of comments on twitter. we are looking at folks posting and mentioning c-span. here is one -- who says good to know the extremes so one can compare. professor is right. teach madison, no marx. one of our viewers is posting a link to a program we did on the origins of the black panther party. we go back to calls. hartford, new york, john on our republican line. caller: yes. i'm upset by the fact that agent provocateurs will often be

used to disrupt peace groups and to make peace groups look like crazy people. and therefore, when i participated in peace activities against the vietnam war, i became reluctant to get involved in some of those activities because the fbi and other law enforcement people provocateurs -- the crazy in some rallies. this caused problems because it makes the peace groups look like a bunch of idiots. veryr society, it is a difficult to get the peace message out, as the media does not seem to want to do that. it sounds unpatriotic and i think the corporations who

support the media feel it would be unpatriotic to let peace groups have their say. so it is very seldom that people like ms. than to men who was on get a chance to talk on something -- ms. benjamin get a chance to talk on charlie rose or something like this. agent the use of provocateurs in policing social groups is very dangerous. the lead up to the 2004 conventions in new york city call all local groups said they were having young men with short hair cut come in and profess their new interest in disrupting the convention. it is hard for activist to know whom to trust and who not to trust. on the other hand, sometimes this infiltration leads to stopping groups and stopping

violence that we know about, like the fbi used undercover agents to infiltrate the ku klux klan in the 1960's. and the black panthers. it is a real dilemma for a democratic society. if we believe madison, to bring all these groups into the open and rather than send police into the groups. host: from our democratic line -- kathy is in wyoming. what is the role of protest groups and the political conversation? caller: the role is exactly what they are supposed to be doing. they are saying we are the people. the government is supposed to be working for us, not corporations, not the military- industrial complex. they are working for us, the people. they are supposed to be standing beside us, the people.

the people are crying out and begging them to understand, we do not want to be -- military bases all over this globe. we have over 700 bases. and we are infiltrating everything and everybody that we can because we are paying the corporations that run the military-industrial complex. we are supporting them. we're not supporting the people. we should not be telling everybody. and all of these conservatives want to say they are against abortion. excuse me for digressing, but they are against abortion. but they have no problem sending our sons and daughters to other countries to kill or using drones, using drones to kill innocent women, children, men other countries. living in their own homeland.

and we are over there killing them, murdering them. over here, all of the christians and the republicans are screaming out that we should not be using abortion, giving rights for women, but we have no problem sending our children over to kill other innocent people in their own homeland. host: david meyer. she talked about abortion. what about the right-to-life movement? how effective have they been? guest: they have been affected at constraining the availability of legal abortionin much of the united states. that has sometimes been a headache, not only for doctors but for the republican party. again, if the anti-abortion people were the only people on the political field, they would win.

but there is another side. they have been activists that have taken to the streets from the 1960's to promote access to legal abortion and contraception. and that has been activism, too. there are two side. i wanted to add something. most people would prefer not to go to a demonstration. they prefer to do the easiest thing possible to present their interest. people take to the streets when they feel desperate, when they feel like they are not going to get what they what in any other way. it is a last resort. and that is what kathy was reflecting when she was talking about a host of issues that she cares a lot about. she is saying the government is not responsive. therefore, i have to do what ever i can to hit the system in the side of the head and waking up. host: has your research to look at, for lack of a better term, armchair protesters. andfellow who called us

liked the codepink protests. people who appreciate the fact that people are protesting, whether it is right to life or codepink or occupy, have you looked at the views of people who did not protest but are affected by the protest movement? guest: movements are the tip of the iceberg of what is going on. forever demonstration that you see, left or right, where people take it for every demonstration that you see, each person represents a much larger fraction of people who are -- and may do one small thing to support the group. the people that give money to anti-abortion groups who would never stand in front of a clinic but they cheer on when people are there. neverare people who would turn out to disrupt the hearing, but they get excited and they turn on codepink's web

site and cheer on what they are doing. that is part of the way american democracy works. maybe, maybe that affects how elections play out. smalla party is a very fraction of people were active. about 1/4 of the populists supported them and some of those people voted the tea party line in 2010. forctivists want to speak the 9-10 of the icebergs underneath the ocean. and it's always up to us to figure out how accurate that representation is. host: let's take a look at facebook and see what some people are posting. here is one from ray -- for the most part, all protests are a waste of time in a un- brainwashed side. every single time people try to ask questions to issues, the

politicians call to have them pulled out, destroying their first amendment rights. the only question that arises is how all of you in office are afraid to let them ask. stronglyrtarian, i support codepink and their struggles to bring the cause of liberty to the forefront of public interest. here is in hawaii -- jeffery in hawaii. independent line. caller: thank you. i appreciate this show. my view on the issue is that everybody is screaming and yelling, you're taking our rights away. rightss, you are taking away to protect our borders. what about the rights of the people to go to the movies and be there safely? or to go to the grocery store and not worry that a stray bullet may come and kill your

child. there is a problem of responsibility out there, the lack of responsibility for gun owners in this country starting from the moment it is sold to the moment they are used. someone should be held responsible. that goes for abortion as well. myself, i belive in the right to life, but i believe in the right to choose. i believe that 90% of it is responsibility. you take that responsibility when you go through that act. it holds true, a lot of these issues. not allowing people like us to voice our opinions. host: david meyer?

guest: social movements set a broader agenda. if we take the gun issue, we know from public opinion polls that most americans support some of the restrictions that the national rifle association opposes. in normal politics, other issues come to the fore -- members of congress will be talking about the deficit or taxation or jobs, also important issues. and when people take to the streets, sometimes in reaction to a critical event, it kind of puts the other issues at the top of the agenda and demands attention. and protesters -- protest is a good vehicle for doing that. host: republican line, dwayne, welcome. caller: i enjoyed brian lamb's program today on codepink. i am a vietnam veteran. i went to washington d.c. in

1965 and it was impressed upon me that visitors in the galleries were not permitted to do anything, and it would be promptly rejected. that is what they should do with all of those codepink demonstrations. get them all out of there. they are abusing our democratic system and denying the majority to hear the public hearings. i did a lot of research on a lot of these people, starting from the vietnam war. a lot of them, like bill lairs and his wife and kathy bodene. they do not go away. they stayed there. the same thing with medea benjamin and her ilk. they are going to be around a long time and they're going to get into a lot more mischief. anti-democrat, anti-american, doing everything it can to

destroy the american way of life that most of us have grown up with. host: a quick answer to this,. house and senate run by a strict set of rule. if you interrupt senate business, you will be removed from the gallery. when it comes to house hearings, the chairman and the subcommittee chairman pretty much run that room, and as you can see in the video showed, that is pretty much up to the call of the chairman. let's hear from cal -- in new york city. our democrats line. caller: thanks for the program. i wanted to comment on what i have always felt has been a very visible lack of media sophistication on the part of the leftist protest groups. i'm afraid a lot of the footage had been showing has been

proving my point. i do not think that any of the major protest groups over the last decade -- move on or codepink or the occupy movement -- embraced the idea of clearly communicating their message in that clear media language. turne 1980's, the left against that kind of slick, polished michael deaver brand of messaging, because they felt that it was taken up by the right and they almost deliberately made an attempt to become less sophisticated, to contain or refer -- to convey a rougher message. i saw the program with medea benjamin. the images of signs that he could have see.

notuse the auditorium is wired for sound, you can't hear. it is the lack of sophistication of the communication of the message. host: we will hear from david meyer. guest: in any kind of political movement, there are lots of people that it swept up and want to have their say, and some of them articulate and some are not. and activist on the left on the right have wrestled with house with a message to produce. there is an organization called upworthy on the left, that is trying to have cool online images. i want to come back to the point of the people that are dangerous and trying to destroy america. you know, historically, every act of this group in american history has been described as the great unwashed, trying to pull down america. and the judgment of history

winds up vindicating them. martin luther king was surveiled during most of his life. he was labeled a communist. and now you are in d.c., there is a monument to him. i think that judgment of history vindicates some of these people who are disparaged during their lifetime. host: in addition to civil- rights, who would you say are the two or three other most successful movements in history? guest: i was thinking about women's suffrage today. it was seen as unpatriotic, unnatural. the first convention to fight for women's suffrage started in 1848. the constitutional amendment that guaranteed women the right to vote was in 1920. i would say from the judgment of history, you look back and say that was a pretty good decision that was controversial

for a very long time. i'm happy the abolitionist triumphed, also. it was the first issue discussed in the constitutional convention in 1789, when they wrote the constitution. the civil war to end it. termave to have a longer- view of history to see the impact of social movements. do you know what else? it is hard to think that the people who were opposed to the war in iraq in 2003 got it wrong. i mean, it seems like their judgment turned out to be better than some of the armchair strategists who were ready to weigh in and say this would take a very short time and be very easy. it's hard to make change. host: our guest is david meyer, professor of sociology and political science. as we take your calls and comments about the role of protest groups in the political

conversation. another half an hour. here are the numbers -- 202- 585-3885 for republicans. 202-585-3886 for democrats, and independents and others -- 202- 585-3887. before we get back to calls, a much more modern, current issue, you write this week about same-sex marriage. in particular about the button that has been used by 3 million facebook users who have used the equal sign. compare the 3 million users of that button, how does that step up with 1 million marchers on the mall? what is a more effective way of getting their message across? guest: it is hard to figure that out over the long haul. and it is not one of versus another.

i am sure some large percentage, some small percentage of people that are ready to change the profile to an artistic pink button will also -- were also contributing to candidates. it is never either/or. participation in politics tends to be cumulative. it is a great example of a movement that has been extraordinarily effective in a short amount time. i mean, it's not hard to remember a time when civil union was seen as a radical step forward and a concession to gay activists. now is seen as a last resort of conservatives who want to stop them from getting to marriage. that is pretty fast. it does not seem fast to the activists who are struggling for marriage equality, but in the scope of american history that is effective. you have probably had some of the people who are responsible for this on your show.

host: let's hear from tim on our independent line. caller: i wanted to voice out about where independent press people like me have been squashed down from homeland security because of issues about what you're -- what we are talking about, the alws in place -- the laws that should not be in place. causes an issue for us independents trying to get the right message out there. do not want to get stepped on by the government every time that we are trying to get our word heard or seen. that time, everyone gets to see what needs to be seen. even though the mass media does not respond. i have been doing it for 20 years. i got stepped on. that is not good. there is something wrong with that picture. somebody abuse their power,

because they did not likely me-- like me video taping something that was necessary -- host: can you tell us what media organization you work for? independent an photographer for all media stations throughout the united states and around the world. host: tim. david meyer? guest: we are dependent on information. it is supposed to be powerful. tois hard for many people get a clear view of what the government is doing in all kinds of areas. and it is hard for most people to know exactly whom to trust. i think the dangerous thing that americans can do is decide that one source of information that starts with an agreement with them is giving them true facts.

one of the dangerous things about the proliferation of social media it is it is really easy for anybody to click on a site and decide that is giving them gospel and not looked for a broader perspective. and alternative viewpoints, and alternative media is one additional source. i'm sure you agree, that the more people know, the better decisions we are going to be able to make. this is something james madison thought. host: here is alexander and maryland, calling on our republican line. caller: how are you doing? i agree with the professor with what he said as far as martin luther king goes. some protests do help. at the same time, i think that some protest can be destructive, too, at times. especially -- today in the

u.s., and how things are so unstable. as far as culture-wise. i feel like there are so many different types of cultures now. for example, you have people who are christians, people are muslim, people who are all different types of religions, all different types races and that. theyveryone, some people, become really -- about it. areink sometimes, what you talking about with the media. reporting on these issues, sometimes they give these things that should not be given so much attention more attention than what they should be. there feel like that should be like more attention

given to a peaceful protesters, instead of people who are violent. at the same time, i believe that there has been -- moral decay in this country, as far as how people treat other people, as far as respect goes. and i kind of feel like things have -- not have gone well, things have not went as smooth as should, so far. host: you have put a lot on the plate. thanks for the comments. any response? guest: it is of the first country with lots of different people in interest. to find a way to communicate is a difficult challenge for anybody. again, there is a media issue, which is media companies want to generate audience for their

advertisers. and that means if you go to a demonstration and you see somebody giving a three- paragraph long summary of what they think about immigration, that is less interesting than somebody who is holding up a sign or a picture of president obama with hitler mustache. the one thing i would encourage all activists to do is leave the hitler mustache at home. host: he mentioned about groups getting more publicity perhaps than they do. maybe that is the squeaky wheel effect. can you think of a group in recent memory that got more media attention perhaps then the group deserved, or the issue deserved? guest: it is hard for me to say that something does not matter. i think that one set of activists that have not been doing demonstrations and has been effective are the people fixated on the deficit.

somethingt is not that is salient to most americans, but it is too small group that has invested a huge amount of money and activism and getting politicians to focus on it. when we talk about on conventional politics and social movements, it is not only demonstrations on the streets. it is also calling in to programs like this, lobbying congress. ofis doing all of the range things that people do to get what they want. host: next up is pennsylvania. michael is on our democratic line. caller: yes. over the past 40 years or so, i have been able to go out -- to different things. it is interesting how the media can use things when they do cover them. i remember 10 years ago we were

protesting the war that dick cheney and bush were promoting. it is still one of the ones we are in or something, but we were protesting because we are peaceful people. i remember it was a cold day in pittsburgh. i had a long coat on. i do not have much hair, but had a beard. so i wrapped my scarf around my head and we were marching and it was probably a four-hour march. and the protests. so i had to look however i looked -- disheveled and everything. there i was the next day on tv. part,e i'd betrayed the it looked as if i was a middle eastern person because i had my scarf on. it looked like i had a turban on.

i was the backdrop on "good morning america" the next day. they just amazing how, if want to create an illusion, they can create an illusion that is opposite. the media has the means to do that. and i think they do do it. another time we were protesting something to do with the spending, and it was a big meeting. we had a lot of different social groups there. many a sign about how military bases there were. all of a sudden, someone said, can i take your picture? i said, i did not think anything of that. i looked on the back to see who it was. when i went on the web site the next day, i was nowhere to be seen. but there were a lot of other

people's pictures. if i was so important, or i was such an interest, why didn't my picture show up on their website? or were they really for where there were from? the people they were saying they were. host: thank you for your comment. it back to -- there is the agent provocateur. what do you suppose was up there with the photographer trying to take his picture? guest: television is a visual media. photographers look for good pictures, and editors tell them which ones are the best. the best pictures are not the most representative. they are the ones that make images that will project to a large audience and our exciting. i do not know how many times i have seen a picture of somebody holding, wearing a tricornered hat with tea bags. codepink has tried to play into

the media stuff very aggressive the. at the democratic national convention, you recall there were dancing vaginas. they wandered the streets. i saw that because that was an interesting visual. host: you mentioned the tea party patriots -- they have a news stream. one of the story today is congress spends like it is going out of style. congressman spend, they said the huffington post reported that outgoing members of the house give large bonuses to their staffs. it is one of a number of articles in a ticker they have. to oregon we go. curtis is on our independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call.

thespect social media and power of the internet, because in this day and age, it is a solution to a couple of important problems. one of the biggest problems i see is the propaganda machine that has been in operation for years, since before world war ii. this propaganda machine that convinces people that activists, the social groups are not what they really are. i had the opportunity to facilitate the occupy wall street movement in montana. i got many discussions with the city commissioners as well as the police chief. there were a lot of things that were done in missoula media- wise, it painted the occupy movement is a homeless and hippie movement. but what we forget is that the

media is owned by five corporations, down from 20. the media has painted the occupy movement completely opposite of what it is. the movement consisted of individuals from all backgrounds. steel workers, teachers, students, homeless individuals, people from all walks of life that were taking advantage of their first amendment rights to stand up and speak out against injustice. here is another problem that i think it changes our country. it conditions people to believe these things that are not true. it stifles the movements that are geared towards improving humanity. there is a guy named mario -- in 1967. he sat on steps in 1967. there is a time when the operational machine becomes so odious, that makes you sick at heart that you cannot take part. after throw your bodies upon the wheels and the leaders in

the gears and upon all the apparatus and make it stop. and you have to indicate to the people -- host: you said, you used the word stifle. do you think the occupy movement has been stifled? haver: over 2000 cities popped up to support the movement to speak out against injustices, against not only americans, but people all over the globe. host: let's hear from david meyer. thank you. guest: if you want to go to the university of california- irvine, you have to apply. if you want to join occupy or the tea party, or any social movement, you show up in claim membership that affords anybody who is covering the social movement the flexibility to pick whatever image they want to project of that movement. when curtis says there is a huge diversity of the people in occupy, i believe it, but i saw

many media sites taking out the most colorful, dramatic or offensive person saying, this is what occupy is all about. and that is the danger of democracy, when you let people in, there is no bouncer at a social movement activity. so there is a broad picture of lots of different things going on at the same time. what social media allows activist to do is to get the word out independent of what mainstream media wants to cover. that means that occupy wall street still has a web site, they have twitter. they feed out the information they think is important. and groups across the country are engaged in a range of issues. and they are getting much less attention from mainstream media, but there is stuff going on.

host: your conversation, your calls on the roles of political protest groups and their piece of the political conversation. maryland is next up. our republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am calling because i have been urged to social media for a custody dispute i had, being involved with the father of my daughter for the last five years. each time i went to court and complained about the father's behavior with the child, the court silenced me. legalirst took away my custody. and i was involved with pro- life groups that i -- and had urged me -- the father, we are not married. and when my child was born, he was automatically given equal rights to have her and his life.

hadughout the five years i been in the court system, each time i had spoken out and contacted my congressman or different people to step in and look into the case, and i go back to court. it seems like i am punished the more i speak out about my case. you: are you punished, do believe, because of your participation in pro-life activities? caller: i believe i am punished because i am speaking out publicly about my case, and the judge is angry that i have contacted some people. but: it sounds personal, any comment you want to make about her case? guest: it is hard for me to say something smart about a custody case i do not know anything about. i wish her luck. host: you mentioned a while ago, about this organization

called upward. the website says, things that matter. pass them on. what are they doing. best: they are trying to media savvy and have images that reflect the best a progressive or left viewpoints. here are things that will go viral to promote the ideas we believe in. i've seen them reflected on facebook a bunch of time. they come up with the right image that people want to be certainly. they are very conscious of being media savvy and image that it. ist: berkeley, california, next. our democrats line. caller: thank you for doing this. i am very much supportive of codepink. i think they are necessary to bring the issues to the public

because the media is the corporate media. they do not cover these things. they will call up the heritage foundation or conservative think tanks i have never heard the call the left to ask their opinion or codepink. so we have to have codepink out there. they have to change the dialogue from talking about the deficit to talking about the 99%. and they change the dialogue about drones. they are to be congratulated. is people that think this not democratic, this is democratic. of course it is democratic. you have to bring these things to the public because the media is not doing it. host: david meyer? guest: margaret nailed it about codepink putting drones back in the news.