tonight at 8:00 eastern, a look at health care and the cost to taxpayers. we will examine the current needs, and impact of budget cuts with connecticut the trent affairs >> when you have the teeth of the army gets up and say i have posttraumatic stress, it's ok. if you think of posttraumatic stress as a natural reaction to a naturall situation, reaction to an abnormal situation, it is posttraumatic stress. it manifests itself in many ways, but it should not prevent you from getting some help and help for your family to deal with the symptoms that you are

having. >> you can see that program tonight at 8:00 eastern. after that at 9:00 we will be live with a writer from military times to talk about veterans' issues, national perspective. we welcome your calls, facebook comments, and tweets. >> president obama renewed his call for stricter gun control laws during a speech yesterday at the denver police academy in colorado. red state approved background checks of all gun buyers and has limited the size of magazines. president obama says congress should do the same. remarks are just under a half hour. approvedtate just background checks on all gun buyers.

>> 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] he's here somewhere. next to him, joe garcia, an outstanding lt. governor. [applause] one of the finest young senators, michael bennett is here. house,ic members of the 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 your communities. id before i came out there 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. protectd about how to our citizens from gun violence. we've wanted law enforcement to shape 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 bad experience. experience. 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 possible.

it is 120 days since the murder and0 children in newtown, , in reat educators newtown, connecticut which shocked the country and galvanized parents. they said, 'we have to something.' 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 doing what folks do every day.

just shopping, going to school. every day we do something about -- every day that we wait to do something about it -- more than one million are lost to us a year by 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.

[laughter] a strong tradition of gun ownership from generation to generation. 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. andeen protecting citizens our 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. steve mentioned thataurora is a purple city with a majority city council that came together to learn something had to make sense. we have seen done for background checks. this will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people without infringing on gun owners. [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 vote. before we asked, i signed numerous orders. dong what we could to make sure guns didn't fall into the hands of the wrong people. -- doing what we could. we have to get congress to take the next step. next week, they will be voting. every senator will vote on if we should have background checks for anyone wanting to purchase a gun.

some say we have background checks. right.e they have kept 200 from buying a gun. million people from buying a gun. the loopholes that exist allow too many criminals. criminals who don't -- they are allowed to avoid background checks entirely. it makes it harder for law enforcement to do its job. it is not fair to responsible gunowners who play by the rules. nobody talks about a new system. we talk about sealing the porous system that isn't working. youou want to buy a gun -- should have to pass a background

check. that's whether from a private owner or licensed dealer. that is just common sense. [applause] withg our last session gov. hickenlooper, he was in the midst of a passionate debate and some people said background checks won't stop everybody. but as he pointed out, statistically, a lot of folks have been stopped. law enforcement has stopped people who were convicted of murder, people who were under restraining orders for violent domestic abuse. and he mentioned to me law enforcement has arrested people

wh ocame to pick up the gun -- ,ho came to pick up their gun because they were wanted criminals. this does work. wouldn't you want to know that -- the person you're selling to won't commit a crime? [applause] these background checks won't stop all gun crime but will prevent some. it's common sense. most gun owners agree that 70% of nra readers agree -- and 90% of american people agree, there is no reason we can't do this unless politics gets in the way.

there's no way we can't do this. chanceenter wil have a to vote on school safety and help thsoe with mental health problems get what they need. and they will see if we can crack down on those who buy guns for the people who mean harm. forould make life safer those behind me. the police officers. ware should keep weaons of off our streets.

the high-capacity magazine clips. the type of assault weapon used , combined with a high - capacity magazine, it has the purpose of pumping out as many bullets as possible, allowing that gunman to shoot 70 people. 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? [laughter] but some senators float the idea of obscure stunts to delay any of these reform votes. think about that. they aren't saying they won't vote but that they will do the vote on the proposal that -- the overwhelming majority of american people support. they say 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. differentime this is 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. roaurora.t hour that is what the majority of americans, that is what they

want, 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 ground. how do you build trust, was one of the questions we talked about. i told the story of two conversations i had, when michelle 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. sheriff to respond. i can see how you would want protection. i had another conversation a few months ago with a mom from chicago, evanston, ill. whose son was killed in a rnadom 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 was not 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 whose 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 people 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 protection -- you

have to understand what it feels like for that mom whose son was randomly shot. and if you live in an urban area, you have to understand -- what it may be like if you were on a ranch and your dad took you hunting all your life. we had a couple sportsmen in our conversation today. one of them saidall of my experiences have been positive but for others, it may have been negative. that is a start. if we start listening we may get something done that is constructive. we should be able to get that done.

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 the facts but feeds into the 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. debately we can have a 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 have grieved. theave to get past some of rhetoric that is perpetuated and breaks down trust and is so over the top.

that it shuts down discussion. "holdimportant to say, on." someoneun-owners hear is taking your guns, get the facts. we don't propose a gun registration, but background checks for criminals. [applause] don't listen to what advocates or folks with an interest say. look at the legislation in colorado and if we know the facts and listen, we can move forward. that is what members of congress need to hear. you.om

many of the members of congress hold events 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 their jobs. many law enforcement members know what it is like to look into the eyes of a spose who has lost a family member to violence. spouse, or a parent or

grandparent. 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 -- don't we have the obligation to try? [applause] if these reforms keep -- keep one person from murdering innocent children or

or worshipers in 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 will need help. this is not easy and a lot of members of congress, it is tough for them. those opposing any regulation -- are very well financed. it can be done if enough voices are heard. those police officers here to help every day, i want to thank

gov. hickenlooper and all the families here for your courage in being willing to take out of this tragedy something positive and helping those people in colorado for coming together in sensible ways. get a whole we can country to do so. thank you, denver, god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. ♪ ♪ [playing a march by john philip sousa] >> president obama yesterday in denver. connecticut's governor is expected today to sign a bill that includes new restrictions on weapons and large capacity magazines.

a response to last year's deadly school shooting in newtown. the connecticut house and senate voted in favor of the bill crafted by leaders from both major parties. >> the undersecretary of state for public policy talks about what the u.s. is doing to advance the status of women and girls in the arab world. live coverage at 11:00 eastern. at 12:30, the society of american business editors and riders hold their spring conference in washington. you'll hear a former reagan budget director and a former comptroller general along with the federal reserve vice chair, at 12:30. at 8:00 eastern, the cost to taxpayers of health care for

veterans. the current needs of veterans, the type of treatment available, and the impact upon budget cuts, tonight at 8:00 eastern. [video clip] >> where is the unpredictability? what are the assurances that this committee in the senate has as to where you will be given the background and the history? >> as a teenager and in my early 20s i was a socialist, hardly seems to me to indicate fundamental instability. as winston churchill said, any man who is not a socialist before his 40 has no heart. any man who is a socialist after 40, has no head. that kind of evolution is very common. bork se two characters, was the einstein of the law.

specter was one of the toughest senators to lobby. he did his homework. he studied. in many ways, a brilliant judge. yale.te a book at these two guys were meeting and passing like two trains and. never did they come together on anything. >> more on the deputy assistant to former presidents nixon and ford sunday night on c-span at 8:00. inwhile president obama was a call about yesterday's speaking on stricter gun control laws, nra president david keene was in pennsylvania taking a different approach. he spoke at the franklin county republican party about having trained armed guards in the schools. this is about 30 minutes.

[applause] >> i want to say that it's a real pleasure to be here. here 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 nra 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. [laughter] you know pennsylvania's support 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. james carville. [applause] 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] i i can't think of any place would rather be this evening. i have to tell you i was the ceo of cabela's.

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? -- mule deer. 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 nra 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 been, and should not be a partisan position.

the nra 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. nra members include democrats, factory owners, farmers, businessmen, lawyers -- yeah, lawyers too. lifee from every walk of that one can image. this is a lesson for politics, the strength of the nra 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, paying their takes and they want to do that without having to devote all of their time without political activity. if they wanted to do that, they could've lived in france. but the one thing that has distinguished 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. why.at is not that's not why we got active in the political speer. sphere. we got active, not so we can

hold a job, not so we can exercise power, not so we can aggregate power to ourselves, 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 beliefs, values, and traditions. to anyoneling to talk everywhere who shares their beliefs and values. 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 weight in salt changes its values to suit the whims of the day. a successful organization meets

the needs and the policy goals. before this last election, the nra was criticized, particularly in the media because wayne lapierre and i and others 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 nra members, remember when we preserve our rights and values are threatened we step up to the plate. .- when we perceive 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't send all those folks a note. 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. it.ot i wrote to those members and i said the fact that it took two hours to send that letter is a 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 -- place 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 put second amendment right back on the table. 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 -- weor and he closed the sent our federal affairs doortor and he closed the 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 newtown, 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 nra and others suggested that was the wrong question. as a result of that we asked the 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 is of so mentally disturbed they are likely to do anything. the day after the newtown

tragedy, i found myself israel touring a facility where school security officers were trained. back in the 1970's israel had a whole 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. 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 themselves in this sort of thing are crazy. they are not criminals in a 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. and schools. 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 that 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 nra 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 nra, 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 nra, 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 nra 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 nra 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 nra included everyone from kennedy to roosevelt to humphrey. and eisenhower. 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 nra 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. going to be any hunters. because of that the institution of legislation was founded. because of that the nra 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.

shooting2,000 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 nra 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. to one thing we don't need 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. groupstalk to partisan when i talk to gun groups, 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. i 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 nra 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. 1968u asked someone in after the passing of the gun act or two years later when the comfy case of all side arms us -- confiscation of all sidearms was passed

. 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. we want to know what you did yesterday. 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 great challenge of second amendment grounds the nra had 1.8 million members. started,current battle we had 4 million members. the greatest day in terms of new membership was the day barack obama delivered his statement on the second amendment. 58,000 people called and joined. we did not put him up to that. the fact of the matter is it is because so many americans share our values and concerns cash and

are going to step up. what has happened over the last few decades is more and more americans are involved in shooting sports, for the first time in three decades of federal government study of the outdoor sports found more hunting licenses were sold in the last five years than any five- yearperiod in recent memory and a lot of them were young people. that had not happened before. more people are going to arrange to shoot than ever before. high school shooting teams that were abolished in the 1970's and early 1980's are coming back. we know, because we provide grants to many of them for uniforms and firearms and transportation. there's a big difference between now and then. that is that today firearms are cool and people are enjoying the shooting sports as they never had before. they are buying guns not just for self-defense but to take to the field for hunting, for shooting at the range, to have a good time.

different groups are coming in. 10 to 15 years ago, could anybody have gone to a gun store and found a pink gun? [laughter] think about that. gun manufacturers don't just get up one morning and say i think i will make a pink gun. they do market research. our biggest growth up until this beennt expert -- spurt has women taking to the field at, in competition, buying firearms for personal protection, getting involved in shooting sports. i talked to the organizers of a gun show in virginia that will lot of east coast gun shows. they said five years ago 8% of the people who had been to their shows are women. it was 38% last year. go to the nra's annual meeting and see how many women are there. that was not the case 20 years ago. when i finished this presentation, a young lady came up to me, because the young

ladies had their intern at the breakfast. she said, you know, you are absolutely right. i am going back to school. 45 years ago at the university of wisconsin five called a sorority girl and told go let's get our guns and to the range, i don't think i would have gotten that to date. the world has changed. we will not let a group of ideologues roll back those gains. not now, not ever. [applause] i am here tonight for the same reason you are and that is because the folks who you and participated in

their campaigns believe in these principles. they deserve your support. , we are goingat to be able to pass on to future generations the nation we inherited. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] a discussion on the challenges arab women face and middle east and north africa. we expect this to start and just a minute. this is like coverage on c-span.

>> live from the brookings institution in washington d.c.

for a discussion on women in the arab world. will talk about what the united states is doing to advance the women in that region. we will be live as the society of american business editors and writers hold their spring conference. among the speakers -- former controller and federal reserve vice chair at 12:30. tonight, a look at healthcare for u.s. military veterans and the cost to taxpayers. after that, we will be live with the writer from military times.

,e will welcome your calls facebook comments, and tweets. by in the brookings institution for a discussion on the role of women in the arab world.

live at the brookings institution in washington to talk about the challenges women face in the arab world and forth africa. tara sonenshine will talk about u.s. efforts to advance u.s. women -- girls and women in the region. >> good morning. welcome to the saban center for middle east policy at the brookings institution. the director of the center , tamara cofman wittes. i am delighted to welcome to our stage tara sonenshine.

we are here on your one year anniversary joining the state department as under-secretary for public diplomacy. what we wanted to do today was have an opportunity to delve of theparticular aspect sweeping change taking place in the middle east today. awakening has brought opportunities and openings and a great deal of anxiety and questions. issue is that mix of hope and anxiety more prevalent and around the status of women. mnc quality, empowerment, -- women's equality, empowerment,

rights. this is a good time to take stock of where it rings stand, of why this issue is important, and what the united states is doing as part of its support for change in the middle east. what is it doing to support the empowerment and equality of women and girls choi? i cannot the happier to have my friend here with us to help us address these questions. longtime media professional. she is someone who throughout her career has worked on and written about and spoken on issues of women empowerment and women's inclusion in the united states and on foreign affairs.

oncern with that can tur her to the state department. a champion for this ,ssue and american diplomacy continuing the work laid out by and they clinton ambassador at large for global women's issues. tara came after a career in media and strategic communications and diplomacy. she was executive vice president at the u.s. institute a hoste, an adviser to of organizations involved in or and affairs and diplomacy -- foreign affairs and diplomacy.

many of you may have come to know her do her work at abc news where she had a career as a aoducer of "nightline," reporter at the pentagon, and a contributing editor at "newswee k." i am delighted that you are with us this morning. the podium is yours. [applause] i want to thank you for not for so many me but incarnations that we have worked on projects together. you continue to be a role model for women and for men and

foreign policy. we thank you and applaud all that you do. thank you. [laughter] -- [applause] i was hoping to start the speech by saying spring has arrived. i will drop that line. spring would fully arrive for the women of the middle east and north africa. population region's -- those many of whom were on the front lines of the credit change -- democratic change party night equal -- change rd knight equal rights after the resolution --

deliver the same speech about the importance of women. we are moving beyond that speech into the post rhetoric stage of this issue. i want to ask you a few questions. about increasing the role of women in the arab world? beyond feeling good about ourselves. if so, why? will the full inclusion of women practically and lyrically and economically speaking -- politically and economically speaking make a difference amid this transition. how will we know what success looks like?

on the first issue -- fairness and human dignity are universal values. we tend to embrace those values very strongly when it comes to talking about the global economy. level playing fields. open rules, fairness, transparency, essential cell men and women can compete on the basis of their -- essential so men and women can compete on the basis of their drive. what about the broader sense? this week, former secretary hillary rodham clinton came to the stage of the kennedy center. we were all reminded of her remarks almost 20 years in

beijing. soember how she put it memorably --human rights are women's rights and women's rights are a human right wanonc and for all. once and for all. a common set of liberties to which all human beings are entitled. governments must hurt hecht and enforce those liberties so everyone -- governments must enforce and protect those liberties so everyone is protected equally. it is almost 20 years later. what is new to say under the sun?

what is new is a lot of data and research. we have an evidence-based reality on the subject. .tudy after study they have confirmed that any country or region that ignores half of its population will undercut its chance of success politically, economically, and democratically. fact. there are demographic realities in the arab world. young people, including young are a disproportionate majority. youth unemployment is among the highest numbers globally.

people are shaking their heads because they know that the youth bulge will continue until at least 2030. puts empowering young people at the top of every agenda. stick with facts. are the largest cohort in higher education in many countries and they are the next generation of human capital. if we limit the pool of emerging problem solvers, we ,ill limit unique perspectives experiences, skills, and solutions. we have to keep fighting studies.

women in the arab world have the lowest rates of employment of any region. the economies of the middle east will never reach their potential without women playing a more active role in the workforce. we have done the economics. go beyond economics. talk about extremism. setting upeople higher in their chairs. women are the ones most intimately connected in the community with families, neighbors. they are positioned to prevent extremist ideology from creeping in their communities. they are the most frequently teachers of respect and

tolerance. they can bring their attributes to more than the so-called women's issues space. they are good at conflict resolution, economic management of a household, and political leadership. taking theng women like a 34-year-old mother of three from yemen. a co-of the nobel peace prize in 2011 for nonviolent efforts to enhance women's safety, human rights, and peace building. developmentster of and international cooperation. , like the one who has

a science camp that brings opportunities to girls and women in the palestinian territories. can you imagine an entire if this is not just a short list of individual exceptions but regular citizens building and for structures of democracy -- and for structures of democracy. it is essential in today's arab world that women govern. of delegates at the national dialogue are women. they hold very few of the seats.n-making

women have three out of 72 seats in the new syrian opposition coalition. -- historic, important, egypt. the abuse of women has violated to only bodies but rihgghts free expression and to take part .n their countries transition . only about nine women legislators one seats in the parliamentary elections. it has been left to women in civil society like the national council of women to stand up against official announcements that distort religion and deny rights to women.

what is frustrating to many of us, there is an internal conundrum about this. what is it? women are needed in decision- making circles to bring political change. ,ntil there is political change women have difficulty obtaining influential political positions. i hope what i am doing for you is helping you to help women who are finding their voice to build forstrongest solid case their inclusion. the evidence could not be more clear-cut. , the are the bellwether barometer, and the building bricks of greater economies, and democracies, and countries.

we should care because they care and because they and us are in charge of building a safer world. another reason we should care -- the women in these countries care. when westop caring, stop talking, governments and economies backslide/ . ,omen are sidelined marginalized, and there is and can be retrieved. be retreat.and can violence,ectations, suppression of rights. the cost of systemic

discrimination and the failure to harness the contributions of women will have consequences. weeks ago i had the opportunity to sit with 16 women from the east and northern africa. they were here on an international visitors leaders program to meet with other tworks andand newtworks civil society people. you have to look at their faces. look at their resumes. , members ofians civil society, professors, doctors. they are in the trenches of

pushback, hostility, and resistance. they asked me to tell you they do not believe in retreat. the women from egypt were moving in laying out for me there challenges. they talked about teargas. they told me they experienced it almost every day. teargas comeshat in different colors. sometimes it is the kind that earns risk in or takes your breath away. -- burns your skin or takes your breath away. one woman joked, i think we are getting addicted to it. what they did not joke about rape ine and sexual -- grea their country.

they described how during a demonstration men surround women. one by one, they take turns .aping we are following these developments in egypt closely. no more so than secretary kerry who has shown a commitment to these issues throughout 30 years in the senate. he vowed to carry forward .ecretary clinton's work president obama and his administration share real concerns about the direction that egypt appears to be moving in but it is our hope that it

is still time to turn the corner. recent events in public ways make a difference to all people in egypt. that is a concern today. and urgedemn attacks prosecute those responsible, we recognize that in allviolence is societies and not only in cities but in rural communities. let's not have a downer day. -- many of16 women the 16 women shared good news. one moroccan womean said she is

the youngest female parlaying terry and in our rocco. -- parliamentarian in morocco. she was the first girl in her andage to go to school become elected to public office. determined to is make sure her story becomes g ry iraqi girl -- moproccan irl's story. isther girl from iran reaching out to women to produce democratic change. i heard stories of transforming societies echoed by women like the minister of social affairs in sudan who is working to protect children. the legislator from iraq fighting for the widowed women and the disabled.

a palestinian woman working on higher education. there was something unanimous in their stories. we want freedom. we want dignity. words mean things to these women. you have to be careful with word choice. i said that i prefer to talk about the gender space, not so much the women . it seems like we are beyond a space or corner. they said no. they are not ready to take that word women out of the lexicon. they want us to continue to talk about women and to talk -- and to make sure they are not

sidelined, abuse, or marginalized. he told me that women are the key. they want free economies and enhance securities and rights for women to go to school and our government to promote change to integrate them into peace- and security-building. preventingns on gender-based violence. they want us to do more to increase their civil societies. this jobfocused on in is trying to stitch together all that we do in the u.s. government and the community. how do you put it into a tapestry to show what we are doing to support societies and to create outcomes we can measure?

we do so much. at times, it is so disparate. we work in the middle east, africa, we join forums, we commit to progress on gender equality, we have a middle east partnership initiative and in error women's institution -- and and arabs women institute. we are doing so much. are out there every day meeting with women, leading workshops, trying to help displaced persons in iraq, mentoring libyans, training verywher.e.m ee how do you make that the real? with a an office

representative to muslim communities creating networks of changemakers, and office of global women's issues, a community of democracies, a public service project. less. enlists -- ende how do we explain that it all matters? powerfuls leaders oin ways. a young woman from morocco now leads human rights for a swiss civil society organization in her country. another woman is a political advisor and the iraqi government. a libyan woman wants you to know that she joined the education ministry. she has heard our call for female representation oin elemet

in education. -- in parliament and education. we have all of the programs anin area. women's mentoring, sports, film, ls.s, culture, tech griir how do we know it all works? track the graduates of the programs. what do they end up doing? graduates of the program have started to share their data and experience. are in yemen teaching

technology to poor students who have never seen a computer. these give us confidence and evidence and progress. thank you to the efforts of women and civil society. helping in tunisia. whating the objection and was the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, helping navigate that, and getting into tunisia's draft constitution something that affirms women as equal rather than complementary. thank you for the work you are doing to help us in syria. it is challenging to work in syria and the refugee camps.

we are working with the local coordinating committees in syria to mobilize nonviolent activist s. where are we? we are making gains. footholes. important to remember the progress, which saying so unimaginable years ago and remember our history. remember our american suffrage. susan b anthony wrote -- the women of this nation have ,reater cause for discontent rebellion, and revolution than a hundred years ago.

after our democratic revolution. before women got the vote. we still had decades of work to ofure rights for people every creed, color, and gender. it is inevitable, building a democracy takes time. do not stop talking about it. to not stop pushing. do not stop working for women in this region. they want our help. rien's rights are not just ghts, they are necessary. countries will be stronger when everyone has a stake in the global system. it is about success. habits ofant these democracy into the soil of every region and then maybe our spring will blown and real arab spring

will bloom alongside it. thank you. i look forward to your questions. [applause] thank you so much. and at a lot on the table lot of stories from the women you have spoken with across the middle east. something thatth was a much discussed aspect of the arab awakening that can have positive and negative impacts, and issue you are involved with , which is technology. not to be a toll for empowerment. when you think -- eight achnology -- technology is

toll of empowerment. i wonder if you can give us a sense of the way the u.s. government is using technology to reach out to women in the middle east. 24 hours, you may have seen technology in action. a year ago when i came in, i understood that secretary clinton and now secretary kerry are committed to what is called marriage of technology and policy. we would be a state department in the midst of tw eets, blogs, facebook, e-chats,

virtual exchanges. it was a conversation going on in the world. our secretaries of state wants us in those conversations. those conversations happen quickly. policy sometimes happens very slowly. one of the challenges is onehing the timeframe -- of the challenges is notching the time frame. technologye this, is useful in conveying who you are and what you value. technology is useful in hearing from people about what they think is important. technology is useful in creating dialogue, online education,

virtual exchanges, english language teachingn on a mobile phone. or bad.gy is not good it is someone's judgment. it is a piece of equipment but what you do with it-- there in lies the power. >> we think of diplomacy as something that is carefully managed. ,n a 21st century environment it is often impossible to weigh every word. there is a degree of risk that comes along with embracing thesetoo tools. when i was at the state department, you confront how you

embrace that risk. ,> as a recovering journalist i know people look to focus on stories about media. journalists love when things go wrong. in the thousands of tweets that in the last year i have seen gone out fromhave it has gone well. , it couple of occasions has not. a feeding frenzy of people focusing on a glitch between this tweet and that twitter. some of that can go viral and be serious.

andre encouraged encouraging people to be out there. under your desk because the conversation is going on around you. it is an opportunity to engage honestly. diplomacy maytant not be the stuff that is carefully managed. it may be the stuff that breaks out. it.f it goes wrong, own if it was a glitch, say it was a glitch. tryworst thing is when you to craft an answer that is glit zy. you really just want to say is that was an oops. having we talk about

honest conversation, you were your remarks about sexual violence. this is an issue that is tough to talk about. it is tough to talk about in embraces that traditional values. it is tough to talk about it in societies in the arab world that are undergoing change. during the egyptian revolution, women participating in protest was an important signal to other women and families and to men. if there are women at the demonstrations, that means this is big. i should be there, too. to see people at a demonstration -- to see women at a demonstration meant that it was safe.

it was a way of shaming the men and saying we are out here risking it. where are you? it brings to mind a question of whether some of the sexual violence that we have seen in egypt is a way not only pushing women out of the public sphere, but of trying to suppress public protests as a whole. it is not only women who are raped or violated. men and boys can experience the same thing. not in the same numbers. .here aren't still some taboos get menest thing is to and women to talk about the sexual issues of violence, rape.

it is not just the arab world. buss in delhi after the incident. i was with young people at an american center. boys andnd early 20's girls. i asked them what they would like to talk about. they said can we talk about the rape incident? at first, i was surprised. a said we have trouble talking about this at home with parents and grandparents. we are not sure where the lines are. is not aoy said it comfortable subject at home. or in school. ,nless we get dialogue going we are focused on changing laws and legislation and training police officers and reporting and implementation.

it is sometimes getting young people to have a conversation where they can express their confusion about where lines are and what is allowed and what it means. promoting dialogue is one of of publicul tools diplomacy to wrestle with hard issues. sometimes the plastic waste -- sometimes the best place is in he reader, and a reading of a --sometimes the best places in aviator -- theater. we have to be creative. >> those are tools you have at your disposal. re solicited questions from ou audience in washington and

around the world. they submitted questions on our website. ame in from california is about tradition and being progressive. through the ages, why haven't women and progressive men been more successful at modernizing traditionally male-dominated societies? to a struggle in the united states with changing our social norms. andhis about progressivism culture or is this about rights ? >> i will borrow from joe biden .

some of us got to hear the vice -- at at as a conference. this hasart of why taken so long is there are great movements in every century. there are struggles that dominate the conversation. he referred to the civil rights movement. it captivated and swept the united states in a real conversation about civil rights. you got into the 20th century and world wars and totalitarianism and fascism. this was a conversation. that this gender

equality issue is going to be conversation.s it has made its way to the forefront. what secretary clinton did by insisting that it be part of american foreign policy, institutionalizing an office for it, you need to galvanize people. it cannot be a little bit here and there. traction,arts to get it is a gigantic conversation. it is a speech with men and women and people from across disciplines and c-span covering it. you know it is part of the foreign-policy conversation. it takes moving it from the periphery to being out there in your face every day. this one is catching on. and we be about laws

will argue about cultures and tradition and progresses and feminists. that is all great. areeeds -- it means we having a conversation. >> everyone should have the ability to have a seat at the table, whether traditional, religion, or progressive perspective. what do you say to the women in these countries who support a more islamic version of the women's roles? look across political parties, religions, social movements, you cannot anything as purely

progressive on women or not. istscannot say all islam i parties agree that women xyz. we have to do this by the old words and deeds test, not by what your party label is. violence?ouse you do or you do not. do you think women are equal to men without qualification? you do or you do not. your laws and actions will flow from that. that is a better way to cut -- of saying, do you believe in this book or political ideology ? it becomes obvious when you do not believe in women's rights.

it is not hard to tell. there are certain activities that happen. i do not think we would want to get trapped into those boxes. open it up to questions in the audience. please identify yourself and please keep it brief. make sure it is a question. >> i am with voice of america. presentation,your which you shared with us the challenges facing women in the arab awakening. what is needed to be known as what can the united states do in the declinebating

in human rights and women's rights without having the perception of interceding with the internal affairs of the arab countries? >> how do we not appear to be teaching, preaching, and posing, projecting, demanding, insisting. those are the wrong terms. you reversed the paradigm and support the local indigenous voices. the activists, civil society organizations, the ngo. at the local voices carry the day. what local women know they want. they do not want to be raped, insulted, or marginalized.

oey do not have the platformsf f moving the meter. we have to work through them. there are things we have to do as a country. egypt, there are urgent needs that are people's needs. they need to eat. they need fuel. we cannot just not to meet the urgent needs of a society from a governmental level. we have all of these actors on the international stage. they can be amplifiers. the have to support him. programi took over the in 2009. it had four pillars. one was the women's pillar.

it.liminated i wanted to integrate women's empowerment across all of our areas of programming. i did not see it as a standalone priority. if you take seriously the notion that women's inclusion is essential to economic success, political success, security, you have to integrate it. you cannot treat it as a standalone issue. i remember being in kuwait and meeting with a young woman who was in law school. she had come from a traditional family in a rural area. it had taken her two years to persuade her father to let her go to law school. remember thinking to myself that is her battle. i cannot persuade her father to let her go. her struggle is to persuade her

father. my struggle is to make sure that when her family gets to the point where they have evolved in their conversation and he lets her go as she has opportunities to go and to be successful. as a lawyer. understand our roles best when we do that listening. and we get inside the challenges within each society so that the work that the state department does is responsive to the actual battles individuals are fighting every day at home. 's from the state department

activities, what can we do to influence them in. the men are the ones who have the problem. we have to change the men's behavior. >> i have worked throughout the government. one of the points you brought up was the fact that women are the core of society and today work through the communities. they have a real influence on a lot going on within. how do you think that we can

better integrate women who do family, support from a husband, community through their daily interactions? taking their kids to school, working with other women in the community. how can we speak to them about making a difference without changing what they are doing in their daily lives? that you are fact here. i am glad you are here. these audiences used to be 80% women. 90% women. that has changed. men are participating because word "we to look at the "w omen." "men" are in the word.

the have to be in the conversation. universitiesd, are the best place for me to have these conversations because you have people who have not graduated. they are going into the workplace. the hope that they will have different expectations and the work they will do overseas will be with a mindset around these issues. backing up to the younger grades, we have to have boys and girls talking about these issues earlier. your hard to do it at kitchen table. it is hard to do it in your classrooms. this is where it begins. marvelous that we can have this conversation. in terms of those who are not connected, not everyone men in a six kidslage raising

is online doing a virtual program. we are trying to move these programs out and make the mobile. we have american >> we are are mobile and makes it available and they're on wheels. you literally have to move around the country and get into a village and expect in afghanistan what a village has as its codes of conduct. but, but you have to go with that universal sense that there are certain universal rights of expression, rights under the law, rights that come with just human dignity and freedom, the right to information. in the end what i say all of this is really about

information first. information in my way of thinking is oxygen. it is the way a society breathes. if you're cut off from information, you are cut off. and so i think part of it is information and projects and programs and initiatives and resources and pulling together government and nongovernment and making this a central part of our international policy. so thank you for the opportunity to be with all of you, thank you, brookings for having me. i hope we'll keep going. >> tara, thank you so much for being with us and thank you for all of the work you do. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2013]

>> if you missed any of this discussion, it is available in the c-span video library. go to our website, it's c-span.org. at 12:30 eastern, we'll be live as the society of american business editors holds its spring conference in washington. you'll hear from former reagan budget director david stockton with former controller david

walker and former vice chair janet ellen. coming up tonight at 8:00 eastern, it's a look at health care for u.s. military veterans and the cost to taxpayers. we'll look into the current needs of vets, the types of treatment available and the impact of budget cuts. here is a part of what you'll see. >> i have veterans who have come home, we have worked the system to try to get them the disability compensation and care that they need and somebody has come along and told them all they have to do is sign this paper, stop your v.a. benefits and you, too, get again another tour to iraq and afghanistan. so the idea that the troops are not keeping up, the needs of the troops that they're recycling because they're not meeting their recruiting

quotas, this is something that will be coming home to roost and we have no idea what the far reaching effects of these multiple deployments, not just -- not just on the military member themselves, but on the amily, the families. 1 million children in america have had one or both of their rents deployed since 9 similar 11. -- 9/11. 1 million. they're not in d.o.d. schools. they're in your school systems. teachers have to become aware, also, of some of the important pars of what a deployment means on the family. let me just say that america is really in a good position right now, everybody is thinking about this and concerned about it and that's wonderful. after vietnam, this is great.

the importance is this is a game-changing moment for health care for veterans in america because you as the private petitionners, you as the community people, you are going to be the first line of identifying who these folks are. and, unfortunately, the v.a. does not take care of families and say this, yet. when you have a health care system designed by congress for veterans, bringing in the family just doesn't seem to be politically prudent at this time. >> and we'll have more of that discussion tonight at 8:00 eastern and then afterwards at 9:00, we'll be live with the writer from "military times." facebook your calls, comments and tweets. at 12:30, we'll be live as

society of american business editors holds its spring conference in washington. until then, a discussion on recent military action going on in the korean peninsula. >> are we mobilizing for war right now? >> absolutely not. >> what you're seeing on the korean peninsula is a regular set of exercises we hold almost every year. i think that there is a desire on the part of the administration right now to signal our strong support and our close, close ties to south korea, our willingness to support our defense commitments and so on.

absolutely not. if anything, everybody is trying to tamp down the tensions on the peninsula. >> are these tensions different than in the past? >> they are and they aren't. we have seen cycles of provocations before from north korea, both from the previous leader and the previous leader before that. what is new this time is that we have a new young inexperienced leader in place who is right now very worried about consolidating his own internal power so in some ways playing to consequences sis inside north korea. but also inexperienced in terms of knowing how to manage this and the worry is that he, because of that lack of experience, could potentially miscalculate. >> does he have intentional threats? there was a bureaucracy of generals that has been in place for a while or yet?

>> i don't think we know fully. we know that there is a strong party. we know that the military is an extremely important constituency for a leader to make them feel that he is tough enough, he is their man and so forth. so every time we see a change of power in north korea, we have seen a cycle of provocation where the leader tries to consolidate power, gain the support of the party faithful and a very sort of, a military that likes to do some chest beating and likes to see a strong leader. ening that's what we are seeing now. >> do we have any contacts with e north crean -- koran military dkorean military? >> north korea has disconnected their hotlines. they are not answering the phone on the behind-the-scenes

channels that were open in the past. we don't know if there is a temporary measure to try to get the attention of the west, get us to focus on their needs and their demands or whether this is a fundamental change. >> what is the role of china in all of this? >> china is very important in this equation. the strongest economic relationship for north korea is with china. china invests in north korea. china assists north korea with its economic development and to the extent that anybody has any leverage from the outside, china is probably best positioned to influence north korean behavior. in the past they have occasionally been willing to use that leverage in very tactical ways to sort of tamp down tensions. i think right now what we would like to see is china playing a more strategic role to help this new young north korean

leader, kim jung un understand there are limits to the bellicose behavior. he is risking instability on the peninsula. >> are there chinese troops in north korea? >> not to my knowledge. i know there is lots of exchanges, economic, across the board. >> do the chinese feel threatened by the u.s. presence on the peninsula and in the pacific in general? >> i think the chinese's greatest concern in north korea is instability. their worry is having thousands pour th korean refugees across their border. that's the situation they're trying to avoid. whenever tensions ratchet up and instability looks more likely, the chinese tend to get more engaged to try to tamp things down. that's certainly what we would like to see more of right now. in terms of u.s. presence more broadly, i think they have a

dual point of view. on the one hand, they understand the historic u.s. role as a stabilizing influence in the region and they appreciate that. in some ways, that stability has allowed their own economic development and growth. on the other hand, they don't really want the united states to put more forces in the region, to develop the alliance system further and so forth because they feel that's a counterbalance or in some a containment strategy, which it's not, but that's their perception of when we build up military forces. >> michelle served as defense undersecretary for policy in the obama administration for several years. she is our guest. phone numbers are up on the screen if you would like to dial in as we continue our conversation about what is happening with north korea right now. yesterday secretary, defense secretary chuck hagel spoke at the national defense college. here is a little bit of what he had to say. i want to get your reaction to

this > they have nuclear capacity now. they have missile delivery capacity now. so as they have ratcheted up their bellicose dangerous rhetoric and some of the actions they have taken offense the last few weeks present a real and clear danger and threat to the interests certainly of our allies starting with south korea and japan. also the threats that the north koreans have leveled directly at the united states regarding our base in guam, threatened hawaii, threatened the west coast of the united states. as secretary of defense andening 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 measured responsible serious responses to those threats. >> michelle. >> i think the secretary was absolutely right. the united states has to take seriously the threats from north korea. i think the president and the secretary have ordered very prudent action to increase our defenses sending additional issile defenses to guam, sending additional ballistic missile defense ships into the region. i think that's only prudent, given that, again, we don't know where exactly this unproven north korean leader is going to go. we don't know if he is going to miscalculate in some way, so better to be safe than sorry. i think, again, very important to reassure our closest alies, south korea and japan, of our

commitment to their defense. >> representative peter king, the u.s. couldn't make a pre-emptive strike on north korea if we have good reason to believe there is going to be an attack. i believe we have the right to take pre-emptive action. this is representative king last night on cnn. >> you know, i think that we are not at that point to be having that discussion. you would have to think many steps of action reaction down the road, how would north korea respond? one of the challenges here is that the -- seoul is so close to the north korean border. there are thousands and thousands of artillery trube missiles aimed at the south korean capital, if we were going to go down the road of war, you would have very large numbers of civilian casualties immediately potentially. i think we have to be very careful.

i'm not saying that option should ever be off the table for consideration, but i think we certainly don't want to go there unnecessarily. again, my reading of this risis is that, or this tense period is that you are seeing a new north korean leader primarily playing to a domestic set of constituencies to consolidate his hold on power and secondly, trying to get the attention of the west to come to the negotiating table so that he can get some aid, assistance, some sort of benefit for his country in exchange for something on the nuclear front or on rationing down the tension. >> do you believe that the united states should have unilateral talks with north korea? >> i think we will eventually get to some negotiations with north korea. i think what the administration has been ride to avoid is some

of the past personality where we got into negotiations with north korea. we would provide them with assistance to stop doing something on the nuclear program and then, you know, a couple years later, they would start doing it again and then come to us again and say don't you want to pay us again to stop again. we don't want to keep buying the same horse when it gets out of the barn. for the conditions of negotiations to be right, first of all, we got to ratchet back this bellicose rhetoric. north korea has to sort of calm things down in terms of its rhetoric and its actions. then they got to come to the table seriously with a plan to how are they going to get back into compliance with their international obligations under the nonproliferation treaty and in compliance with all of the u.n. resolutions that have been passed. >> durham, new york, independent line, you're first up. caller: thank you so much. i have been on hold a while,

it's given me time to create too many questions. let me say that regarding peter king, there are a lot of intelligent people in my state, peter king is not one of them. my first question is, mr. rogen commented that russia and china appeared to feel the need to maintain sort of a status quo in north korea. i was hoping he would elaborate on that. i don't see the logic on that. second question is, are the actual citizens of north korea in the dark as we are led to believe? thank you. guest: those are great questions. my sense on the latter is that the civilian population of north korea is not given much real news and no access to the outside world. they are fed a steady diet of propaganda, of the sort of reality according to the state.

and so i think most of us, most people don't believe that they are know what is going on. in terms of russia and china, i mean, you could make an argument that it's actually this their strategic interest to see the peaceful resolution of the situation on the korean peninsula and eventually the end of hostilities and a more unified korea and so forth. the truth is they both have economic interests in north korea. russia is being given access to a key port. china has a number of mining concerns there. it gets very inexpensive labor from north korea. i think both countries are most concerned about change that would bring instability, particularly china. so they tend to take a very tactical short-term perspective to try to manage the status

quo. what remains to be seen is whether that's really going to be tenable with this new leader, leadership. host: monty tweets in, does north korea have the right to defend itself against foreign threats? is it its nukes program a means to that end? guest: i think the nuclear program in north korea is first and foremost about regime survival. think that this is a family dynasty. every generation has pursued a nuclear weapons program in order to maintain their hold on power. they believe that if in the end it came to conflict, this would be their ace in the hole. this would be the thing that would guarantee them a chance to bargain their survival. that's what this is really about. this is not about i think a legitimate defense concern particularly given that south rea has given up its nuclear

weapons program. it's pursued a peaceful nuclear program, but many years ago, gave up the weapons option. there is no one directly threatening the north koreans with aggressive action or certainly with nuclear action absent its own irresponsible behavior. host: this is from yesterday's "wall street journal," seoul seeks ability to make nuclear fuel. south korea is pressinging the obama administration for u.s. permission to produce its own nuclear fuel, a move that nonproliferation experts said could trigger ai wider nuclear arms race in north asia and the middle east. guest: i think that the more countries develop their own indigenous nuclear fuel cycles, the more places there will be for weapons useable material to

fall into the wrong hands, terrorists, rogue groups or what have you. what the administration has is move n trying to do toward an international fuel cycle where countries are able to buy nuclear fuel for civilian purposes, whether it's a power generation or medical purposes or what have you in a safe and very secure cycle. i think that, frankly, the united states should at this point be pushing back on south korea's request. the truth is we have extended our deterrence to cover south korea. we have made it very clear that our nuclear arsenal also covers ourlines commitment to them. our deterrent is their deterrent. they don't need their own separate arsenal. host: michelle is our guest.

caller: greetings, i was stationed on the d.m.z. with the eighth calvary and the ninth cal valerie 1961 and 1962. of s when the president south korea left with the treasury and we had martial law for some time. we have to realize that north korea is an army with a country. south korea is a country with an army. one of the main sources of ncome for north korea is the counterfeiting of american $100 bills. ne of our missions in 1961 and 1962 was to grapple to cut off two-man subs that were headed down from north korea into uth korea with currency to

influence and buy trade secrets or whatever. so understand that north korea is an aggressor. we have been on a posture of defense since the 1950's. north korea always has infiltrated into the south, into our defense systems through tunnels and the north korean special forces would come across our lines and steal objects, take back to their commanders similar to the native american tribes in lieu of killing the enemy, they would go across and steal -- host: let's hear from michelle on your comment. guest: first of all, thank you for your service there. i agree with the point that thriving a is now a democracy, civilian control of the military. our alliance with them is very

much in a defensive posture as the caller said. we do not have an aggressive posture towards north korea. these cycles of provocation have in every case been started by north korea, perpetuated by north kai, again for domestic political purposes and sort of as an attention getting device in international relations. i think we need to be very clear. this is not a situation where either the united states or south korea has overtly or openly threatened north korea. what we have called upon them to do is to come back into compliance with the international obligations that they signed up to in the nonproliferation treaty and otherwise. host: michelle, have you been o north korea? guest: i have not been to north korea, i have been to south korea.

host: how close did you get to the north koreans. caller: it's a no man's land. you can see through binoculars to the other side. it's like stepping back in time to the period to when the armistice was originally declared. it is a strange time warp to be there. is also a reminder of the fact that this war never really came to an end. it's been at a halt or a pause, but armistice is not a full peace. i think that's eventually what we want to get to. host: how did you get involved in defense policy? guest: how did i get involved? i was very drawn to international relations when i was a student. when i came out of graduate school -- host: oxford? guest: oxford. at the time the issue of the day was the tensions between

the u.s. and the then soviet union in the nuclear weapons field. i got into the whole issue of nuclear arms control and so forth and started out in the think tank world and then had an opportunity to serve in government in the clinton administration. >> currently michelle is co-chair of the board of the center for a new american security, a think tank that she founded. she is a senior visor at the boston consulting group which is? >> premiere management consulting firm. i'm working with them to build their public sector practice. >> kelly, manheim, pennsylvania, democrat, thanks for holding. you're on with michelle. caller: hello, thank you for listening to me. i have a statement, i am not smart enough to solve all of the world's problems, but i do know messed up when i see it. that is directly from my cousin's book "boondock politics" by regularality

darling. out of the ashes of osama bin laden, we are looking at kim jong-un. the americans here are held hostage by the sequester and the budget. government is not spending money on defense. my husband was laid off last september and he did government fense work, because of the sequester. we only have 50 nuclear subs. we knew something like this would occur again and they have held everything up. we're not spending money on defense. i don't know. it doesn't make sense to me not to defend the country, especially when you knew these lunatics would rise up out of the ashes and i feel that we're at an unfair advantage. guest: you know, i think that t is, we are in a very

volatile security environment. there are still many challenges to u.s. security around the world, u.s. interests and allies from continuation of al qaeda in various forms and terrorism, to what we're seeing in north korea to the today, you have the u.s. military that remains the strongest, is ready and capable in the world. one of the key questions we have to debate is, under budget constraints, how much is enough to spend on defense? how'd we make sure what we spend on defense goes to the capabilities to defend our interests, and set of wasteful business practices in that enterprise as a whole. i'm sorry to hear by your husband being laid off. we are going through a very profound time of adjustment and

defense spending comes under budgetary constraints we have not seen for a decade. significant was secretary check hagel's speech yesterday? >> i really applaud what he said and he laid down a couple of key markers. as we contemplate how to get our economic house in order, which is key to setting the foundation of our national park, defense has to be on the table. it is 20% of the budget and 50% of discretionary spending. ofhave to anticipate a time constrained resources for defense. after the really go blow in the defense enterprise. he identified excess overhead, acquisition reform, personnel that is out of control. these are areas where we need to look for money first before we

start cutting more modernization readiness and the capability of the pointy end of this year. i thought was an important speech. he laid down some intent about what he intends to do as secretary. that's an important message for the people in the defense department to here and also for the american people to understand. comment from a twitter -- guest: we have a very close alliance with japan and northeast asia. planning,rative preparation, exercises, even development for homing systems. a very close relationship that we are keeping japan very much in the loop. we have supported a closer relationship between japan and

south korea, helping them to build a more cooperative relationship. >> there is some mistrust there. caller: there is -- guest: there is some historical mistrust but the military to military, there has been much more openness and discussion. they realize in virtually every situation they're going to encounter going forward in the region, they will find themselves to be allies. >> see the rest of this conversation in the c-span video library. we're going now live as the society of business editors and writers as a vote -- is holding their conference in washington. up next, ceo, the chairman of a a well and the former reagan budget director, david stockman. live coverage here on c-span.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> welcome. thank you for being here today. when we name this panel month because -- months ago, we called the new austerity, thinking the nation would be in the midst of major discussions about austerity and probably a

lot further along than we now see that we are. we knew we had a debt problem. the nation knows we have a debt problem. the question is, what do we do with that and who feels the pain? we seem to be caught there in who feels the pain. the public is adamantly have to do something with that debt. i don't know about you, but i write about the economy and the market that i get the mails from people constantly screaming we have to do something about the debt. some of these people are hoarding gold because they figure a disaster is coming. get to theu questions that you have seen in some of the polling -- people believe we have to do something about the debt, but then you get to the specifics like medicare, social security and people say no way. i talked to someone at a town hall about the debt and about

what government should do about it. one very angry man who is youred stood up and said keep the government out of my medicare. [laughter] that's where we are. mix into this the fact that we are in fragile times. one in four people in their 20s and 30s lost jobs and their pay cuts that 11% if they got rehired. or one in six people lost jobs and took pay cuts of 23% to get new jobs. people are worried, they're worried about their investments, they're worried about their retirement. half of the people that saved for their retirement. we are fragile and we are touchy

about what to do that during the debt, yet we know we have to do it. what weus understand need to do and how we need to do it and what the implications might be, we have a fabulous panel. nation'so know the budget inside and out and the politics. first, i would like to introduce david stockman. those of you who were around during the reagan administration know his name well. he was the person who talked about supply-side economics or trickle down. with time, he became the little disenchanted with what happened with that and he will probably speak about that today. politician, an a businessman, after leaving government, he was at solomon brothers and blackstone group.

as ae time, he served u.s. representative in michigan. for his insights into the budget, he was the director of the office of management and budget from 1981 to 1985. he has written three books and the latest book which i am reading and is a fascinating read is at the great deformation, the corruption of capitalism in america. today is david he knowsgain, a person washington inside and out and the budget process inside and out. of he is the founder and ceo come back america initiatives. he is talking about the debt problem and what needs to be done with it. prior to this position, he was

doing much the same thing as the head of the peter peterson foundation. david was the comptroller general of the u.s. as head of the u.s. government accountability office for 10 years, 1998 to 2008. he served under three different presidents for a total of 15 years. his latest of three books is " comeback america -- turning the country around and restoring fiscal responsibility. please join me in welcoming our wonderful panel. [applause] stockman. >> a moment ago, she set a lot of people are looking for an explanation, particularly journalists, of of what has happened since we had the crisis

in 2008 and a massive stimulus programs. the big deficits and as wall street been fixed for not? i want to tell you that i have the answer to all of that. it is a 7 page book -- a 700 page book called "the great deformation." '40's,ted in the 1930's, '50's and so forth. i also have to confess i'm not a real offer -- and not a real offer. according to some, i do rants and gold buggery, but i'm not real author. i plead guilty to being politically incorrect and i'm going to have a debate with my friend here. how do you know you are politically incorrect? professor paul krugman told me so. he recently suggested the summary of my book that appeared in the week in low -- the week in review in "new york times"

"ntitled "sundown in america about how the state is going to damage our economy is the work of a cranky old man. there must be allowed of cranky old men in america because after the release on monday about all book suddenlythis went to no. 5 on the amazon list. what was in front of it was three books on a diet and one book, which is a novel called "the walking dead." was aheadd to say i of the book behind me, which is a cookbook. i feel like i'm in the right the zip code in this whole thing because i believe we're going to have a massive national diet if we are ever going to get out of the mess we are and.

that we have been cooking the books for a long time fiscally and in the monetary system. this is all bubbles, it's not real, it is going to go down like the last two. if we don't wake up to the fact that all of this is artificial as a result of bad fiscal policy of a central bank that is out of control, a rhode a central bank that is one of many around the world, we're going to have some horrible things to deal with the morning after when it happens. the book deals with many topics, but i want it to their relevant to our discussion today. one of them i call the fiscal doomsday machine. that's what i think about the budget. the second, i call the serial bubble machine, which is what i think about the fed. the two are highly interactive. the point i would make, and

there's a lot of history that goes back into this in the book is that when you get to the point where the central bank is so managed and manipulated, the whole financial market, the entire financial system, minimarkets, that markets, and all risk asset markets, none of the prices in the financial markets mean anything. they are not price discovery in the old free-market cents, cash flows, what is your contract say -- none of that is extant anymore. it has all been crushed, destroyed, and killed by a central bank that is printing money so rapidly that puts so many puts it under the market, that greenspan put, the bernanke put, all of the rest, let the markets are doing today is simply -- it is the work of a huge casino of players who are essentially front running the everyricing every word,

nuance, every smoke signal that comes out of their statements every month and in between, pricing throughout arbitrage exchange that they're pumping to the system at about $85 billion a day. none of this is sustainable. all of it would have been considered looney staff as recently as 1988. but we are so caught up in trying to desperately keep the bubble alive that we have allowed a group of people who run the fed, 12 people basically running the u.s. economy, every inch and aspect of the financial markets, that has spread to the whole world. it is a race to the bottom to see you can destroy their financial system faster. last night, japan weighed in with truly insane stuff.

they are going to double their monetary base in two years. why do i mention this? not only does it imply great hazard for the economy going forward, not only does it suggest the market is level at this moment, that's exactly 1% different from where it was 4750 days ago, march 2000. we have been here three times. the bubble has been inflated three times. com bubble burst. greenspan panic and gently and pushed the interest rate almost instantly down to 1% and began to inflate the next bubble. millions of innocent americans got sucked in deeper than they could afford to be on mortgages. we ended up with the subprime

disaster which was funded by wall street, which was funded by the cheap money the fed had made available to the so-called investment bank's. thatbubble got inflated so the s&p 500 was back to today's point in october, 2007. then the gate -- and that great crash came and then we have ben bernanke back with the greatest bubble machine in history immediately telling the people to get back into the market, it's ok, ride my bubble again, you can trust me. i find it crazy. in the six weeks after lehman brothers went down. and it should have gone down, it was a house of speculation. after a went down, the fed printed more money and expand its balance sheet. the than it had done in first 94 years. in other words, the balance

sheet on the eve of lehman brothers bolling was $91 billion. 900 billion. 13 weeks later, it was $2.3 trillion. now it is 3.2 and it's going up 85 a month and there's nothing in history that says this makes any sense whatsoever. none of this massive printing in bond buying has gone in. it has basically circulated internally within the candles -- the canyons of wall street. it has ended up as excess reserves at the federal reserve and what it does is keep the carry trade alive and well. by that, i mean you buy a billion dollars worth of government 10-year bonds at 1.8%. a paltry yields that makes no

sense. no investor in his right mind will buy that and he might have to pay taxes and there might be some risk even if they call it a treasury. but why are they buying it hand over fist? the answer is they are front running the fed. price going to keep the of this bond up. you can count on it. we are putting a floor under it. on the other hand, the million -- the minute they buy that bonn, they go across the street and put it up as collateral, cafaro $980 billion to fund the billion they just bought that's basisto yield 180 points, capture the spread, laugh all the way to the bank, we sleep like a baby at night because uncle ben that i'm going to keep the funding at 10 basis

points for the next two or three years so you don't have to worry about that and i'm not going to let the bond fall. this is the closest thing to legal theory that has been created in a long time. it leads to a totally artificial market in which the treasury yield is simply being created by a fed that is way beyond the end of its scheme that has painted itself into a corner and there's not stop buying bonds because it does, then the yield might start going up and the price of the bond will fall even a little bit. the fast money and the carry trade will unwind immediately because the spread is what they're living on if the price of the bond fault of leverage of 98%, the arbitrage is destroyed, they will lose money, and they will unwind the trade and sell the bond faster than they can even be recorded by the

computers. therefore, we are all hostage. we are in a massive bond bubble and we have brilliant can the and professors is telling us don't worry about the debt -- brilliant keynesian professors telling us don't worry about the debt. the bond analysts are not complaining. they love the red ink. data are registering total satisfaction because the bond yield on the 10-year is only 1.8%. disingenuousete nonsense. the reason the bond yield is 1.8% is the fed is setting it there. the reason the bond vigilante's are laughing all the way to the bank is because the spread trade that i talked about. if the fed ever stopped, the whole thing would blow and in the fiscal problem will be a nightmare none of you in this room could leave because we will in debt andillion when interest rates normalize --

2% cite is the normal monetary cost today, if it goes to 5% or morehat is $600 billion that has to be financed of red ink and the politicians in washington can't even come up with $100 billion. at in thatok perspective, the great in a blur of what is going on on the fiscal failure is the federal reserve, the rogue central bank, the bureau of 12 monetary planners who are off the deep and in monetary policy that has never been tested in human history and cannot possibly survive. therefore, i say let's look at a realistic look at where the debt is, where the deficit is, and it trillion, it is not in a glide path down, that's just a rosy scenario taped to a forecast and i know something about rosy scenarios because i

did the first one. if you do an honest view of the bumpy future we have in store for even just a cut and paste job on the last 10 years -- take the last 10 years and use it as your forecast going forward, you will get $15 trillion to $20 trillion and a total national debt of $30 trillion. you'll get 150% debt to gdp ratio and an utterly paralyzed congress. because when you are facing numbers that big, anything they're talking about today like . at change cpi it is 2% of the real problem. they will have no ability to form a political consensus, i don't care what kind of miracles you expect from states and in the two political parties. it's over. this is a fiscal doomsday machine and it will hit the wall

in the next few years and don't expect anything to stop it. that's my point of view. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] agree we have an unsustainable fiscal policy. i agree we have an unstable monetary policy. but i don't believe it's too late. let me if i can talk briefly about where we have been, where we are, where we are headed, and how we compare to others and where we need to go. the truth is, the united states has strayed from the principles and values that made it great, under which it was founded, and we face a range of key sustainability to challenges that threaten our future position in the world, our future standard of living at home, and the future of domestic tranquillity in our streets. 100 years ago, the federal government was 2% of the federal economy and this year is 20%,

headed to 40% absent a changing course. the federal government controlled 97% of spending, now it controls 34% of spending and declining. three things happened in 1913 that fundamentally changed the united states. it cost the federal government to grow and expand and undercut states' rights. number one, the federal income tax, number two, the federal direct, and no. 3, the election of senators as opposed to being appointed by the states. those along with the tendency of the supreme court to legislate rather than just interpret laws has really expanded the federal government. if you look at the numbers, it is tough to follow trilliums, but let me give you an idea. take off those heroes. -- it is tough to follow trillions. if last year with a household that earned $24,000, it spent

$35,000, it charged the $11,000 short cart -- short coming into the credit-card. if you at unfunded obligations for social security and medicare, civilian and military pensions and a few other things, it's real obligations are $720,000. that is on a $23,000 per year salary. those numbers do not work. honest and comparable accounting, which i believe in, since i'm a member of the accounting hall of fame and a cpa, you have to have federal, state, local government debt to compare it to other industrialized nations, for example, europe. there is only one country that has higher debt to gdp than we do, and that is greece. and we do not want to follow their example. a have more time, but not limited time. we have more time because we are the largest economy on earth, we

are the temporary sole superpower. and we are the best looking worse in the glue factory, but we are still in the glue factory. we have to recognize the reality that you cannot spend a trillion dollars or more that you are taking in, charge it to the credit card, a self deal in your own debt, and that's exactly what is going on. we do not know what real interest rates are right now. they are manipulating the interest rates. the carry trade is absolutely part of the bubble that is going on. when you can borrow 10 points and buy something that's going to yield 1.8, that is a big spread it with no risk at a fair degree of certainty. that's one reason there is not a lot of lending going on. you don't need to make it any risk and you can make 170 basis points by doing absolutely nothing. when the government and the up bailing out the financial institutions, it did not add

appropriate conditions and safeguards. it has not made the kinds of reforms it needs to do. once the institutions pay the government back, at very low interest rates, i might add, the government has no more levered job anymore. so what do we need to do? first, we have to recognize we're going to solve this fiscal problem. the only question is are going to solve it prudently, preemptively, before we have a debt crisis, which would be a dramatic increase in interest 100s -- for every one%, basis points, to $165 billion per year in interest, in which you get nothing. we are about 400 basis points below historical average. that is a lot of nothing. are we going to solve this prettily, preemptively, a phased in over time, or are we going to wait until we have a crisis at the doorstep? we will have a global crisis.

no one has talked to more americans are on the country than i have. students, business and community leaders, etc. -- people are ahead of the politicians. they are concerned about the deficit and debt. when you see the polls, don't touch my medicare, don't touch my taxes -- those polls are grossly misleading. when you have a problem of the magnitude that we have, you need to build the burning platform. you need to help people understand how serious the problem is and if we do not solve the problem, it threatens our future position in the world, our future standard at home, in the future domestic tranquillity in the streets. we are mortgaging the kids -- the future of our kids at record rates while reducing their future when they are going to face tougher competition and aid interconnected