she is the first post women suffer its first lady cabinet, s perkins. this is the 19th amendment thing. we are not yet talking about the other possible president clinton, although we might be in a few years. we will have to talk a little bit about the gubernatorial level post-19th amendment. you get women succeeding their husbands, nellie ross in wyoming, ferguson. right after the amendment, talking about boggs in the house of representatives and lots of others good it is very , these pairings that are made possible. some even father daughter combinations.

very much products of women's suffrage, creating all sorts of new possibilities and configurations. clinton can plausibly have as his wing man, as his successor, the person that will carry on his banner, hillary is more like alexander hamilton in some ways been truly martha washington. does complicate the role of the of the running mates when women themselves are plausible senators, cabinet officers, presidential candidates. election, no clinton versus bob dole, what happens? senators hillary clinton and elizabeth dole. that is the direct outcome. how thealked about

founders, when they wrote the constitution, so worried about their mail -- male heirs. that they even dream they should be worrying about their wives and daughters. >> jefferson who was also about thoughtnd basically women met in the courts of europe too much, he wrote to his daughter about politics all of thetime and expected her to a political person engaged in politics. seena washington was not as partisan, but she was sheedibly partisan because called jefferson one of the most despicable man she had ever heard of. morenk there was a lot political conversation and political advice and all of that going on. that we dois just

not wrap our minds around it because it seems so -- that cap martha is wearing, does her a disservice. [laughter] i think we do not see these women and that light. i think it is important because i think it is important that we understand the role they play in forming this country, and i think it is important for girls to know that, but i also think we should not just think that this is a modern phenomenon. it did only compost-19th 9thndment -- come post-1 amendment. getting the 19th amendment required political engagement by women. it was in the immediate post- founding. period, whending the two huge social movements helped to perfecthe bivemethg

this union -- not that we are perfect, but we are better than we were -- were those two movemes, abolition and suffrage grade they followed each other -- suffrage. theyollowed each other because women who became abolitionists, they understood people were being left behind. people like eliza hamilton in new york, starting an orphanage that is still working in new york as a place for troubled youth. they were the social reformers. that led them to abolition. they then went to abolition meetings they were shut out of because they were meeting -- because they were women, and that whether to suffrage. that happened very early on in the republic. 1822, was making abolition speeches into with delta look like -- in

philadelphia. you will see you and raise the 18th amendment. the prohibition amendment, which is not the happiest story, but the driving force behind it is the women christian temperance union -- >> who were trying to protect abused women. >> the idea was these men are drinking their wages on friday night, and coming home and beating their wives and kids, and these saloons which were these male dens of iniquity. >> i know this is the historical society, and it is good to go back in history, the -- but before i turn the questions over to the audience, let's come up to the 20th century. let me ask each of you to tell the audience your favorite first lady in your lifetime and why. in that question, why to get at what the public today wants out

of a first lady -- what do we want? >> go for it. [laughter] so, sometimes there are these i say, eisenhower looks a lot to me like george washington. obama, i thinkck about it lincoln. tall, skinny, constitutional lawyer from illinois who gives a great beach -- speech. an epic historical figure. mary todd, not so much a -- i haveery smart never met them, but i am a big michelle obama fan. maybe it is because she is a

lawyer and an amazing role model and a mom. i think it is epic and historic him and she has navigated things in a brilliant way. standards,istorical they could be on track for rushmore. [laughter] not been a first who lets us know how influential she is politically. she has been demure about that. >> she is funny about it. she does a good job of deflecting it with humor. >> she also chooses her issues, and she is careful about it, almost as if she has studied the women before her. >> the truth is it is very hard -- most of our presidents have been governors. particularly in recent years. when you are first lady of the state, you get used to it.

you have some experience before you come in. she really has barely been in politics. remark, ihat one feel, was taken wrongly about this is the first time in my adult life that i have been proud of the country. we all say things when we are talking live without any speech where we get our words in the wrong order. i think the reaction to that was so strong that she realized that she had to be very careful. whois your favorite -- >> is your favorite? >> part of it is, everybody is so different. or me to do that, it is still kind of partisan. the first lady i knew best by far was lady bird johnson. i am a great admirer of lady

bird johnson. not that we have the johnson tapes, which i am nerdy enough to listen to all the time, you see her influence just tremendously. he relied on her so much. there was one day -- it was fabulous -- where he had a press conference and she was on the road, and she calls him and she says, a linden, i thought you did a fine job. ndon, i thought you did a fine job. i particularly liked your answer about taxes. you did well on something else -- and then the critique begins. [laughter] that opening statement was way too long. he says, they told me to do that. she keeps going, she is taking detailed notes, and you can see him backing away from the telephone. [laughter]

he wanted her to do that. he wanted that kind of advice. that is the other thing about first ladies, that is the key role that they play, which is that -- it is a terrible burden on them -- they are the only -- becausehe end even the president's best buddy and best friend cannot tell them, you are full of it, and the first lady at various times has to. that is a terrible job. learn thatsidents they cannot tell anybody a secret because it will get out and they know that. >> aren't they wonderful? [applause] we really have two brilliant experts. it is your turn.

staff going to have people from the historical society walking around with microphones. do not ask a question until the mike asked to you -- mic gets to you. we want to be able to hear you. if you can, please stand. do not give a speech. is not fair. -- it ask a question. we have wonderful answers coming. >> my question is, obviously the penultimate in an evening on women in the white house would be a woman in the white house, but it was not until hillary ran that people started to question, what with this costume, the first man? how come nobody asks what the first lady who may have come in to office with her husband -- nobody really cares or wants her to continue in her full-time profession -- i wonder if you could comment on that. >> that is true about everything.

-- i was justue appalled and the 2008 election that it was still true. you know cre oandidallthe children -- female candidates are asked, who will ever take care of the children? never has a male candidate then asked, who will take care of the children? as far as i know, they have children. [laughter] it is a double standard that still exists. until we have the experience of dude, we are first going to puzzle about it until that happens. that a man'smption ego will not allow him to be in that position, which is kind of demeaning to men. that could be said earlier that is a deep, profound point about the presidency is

that it does resemble american governorships quite a lot. typically a four-year term, independently elected, the same two-party system, veto pen, pardon pen -- and we are beginning to experiences with women governors and first dudes. granholm, forer example. of the harvardt civil rights, civil liberties law review, in a way that barack obama was president of the harvard our review -- law review. you would have heard a lot about her as a possible vice presidential candidate for the fact that she was born in canada and therefore no proper birth certificate, according to some, that natural born thing. her first dudeveuy, dan mulhern.

he took care of the kids. america,ns a model for what it might be at the federal level. heat your eye on governorships. -- keep your eye on governorships. >> i was wondering if you could speak a little bit about the relationship between frequent and eleanor roosevelt. is there anything -- franklin and eleanor roosevelt. >> i think the doris kearns goodwin took -- book is very telling. it is wonderfully documented. it feeling like they were ships passing in the night. there would be times when he would reach out to her, and she

was unavailable to him, and when she would reach out to him, and he was unavailable to her. it was a complicated relationship, to put it mildly. politically, i agree completely. i think there are times when she was out there beyond where he wanted her to be, but she had passionate views. advocacy, she also very much -- he was very clear on this -- served as his eyes and ears. she could be out there, and he could not. role.as a very useful >> when you talk about women in the white house, sometimes, you're talking about other women -- the doris kearns goodwin book -- you say, well the president and unburden himself to their spouses and share secrets -- not all secrets apparently.

that?servations on >> on the other woman? she should go away. [laughter] >> i was going to add one thing on eleanor and franklin when it comes to the other women, that guilt played such a a role in their relationship. i think he felt that he could not reign her in he was guilt -- because he was guilt- ridden. he started meeting her when he got polio. there is a great bit of history that hehe is the one was running for governor, and she went out and campaigned for him. after that, he learned to rely on her. she learned how to campaign for him. >> and try to keep his mother at bay. [laughter] >> the other other woman.

my understanding is that beth truman spent a good portion of harry truman's presidency in missouri. didefore, a much influence beth truman has as first lady? >> he adored her. she saysgree that anything to him, it mattered a great deal. she did spend a lot of time in missouri. she really did not ever enjoy washington life. she had a mother to. -- mother too. >> who could not stand him. [laughter] >> anything that she would say to him, he took as gospel. >> do we know how political she was? >> the truman book does you some sense. not enough.

>> you do not get a sense that she cared. asa question about spouses political liabilities, something that hillary clinton is facing in a way that other male presidents may not have had to face. are there instances where the spouses of male presidents have become liabilities, or is it a special burden for say, michelle obama, in 2020 or something like that? >> you cannot get worse than rachel jackson. -- andrewn campaign jackson campaign, where the whole question of whether they had married i'll she was still married, which they had, it was really vicious. but you have to realize how vicious the press was in earlier times. we think it is bad now. [laughter] it is nothing compared to how it was. one newspaper wrote that dolly

madison -- that thomas jefferson had pimped dolly madison and exchange fornd votes in congress. she was accused of having unsexe d madison, because she was overly sexed. crazy john randolph kept threatening to name names. then there would be a rumor. then she would have to do with the rumor by inviting the guy to dinner. there was lots of nasty, horrible press. certainly rachel jackson was a very negative aspect of the jackson campaign. she died before he took office. he spent his entire presidency fighting for her. her ghost overshadows his administration and his relationship with the cabinet and strained relations.

>> i think that first ladies in our lifetime, that we have all observed, have become liabilities, and they've had to bring in pr people. the women get locked up -- hillary, when she did healthcare -- >> nancy reagan, she diffused it by showing up at one of those press dinners, the gridiron ,inner, and doing a little song joking about herself. it had a wonderful effect. carter.rosalynn they called her the iron butterfly because she had that soft, sweet lilt. president carter gave her a portfolio, and the public reared up and said, we do not want her to have a portfolio. i think that first ladies can be liabilities. kind of put away. we do not see them.

public wants first ladies to the in the background -- be in the background. >> but they are curious about them. they like them to be in the foreground doing some sort of white house tour. [laughter] >> and the role of the vice president is similarly awkward. you can fire your cabinet officers, but you cannot fire your vice president. you can choose not to run again with your vice president. this awkward relationship, sometimes in the foreground, --etimes acronym a sometimes sometimes in the background. >> mccain and sarah palin. [laughter] >> many vice presidents have been completely ignored. the president will not have anything to do with them. see --nnot

>> good evening. i have known 14 first ladies. i would like to address the panel asking, what are your views on nellie taft, the wife of william howard taft, and edith wilson, who is probably the penultimate petticoat presidency of the 20th century? >> she was certainly good edith wilson -- woodrow wilson had a stroke. early cap everybody away from him. -- really kept everybody away from him. wass possible that she signing presidential documents and was for all intents and purposes president. she was highly influential. i do not know the know it cap story well, but there is a new book out -- the nelly taft story well, but there is a new book out -- no, sorry, that

is hoover. access thand more thomas marshall, the vice president. i'm not sure he fully knew the extent of wilson's disabilities. >> no, nobody did. >> not even the vice president. if you want an interesting book on the very interesting respect to which vice presidents have sometimes been kept in the dark about presidential health booktions, an outstanding "from failing hands," presidential illnesses over the years and how sometimes wives have been bodyguards to some extent, keeping others away. you about like to ask mrs. onassis. nobody is talking about mrs. onassis. i would like to hear your opinion. >> jackie kennedy.

>> obviously she was -- i think about it now, and she was so young. wonderful style and grace that she brought to the job with two little kids and being pregnant and losing babies, all the while she is irst lady -- it is really -- marvel at it now because i was in college at the time, so she did not seem young to me, but i had aner style certainly impact and an impact in european capitals. she did a wonderful job on the white house itself. is part of the job the first lady, to be a curator of

this important national site. starting with dolly and james madison, they turned over the building of the white house, the furnishing of the white house to not into full did with it, and it is a big public works project. it was in a woman's hands. i think jacqueline kennedy did that. things, we've talked it reallynhower -- was passing the torch to a new generation. the first president born in the 20th century. veterane sense of the -- kennedy went to congress in 1946. my father was first elected in ,940 and had gone into the navy

and came back in the class of 1946, which was a huge class. it was a republican class. i father was a democrat, but it was a republican class. another huge class in 1948 in congress that was a democratic class. they very self-consciously ran as the man who went, not the man who sent. they were the veterans. yes, of course, eisenhower was a veteran, but he was the man who sent. it was that sense of the whole generation of world war ii warriors taking over the capital. jack kennedy was just part of that in a very fundamental way. >> we are running out of time, and i would just like to sum up on the topic with a thought that a friend of mine, the historian gil troy, first wrote about. i think generally it is true -- you will find exceptions to this

-- but generally, marriages improve in the white house. presidents seed each other more then they probably did before he was president. he is not going to roam around. you hope. [laughter] thought -- there are always exceptions -- the final thought is that they spend so much time before the public holding hands and gazing at each time, they spend more doing that than anything else, and pretty soon, they start to believe it. [laughter] on that note -- [applause]

we want to thank you so much. keep coming you back, and you are wonderful. you as well, you keep coming back. [applause] roberts, keep coming back. audience would agree, we want you all back together again. thank you so much. thank you for coming. [applause] --the second season of first of "first ladies: influence and image" begins monday night. you can watch all the episodes of season one online at c- span.org. the conversation on facebook.org -- facebook.com/c- span or follow us on twitter.

journalext "washington ," dr. lauren lewis on climate change and the extreme heat run the country. then a look at the effect of interest -- of interest rates on the housing market and how the federal reserve might respond. ylan mui is our guest. also a discussion on the $1 billion davis center set to open this fall in utah. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> naked -- making the journalism, it is exhilarating and completely overwhelming and frightening. >> why did you make the choice? i hadade that choice -- long wanted -- long wanted to be working on a book, the cause of the freedom it allows you to dive into a topic and lose yourself and go off on tangents and to have enough time to really explore it fully. sunday taboo sciences, living

in space, the afterlife, and the human digestive system -- mary roach will take your calls, e- mails, i spoke comments, and tweets sunday at noon eastern on book tv on c-span 2. >> now a discussion on the october 1 implementation of the health care law's insurance exchanges. host: this morning, we continue to work periodic look at the federal health care law, and with a key component of that law set to kick in in exactly three months, are joined by national public radio's julie robin are -- rovner to discuss health-care exchanges. what exactly do we mean by these exchanges? what is happening? guest: on october 1, people will

get to sign up for health insurance would not have it. also some people who do have it -- this is one of the big say, ig parts -- people buy my own insurance, are these exchanges just for people who are uninsured? if you are one of those 14 million people in the individual health insurance market, you can also go to these exchanges. they are now: the marketplaces. they are also for small businesses. under 50 workers can go to the exchanges and buy insurance. it is for people in the individual market, people who do not have insurance, and for small businesses. they will start signing up on october 1. the coverage is not effective until january 1. it is a six month sign up p eriod. it begins october 1. host: we will show you that timeline for you. october 1, open enrollment starts on janu -- starts.

27 states default into the federal exchange grid talk about the difference between a federal exchange in a state based strange. guest: from a consumer point of view, it should be invisible. it will be online. areou need help, there paper applications. there will be lots of people to help you. you go to your states exchange, it should say, welcome to the exchange. behind the scenes, it will make a difference. it may make the difference how much on what -- publicity there is, how much marketing there is, because the states that are doing it them selves are able to draw down more money from the federal government to go out and publicize their exchanges. the way it runs should basically be invisible whether it is being run by the federal government, by the state, or in partnerships. host: explain what a partnership

exchange is. guest: some states say, we would like to have some control over how this runs, but we are nervous about doing it ourselves. we would like to partner with the federal government. we want your help in doing this. third hybridthe exchange you can collect call these partnership exchanges. host: these partnerships are noted on this chart am kaiser family foundation as the lighter blue exchanges. are theest blue declared state-based exchanges. everything else defaults to the federal exchange grid -- e change. host: those are states -- that areose are states mostly republican states that are rejecting the whole idea. some other states were worried that they would not be able to do this. it is a big undertaking. they said, let's see if the federal government will do it. and we can take it over later.

if you like the way we are doing it, you can take it over later. host: we are taking your calls. if you have questions about how these exchanges will work, about the federal health care law, cap rovner- we have julie here. if you are outside the u.s. -- -- thisut penalties issue of penalties for those who do not sign up for health care plans by the time that this program kicks in. anotherhis has been source of great misinterpretation could the penalties are actually fairly small. this has been a source of discomfort for the insurance industry, because they signed up on saying that there would be no more -- they could no longer

turn people down for having pre- existing conditions, or they cannot charge people more for having pre-existing conditions, which meant that sick people could sign up. and buyd walk in insurance when you get sick. there is now a requirement that everybody has to have insurance, but the penalties are fairly small. for the first year, the penalty -- this has been misconstrued by a lot of people -- the penalty is not $95. it is greater of $95 or 1% of your taxable income. it will be a little bit larger than $95. there are a lot of exceptions. if you truly cannot afford insurance, you do not have to have insurance. host: these penalties go up in 2015. when they get highest, i or 3.5% is $695 or 2.5% of your taxable income. the cannot put you in jail. they cannot do anything. it is basically a tax penalty.

if you do not file taxes, there is no way to get the penalty out of you. it will not come after you except by attaching your tax refund. if you do not have a refund, they will not be able to collect your penalty. host: we are talking with julie rovner and taking your calls and questions about the healthcare exchanges. give us a ring. she is here to answer your questions. ricardo is up first from philadelphia on our democratic line. caller: good morning. i haven't been able to get through -- can you hear me? i haven't been able to get through in a long time. now you called me right up. i wanted to ask you a question about the healthcare that will be taking effect and the exchanges in three months. medicare,t are on they do not have a supplemental -- they have to go buy it. at can be pretty expensive. will they be able to get into this with medicare and have a

supplement -- will they be able to buy into that, or is that off-limits? if you have medicare, you do not have to buy anything else. the exchanges are not for people who want to buy supplemental coverage to go with medicare. the are for people who basically do not have any coverage. if you have medicare and you would like to buy supplemental coverage, you still can, but that is not something that you can buy on the exchanges. it is aimed at the medicare population and there are some provisions of the affordable care act that did expand some medicare benefits. there was an improvement in the prescription drug coverage. there were new preventative benefits that went into effect. this basically was not a lot that was aimed at the medicare population. host: on this issue of exchanges, we see stories of racing to october, a pr push. --e is the headline from npr

talk about what needs to be done before october 1. guest: there are a lot of people who do not know this is going to happen. people who could be helped the most. most polls have shown people who could be helped, people who will get large subsidies, we have not talked about that, people who are uninsured but if they go into the exchanges are eligible for significant help in purchasing insurance -- if you do not get it through your job, it is expensive. that is one of the reasons people do not buy their own insurance. if you have to pay the entire amount, it costs a lot of money. one of the reasons the aca was so expensive is that there are these subsidies. if you go onto these exchanges and you make between 100%-400% of poverty -- for an individual it is about $14,000 up to 5 -- $50,000 a year, you get help. many people do not know about it. there are a lot of programs going on.

there are a lot of outside groups. the federal government had some but theypublicize it, wanted more, and congress would not give it more. there has been some controversy. the department of health and human services has been asking groups that would benefit from this -- the insurance industry, health groups that provide free care would benefit from having more people insured -- there are a lot of groups and a lot of publicity now. over the summer, we will see a lot of publicity going on. there was talk about maybe getting some of the professional sports groups involved. they were trying to get young people who are heavily noninsured, and they need them to get into the pool to offset these sick people that we are talking about, although we did see on friday the nfl came out and said that they are not going to be involved. they were then approached by republicans in congress who said, you do not want to be involved in this. it is controversial. it might hurt your brand.

host: this story from the "wall street journal" -- a letter from senators mitch cornyn, sent john to the nfl, nba, warning them about their brand. guest: that is right. the nfl responded on friday afternoon. i think maybe they were worried about getting involved in what seems to be -- the continuing political controversy -- host: what has been the obama administration's response? guest: there was a briefing last week, and they said they had been talking to the nfl. there was some unconfirmed talks that they were in talks with the nba because the nba season stretches out over the sign up time between october and march. the nfl goes again during some of the main sign up period. when massachusetts to their law in 2006 and 2007, they partnered

with the red sox to try to attract young men who are important to get signed up, to get into the risk pool, a group that is unlikely to have health insurance or to necessarily know that they need health insurance. that proved to be very highly successful, but the massachusetts law would -- was not nearly as politically controversial as this law has been. it is pretty much the same thing. host: when you talk about the pr push, here is a story from politico talk about the effort to get moms involved. guest: we just heard about these studies -- for all the talk about getting sports stars to encourage young men to sign up, it turned out the most influential person to influence a young man is his mother. mom -- if you are a young guy up to age 30, and your mom says, you should have health insurance, you are more likely

to do it. there is now a lot of encouragement, and a lot of these pr efforts are aimed at moms of these young men who are trying to get their sons to go out and sign up. host: politico quotes kathleen sebelius -- "moms still have a lot of influence." guest: i can point out that kathleen sebelius is a mom of two sons in this age group. up next frome is colorado springs on our republican line. caller: good morning. nothing could be worse than what the insurance companies have put us through. with their premiums, the co- pays, the caps, the pre-existing conditions, the cherry picking has gone on for so long. people should not have to buy insurance. the tea party folks -- i'm sorry, i am a moderate -- they have medicare and medicaid and tri-care. they can afford to complain. sadly these red states will hurt the poorest of their people and

make them suffer. wondering, what can people in these red states do to help themselves when their own legislatures will not even help them? thank you. guest: one of the big controversies that is ongoing -- one of the things the supreme court did last year when it upheld the law is it made the medicaid expansion part of this optional. it said that the law can go into effect if states do not have to expend the medicaid program. the law was designed -- they assume that the medicaid expansion was going to happen, and that was going to get health insurance -- medicaid coverage to people up to 133% of poverty. therefore, it did not allow people with income under 100% of poverty to purchase insurance on the exchanges. that means we've got half the states that are expanding medicaid, but half the states that are not. in some red states the caller is

talking about, they are not expanding medicaid. notsome people who are eligible for medicaid, they are also not eligible for help on the exchanges. there will be a significant number of people who will not be eligible for anything, who will show up, either at the exchanges or some places where people will be able to go to sign up, and they will say, what can i get? the answer will be nothing. that is going to be its own political issue as this enrollment phase moves forward. they will not be eligible. if you are not disabled, if you are not a parent, you may not be eligible for medicaid at all, or you may be eligible for medicaid at extraordinarily low -- some have eligibility at perhaps 15% of poverty or 20% of poverty, you have to have basically no income to get a medicaid. and 100%e between that of poverty where you can get into the exchange, you may not be eligible for any help at all. host: julie rovner is npr's

public health correspondent. she covered health reform for the medical news network and covered health and human services for congressional quarterly weekly report. taking your questions on the health exchanges that are set to open up on october the first, three months from today. all is up next from arizona on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i think you have answered most of everything i wanted to know -- i and 66, on medicare, well below the $14,000 a year figure. i have been waiting and hoping on this, perhaps for some additional insurance, because i cannot afford supplemental policy. listening to you, i do not qualify? guest: if you are on medicare, then medicare is considered to be a sufficient insurance to qualify you -- you satisfy the

requirement that you have dourance, but the exchanges not provide supplemental insurance for medicare. the exchanges are for people who do not have regular health insurance. it is not a way to get supplemental medicare insurance. host: paul, do you know what you are going to do? caller: that is a good question. us people on medicare that cannot afford supplemental insurance, we know that part be on medicare is not enough. guest: there are programs for people who do not afford supplemental insurance. caller: like signing up for medicaid? your income is not low enough for medicaid, there are several programs that will help you pay your co-pays and deductibles on medicare. caller: who do i contact for those? guest: i think you can contact your social security office. they can walk you through those. rovner here to

answer your questions on medical issues and insurance and the health exchanges that are set to open on october 1. kelly is up next from jacksonville, arkansas on our democratic line. caller: good morning. how are you today? i appreciate c-span. it is like a window into the federal government. i watch you every morning. what do you think of the health exchanges? to go back to what the last caller was talking about, being on medicare. i was wondering how much medicare may be cut because they are try to put money into the is howrograms, and also -- likere has not been the other gentlemen, we do not qualify for medicaid. here in this state, they told me the last four times i applied as qualified,

but when you go to the doctor, you still got the copayment of $30, and if you are disabled, you are sick, you are probably going to fiber six doctors every two or three months. it gets quite expensive. i was wondering what the federal government might have to help supplement that part of it so i can at least stay healthy. guest: as i mentioned, there are programs besides medicaid. there are about 9 million people who are dual eligibles who are eligible for both medicare and medicaid on the basis of having low incomes. but there are other programs that can help low income medicare beneficiaries pay their additional bills. there are also programs that can help them pay for their prescription drug coverage. as to the first question about cutting medicare to pay for the affordable care act, yes, there were reductions made to medicare to pay for the health law, but those do not affect

beneficiaries. those were mostly cuts from provider payments. those were mostly done with the agreement of those providers who agreed that they were able to take those reductions to medicare because they would be getting a lot of those back because they would no longer be giving away free care because so many people would be insured. that came from hospitals who were saying, now we will not give away charity care so we can afford to take a little bit less for medicare as we will get it back on the other end. host: richard butler on twitter this is one of the big questions. this was addressed in the law. one of the things that will be happening is that i will be training a lot more mid-level providers. they do not like that name. these are nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and more nurses. a lot of care does not have to be provided for people with an d after their name. a lot of primary care can be

provided by other types of professionals. there was money in the lot to train those. it was also money to train more primary care doctors. that is one of the ways that the federal government hopes to bring down the overall cost of you do not have to go to a doctor every time you need medical care. you can go to some other kind of provider. there are also provisions for new types of health organizations, medical homes, accountable care organizations where doctors and hospitals join together to try to keep patients healthy rather than try to wait until they are sick to treat them. the idea is to change the way health care is provided. make it more efficient. this was definitely something that was considered when the law was being passed, and obviously, if 30 million more people are going to have insurance, you're going to need need more people

to provide that care. host: back to the issue of exchanges. communist dog writes on twitter guest: yes. the business insurance -- exchanges are called shop exchanges. people are more worried about those. i seem to be going a little bit more slowly. the federal business exchanges are not going to have the types of choice that i think a lot of businesses were hoping for. business owners will be able to go in and choose plans, that they will not be able to provide a choice of plans to the employees. that is not necessarily going to be the case -- this is one case where it will look different in the exchanges run by the states and ones run by the federal government. at least for this verse year, -- owneryear, the business will make the choice and employees will have to go with that.

in california, there will be a choice that employees will be able to go in and choose among plans. in later years, i think there will be more choice. that was the idea, that employees will get a choice great if you are in a small business right now, the employer chooses a plan, and everybody has to go with that. for the first year at least in the federally run exchanges, that will be the case. but you're on, the idea is that people will have -- employees and small businesses will have a choice of plan. host: when we talk about what needs to be done before october 1, are there certain states in a much better position to open up their exchanges than other states? guest: yes, in a word. everybody has been looking at california. telefonica is in pretty good shape. dedicate -- connecticut, maryland, colorado, was her states people have been looking at as the leaders. there are some other states. certainly there was the gao report a couple of weeks ago

that said -- this was as of may -- it said that the federal government is not as far along as it should be. host: those are the federal exchanges and all of the other -- and all the other states, the lightest blue? guest: a number of reporters set down with secretary sibelius and her top health officials, and she insisted that this will be ready to roll out on october 1. we will catch up. it will all be done. we will have to see. there is still a lot to do. this was a huge undertaking. things are happening, but a lot has to happen -- a lot of computers have to be able to talk to each other. that is the big thing. there is a phrase, no wrong door, where it everybody signs -- they have to be corrected directed to the right thing. if you are eligible for a subsidy, you have to be signed up for a subsidy. the insurance company has to be able to coordinate with the irs

what your income is to figure out how much your subsidy is. a lot of people are concerned about whether these computers are really going to be able to talk to each other. host: did that policy come from the fear that it is so hard to get people to come and take a look at these things? guest: that is supposed to be a way to help consumers. no matter where you show up, you will be directed to the correct place. host: let's go to emily from somerville, west virginia on our republican line. caller: hello. is, how willion the networks for these exchanges thestablished, and how will doctors know whether or not they will be able to participate in the networks? if the reimbursement level will be sufficient to cover their services? i work for a specialty practice in a large, metropolitan area. guest: the networks are up to the individual insurance companies who are deciding

whether or not they want to stay in the exchanges. that is one thing we are waiting to see. the federal government has been us, of quiet about telling telling the press who is in all of the exchanges, which companies. i keep insisting there will be plenty of competition and plans, but that is what we are waiting to hear. which companies will be participating where? as it turns out, plans will be participating in some exchanges, and they will only be participating in some parts estate. this is turning into a network issue. there are parts of states where it is more difficult to put together a network. the other thing we hear is that they are having, in order to do this, in order to make the plans work for the amount of money that they are being paid and for the premium they want to charge, some of them are doing it by having smaller networks. perhaps in order to be able to pay the providers what the providers need to be paid, they want to have a smaller network

to guarantee the more patients. definitely this is up to the insurance company to put together these networks good and the -- networks. then insurance companies come to the exchange and say, this is the network we will offer. host: rachel is from texas on our independent line. sister had a, my brain aneurysm two years ago, and she does not have insurance and insurance companies denied her insurance she has a pre- existing condition. i know rick perry said he is not going to take obamacare. my husband, he listens to a lot of talk radio, and i have told him that we will still be able to keep his insurance at his job that we have through his company. he said, no, they are lying to us, we will no longer be able to keep our insurance, we will be forced to go with some insurance

that will cost us a whole lot more money. could you -- i'm concerned about my sister. she goes to these cheap clinics, and she has a lot of problems. i'm wondering how that will affect her since rick perry does not want to take the insurance. be a texase will exchange rate will be run by the federal government since governor perry is one of the governors is declining to dissipate. to getster will be able insurance even though she has a pre-existing condition. that is one of the things that this law has hundred it was intended to help people like her. she will be able able to go to the exchange. she will be able to get insurance regardless of her pre- existing condition. depending on her income, she may be able to get a subsidy to help her afford it. as to your husbands insurance, depends on whether he is assuming his employer wants to

continue to offer insurance -- nothing will change it if his employer will continue to offer insurance, which is the idea behind this law, to not really mess with the continuing process of employers providing insurance, and most surveys suggest that employers will continue to offer insurance. a is a good way to maintain healthy workforce and to be able to recruit and retain workers. presumably your sister will be able to get insurance, and nothing should change for you. host: daniel is from richmond, virginia on our democratic line. caller: good morning. -- youa question mentioned that people on medicare will not necessarily be included in the new health care law, but you mentioned that medicalght be help with

, i believe you said. i wonder if you could expand on that. guest: this goes back several years. there have been several programs enacted over the years to help people with lower incomes pay their bills. if they do not have supplemental insurance. there are not as many as are used to be, which is why i am blanking a little bit, but i know there are programs to help people who do not have supplemental insurance if they have low incomes but not low enough incomes to qualify for medicaid. i know if you go online at there isgov, information. if you go to the social security administration office, they can help you with that. host: if you want to track julie stories, go to

npr.org. question on twitter -- guest: if you have medicare, medicaid, if you have insurance provided by your employer, if you have tri-care, if you have insurance from the the requirement to have insurance. you do not have to do anything else. caller: good morning. i would like to get back to medicare advantage. it is my understanding that when the affordable care act was passed under law it was financed partly through cuts in medicare and specifically about the two and a billion dollar cut to medicare advantage. i question is this. 2014w that starting in there will be cuts to medicare advantage and it will increase

each year. as i see it, the only options available for those of us on medicare advantage are to pay higher premiums. or receive reduced benefits to lose some of the extra benefits that are provided by medicare advantage. tospecific question relates medicare village. i am hoping you can help me. guest: in 2003 when the drug laws were passed, they gave large increases to the medicare advantage program. .his is a private program

medicare advantage you have instead of having medicare supplemental. the republicans gave big increases to medicare a bandage. on the theory wanted to get a lot of people into medicare advantage and phase out original medicare. and so to the point where medicare advantage was being paid 114 percent of what a cost to provide traditional medicare, a democrat said that was kind of ridiculous. you are overpaying medicare advantage. they took the money back and they said we're going to pay medicare advantage 100 percent of what it costs to provide traditional medicare. as the caller points out the results of that, a lot of people are getting extra benefits and it is true that when the cuts begin to go into effect, a lot of people are going to start losing those extra benefits and they're not very happy about it. that is where we are. the affordable care act did-part of what the medicare cuts are is

taking some of that additional money that was given to medicare advantage in 2003 and they're taking that money away. that is essentially where we are and that is what is happening. a significant divens between health care insurance available to congress and obama health care? >> this is a very complicated situation. yes no. members of congress and their south get their health insurance the same way every other federal employee gets it. there was a provision that was lifted to the law that required members of congress and their their benefits.

this was still well and good. they may not get their employer subsidy. government pays 70 percent employer paris%. there's some question of effort into going to exchange, most of them going to the exchange. if that is where most of the stuff works, lives. there might not get any help and bad as itbe eligible is trying to sort that out. there is a lot of very unhappy staff trying to figure that out. is there a central database

the supervisor kim: to figure out with any other state plan is or the web site? >> there is a website that the federal government launched last week in a basically has all the intermission, getting ready for this. provides background information and can direct people to what they need to know. our independent line. >> good morning. how are you. i was kind of curious about this health care deal. why are you guys trying to push [indiscernible] buddy got hold of myood

and got a bumper sticker saying i'm going to fight this to as the nail. the thing that gets me is when you are pushing it on my children to come home and talked about it, what is said deal. host: it is something teachers are talking about to your child? >> what are they doing in california, they're spending home and tellgo mommy and daddy. not something i have heard about. caller: we have other

healthcare providers. some real free market competition. i believe the u.k. is is that and acupuncture and herbs are mentioned in the bible. we have to have other forms of health care to have freedom of choice. doctors do not have all the answers. if we do not have competition will never bring them the prizes and doctors do not want to take the lower prices, perhaps they should not be in that field. ost: any of those in the health care plan? set's get your take on thi

tweet. back to the issue of medicaid. insurance will skyrocket when that happens. your take on that? concern with more people on medicare-medicaid is whether there will be enough providers to take them but not so much = . host: good morning. go ahead. aller: i do not know she address it earlier. insane that an individual tylenol tablets can be listed $10 but the other thing i would like for her to redress, part of the provision that speaks to the amount of money that has to go

toward health care or you get a refund rather than funding these trips for executives to exotic places or your money goes to you. i have not heard her talk about that yet. calls thatnistration the 80-20 rule. that is to try and hold down .nsurance premiums they can only spend depending on which market is 15 or 20 percent costs andremium profit. if they have to go over that they have to issue or refund. they came out with the numbers for 2012. the refunds will be smaller and fewer this year which is good news because it means that more insurers were with then-state within this limits, stayed within the rules. they did not have an excess of on profit and the administration. the idea is to keep the most-

most of the premium dollar spent on health care. that is the first comment about excess of prices and charged by hospitals and doctors. there has been a lot of attention on that recently. it is not so much that the hospitals are charging $10. they're putting the amount that -- amortizing for an emergency room that is open 24 hours a day in the cost of the nurses and the facility and the cost of everything else. that is not to say that there is health care is not expensive. part of this is an ongoing effort to get the nation's entire health bill in check. people are very unhappy about the idea of people being required to have health insurance. there is an argument that if everyone is covered there will be fewer people who have care given to them when they go out and get run over by a truck.

stepps that is the first you have to take in order to start to rein in what the nation spends on health care. this is highly contentious and controversial. there is little -- very little agreement. caller: good morning. my daughter is ending cobra. her parents have been helping her with those payments. it comes to an end now. she has been living on some loans and she is a graduate student. living on student loans with her health care. she is under the poverty level, she does not make money as a college student. how does this fit into the

system? >> a lot of people say how on earth, going to afford health care if i did not make money. you will not be required to. people like this will be able to go to the exchange. problem area. if you do not burn 100 percent of poverty it are not eligible for the exchange. you'll be eligible for medicaid but if you are not in a state that expands medicaid these other people who will be not eligible for anything. rovner, thanks for joining us and taking callers' questions today. ther. laurin lowest from centers for disease control and prevention on climate change in the extreme heat around the country. and the effect rising interest rates could have on the housing market.

on the center set to open this fall in utah. washington journal is lighter morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. catholic legal scholars reacted to last week's supreme court decisions. the court invalidated the provision of doma. to resumedes a way same-sex marriages in california. this event was hosted by the catholic information center. address the ongoing national debate about same-sex and traditional marriage. in the first case united states vs windsor, the court declared that part of the federal defense of marriage act which defined

marriage as between one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law was unconstitutional. in the second case, the court held that it lacked the authority to decide the question it was asked to address. other california apostate constitutional provision defining marriage between a man and woman was permissible under the federal constitution. both cases were closely divided 5-4 decisions. in the wake of these important cases, we are privileged this evening to hear from an accomplished group of panelists who have offered their formidable talents of-as lawyers and scholars to help us better understand what happened last week at the supreme court and what future impact these cases might hold. he received his ph.d. from the

university of chicago where he was a student of leo strauss. is also one of the principal architects. wayland is a graduate of harvard law school and former clerk to justice antonin scalia. he it has also served at high levels in the u.s. department of justice and u.s. senate judiciary committee. rie severino is a graduate of harvard law and duke university. she is a former clerk for justice clarence thomas. we will hear from each of our panelists first and then give them an opportunity to respond to one another and finally time permitting, will open the floor to kill any. before we divan, a brief word for context about why we gathered. as catholics and other people of goodwill, we seek to understand the events of our day as fully and accurately as possible.

because pope francis recently put it, those were led by the holy spirit are realists. they know how to survey and assess reality. that enables us to live out our callings ruefully. our success depends not just we talked about but also how we do it. i invite everyone to join with the panel in striving for a spirit of fraternity and charity. in a special way that includes a solidarity with those of us here tonight at the center of these topics. including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, those are wrestling to understand their own views on same-sex marriage, and those striving to live and raise families in accordance with the church in present-day society. with that introduction dive into our discussion and we will turn it over to professed-to the professor. >> thank you for that introduction.

there is that old line that the german joke is no laughing matter. and neither is this occasion. this is the day when we dispense with the warm up humor and as a prelude-a preludin, i want to recall that in the debates of a marriage some of us raised the question of whether that notion of same-sex couples could encompass two friends, and to widows, to wood doors who are trying to pull their social security benefits and pay off the expenses from a nursing home after the death of a spouse. could these people to get manager of the new arrangements with the understanding that a same-sex couple not need and eroticmply sexual or relation. the answer was no. was auld we know it sexual relationship?

the supreme court when it struck down the laws of massachusetts insists it was no longer legitimate to require consummation as the test of marriage. in group of judges massachusetts was not exactly overflowing with genius. beend it would have embarrassed to say that a test of consummation is no longer required for marriage but actively required for same-sex marriage. i mention this now just to recall one part of a rich mixture of arguments that have been offered over the past 10 years of we-as we have engaged this question but none of this [inaudible] on thisre no arguments side. the opposition could be attributed entirely to an irrational and a mess but in his refusa

arguments, his insistence on characterizing his opponents as bigots, it was just as kennedy who was showing the most pronounced irrational and a mess. justice scalia in his dissenting opinion pointed out the way in which justice kennedy characterized as bigots the mines that brought forth the descent-defense of marriage act. the string of characters stop short of mentioning me because i was one of those mines that helped bring forth the defense of marriage act. mine was section 2, not section 3, the brother was struck down. that was the part in which congress stipulated that every reference to marriage and the federal code referred simply solely to the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. most andseemed the gold-and vulnerable to

-- the most in vulnerable to challenge. i had the privilege of leaving the testimony for the defense of mayor jack back in may 1996. as i looked over again, looking back at it, i discovered again that justice kennedy had been much on our minds at the time and the critical factor even then. i would like to sketch in the background, what gave rise to the defense of mayor jack and why justice kennedy had been the driving force in creating this problem from the beginning. the defense of marriage act was brought forth with the awareness of two currents in the law. about to me.

from hawaii. the supreme court had installed same-sex marriage in that state. the question arose whether a couple will-could be married in hawaii and bring their marriage back to the mainland, through the operation of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. article 1, section 1. this would be respected in the second state. , if there were required to respect the marriage coming in from hawaii. your y.a. and bring marriage back home to connecticut. if the new state was required to respect that arrangement, we are in a position in which one state could indirectly nationalize same-sex marriage

for the country. the state could refuse to respect of certain arrangements coming in from abroad where it had a moral objection. the second current came in. working its way through the rohmerat this time was v. evans. about the rights in colorado and amending the constitution. what we anticipated coming out of that case was precisely what took place with justice kennedy's opinion. which came down after the hearings but just at the time when the house was in the middle of debating the defense of marriage act. this was that moment in which justice kennedy famously

declared that the moral-seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class effects. it lacks a rational relationship to a legitimate state interests. centuries of jewish and catholic teachings could be reduced to an irrational passion and amice. judgment --casts-a an adverse judgment on the found aal life could be reasonable ground of justification. the state could not incorporate any longer an adverse moral judgment on the homosexual life.

that is what brought forth to some of us to come forth with the defense of marriage act. ofs supports the authority the states in refusing to accredit those marriages. marty franc said i think this whole thing is unconstitutional. to which we said to make our very point and we invite you to make it right now. the court effective last week not to touch this part of doma. kennedy and his colleagues professed to reach only section 3 of the act, that part in which congress asserted that all references to marriage and the federal code would refer to the marriage of a man and woman, a

legal union for the man and woman who is husband and wife but justice kennedy thought the very title of the bill, a defense of marriage to me again humiliated gays and lesbians by implicitly refusing to accord to their relations the dignity of america union. and so in his can stroll if you're provided for same-sex marriage, then the federal government should respect that marriage and its policies on taxation and everything else. at the same time, kennedy implausibly claimed that his opinion here was carefully limited to section 3 and would not touch section 2 and questioning the authority of the state to form their own policy on marriage. soon betends will dissolved. if the decision of the court did not strike down section 2,

kennedy's key premise planted long ago surely will because this is the premise that has worked its way from all of the litigation since then. justice kennedy held that the state could not justify the laws on sodomy because there was no rational ground on which to break into the economy of personal relations. and to them homosexual relations with people pursued in their private lives. he insisted at the time that no formalent entailed recognition in the law of any other relationship. that is to say, marriage. to which justice scalia famously said at the time, did not believe it. it is coming soon and it took five months to prove justice scalia cripe-quite right.

only five months later, the supreme judicial council invoked the language in lawrence b. texas to strike down those laws on marriage and the commonwealth and install six marriage and then kennedy intern invoked lawrence last week in striking down doma. scalia said, are simply waiting for the other shoe to drop. that offer nolaws recognition of same-sex marriage. and all that the judge needs to do now is in vogue justice kennedy's overheated language and u.s. vs. windsor to conclude that the laws are constitutional provisions reflect only an

irrational animus, they can supply no reason ground of justification. to use an old line discussing marriage now without justice -- rathersed to say like playing hamlet without the first grave digger. there is a lesson here about the conservative jurisprudence. many of our friends would like to believe that these decisions are indeed limited and constrained. that the court will respect the difference between striking down section 3 of the federal code while respecting the authority of the states under section 2. decisiongsworth the will simply be reduced to the holding of the court in the district court case which touches no one but the litigants and has presidential the value but no other court of land, the band's [indiscernible]

the marriage is already taking place in the political class in california is acting as the same-sex marriage has been restored now to the whole of the state. what our friends seem willing to persistently not to see and which justice scalia has said- seen all along is that the underlying moral judgment and the moral wrongness, the want of rational justification for refusing to accredit same-sex marriage. that underlying moral judgment sets off a dynamic of its sound. that premise promised to run through all the cases to come. bringing down all the remaining barriers to same-sex marriage and entities we passed all those distinctions in the positive law that our friends treat as

though they really meant something. where do we go from here is the next question. we have a couple of moments for that? i will take two more minutes. on this matter i have some suggestions to make. where might say is this. lincoln and his congress did not take the path of a constitutional amendment to deal with the regime altering decision in the dread scott case. they moved to counter that act through an act of ordinary legislation which lincoln signed in june 1862, an act which forbade slavery from all the existing territories of the united states. they're putting the question to the court to take a sober second look at ways of done, consider that you might have been mistaken and if this does not work, which could rise to the level of a constitutional

amendment. 17 years ago we were beginning with this, that it would be useful to get a constitutional amendment going right away. i wanted to get it out there and moving. that would be-that would not be taken seriously right now. in the meantime i do think we should come forward with a statute to restate the defense of marriage act that the court professed to leave untouched but to drop out the implications that the left would not find congenial. what this means is that couple in new york could be covered by federal law because new york allows same-sex marriage but those privileges which not follow them if they went to alabama. that is what justice kennedy seems to be implying. i do not think the left or president obama would entertain that for a moment. that is where the challenge

would come. it does not stand a chance of passing but that is not the point. if republicans take the senate began in 2014, it does have a chance of passing. it probably would be passed. the critical point now is that raising this point, bringing forth this bill offers us the chance to see who among the republican political class will have the spine in the conviction to support this measure. and find a way of making the argument in public. if we find republican so-called wiseman telling us that we really cannot talk about these matters in public any longer, that for some of us will be a telling sign. thank you. [applause]

>> thanks to all of you for being here. it's great to see an overflow crowd interested in this set of issues. discussing the proposition 8 case. i would like to begin by outlining how vice president dick cheney and hamas supporters of marriage say the relation between the constitution and marriage. it is quite simple. it is important to distinguish the constitutional question from the policy question. it leaves the matter to the democratic process for resolution. to the states in defining the basic constitutional marriage and to congress in addressing what marriage means and the various provisions of federal law. it is permissible to retain traditional marriage laws. it is permissible to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions. the claim that a person has a constitutional right to marry another person of the same sex

mplausible which unfortunately is a different matter from predicting how the courts will rule on it. been ae has all-always marriage of man and woman. this reflects the elementary biological reality that all the opposite sex units -- unions generate children. this is to encourage the generation of children in the context of marriage and discourage it in non metro context. marriage existed in every state at the time of the constitution. it existed in every state at the time of the post civil war amendments. as a historical matter, no one contends that the amendments were directed against the traditional understanding of marriage or they had anything to do with homosexuality. in the face of all this claims for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and rests on some combination of the

following. free-wheeling constitutional theorizing that is camouflaged one's own moral preferences. i have my own strong policy views on marriage. i do not claim that the constitution in trenches them. the other side's -- other side does. claims trade as fact [inaudible] and the ruling by the district illustrates all these flaws and more. before turning to the explanation and criticism of the supreme court ruling, i would like to provide i hope some helpful background. let's goack to 2000 -- back to 2000 when california

voters exercised their power to proposition 22. it was identical to proposition 8. 22 have the status of a statute. under california law. given the opportunity to override the statute, the state supreme court ruled that this definition of marriage had been the definition for ever in california. defenders of marriage are ready for such a ruling. it was a 4-3 vote. proposition 8 was adopted by the people of california. nocera had this ended then bedfellows couple

followed -- filed this lawsuit. this was then governor schwarzenegger and then attorney general brown. becamejerry brown governor again and harris as attorney general. kamala harris as attorney general. , is important to give a flavor of the hijinks that occurred. that thereto say were thousands of words and hundreds of posts of the years but there has never been a federal judicial proceeding more wrought with irregularities. the judge was reversed a total --three times before his

even reached a final judgment. absurded a series of factual findings that were contradicted by the other side's own witnesses. issuing abroad statewide injunction that would after hetate officials retired from the bench, we learned that all this time he had been in a long term same-sex relationship and this was deciding his own right to marry his long-term partner. worse.even the case and of being assigned to a panel including to the judge. judge reinhardt's wife runs and -- an acluu

affiliate. she had an organization file briefs in this case in front of judge walker. i agree that proposition 8 should be struck down. she celebrated the ruling in this very case but judge reinhardt saw fit not to recuse himself. i could go on about the absurdities. let me jump forward to that particular standing issue world. one thing that the judge did right is he certified the question of what exactly is the status of the proponents who stepped in to defend the law when state officials would not, what authority did have a state law? the california supreme court unanimously ruled that it is essential to the integrity of the initiative process in california that the official proponents of initiative able to assert the state's interest in behalf of the people when public

officials will not do so. the state said proponents are standing in the shoes of the governor and the attorney- general. they did not have to have the standing that there would normally have. you end up with the odd 5-4 division rowling. the descent was written by justice kennedy. you have a mixed group in both alignments. this was an open issue for the court. i do not pretend it is an easy issue but it is significant that

the constitution simply does not speak to the question of how states allocate their own internal authority. there's nothing in the constitution that says state cannot assign authority to one person rather than another. the separation of powers apply against the government. that do not apply against the states. it is quite a step for the court to have said given what the supreme court had to say about the authority of the proponents that there was not standing. the more serious consequence is that the ruling makes executive branch lawlessness effectively unremediable. -- and the supreme court and i think wrongly has said we have no authority to step in to decide the substantive claims

that they proposition a proponents have brought. the very limited of the ruling is the court did not address the merits of proposition 8. that is mixed-. i would prefer the do so in a matter which way would go. if the court is going to roll that marriage laws are not constitutional, i would rather see that up front rather than proceed by stealth and try to oppose this-impose this on the when they are not lo looking. this will be litigated and fought democratically in various states. first to highlight the virtues of the democratic processes. the wisdom of the constitution saying this issue like so many other contentious issues is for

debate and decision. he has a fair shake. we tried to persuade each other and make arguments that are appealing. we treat our never not as and enemies [indiscernible] stigmatizeve is to and demonize and brand as bigots depositionheld the that barack obama at least pretended to hold until last year or the year before. the democratic process also allows us to revisit these issues over time. to realize this thing that we thought was a great reform has had a horrible unintended consequences. i think it offers huge advantages over courts inventing constitutional rights. i would like to emphasize why marriage matters. i referred to that briefly before. we seem to have now this notion

that we can redefine basic institutions at no cost. we can ask how many licks does a dog have if you count a tale as a leg. three-quarters of the country would scream 5. and ifas four legs you're calling a tale leg, your very confused. i think we see the consequences of around us of the collapse of the marriage culture. this is not the fault of homosexuals. have done thef bulk of the work and ruining our marriage culture. you see the damage all around us with huge percentages of out of wedlock births and all the misery, all the governmental programs that cannot possibly put hannity down to back together again when you have families broken up like this.

this ought to be the time when we realized we need to work to restore a vibrant irish culture 3 a not take a sixth step and i fear an irreversible step in the wrong direction by redefining marriage in a way that orients it away, decisively away from the mission of raising children. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. you have heard a little bit thet the doma case in proposition 8. talkob is to come from -- about legal implications. the good news is that same-sex marriage advocates did not go around the country raising millions of dollars of money to fund these cases to bring them to the supreme court for the

result that we got. they wanted to nationalize a redefinition of marriage that would be imposed by the judiciary. they did not get that. they lost. they did not come here to get a default judgment. the good is it is it does keep the marriage somewhere where it belongs which is in the hands of people and their elected representatives. and pointed out that is where it belongs. they're reading it into the constitution. that is not the way to decide one of the most contentious issues that we're facing today.

that is the good news. we still have the state's in our elected processes for now as a backstop on these things. -- we can see how this plays out in various states at least for now. the bad news is everything else. the legal implications are troublesome given these decisions, given the logic behind them. decision.ith the doma there's a danger to the grounds that there is a lack of rational basis for the government to enact laws defining marriage as between a man and woman. it is explicitly defined marriage as a has been defined through all of him in history. we have seen this slope is the barrier-is more sebree than some

-- the slope is more slippery than some have predicted. they're saying there is no rational basis to not fund these couples. this is truly frightening and it undermines chief justice robert's careful attempt. this was talking about the decision. scalia may have had the better of the argument. rather than limiting itself to where the decision said that the federal government does not have an interest in defining statese, and perhaps --

have taken the role of defining marriage, domestic relations law. you have to look at state law. that was a line that the .ajority took the logical next up, there is no rational basis for the government to do this. i think you could articulate a rational basis for both and more rational basis to do it in the federal government. i do not think we can count on the judiciary to see that when they refused to see every rational basis that has been presented. we see that is already happening. another natural consequence is fifth.o happen we will see an uneven and confused regime of laws. the decision itself, we should not have a situation where this

[inaudible] youe were concerned that could get married and not have federal benefits. there is the question of what happens when you do get married in new york and moved to north carolina. it had federal benefits one day in lost in the next. one could point out sixth that is the value of-one could point out that that is the value of having doma. they're going to make the logical argument that this is strange to have an uneven system of marriage and so now we're portabilitypushing of benefits. and there is currently complicated questions. the windsor case itself came up in the context of state law. what happens if you get married in new york and you move to

birth carolina and you still own property. your state-your estate is being probated but what about new york? does that go to your same-sex spouse or does that get run in a different fashion in north carolina? butpay federal state taxes you were in the state of new york. been to see how that happens. the next up will be with force these to be portable. there will be the next court case. new york becomes new las vegas. everyone goes to new york or one of the other 13 states that has a same-sex marriage. to get married and to get home. that puts a lot of pressure on section 2 which says states and i have to accord full faith and credit to these marriages especially in cases where states are involved in administering these federal benefits. what position does the state take? we do not recognize same-sex marriages but we have to

administer a medicaid program that does recognize to people as being married. it will be very complicated. the trajectory is all these decisions will be resolved in favor of nationalizing same-sex marriage and it will be done by unelected judges imposing that rather than by the people deciding for themselves. that -- my strategy would be the fraud in the pot strategy. if you had thrown them in a hot pot there would have jumped right out. by taking it step by step i'm afraid that it builds complacency and cultural acceptance of all these things and that is a logical strategy. -- a lot of people were warning about as the case was being taken. the characterizations were rampant between this case and roe v. wade. pointing out when you have a social movement like that that

is undecided, very contentious and the cortex and out of the hands of the people and -- nationalize is it all at once. it shocked people and galvanized the pro-life base. the same-sex marriage advocates did not one case that would do that for the marriage movement. the question is will it and if we treated as do not worry, this is a narrow decision, perhaps will get the down side without any of the upside, at least galvanizing the base. in terms of the proposition 8 decision, the biggest legal consequence is the risk that it brings to the initiative process. justice kennedy pointed that out. when you have a situation that

the state initiative cannot be defended by the executive branch of the state government, any state initiative in that circumstance is completely vulnerable to attack. all you have to do and my strategy again in this case is to wait until you get a friendly governor and attorney general who you know are not going to defend it. you win by default everytime. you do not need to appeal to the equal protection clause or the due process clause. you just piece by piece take apart all the remaining 37 states that do have traditional marriage. you have to wait for your opportune moment and is a one- way ratchet. the ramifications go beyond marriage. looking, there is a large number of them that have to do with the citizens pushing back on judicial decision.

an attempt tos avoid having power in the hands -- [indiscernible] lotnow it is being used a by people who are pushing back against judicial use of power. ec initiatives that are going back to reinstate rewrites. this is coming before the supreme court. it followed the decision allowing affirmative action, higher education there and saying we're going to have [indiscernible] that is being brought to the supreme court. you have a state executive that is going to defend the decision. if you did not this exact same thing would happen. that is a troublesome consequence because many of the states that have traditional

marriage, it has been enacted through the initiative process. it does not have to be an initiative. it could be any law. we're entering an era here which is troublesome. doma.esident is refusing view towardhaving a the institution of values, there is a willingness to not offend law-- to defend the because this is not a policy -- that is not my policy. refuse to defend any law and that is an unfortunate development.

is other potential next up going to me that we see a challenge in a state where there is standing to attack one of these laws. say that the 14th amendment requires equal treatment and require same-sex marriage to be forced off people because that would be treated differently [indiscernible] the question is whether justice kennedy would buy this argument and that is what everyone is looking towards. there's a reason to think he might not go that far. he was torn during oral argument. we will see how it worked before we decide to institutionalize that.

if it was that excited about nationalizing same-sex marriage at this point, it is not clear why he would not have just jumped on and tried to go there in his dissent in the proposition 8 case. at least for now that seemed to be a fraud in the pot as well. maybe he is still feeling of the water. we will see if he of all along with our national culture. what is next. there is two angles that we should be looking. one is the culture that has been mentioned before. defending marriage in the culture.

the second part of that is philosophically explaining the underlying roots of marriage and its value. the other half is living in out. that means holding everyone in the church the same standard of sexual morality that we hold those with same-sex attractions to. everyone needs to be living put fidelity in their rotation. -- location. it is possible to live in fruitful marriages and chastity is a possible bowl. in our culture that is seen as off the table because it is not even possible. until catholics are willing to and other people who believe that are willing to show it is possible. another very important thing is

to shore up the limitations of the government in terms infringing on our religious freedom. we just had a finalization of the hhs mandate. this administration has been troubling and everything they have ever said about religious freedom in terms of arguments. some of them have been rejected by the supreme court. the president has not really got a memo on that. he said he would not be forcing churches or religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages.

. .

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] but then we have to solve the problem of a collapsed state, a shattered society, and repatriation of what is left and what has been left behind. i think that any serious discussion -- and i include angie very much in this category of theories -- andrew very much in this category -- has to begin with the premise of what syria is going to look like at the end of this game, the middle of the ame, as well as right now. when we talk about if only the president would do this, if only he would arm the rebels, if only he would create a safe area, if only he would really mean it when he says assad must go all the problems would be solved, i

do not think a serious person would really believe that. andrew certainly doesn't. we need to understand that our argument and discussion that taking lays in the margins. where we might marginally affect humanitarian situation, the strategic situation, the political situation, the magnitude of what has happened in syria as well beyond the ability of any minor fix or even a major fix coming from washington. what that means is that it is absolutely and completely true that the president's strategy for syria has not solve the problems of syria. heart of the strategy have been useful. part of them had in disastrous. parts of them have simply been good ideas that have not worked out. but it has been very clear that when you have a situation with 100 thousand dead, millions of refugees displaced, the terry and is him spreading like wildfire around -- sectarianism spreading like wildfire, it is not a policy you want to hold up as a glowing success. the problem is none of the major

alternatives on offer are any etter. i often hear from senator mccain and others that everything which the critics predicted would happen if we intervene has happened anyway. in some ways, it is true. syria is an absolute disaster. but we are not embedded neck deep in a quagmire with american troops now caught in the relentless pressure to expand our commitment, to go deeper, stay longer, have a surge of troops, try a new counterinsurgency strategy. people talk about the slippery slope like it is a throwaway thing -- ok, the slippery slope, we are worried about that, but now let's get on with things. you can do that. you have to think about what happens when step one doesn't work. i think that actually we have to think about the various policies on offer. i think -- i think three of the four of what andrew was forward -- i am happy with all four of his, except he did not completely describe number one, which is not just enforcing -- it was air strikes trying to take out the comical weapons

sites. in the article. basically, i think there has to be a firm and clear line between any kind of direct american ilitary intervention, and then beneath that a whole range of things that we can consider the likely efficacy. i believe the current move to openly armed the rebels comes uncomfortably close to that line but does not cross it. i think airstrikes -- the enforcement of safe areas, declaration of safe areas with the stated or unstated commitment to enforce them crosses that line. once we are a cross that line, unless you can give me a clear story by conflict ends, then i think we are on a slippery slope that leads to exactly what everyone said they are not talking about, which is relentless escalation. once you are in, you're in. you can't say, that didn't work, we're going to walk away. those of you you who remember the debate about libya circa

uly 2011 when it does not -- did not look like it was working, remember, the same people who argued originally they were never talking about boots on the ground, they started talking about boots on the ground. because once you are in it, you've got to win it. we have to be extremely cognizant not just of step one, but 2, 3, 4, and five. et me talk about some of the steps and my general sense of how this is playing out in what we can and cannot do. i think generally speaking, the argument about arming the rebels, which had dominated debate in washington for quite a while has largely been a red herring, largely irrelevant. i read -- wrote something over a year ago, roughly february of 2012, that ice suspected this is where we were going to go. why? well i said a minute ago. it would be a way of showing we were doing something without actually getting ourselves directly committed to military ntervention.

bureaucratically speaking, that is what happens. you can't do nothing. that looks bad. definitely not going to go all n. if you find something in the middle that you can do which is not actually going to solve the problem, but it might help a little bit on the margins. i am not surprised it took so long but i do not think it matters so much. there was a point it mattered, roughly between november of 2011 and march of 2012 when you were seeing a debate taking place inside the syrian opposition and across the region about whether to shift from a peaceful of rising to a militarized insurgency. that was a serious debate, and there were very real reasons at that time to avoid the militarization of the conflict. my fear at the time -- the reason why i argued against it and many others did as well, is because of the recognition that assad had an extraordinarily difficult time dealing with the nonviolent challenge, the moral challenge where it was a peaceful uprising in the arab

spring spirit against a brutal authoritarian regime. it commanded the world sympathy. it told people inside of syria there might be a safe, useful, and better alternative to the assad regime. it told the minority communities that they might have a safe future in such a regime. it had the opportunity to reach out across sectarian lines and to prevent the spread of the sectarian fear, the collapse of the state, and the unleashing of extremely predictable dynamics of militarization. unfortunately because assad proved he was willing to carry out unspeakable brutality against the syrian people and very cynically used strategy of brutality to push the opposition into a militarized response -- in other words, i think he helped to put them there because he wanted to fight on that ground, a ground where he was much more confident of winning. he was right. i think the militarization has been a disaster for the syrian

resolution -- revolution and the most everything but it did by the syrian advocates of nonviolence uprising had been validated. i think there are very few fence sitters left in syria. i think the minority communities re absolutely terrified of the victory of what is increasingly seen as a sunni islamist insurgency. and i think we now have a strategic stalemate which is very much at the expense of the syrian people. i see very little possibility of either side -- the opposition or assad reestablishing control or viable functional syrian state anytime in the future. i actually expected there to be at least five years of civil war if and when, whether and if bashar falls, whether he survives did i simply seeing the logic of militarization has gone -- walked far too far to be overturned at this point. it does not mean we should not

try. i support most of the things andrew is discussing -- and i will explain in a moment -- but the reality is the militarization and transformation from uprising to insurgency has been a moan strategic and political disaster, one which i side got and and , has brought syria to where it is now. that was a year and a half ago when this date mattered. now it does not really matter because it is fully militarized. this is now a multi-side complex internationalized insurgency in which we are debating about how and the modalities by which we would support insurgency. this is different from where we were before. what it comes down to now is trying to figure out whether the kinds of steps andrew was talking about is likely to help the insurgency not win -- that

is not the -- that is not necessarily the goal. that is one of the problems. we have not defined the goals. whether different ways of upporting the insurgency are more or less likely to produce results that are likely to serve american interests. and to this point, those interests have been defined, in my view correctly, as trying to find some kind of political transition which preserves what rudimentary functioning of the state remains and find some way to prevent what otherwise would seem to be an inevitable cycle of revenge killings, state failures, state breakdowns, i.e. afghanistan, 1990, or somalia, which is where it appears we are headed. it could be that the steps being discussed here would accomplish hat. and it could be that syria is unique -- and i think every case is unique and syria is just as unique as any other case.

but what comparative experience and what political -- most political science studies of his kind of external support for x -- insurgency tell us is kind of international support to insurgencies -- which usually goes to the weaker side, which is why they need support -- is to make war longer and bloodier and tends to make a more difficult to find a negotiated outcome create and exacerbate dynamics of state failure and the entrenchment of political economies those people will benefit from the black markets associated with insurgencies, and ultimately make it less likely that you will have a democratic or stable regime when the war finally ends. most wars do eventually end. it could be, again, that syria is different and it would be different this time. i feel more comfortable -- if it has not happened -- if anybody can point to a single case in he history of the world were

-- whether such a strategy has worked. and that can happen. it is extremely frustrating to me we have not been able to find one. and q&a we can talk about some of the examples that are probably immediately popping to mind. the french support of the american revolution will not cut it. if you had to go back that far and take such a radically different case, i am not convinced. so, the logic of arming rebels then, given everything i just said, essentially boils down -- the logic of this has been fully -- this has been fully adjudicated in the op-ed pages. you know the basic logic of why people move toward trying to arm the rebels. basically the logic is that if we start putting -- if we start arming the syrian rebels, a couple of things will appen. one, we will stabilize the battlefield, prevent the rebels from losing, and enable them to basically respond to what many people seem to think is the

regime's military advantage. secondly, for those of us, including andrew who report -- supports and endgame -- would be more likely of the rebels are able to bargain from a position of strength. third, the broad recognition that there are these jihadist groups who are part of the insurgency, and they are stronger than the groups that we would like to support. so, if we give them weapons they would be stronger and they might be able to weaken the appeal of the jihadist and radicals and peel away some of the supporters, and therefore by arming the opposition we both further the battle against assad and weaken the jihadist who alarm us. finally, this will then give us a greater say, a greater stake in a greater influence over postwar syria. we will win the gratitude, the political support, and basically

have a role in post-assad syria after the rebels we have armed have either won or negotiated a ransition. his sounds good thomas and i heard it expressed extremely well by many people, including some in this---this sounds good, and i heard it expressed extremely well. but i am not sure any steps in the causal chain -- not convinced by any one of them. the argument that the u.s. providing arms could make a significant difference in the strategic equation rests on a couple of assumptions. the first is, they currently can't get weapons. syria is afloat and weapons. weapons have been a flowing for the past year and a half and the u.s. would be entering entering into a crowded market of weapons. it is not like it was a year and a half ago where you had first movers advantage and you could make a strategic qualitative ifference.

now you become one player in a crowded field of potential armers. of coursou them if you give them more or better weapons. but this is a change on the margins but not a change in ype. number two, this would matter the most -- i actually am going to say something positive towards the end -- but this would matter the most if and only if we were able to establish a unified supply chain in which we were the only supplier of weapons or at least were able to direct the flow of weapons from our allies in turkey, jordan, etc. in other words, unify the flow of weapons into a unified opposition which would then have oversight over a unified ilitary force. but none of those conditions apply. we don't agree on the goals with

our major allies. the saudi's and -- they spend more time competing with each other for influence over opposition than they do constructing a unified strategic plan. the fragmentation and political dysfunction of the opposition is not something over here while the funding of the insurgency is over here. the one causes and supports the other. money flowing in from the turks, money flowing in from the saudi's, and now money flowing in through us, all this does is help increase the fragmentation, separation, internal conflict, internal battling between what is actually a loose amalgam of local militias, local forces with fluid memberships and varying degrees of control over different areas. i think much more than my punch line is we should be, as we have in the past six months, putting much more effort into trying to

do the centralization, organization and political leadership of the provision of aid to the syrian opposition than thinking that simply providing arms would do the trick. but the bottom line is that the arming of the rebels have gone on for a long time in a decentralized way, and that unless we can get control over that, we are simply going to be adding to it rather than qualitatively changing it. number two, the assumption that we can radically change this assumes through the provision of arms, it assumes that russia, ran, hezbollah and syria's other backers are essentially maxed out, that they have given everything -- everything they can and if we add to the mix they will then -- things will shift and create a balance favorable to the opposition. maybe. or maybe the foreign backers of assad simply respond by

increasing their aid and you simply have an escalatory ladder. it is an empirical question whether they are maxed out, but i see no evidence whatsoever hey are. third, i simply do not believe we will drive away jihadists by becoming more involved in the conflict. that is not the lesson of anyplace else in the world. the lesson of the rest of the world, won't we are involved, jihadists loved being there more. they will continue to fight is and be able to use our involvement, open and public now, as a pretty good argument as to why the ones receiving our weapons are not in fact authentic representatives of the syrian people, islam, or the grand sunni jihad against the nfidels. in other words, the idea that jihadists will sit back and say, gee, we had a good run but now the u.s. is funding the moderate rebels, it strikes me as exceedingly unlikely.

the united states has been deeply and correctly worried that some of its weapons will flow to these jihadist groups. now we are told that the cia has decided that they identified the good guys and they can provide guidance to them and those guns will not go to the jihadists. i find this to be ridiculous. insurgencies do insurgency things. that is what they do. car bombs blowing up -- that is what insurgencies do. the idea that -- ok, there are ome bad jihadists and most are just opportunists and they are fighting because they have better weapons. if we had better weapons, they will come to our side. a key part in the causal chain -- it is just logically insane. because once we have attracted these opportunists to our side with better weapons, and now they have those better weapons and the winds shift and now the

jihadists suddenly get more weapons, why in the world with these avowed tunists switch back? what would hold them in place? you think will might hold them in place will be a strong centralized command-and-control. but we know that does not exist it in other words, the idea that a provision of weapons is going to somehow marginalize and isolate and remove the jihadist presence in syria strikes me as deeply implausible, particularly because the insertion of more guns and moving up the escalating ladder means it will be bloody and nasty. everything andrew correctly identified would increase and scalate. will might be some examples out there in the world of people becoming more moderate and less disposed to radical ideas as conflict increases and the state collapses in the blood flows. i am not aware of them. i think more likely, radical ideas will become more

attractive as the fighting escalates and as the state collapse accelerates. so, i am sure there are some good rebels, and i hope that we can support them, but i think we should have no illusions whatsoever that we will have lasting influence or control over them or that they are in line with our values or that we can kind of place our bets on them and they will then deliver on our behalf. i think if we give guns to a particular general and then we say we don't like what you did to that local community, we will not support you anymore, he will probably say, ok, we will get our guns someplace else now. one of the key things i hear now unfortunately -- one of the things that has changed is with the change in qatar and even before that that they were out and the saudis and out taking the lead on this is a good thing

they're taking the lead in the organization and arming of the opposition, let me just say and throw it out there, that if you are counting on saudi arabia to deliver a liberal democratic anti-sectarian and non-islamist opposition, i am sorry, but i can't help you. i don't believe it. i don't believe it. so, what will arming the rebels be good at? very good for deflecting political pressure for washington to do more for a while. it will be pretty good at deflecting pressure in the gulf for us to show leadership by doing what they want us to do. it will give john kerry some chips in diplomacy. and it will temporarily strengthen our proxy... to others. all of those will be good for a month or so, and then we will be right back to where we have been, which is having arguments about when and whether to begin airstrikes, no-fly zones, and the like. don't think all is hopeless.

there are useful things we can do. andrew outlined many of them. we did -- you should be doing much more to build political pposition. both military and nonmilitary. we should be doing much more to channel all aid through the political leadership of the opposition, both military and nonmilitary. we should be doing more -- promisee, we have been trying -- to knock heads with our allies in the gulf. hey, maybe the provision of arms will give us more leverage over the saudis and others to fall in line. maybe. we should be doing those things. but i am not going to stand appear promise you that this is the magic solution that is going to solve this problem. i do not think there is a solution. i think that is a very depressing way to end this, but i shall. [applause] >> great. marc, andrew, thank you both very much. i now have the great pleasure to be a provocateur and devils advocate against both of your positions. i think it is important that i

would like to at least begin to focus on the higher strategic level about what the object is -- objectives are, rather than the tactical implementation level, for a moment. so let me ask each of you this question, or ask each of you a question. first, to andrew. you mentioned in your opening remarks that we have three parts of syria effectively with three different u.s. designated terrorist organizations fighting each other. the question that was addressed in "the post" op-ed was a very good question -- isn't this a great blessing, this conflict? three terrorist organizations killing each other? my gosh, we will come back in a year or two and there will be fewer terrorists in the world. in the meantime, let's protect the jordanians, protect the turks, make sure it does not

overflow the borders. isn't that a reasonable strategy? and, marc, on the total other side -- my gosh, the iranians are all in, the russians are there, hezbollah is there. are we going to lose? do we really want iranians to in here? shouldn't the fundamental prime directive, to use "star trek" terms -- need to ensure that the iranians and hezbollah don't win to make sure the terrible calamity does not happen? gentlemen? >> that is not the first time i have had this discussion. it has a certain coldhearted calculus to it. we have the sworn enemies of

united states. the they have killed americans over the years.all fighting each other and doesn't this sound great?it goes back to the situation of that would all work until it doesn't work. that work until that conflict becomes uncontainable within the current boundaries of that arena. i argued that earlier. i think it becomes difficult to contain that. what you end up doing is destroying a country and xpanding politically extremism among the three different areas. i do not think that is something in our interest. making this more dangerous,

to our immediate allies and here are looking at turkey, jordan, israel, lebanon and iraq.making this more dangerous is i do not feel comfortable or safe at all knowing that this kind of battle with these kinds of groups taking place is going in centered around an where we have the largest are stockpile of chemical weapons in the middle east. i realize most assessments are that they are in regime hands. we cannot guarantee that going forward. a lot of things are loaded into shells that can be fired. as is not stuff that can easily be kept under lock and key. i think that has a number of downside risks to it. that supercharges it, and sends it, in many ways, global. that is a reason president

obama outlined it as a direct threat . there are a number of ways that it is a direct threat. the other, i think -- as the conflict expands, what i'm really worried about is it is feasible that going forward, we could have boundaries in place in a de jour sense, but in a defacto sense, it will be part of the greater syria that many people talk about what probably do not really want. that in itself, the destabilization of the northern provinces of jordan, in its self, i think, is a threat, and that area being politically filled with extremists.getting to mark post earlier point --i think i say it in the article directly. if not, i will say it here.

in a way, in most ways, this is a political operation using military means, because we are shaping a rapidly changing environment. that, in and of itself, like mark said, makes this much more complicated and hard. one thing i would add to that is that, of the four steps i outlined -- all of these do not have to go in order, and we do not have to do all of them at the same time. the great challenge of leadership, going forward in the region -- i guess i learned this lesson a bit from, i hate to say it, the iranians, and watching our adversaries battle with us they are very good at looking at the full dashboard of options, turning this knob and

this switch. throwing they are very good at that. obviously, they do not have public pressure to go up the escalation change. in the end, they can do what they want. often, we get locked into a situation where we believe we have to go all-in. i do not think that is what is going to win it in syria, necessarily.it might at a certain point. there are a lot of unknowns, here. it is going to be a much more complicated situation. in israel, a very senior security intelligence official, who i respect very much, as many of you know -- he said to jeff white and i, at a military base at the end of the day when we were all thinking about this crisis. he said this is the most complicated challenge that israel has ever faced.and the i.d.f. i was sort of taken aback. this is a country that has faced a lot of challenges. he said, i did not say it was the biggest.

i said it was the most complicated. and we are nowhere close to the end of it. i do not think it is just the united states. our allies, such as israel, think along similar lines. >> good questions. i want to emphasize that i agree smswith a lot of andrew's recommendations. he has a good and useful politics-first approach to this, ith military actions and arming in support of the political objectives. i recommend that. i did not mean to say that you didn't. others, not so much, but i think that is important. i do not agree with your question to andrew or to me. i do not agree with lead it -- bleed it out. let them fight it out. hezbollah and al qaeda are killing each other. they are not simply killing each other. they are killing thousands of syrians and doing all of the

other things we have been talking about. it is also not a zero-sum game. the rock, paper idea that you could kill all the bad guys silly. is you are exacerbating the radicalization process elsewhere. this is not zero-sum. one of the most worrying things about what has been happening is the way that this is turning into very much a regionwide and even internationalized sectarian campaign, this sunni jihad, which is very much along the lines of what we saw in afghanistan in the 1980's or bosnia and others. saudi led, using media, using mosques, using religious networks to mobilize people and to get them to provide money to come and fight. it is not just jihadists doing these things. it is the mainstream, the

ones we are working with. think about it like little kernels of popcorn. some of them might come over and die in syria, but more and more of them are popping all over the region. the notion that there is a fixed number of these guys you can kill is just wrong. on the other side, are we really going to let iran man?-- let iran win? this gets to the nub of the uestion of overall strategic goals. we have not decided, as a government, as a policy community. i think people really disagree. is syria a civil war which needs to be solved, or is it a front in a regional war against iran that needs to be won? these are different things. the steps that might need to be taken to find a transition in syria are not the ones you

would take if what you want to do is to bleed iran and fight it out, and the like. understanding what that strategic objective is is going to be difficult. it gets back to the point i was making before. i think we do not agree with our allies. the jordanians and the turks probably want to solve the problem, which is threatening to overwhelm their countries. the saudis would probably be happy to keep fighting. to them, the strategy you are describing makes perfect sense. what do we think? i think we have not really rticulated it. >> let's open the floor to your questions. we will start with tom. then, we will go in the far back. when you get the microphone, make sure you identify yourself and that would be great. >> this is a fascinating discussion, sort of like the war itself.

there will not be a winner for a while. there was a similar discussion at a conference in houston. when you get that far outside the beltway, you hear different ways of looking at this. one of the speakers presented this argument. these arrangements, far from being security architecture,have been an artificial overlay imposed by outsiders, that have prevented the inevitable sorting out that ought to have taken place after the collapse of the ottoman empire in the 1920's. the colonials prevented it from happening, and cold war constraints stopped it from happening it is happening now, and we should step out of the way until there is a winner. i take it you do not agree with that? >> i do not agree with it. i think the reason why i see as a major concern is because it a lot of things have happened since the boundaries were

drawn. nations, imperfect as they are often times, were built. armies were raised. in the case of syria, i think this is really important. they also bought and produced the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the middle east. the breakup of syria, i think threatens a lot of that other architecture. the downsides of this breaking down are, i believe, so great on so many different levels that it would create a political and military chaos. it would actually probably lead to the great armageddon we are probably trying to avoid. that is the reason i would like to keep it contained within syria. it is pretty straightforward. that might not all occur.maybe

there might be some areas of bleed out.the reason why a wrote this article is clear. i see the chernobyling of syria as a threat to u.s. interests on a number of levels. that architecture is 100 years old, for better or for worse. i think letting everybody get it out of their systems is not wise. we might not be able to control everything. mark is right. i think you all know that subheading is just the way it goes when you publish something. as much as we can shape that, i think that is very important for our assets in the region. >> in the far back. >> thank you. my name is edward joseph, with johns hopkins. i agree with the previous questioner.it is absolutely a terrific event. i would like to take up the challenge to give you an example of where arming

insurgents made a decisive difference. of course, that is bosnia, 1995. actually, beginning 1994. the arming, and i would underscore the training, of croats in particular, and bosnian forces, were the key determinant, not nato airstrikes. it was the improvement in capacity of the ground forces that made the difference on e ground that brought the the negotiating table seriously at dayton and made that agreement possible. of course, there were many differences. with someone i am sure you are familiar with, elizabeth -- she and i have written an

article that examines the differences and similarities between bozz see inia and syria. among them -- this is to get to andrew's point that syria has over five times the population, meaning you have to have on order of 500,000 to 600,000 the casualties to have the same relative impact you had in bosnia. my question to andrew is, mark has made -- >> we are going to have to hold it there. >> may i ask a question quickly? if intervening is futile, do you agree? agree? can you address that point? >> stop. >> ok. bosnia. i am glad you mentioned bosnia and did not confuse it with kosovo, like some columnists. yes, you are right. what tipped the balance in bosnia was the arming of the croatian military, and their conventional victory against serbian forces.

what did not tip the balance was the creation of safe areas, which grew to be unenforceable, airstrikes which proved to make little difference to the resolution of the conflict. it was only the full-scale arming and victory of the croatian army that did the trick. i am not sure who you envision playing the role of the croatian army in this scenario. turks, maybe. i'm not sure. but it was not the arming of bosnian insurgents. it was the arming of conventional military, which won a conventional military victory. at the end of that conventional military victory, there was the dayton process, in which we took milosevic and legitimated him in power, made him a key part of the solution, and he only show up in the hague many years later. what it involved was agreeing

to the partition of the country, and legitimating the role of the architect of the massacres, being willing to wine, dine, and drink whiskey with the guy, and not seek international justice. and basically having that be enforced through a major international peacekeeping operation, with the overt acceptance of russia and the neighbors. if you are willing to go all the way and envision assad's role similar to milosevic tom up finding someone to play the role of the croatian army, avoiding international justice, and giving bashar that role, that is a plausible path, but i am no -- not sure it is the one most people might think. it is a good thought experiment to work through, i am not sure it has the lessons that some people might think. >> a couple of questions

over here. >> thank you. a daily newspaper. a quick question to mark. was the president precipitous in saying that assad must go, painting himself into a corner with diplomacy? to andrew, is geneva ii dead for all practical purposes? thank you. >> andrew, once you start, you can get in your last comment during the question. >> arming the rebels. i do not think it is a futile exercise. however, as you noticed, the recent announcement was to arm the supreme military council, which is essentially the armed affiliate of the syrian opposition coalition. that organization was reated around the same time, secretly, off in the wings. we have a paper coming out from the washington institute

that tracks a little bit of this. overall, the smc includes defectors from the syrian military, people i have met. the problem is, in my opinion, given we have seen gross extremism in the opposition ranks, is, in the smc are a umber of leaders who are closer politically and in terms of common cause with extremists than the u.s. government. the weapons that are provided by those channels could leak out they could leak out through other channels. a lot of things happen when you move weapons through a check point people in lebanon told me how that used to work. offloading of weapons is a very very common one. that is my first. this is also very important. this is also where i take issue with the administration.

in my opinion, geneva ii was dead when the team that was negotiating this in geneva took what was not a bad text, and took it to st. petersburg, and met with putin, and changed the language that said all of this has to be agreed on by mutual consent. it seemed like a diplomatic way to get this through, and it was but it made it unenforceable. you have to get assad to agree to go himself, which he is not going to do. at the time, it was seen as check i the opposition on a the regime calculations in this process. i think it gives this process,

if we continue with it -- gives assad that lease on life, and he will continue. i have covered two syrian elections in my life, and it was not pleasant. and they were begging me to vote, with blood from my thumb. as funny as that was, there is a less than zero chance that anybody else will win if he runs in 2014, or if they oversee that transition. it will take a lot more than that, or some american that runs the elections. center i agree that a true transition-- i agree with the administration. a true transition means we move it from this little cabal of people to a group of people that represent the demographic differences inside of the country, and those have changed over time. getting there is tough. i do not see the meeting happening soon, because it seems like the united states and russia are still at odds, which would keep it from happening. >> was the president too precipitous? >> yes.

there was pressure at the time to take a forceful position that assad must go. i wrote a piece, "expellus assadum," the idea that this as a magical phrase that would make it so. it created a set of expectations which could not be met. i think that on all sides -- most of us, i think, miscalculated assad's ability to survive. my calculation was that as ong as it was a peaceful uprising, being butchered, assad could

not survive because of the moral force of nonviolent protest, what this would do to the syrian middleground. once it turned into a military confrontation, my estimate of his likely survival went way up people who wanted early military intervention also misjudged. the idea that at first sight of a nato jet, assad would run for the hills was clearly not right. it was a descriptive statement, assad must go. that is a reasonable analytic judgment. as a declarative statement by the president, it probably should not have been made. >> ken, stanley, and then the way back. >> thank you for a terrific discussion. andrew, i have a question about chemical weapons and the so- called red line that has allegedly been crossed. the iraq war, there was a great deal of evidence presented to congress and the united nations, resented to the public, of

iraqi weapons of mass distraction. in this case, we have a declaration by the president. we do not have anything presented to congress, classified or unclassified. we have the head of eu diplomacy saying that their analysis is that the rebels used chemical weapons. what is the evidence? why hasn't the administration presented it? >> in the front. > this is a good book. that question. sun tzu, in "the art of war," said, "know your enemy and know yourself." would the american people be willing to support whatever is necessary? do you not have to view what the american people would

support now? >> i do not know if that is a question to me or not. in the back. >> i want to get mark and andrew to answer each other. tell us what happens when mission creep happens, like mark was wondering about. what happens if we do not follow the issue, and the syrian war continues to get out of hand and no-fly zones are not enough? and mark, if you could let us know -- answer andrew's main concern, which is what happens when this becomes much more regional. >> why don't we start from that? this is going to be the final round of questions. gentlemen, you want to start, mark? >> i am glad mona asked me a question. look -- like i said, i expect this to be a long-term war

which is increasingly international and shapes the entire region. i have no illusions about that. the question from before -- i think arab states are more resilient than we often think they are. i think when a rock was at it its worst.-- when iraq was at its worst, a lot of people thought something similar would happen. and it did not. i am shocked, in some ways, that the kurds have not left iraq yet. that speaks to the resilience and power of that supposedly fragile state structure. interestingly -- with lebanon, i feel like lebanon and syria are so interrelated that i actually think there is a very high chance -- i am surprised has not been more spillover there from syria into lebanon, more fighting in lebanon than we have already seen, and unfortunately, i suspect that will happen, especially now that has a lot

is involved.-- especially now hezbollah is involved. that i think jordan is ok. jordan, for better or for worse has long experienced flows of refugees, endemic security threats. we should support them, but i am not as worried about jordan. turkey will also pretty much be ok. i am worried about iraq. iraq has its own internal issues. maliki's creeping authoritarianism.going on for a long time. all that stuff is constant. increasing flows of weapons back and forth is deeply worrying, and does introduce a factor. i do not know how responsive your question that is. to the spread of the many ways might play out, that is the this one that worries me most, the spillover into iraq. >> tuesday, a discussion on the impact to have helt care law and healthcare coverage.

live at 12:15 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> the views of future operations. from the institute for the study of war, this is an hour and 10 minutes. please turn off your cell phones so that the broadcast continues. lease also join us understanding war.org. stuart has served for nine years him aq, which really gives

a perspective on u.s. and multinational engagement in iraq over such a vared period of history. to the current environment where we are actually watching some of the completion of projects that were begun long ago, but also watching the streamic effects of u.s. en-- strategicfects of u.s. ngagement. it is the watchdog that ensures that u.s. texas to dollars that are spent inside iraq are spent well and wisely. but they also have the wonderful position for evaluating our

changing mission and changing program in iraq, precisely because as a public watchdog, as one who looks at military projects from a civilian perspective, we -- he has the opportunity to talk about very many different problems, challenges and lessons learned that he has been able to work on over the past nine years. is also the author along with his team of learning from iraq, a book that i commend to you for reading and for learning. and so with that introduction, please help me welcome stuart bowen. [applause]

>> thank you, thank you, kim. thanks to the institute and all of you for being here this morning. it's a privilege to be part of the institute, an institute event because of the great work you continue to do in many fields. but particularly in iraq. i find your reporting on iraq to be the most comprehensive, the most effective. and so i urge all of you all to consult the isw website if you want to know what's going on day-by-day in iraq. something i've been focussed on for 9 1/2 years what's going on day-by-day in iraq. 35 quarterly reports, 290 inspections, nine lessons learned reports which learning from iraq is the last. and also hard lessons. our previous book which came out in 2009, all accessible at our web site, www.sigir.mil. we're almost done in our

mission, both in iraq as an aid and assistance program, but also an oversight mission. sigir will close its doors on september 30 of this year. but not before we obtain about 20 more convictions. to date, we've secured 86. recovered $200 million. hope to get another $100 million for the taxpayers. we're the taxpayers' watchdog. we're not quite finished with ensuring that the taxpayers' dollars have been properly accounted for. this morning, we want to talk about the lessons from iraq. as kim underscored, there's a lot to learn from our ten-year experience, our ten-year rebuilding program, applicable to how the united states structures itself for stabilization and reconstruction operations. let me start with this challenging point. and that is the united states

is not significantly better off, structurely, with regard to planning for, executing, or overseeing stabilization and reconstruction operations than it was ten years ago. ystemically, structurally, the legislature that the branch should learn from the branchs. we spelled them out in seven in learning from iraq. and they're drawn from chapter two of learning from iraq which encapsulates 44 interviews that i conducted. about what happened. really, i asked two questions -- the leadership in iraq. rime minister malaki and malawi and geoffrey. leadership across the board. general petraeus, austin, oderno, deputy secretary bern,

secretary panetta. and on the hill, senator mccain, senator mccaskell, and a number of house members as well. two questions. how do you think the iraq money was spent, the rebuilding money. and second, what lessons do you draw from that. and from their answers, they get these seven lessons. first, just what i said. foremost, that the united states must reform, restructure, improve the approach to planning and executing the stabilization and reconstruction. chapter six proposes a solution to that, create the u.s. office for contingency operations and i'm happy to report this past friday, stockman-welch bill hr 2606 was introduced to do exactly that. so there is an opportunity for change, an opportunity to apply lesson learned from iraq.

known for saying a lesson learn that is not a lesson apply -- applied is a lesson lost. this will avert that lost if it comes into being. second lesson. don't conduct significant rebuilding operations when the security situation is severe. and that is the case too often in iraq. it seems self-evident. however, for example, in fallujah, we proceeded with a substantial waste water treatment plant that because of the security situation wasn't completed until two years ago. it took eight years to finish. it cost three times as much. it is serving a third of the number of people targeted initially. one, because it was pursued in a very insecure environment. three, consult. this is what the iraqis said to

me over and over again that the united states did not do. 52 million should have brought us more if you consulted with us about what we really needed at the outset than we would have benefitted from your investment, your substantial investment. consultation also was an issue that the u.s. interviewees raised with me. bill burns, deputy secretary of state said we tried to do it all and do it our own way. and in recognition that from the outset that the cpa did not -- the provisional authority, the u.s.-led governance of iraq for the first 14 months did not engage sufficiently with the iraqis about what they really eeded. fourth -- uniformity. lack of uniform systems in iraq.

agencies, stove pipes carry out their missions using their own contracting approaches, their own oversight methods, their own i.t. systems. and as a result, you had stove pipes data. if you have stove pipe data, you have inconsistencies. that produced from the audit, we learned from the audit, the fact that about 30% of the projects completed in iraq were not properly accounted for, not properly recorded in any data base. and therefore we couldn't really analyze the details of them without trying to find the paperwork wherever it may be hidden at particular agencies. that's something that the reform of our approach to stabilization reconstruction operations must address and it must address the