to be 100% american, but if we all just do our little part and look deeper we can really change things in this country. guest: go to the website, sign up for the mailing list, go of the theaters and get engaged. host: one thing that surprises you? guest: the amount of manufacturing still being i am a big advocate. that sees company the importance of embracing this country to manufacturing things. i think other companies will come back. they will see their something great about this. >> thanks very much for being with us. we will continue the conversation tomorrow morning.

live coverage of the senate foreign relations giddy this afternoon. -- committee this afternoon. you can check out our schedule atormation any 1time cspan.org. ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> president obama tries to get house and senate numbers to respond to alleged chemical attacks in syria.

they do have a camera at the white house. we will bring view comments. there's also a classified re- think with congress on capitol hill. we have a camera there. we will bring that to you soon as it becomes available. the president and prime minister abe spoke by telephone yesterday. the white house reporting that they agree that the use of those type of weapons is a serious violation of international norms and cannot be tolerated. speak on that. syrian civilians took place delhi two weeks ago killing an estimated 1430 people. took place in damascus two weeks ago, killing an estimated 1430.the -- the senate foreign relations committee is this afternoon.

it is the first congressional hearing on the military force in syria. we will have live coverage when this gets underway at 2:30 p.m. eastern. on facebook we continue with a question over the weekend, how should your center vote on attacking syria. let us know what you think. >> the ringing of this out, announcing the opening of thanksgiving two. i think the white house should

be like that. >> our message is this. are concerneds and citizens of the world, we pledge to do all possible to scourge.his greg looking at the yours ladies live monday night including your calls, and facebook comments and tweets. withhing next wednesday edith roosevelt. a community discussion on ending partisanship in government. they created a commission on political reform that can now travel to eight citizens in the effort. usa today susan page moderate a town hall meeting on public service. this is about an hour and 50 minutes.

[applause] >> good afternoon. i am former senator olympia snowe and a senior fellow at the bipartisan policy center. i want to welcome you for ways a second series of national conversations on american unity. what a true pleasure is to be able to gather in the great city of philadelphia, not all in the birth of america incurred here, but the genesis of what became an unprecedented experiment in government that would forever changed the face of our planet and humankind.

just to think about it, the two most seminal political documents created across the independent -- just across the independence mall from here. if we could bottle that atmosphere in that room and ship it off to congress, we would be onto something, right? [applause] i want to thank jeffrey rosen, obviously, for his visionary and exceptional leadership, both for him and the national constitution centers for their hosting this important dialogue today. allowing the awesome surroundings and the spirit of the founding fathers to serve as inspiration as we can mean an explore attitudes toward public service and government, as well as we can do to ensure that more americans are actively engaged with democracy, their community, and government. i would like to express my profound appreciation to the usa today and meza especially, the washington bureau chief, who will be moderating. she and usa today have been

invaluable partners with the policy center in organizing these forums. i am also very proud to be able to co-chair the commission on political reform with two former senate majority leaders, trent lott who will be here today, and tom daschle as well, and also former congressman dan brockman, who you will be hearing from shortly. and former governor, senator, and secretary of the interior who will be on a subsequent panel. panel. this will be untrue the important initiative -- a truly important initiative as we engage america. i am also grateful for the distinguished guests and represent a wide ranging array

of perspectives and backgrounds and experiences in both the public and private sectors. i'm also delighted to be able to welcome pennsylvania's state senator, senator harris walker. we're delighted to have you here. [applause] i certainly can tell you he represented the essence of public service. we are delighted that you could be here with us today. the bipartisan policy center created the commission on political reform. what makes it unique is we are engaging all of you as the public in his discussion about the causes and consequences of america's political, partisan divide. and what we can do about it, because that is what we are, a can-do organization and a can-do country. we will be issuing a sieve -- a specific set of reforms in the electro, congressional, as well as the putting an emphasis on encouraging the public and what we can do about it.

will be issuing a set of recommendations at the conclusion of all of these national town meetings. we kicked off the first town meeting, as i said earlier, at the reagan library in march. following today's event, there will be two other events, one in october in columbus, ohio, at ohio state university. and then in march, and 2014 to at the kennedy institute and the jfk library in boston. you'll be hearing from the panel about exploring ways in which we can encourage and broaden public service and various aspects to public service.

there are many dimensions to public service, but most especially, to encourage and broaden the pool of quality individuals who are willing to run for office and work for government, and most especially to apply their talents at all levels of government. we have seen -- there has been an explosive rise in hyper partisanship in washington as we see overall in the political system. we have seen too many talented men and women on so many college campuses across the country who are skeptical because they do not believe they can have an impact in the world around them and they do not see public office as a desirable or viable option for their future. it is a national travesty and one that we must change. we have to determine how we can

change not only the political poison as environment, but also the inner workings of government. it has to be reaped restored and regarded as the means by which we meet monumental challenges and forge greater achievements. it encapsulates more than just running for office or serving in government. that was illustrated -- will be illustrated perfectly buyer latino's speaker we are

fortunate to have this afternoon. gm -- jim really does exemplified the best in the public field through building private-public partnerships. it is the story not only to be told, but to be replicated. he has established a company from a $350 million multi-year initiative multi lingual programs to implement early childhood education.

but gm was not contented have to initiate the idea. he also championed the importance and significance of its two organizations across this country and even testified across the country. that is true commitment. beyond that, he has been involved in so many other spheres. he was the president of the federal advisory council on the federal reserve system. he has been involved and engaged in numerous cultural, educational, and physical organizations. distinctive recognitions in the form of the horatio algers distinguished citizen award, the corporate citizenry award. he has been awarded excellence in corporate finances -- philanthropy and the workshop on maria ward. and during his tenure as ceo of

pnc, his company was named the great work place award for working mothers. it does not get better than that. he personifies the notion of public service in its brightest and broadest facets. his contributions truly do shine a spotlight on how one person can make a difference because jim rohr has. please give a very warm welcome to jim rohr. [applause] >> this is my best day.

what a wonderful introduction. i will have to can that one. there are probably a lot of people would disagree with it. thank you very much, senator. and with your own believable -- unbelievable career in the senate, have to thank you for that and congratulate you for that and for what you are continuing to do to bring a bipartisan nature to your office and run the country. thank you. can we have a round of applause for the senator? [applause] it is great to be here at a time when bipartisanship is so important. there are a number of things that we have to think about. in order to make sure our country gets back on track that we had been on from -- for a long time. this is a commitment to america. you are committing to bipartisanship. and when you think about what

took place here a couple hundred years ago, the characters that showed up here rode their horses to town to negotiate with the government must be. could you imagine what it would be like if you wrote your horse all the way up from virginia? what kind of movie would be in? -- mood you would be in? [laughter] these people were the most disparate group of people you could ever imagine, coming from different countries, backgrounds to be here. but they came together in philadelphia and met in a bipartisan way and forged what is our constitution and what is the beginning of our country. it is amazing that these people worked together like that, and frankly, that they created something very special we have

to remind ourselves that was not done easily. it took some great leadership and great compromising in order to get it right for the majority of the people of this country. you are here for this bipartisan program, so probably shedding light where there is no darkness. you people are already brought in. -- bought in. we work together on teams and in partnerships and we know those accomplished a great deal more. i pulled some of the convert -- comments that came out of the congress lately that i thought were very team building. "i thought of that already." [laughter] "i don't need your help." [laughter] "stand back and let me show you how to do this," that always

brings the team together. [laughter] "if i needed your help, i would have passed for 8." those are all quotations from recent weeks -- i would have asked for its." those are all quotations from recent weeks. constructive dialogue is critically important for the future of this country. we will not get to where we need to be without actually setting aside some of our partisanship in order to seek the solutions forry, an agenda on the things that really matter. -- for a common agenda on the things that really matter. there are a lot of things that we talk about every day. we seem to miss our focus sometimes and the things that are really important. think about some of the trans.

i'm a pretty positive guy. part of this is a result of the american dream. a number of years ago a man came over on a boat and he spoke french. i do not know why. i never met him. for some reason, he went to cleveland. [laughter] he got a job as a cook. my grandmother came over from ireland and got a job doing the laundry in hotel. i have seen pictures of these people. relatively ordinary people my grandmother was not quite so ordinary. she was about 4 foot 11 inches in diameter. [laughter] they had one child. that child never spoke gaelic. never spoke french. only spoke english. and the command was that child would go to school and to

college. he did go to college. that was my father and he had a family. he was a very hard-working person. he passed away when i was 10. i got the idea of how to work hard because that was the culture of his family. i was fortunate enough to go to another game and work my way through ohio state. -- to another game and work my way through her ohio state. and i've had a wonderful career and a wonderful family. i am probably the american dream in many ways. and one of the things that you get to learn about in building a company and working for a company is how important education is the and how important it is to build a team. how important is to have a

diverse group of people around you to work together as 18. you have to be able to force that team. abraham lincoln made his wonderful speech at the gettysburg address. when he pulled his cabinet together, it was a team of very accomplished people in their own right and remarkably diverse in opinion, and in many cases, his opponents. but he put together what he thought was the best cabinet. and somehow, they came together at a very important time in our country's history and is a key to we are today. it is about having people discuss things in a bipartisan way. also, to be successful you have to be honest. you have to take a hard look at the issues that are really

important. you have to use facts. sometimes we do not like to use fax. if there is a big challenge, we do not like to look at the facts and we want to put it aside and hope to get better. and we say is politically incorrect to discuss that in that way, because it is easier to deal with it that way. the fact of the matter is, when you put your big challenges aside, they do not get fixed. i would like to talk about two big challenges where i think we

are dropping the ball. you could actually be pessimistic about these things. the the i think we can get out ahead of this and actually fix it, which have far reaching effects. we are failing our children. we are feeling the next generation. why do i say that? we're going to give the next generation somewhere between 17 and $20 trillion worth of debt. we did not inherit $17 trillion worth of debt. it has doubled in six years. we are running in excess of $1 trillion a year in debt. we have run it up from $1 trillion to over $3 trillion in order to keep interest rates low. and that move would be another five under billion dollars a

year in interest payments on our debt. it is a fact. we do not want to deal with it. we do not want to discuss it. it is a very difficult this -- issue. and every child will inherit a the equivalent of $50,000. these are things that we can deal with. these are things that will be a burden to the next generation. we have to get out in front of them. buying down interest rates is good for the coming out of the recession. i think it was the right thing. and the government spending, we could argue about how much money

was spent by the government. frankly, you could not have affected public spending at the time. but now we have to stop it and come together in order to deal with this. our debt to gdp ratio is about 75%. five years ago, it was half of that. we have problems coming along with baby boomers and other entitlements. they're going to make it more difficult. but if we pass on this, and as they stay in washington about a kid can down the road, the issues will get bigger rather than smaller. -- as they say in washington, kick the can down the road, the issues will get bigger rather than smaller. we have to come together in a way that we have not come

together in the past and look at our expenses. this is a believe it or not question. when i was first working in banking, there was a doctor making $1 million a year in 1973 who could not make the payment on his loan. i found out he was spending more than $1 million a year. that is why he could not pay his debt. it is not about how much you make, but how much you spend. we can adjust the tax rates without having a crisis. secondly, education. in 1979, we created a large

federal agency to oversee the education policy for the nation to ensure the pre-eminence of america for the global competition for the future. we find it through the department of education at $70 billion. the deaths of that telex that the u.s. still lags behind in reading, math, science. and high school graduation rates are not improving. there somewhere in the low 70's. and that is ok with us. are these standards ok, that 25% of our high school students do not graduate high school? that is a very big burden on the future of the country. when you look at urban areas, the rate plummets. the graduation rate for the nation's 50 largest cities was closer to 50%.

the city i grew up in, less than 55% of the students graduate, and only 40% of the students within city limits graduate. 60% of those kids do not graduate from high school. what are there opportunities? the same story played out across the country. how do we expect our children and grandchildren to succeed in life with that kind of burden that they are inheriting from us? the fundamental idea of what it means to be american, we thought that any child who can dream lab the argentine to pursue that dream and, perhaps achieve it. -- who can dream, and have the opportunity to pursue that dream and, perhaps, achieving it. but for many, the burden is too difficult and the distances too great. we know from studies that came out about 10 or 12 years ago

that it takes about 30 years to do these studies, but the surest, most effective way to help children rise above these circumstances is early childhood education. successful children grow up to be successful adults. it starts with school readiness. and that translates over years and higher educational attainment, better qualified workers, increased earnings, and it all makes sense. the children who are not prepared when they come to a kindergarten are very difficult. therefore% less likely to be in special education or to -- they are 40% less likely to be in special education or to be held back, and 70% more likely to commit a bank run by the age of 18. and they're less likely to graduate high school and go on to college. imagine what pittsburgh or philadelphia or detroit would

look like if all the children were ready for school when it came to kindergarten. instead, they are putting billions of dollars into a system that just tries to work for children who are unprepared to go to school. one of the top economists in the country to the number of studies and recently revealed some things about the public education system. underserved children without access to early child of education show up in kindergarten 18 months or less prepared than their counterparts. in other words, they have 25% to 50% lower vocabulary. and that point forward, the gap grows. does not narrow, it grows. think about if your 25% to the 50% less capable and prepared then the kid next you, you will learn at a slower rate. and children that turn age 18, the gap is still the same or

greater. $40 billion approved last year for programs, which is terrific. that is for higher education and that is great for our economy. but those grants cannot help the nearly 60 percent of the visit -- of disadvantaged children who fall behind an dreman graduate high school. the only answer is early childhood education. for every dollar that we spend on the early traveled education, we get $16 or more back in return in welfare and rehabilitation rates. it is factual. and many states in the country use of fourth grade literacy as the single best predictor of the need for a joke -- jail cells 20 years later.

it is an issue that we now know how to fix. pnc and number of years ago gave back to the community, and the committee was always a part of the culture of the company. we asked ourselves, if we focus on something, could we do a little better? and we felt that we could if we focused. and we asked our employees what they thought was important and they said children and education. these 30-year cities were coming out talking about how early -- how important early child education was. we have had a wonderful

experience in philadelphia with it. it is a $350 million initiative that supports the communities with math and science. it underscores the importance of the first five years and provides innovative opportunities to assist families and community educators to enhance children's learning development. we partnered with mr. rogers neighborhood. we partnered with headstart. and we had a number of partners here in philadelphia. we partner with different community organizations add delete shui-bian centers. and in our employees' volunteer. our employees are now more than 27% of our 56,000 employees. they have contributed 350,000 hours to the centers, and they feel really great about being part of it. today's program has served approximately 2 million children, and we have evidence, especially in philadelphia where we keep track of a significant

improvement in the kids learning ability from year-to-year. we have to tackle this as a nation. instead of the union address this year by the president, he echoed the call of many for the access of early job of education. there is no one size fits all. each community is different. and we have to look at how we fund these programs because they have to be done locally and done differently in the face of harsh realities of growing deficits apolo leval already. -- at the local level already. and full of children do not have -- and a handful of children do not have preschool at all really. we talk about a widening gap of achievements between the rich

and poor. this is where it begins. it begins in the beginning. her the charleta education is the on ramp to social mobility -- early childhood education is the on ramp to social mobility in the market. we have to find ways to make the necessary investments. these dollars we give to early childhood education is not an expense. it is an investment in our future, in their kids' futures. there are a number of ways to do it. it is not really a liberal or conservative debate. it is a matter of right and wrong. there are ways to deal with children who are underserved and have not had the early education.

and i think, frankly, when you look at the different programs around the country, you see that there is some real hope. there is a number of subsidized childhood care systems in their. when it was defunded in 2011, it cost. the childcare is $1500 less. in indiana, a trust has offered a plan to provide prekindergarten for all in the indiana public school system. more is required, but it is a sizable step in terms of closing the gap. there are a couple of examples of programs, but there are lots of programs across the country. we really have to step forward on a bipartisan basis and recognize how important this is. governor rendell included it in his budget when he was there. another governor, even though he had to cut his budget, and he

increased it. it needs to go with a national mandate. it has to be recognized as something we have to do nationally to solve this graduation rate problem. making a difference. frankly, this is one of the very best rings that happened to me in my career. the idea that 2 million children are a little bit better off because of what we did is very important, and i encourage you to see how you can get engaged in the early childhood debate. the achieved ability of the american dream for every american child. those in favor of prekindergarten education. speak in your community about

the importance and team with different people, because that is how we are much more effective. to organizations like the committee for economic development, which has a great deal of publications really focused on this issue. i think sometimes we should see that these problems -- there is no question, we have the resources to deal with these issues. we have much tougher issues, frankly. i think we have to look at the next generation and say to ourselves we cannot give them trillions of dollars of debt. it would not be appropriate. we can not give them the burden where such a significant number of children will not finish high school and cannot compete in the global economy. there are bigger issues. they came together in a

bipartisan way, and they discussed it. we have to discuss them, our entitlements and our tax position, our early childhood education policy, and work it out in a bipartisan way. i do not think there is any question that the leadership in this country can come together on these issues. if we do not solve these, all the rest of our issues do not matter. the rest of the issues do not matter, and we will have a crisis. i think the leadership should come together in a bipartisan way and focus on these issues and make sure that every young child can pursue their american dream. thank you very much. [applause] and now, welcoming your moderator for the next section. she is a moderator.

susan. >> what a privilege it is to be at this historic place at this important moment in our nation's history. usa today is allotted to be working with the bipartisan policy center and its position on political reform, on the big challenges facing our government and our country, which we do with just about every day 150 miles down the road in washington, d.c. that me introduce our members, those on the commission for political reform. the former director of the white house policy council, the former director of the peace corps and president of hobart and william smith colleges. [applause]

eric motley, former. the president of global citizens. the former secretary of education. trent lott, form sus senate majority leader and cochair on political reform. vicki kennedy, cofounder of the institute for the united states senate. karen hughes, former undersecretary of state for public policy and public affairs. and u.s. army retired and managing director. [applause] you can read more complete

biographies in our programs. we are asking people watching on our webcast to join us in the conversation. if you are physically here, you can fill out one of the cards at your seats with your comments and questions, and if you are digitally here, you can send us a twitter or tweak. use the #engage usa, and before we begin, here is a quick video that my colleagues at usa today made for this event. it features some faces you are likely to recognize. let's watch. >> i and the washington bureau chief of usa today. it has long been a truism for parents across the country. their children could grow up to be president. but is it still something they

aspire to? opinions have soured. dan glickman should know. he now cochairs the commission on political reform for the bipartisan policy center. >> 1976. to me, it was a glory job, the best job in the world, and we had very prestigious people in those positions who were well thought of. whether it was justified or not, that was a secondary question, but the media was generally more disposed to reporting positive stories, and the attitude by the proposition was not to kill things at all costs, and at most, politicians were viewed neutrally. that is so much differently. >> in a national poll taken, the

overwhelming majority of americans say they have never seriously can entered running for public office at any level. they say they are not that interested in politics, that politics is too vicious, and that it is a waste of time because politicians cannot get anything done. three out of four americans are also not interested in serving in other civic manners, as in serving on a jury. >> people running for office, obviously, there is a disincentive with raising so much money and the political system, which obviously has to change. i know there are questions about the amount of money, but also the negative advertisements, fixed posing themselves and their families. >> i say what you say in your district miles away is 100 44 characters and the speed of

light away from everyone else using twitter. my dad ran for the legislature in 1970. we watched watergate. there were riots in chicago for the democratic convention. it was a rough and tumble business, but now, everything is immediate. everything is very open and transparent, and so your time to really think through things has shrunk down. >> running for office is not the only way to help your community, of course. some are volunteering at a school or homeless shelter. they say the best way to make positive changes in our society is by local charities and faith waste organizations, not through local government. they wonder if they can get things done and if it is worth the drive. >> i do not blame people for being frustrated or soured.

you turn on television, and there is a personal attack. >> when mitt romney was governor, massachusetts lost 40,000 manufacturing jobs. >> obama, failing workers. >> this becomes a real disincentive to running. of course, it does. who would want to put themselves through that? people who are willing to take hits even though they are not fair solve america's problems, people willing to put up with and endure that kind of behavior because they know there is a greater goal we are achieving. >> a way the system works is if you can work on the substantive problem's. issues like the filibuster, issues like reform on the hill, but to make the american people believe that the system is on the level, you have got to get these problems resolved. you have got to do things, especially doing big things.

there was a famous architect who said make no little plans, because they do not have the power to stir men's souls. [applause] >> dan glickman, the world of nonprofit organizations and more, thank you for your service. [applause] >> feel free to jump in with your own comments or west end.

let me start down at the other end. we found in our national poll, changing attitudes towards the value of politics. you each have had long careers in public service. have you seen changing attitudes yourself towards public service, and especially among young people? >> yes, i will begin. thank you for this wonderful video. i speak with college students on college campuses you ask them a number of questions, and one of them is, how many of you do you want to run for public office? and i have one person raised their hand, but most of the people do not raise their hand. i ask them, how many of you want to be a pointed, and maybe you get a few hands, and then i asked who would like to work for a nonprofit or start your own enterprise to affect change, and every hand in the room goes up, and i need this millennial

generation is showing civic habits on par with the greatest generation in terms of their willingness to serve. what worries me is when jim outlined the three issues that are the most serious for the country, addressing our national debt, closing the achievement gap, and boosting economic mobility, government has to play a role on each one of those issues to affect change of scale, so i think the issue is how do we make sure we take this energy and aptitude of millennial's, who want to serve their country in some way, and they are interested in national service, to take one, off the chart. through government service, they can work together across party,

race, ethnicity, income, and people of different backgrounds to affect change. >> i offer my perspective as a college president, a former director of the peace corps, and chairing the board of national community service. i think the millennial generation is the most service oriented, like you said, since the greatest generation. you see it quantitatively with the number of students volunteering, wanting to be in the peace corps, and teach for america and the peace corps are highly sought after positions. so the millennial's are very service oriented. our commission is, how do we think about pathways to service to capture that sense of idealism? my own observation is that it is a very pragmatic sense of idealism, very direct. that is why habitat for humanity is popular or americorps or

score, direct impact in their communities where they can make a difference. the good news is this is a generation with highly idealistic aspirations, commitment to our country, but they went to see reality-based solutions to do it, how we organize to prepare the generation is an important part of our task. >> young people want to make a tangible difference. i spent the spring at the harvard institute for politics, and a lot of people are interested, and they have a lot of questions about running for politics about whether you can create change. particularly in the state department, i have the opportunity to meet some wonderful career civil servants and civil service people who have spent their entire careers and have done amazing things, and i do not think those stories are heard as loudly. helping democracy be established in countries. imagine hearing about

eradicating polio. the opportunities i think that people have to serve and make an impact and to make that tangible difference and be very great in government, and i think we need to do a better job of sharing that more broadly with a wider group of american citizens. >> you are a veteran of the war in afghanistan. thank you for your service. and a managing director of a campaign to bridge the gap between military and civilians. here is a question we got on our website from patrick, who identifies himself as a veteran. should military or some other type of service be required, and an teamwork is paramount, and there was an article that argued if we had more military veterans in congress, we would have fuel or -- fewer nuclear option showdowns. why do you think that would be the case? >> thanks for the question, susan and patrick.

i am honored to be on the commission to represent veterans and also to represent the city of philadelphia, and thank you, all from philadelphia, who came out today. it is a good question, and patrick's question makes sense, this idea that veterans in congress might allow congressmen and women to act in a more partisan manner, and being trained to be leaders and team builders, and when they make it to capitol hill, that is precisely what they do. 35 years ago, 75% of congress had served in the military. today, only 20%. part of that is a numbers aim and demographics. we have a larger group of veterans.

but part of it is that veterans are not being elected to congress even right now. losing races or retiring. we had a net loss i think of 11 veterans in congress last november, and then we had two of our most long serving veterans in the senate has to weigh after the election, so we are right about 100 veterans in congress right now. those people are the ones we should look to or this leadership. there was a comment or a quote, where we said there was what you would not teach your children to cooperate in kindergarten, but would it not be amazing if we had a place to send future leaders to learn how to be good team players? learn how to solve problem? and to teach them about leadership? well, we do, and it

is called the united states military, and we graduate people from that every year. i think it is really important to think about not only getting more veterans into congress for more bipartisanship, but even today, looking to the veterans who are in congress for some of these solutions. we have 12 amazing new veterans who just joined the house, and we have some of the first female combat veterans to serve in congress. we have purple heart winners, aviators, and these are people who have seen military service, and it is important to be part of something bigger than yourself and to serve a purpose, and they carry that forward. it is very useful in our national leadership. we have a question we want to post to our online audience. do you believe there are

adequate opportunities for people to serve in their communities? and if you would like to vote, go to the website, and we will have the responses in a few minutes, and you can always tweak or ask your question or make a comment, just use the #. there has been a comment submitted on twitter, and here is what it says. women are vastly under representative. how do we make it a safer place for women? we founded the nation on an enormous gender gap when it came to office. everyone knows men should be in charge, right? a smaller percentage of women have said they have kids that are running.

is that something we should be concerned about, and what can we do about it? >> i think we need to do everything we can to see women more broadly represented. we are more than 51st at of the population, but we are a very much smaller percentage represented in office, both at the national level and the local level. you see cabinet officials. we still have so few in the history, women who have been in the cabinet. we are so lucky to have margaret spelling, who was our secretary of education with president bush, but women are rosalie underrepresented, and i think there are a lot of reasons. there is raising money. the life dial of having to be on the road, away, raising money. i go back to raising money, raising money, raising money. the money raised is enormous,

but if you had more women whose voices were there, and i look at olympia snowe and how much the senate misses her voice, we are so lucky you are still on the road and giving your message, olympia, and so happy to be a part of this commission with you. we need women to temper the dialogue. i think women understand the teamwork that we were just talking about. i think you need as many diverse points of view as possible. we need to have a conversation, and women tend to be pretty good at talking and having that conversation. i do not think there are easy answers to it. to call it a safer space, i would welcome the other women to talk about it. >> i am just going to say this. women, the opportunities in government for women are amazing. in fact, when i think about my own career, people ask me, how

do we get ahead in government? how do we get ahead in our careers? i have found that women as sent to very senior leadership responsibility and management roles in the government that may not have been available in the private sector, so it is a great place to build and nurture and foster a very significant and impact full career, and so i think we need to advertise, if you will, to women, around young and old alike, young and middle- aged alike, the opportunities and government are terrific and a great place to have a very successful, very impact full, when you started having three-

five more teachers of a group into a school, then things really took off. education, became excellent consumers, went on to become principals and superintendents and made big careers because of this public service experience called teach for america. to come we heard chris talk about the impact of more veterans. now about the impact of more women in politics. the you think women as legislators seem to act differently? i am thinking -- we announced when the women in u.s. senate. are women more likely to itperate with others, or is

not something you think will really happen? to go first of all, you have just witnessed an unusual event. i have been sitting here 20 minutes and have not tried to dominate the conversation. i could not help but think as i listened to the questions and think about what we have been discussing before we came here today, even though i am out of congress now, house member for 16, a senator for 19, worked with olympia of snow. she was my chief deputy whip. to highest-ranking woman up that point. i am not as pessimistic as the kings we hear here. the question is, is there enough's opportunities? absolutely. is the marketing aspect. better job ofa

helping young people understand. making them aware of what you can do in federal government. is it tough, yes. even though i was in on the high times, we got things done. this too shall pass, if people in the room will get involved and try to do more. as to your question, thank you for being here. i am excited to be here. this is hallowed ground. philadelphia?

has meant for the philadelphia. this is a great, beautiful wonderful place and we need to think about what happened here and what we will do to preserve this great young republic. women to bring a different perspective, and i think that is good. when i was majority leader i had a very, ingenious group that quite often would make a decision we were going in a particular direction and be prepared to tear off in that direction when someone like judge greg of new hampshire or olympia would say, are you sure about that? would you like to think about that a little more -- little more. and i made a point of reaching out to the women in the senate, and i think olympia will tell you that. that. so i do not have any problems. in fact, i would like to see more women involved. most of the time, they have amylase.

they have children. they have responsibilities. we have some women now in congress who are having children, and we have got one who is pregnant right now. i feel sorry for her in many respects because she is trying to do about four or five different tasks, and i think it is good, but i do not think we instantly going to bring great but what is going on in in the media and about bipartisanship, i got very difficult it got to get things done and negativity. it for days. and i believe in the future, we

will see a different attitude. members of congress know thethey know that. we will make changes. so i could go on and give a filibuster, but i will stop with that. >> no issue we have in discussing today has gotten more activity on twitter than this one with the disparity between men and women and their willingness to run for public office. one says new jersey sent zero women to congress. we should know that new hampshire no longer elects men to the state office. and another that only eight percent of women have seriously considered running for office. one writes in, i am the eight percent. and from the democratic women's

club, step up. the only thing is to be part of the process, and finally, chris writes that women are clearly smarter than men. [laughter] what about the role of education? one of the pollsters in our survey said that his first job was teaching civics to ninth and 10th graders. he does not do that anymore. does anyone do that anymore? do we teach civics the way we should? >> no, i do not think we do. if you take philadelphia, where i grew up and do my work, there is the good news/bad news dichotomy. the school district in philadelphia did a groundbreaking thing, making civics and service learning a requirement for all students, and there are many students in the city of philadelphia who come from underserved communities, who are struggling, and who do not have

a sense of purpose, self-esteem, and a sense that there are opportunities for them, and what we have seen at global citizens, ongoing civic engagement, is that this is a time for discovery. we have seen young people doing service and finding something from within themselves, so there are wonderful initiatives, including the 18 to 25-year-olds, and others are working on this exciting allow greater capacity for americans to serve either in the military or the peace corps or americorps, but i am more concerned about how we with young people, and when i say young people, i mean eight years old, nine years old, and right now in philadelphia, we are facing a terrible, terrible dilemma. we came out of this school year with a deficit of 304 million dollars, and in order to bridge that gap, we got some money from the commonwealth and from the city, but as a result of that, down to about $150 million right

now, there are going to be no assistant principals. there are going to be no art teachers, no music teachers, and there will be no sports programs. how many of you can think of the days, the sense of teamwork we had from having those opportunities, and the situation in the philadelphia school district which now sees service learning eroding. 15 years ago, great possibilities, and now it does not exist. we are concerned about young people wanting to go into government or the nonprofits, and i think we need to start engaging them and challenging them to do the things for us at the earliest of age, but, of course, the great surprise is

the transformation that young people feel and the possibilities for discovery. >> robert, do you want to weigh in on this as a former education secretary? more mathematics and science. eating and exercise. should this be part of it? >> absolutely, and while there is no federal mandate, and obviously those issues are decided by states, i think most states have some sort of civic education, civic engagement tricky when that speaks to this. one of the things i am encouraged by is in the last education report card results, we started to see some increases in levels of civic literacy and engagement, so it is encouraging. i think the other thing that happens, there are tons of resources things that you are

doing, joseph o'connor, and tools available to our teachers to teach civics and social studies and the like, but they are not very well harnessed together. maybe that is a role at the bipartisan policy commission, we can create some toolkits to allow teachers to access some of these resources more readily, and we have to start with the teachers. we have to have our teachers embed this in the preparation program so they think it is important there, as well. >> going back to civics education. go ahead. >> it is also sort of how we talk about it, because there is something when you say civics that people tune out and do not think about it in terms of being active citizens, and when we think about it in terms of citizenship, understanding what our government is, here we are in philadelphia, where we had our constitutional convention, and i cannot help but think about that famous line of

benjamin franklin, that he was leaving the constitutional convention and was asked, what do you have, a monarchy or republic? and he said, a republic, if you can keep it, and the only way you can keep it is if you understand what your government is and what your responsibilities are to your government. and he believed that citizens had an obligation to give back tonight, and this goes back to the service you are talking about, that you all care so passionately about. it goes back to service learning in the earliest years, incorporating service into the curriculum, from the earliest years. teamwork. building teams through service, whether it is in the military, whether it is in civilian service, and that just filters

up, really, into this whole notion of not worrying about the parties, not worrying about those labels, so when hopefully you do run for the office and get to congress, you are able to build that kind of teamwork, and you become active citizens. maybe this is just my dream world of what we can have, but it all goes back to that early citizenship and understanding. >> it is absolutely true. you really do not think when you are serving someone at a homeless station if they are a republican or democrat. you are doing something that brings them together. we have lost some of the things that unite us as a people, as a country, and we need to reclaim that national unity, a shared purpose. >> you are a special assistant for george w. bush, which means you were an extremely popular man in washington for a while. >> yes. [laughter] >> what about people the

president wanted in key jobs? what made them reluctant? what are the obstacles to getting the best people into government? >> i think most of the obstacles, and i should say that i had a boss who said to me with all of the staff, there were two things he said that really stuck with me, and one is that you are not important, the work you are doing is in port and, and they were talking about when you leave the white house, be sure to get a dog, because you will want someone to love you and care for you. the invitations will stop. you will be less popular. get a dog. because men and women want to serve, and we saw them across the country. there were tens of thousands that came in every day, from college students to citizens in montgomery, alabama, two retired federalists. there are 1.9 million jobs in the federal government.

4005 hundred of those are politically appointed. there are 250 submissions. these are part-time jobs, where men and women can serve free of charge without any compensation all across the country on our boards, science boards, river and fishery boards, sewage boards, you name it. there is a board for you out there. and every day, people were coming by our office, wanting to serve, but one of the great in pediments of the appointments process, the process of going through the paperwork, the process of being confirmed with appointment, the multitude of disclosure forms that you had to submit, and there have been many attempts to reform that process. there are a number of people, margaret spelling on a commission looking to see that we can reform the political

appointments process to make it less laborious, but even though we had a very laborious process, people still want to serve. i am not convinced that if you discourage people wanting to serve -- i think we have been talking about this service. there are countless jobs and fellowship programs in the federal government, management fellowship programs, white house fellowship programs, fellowship programs at nih, the national endowment for the arts. you name it, you can do it, and i think there are so many people who are just unaware of what great opportunities there are and how diverse those opportunities are in federal government. we need a campaign to say this is your country, these are great opportunities to serve.

serving in the arts and humanities in the federal government. did you know that you can serve as a research assistant at nah -- nih? do you know you can help with the fisheries? that is part of our challenge. that is part of our opportunity to help people appreciate how great it is to serve and what opportunities there are to serve. >> there are nine people on this panel. how many of you have dealt with the confirmation? so we have had three. on a scale of one to 10, how onerous was that? >> i do not think we are necessarily discouraging people from surfing, but it is interrupting an effective operation of government and agencies. i was concerned. the director of the peace corps, and i also served on a service board.

it is rigorous. i think there has to be transparency. but the process is laborious. the paperwork could be streamlined, which your commission has done wonderful work, but i do not know that it is about retarding service. the execution of effective government service, that is what i would be concerned about, and as a college president, they will send the fbi to your office to ask questions, and they asked me, well, we would like to speak if your neighbor is. i live next to a fraternity. [laughter] fine. go knock on the door. >> wake them up. >> as a peace corps director, with a commission meeting read times a year, does it require those types of levels of inquiry that are appropriate? >> i think at the cabinet level, i worked at the white house for f or years -- 44 years. ---- for four years. in terms of the paperwork and back laws.

to get the confirmation. >> in the same way, i served at the white house previous the, so the fbi had already investigated me and talk to the neighbor is. but it can be a lengthy process. i was fortunate also that vice president biden was there, and i had ipod is report. there were opportunities to sit down with members of this then it -- members of the senate. they had spent years working on the issue and were able to share a lot of knowledge with the. i saw how difficult it can sometimes be to bring people in, and the lengthy waiting period, so when i left the state department, i think it took eight months for another appointee to be named and put them in the process and confirmed, so you end up with big gaps of time where these important jobs are sometimes not filled, and i do not think that is the most effective way to govern.

>> let's report the results of our first online polling. the opportunity for public service, here is what you told us. 64% yes, and we are going to ask the second question. do you favor programs that pay for education costs in exchange

for public service, like the peace corps or americorps? you can vote on our website. karen, you did work for the state department. you saw politics in other countries. our american attitudes towards public service different than in other countries? >> i think the american attitude toward service is different and in a very positive way. one of the things that struck across the country, not just in the campaign but across the world as the undersecretary of state, everywhere i went, there were americans engaged and involved in giving to themselves to help other people, whether it was church congregations, individual americans -- i remember seeing a young american holding the hand of a man dying of aids in africa. there are people that go around the world with disasters to serve, hospital ships with volunteers, nurses and doctors, reviving health care in latin america.

it really was a powerful testimony, and one of the things we wanted to do was to share that american sense of service and giving back, and to teach that in the communities around the world, we would try to get local people involved in volunteer efforts that are so much a part of the fabric of american life. it made me proud to be an american, to see the good and the way americans across the world were working to expand opportunity, whether it was with the government or the private sector or with religious congregations. >> having lunch today with some young people from philadelphia, and also in our audience, and joseph who is with the young democrats of america asks about faith and religion forming our priorities, but contributing to this whole organization that is dividing the nation? what do you think? >> i do not think it has to. there is the interfaith youth core, and they bring people

together, christian, muslim, different faiths, a common purpose, and they do not begin by talking about faith create they begin serving side-by-side to solve problems in local communities, and then they come together to talk about what was it about your faith, your christian faith, that brought you here, or the five pillars of islam that brought you here? and there are all of the great religions that have charity and service and compassion and a willingness to give back to one another as fundamental tenants, and when you look back around the world, these hotspots, where people are literally warring in the names of faith that have at their core, and tenants, you see the power of not only interfaith dialogue but interfaith action, and president bush started the office of community faith-based initiative, because when we looked across the country and

talk about the young people, you see these individual citizens stepping forward to tackle great things. more often than not, we saw people were working through faith-based institutions, so he tried to harness that power, and fortunately, president obama continued that, but because he saw them helping the needy and the poor. >> across the world, i think a lot of people took our american freedom of religion to mean freedom from religion. they do not understand that for many, it is an important part of their lives. to engage in this dialogue, it was a wonderful conversation opener, to say that i am a religious person, and other people are of different faiths or of no faith at all. you talk about what we did have in common, almost every faith, they say the highest priority in my faith is to love god and love my neighbor, and there are others in the world that believe that is their priority, as well, so it opens the door to a lot of wonderful conversations. >> it should not be a problem. it should be part of the solution unless it is used to oppress or prevent a free and open society. i always had my greatest respect of men and women of all faiths, whether it was joe lieberman that i admired greatly, because he would not campaign on a

saturday. that was his holy day, and i admired that. i would fly into washington, and seeing his plane sitting on the runway because he was not going to campaign on saturday. a mormon from oregon, one of the finest americans i have ever known, and he felt very about his faith. i was southern baptist, but i was always raised to be respectful of other people's faith. that is part of religious faith, i think, to have an open attitude. we know that in the world and now, it is used to abuse and mistreat people, but it should not be that way. >> i am very encouraged by people of faith and people of all backgrounds wanting to together and, frankly,

not having the same kinds of concerns that we older folks have had, and we look back to the 2008 presidential election, and we saw -- and after, people putting these kinds of judgments on high, so i think we are very encouraged by that. after september 11, 2001, in philadelphia, we went and met with members of the largest mosque in the city, and if you remember back to that time, there was a great deal of violence and ridicule of muslims, but also, violence against people who were not even muslims. sikhs and others who were not muslim.

there were people who did not have the same kinds of aspirations. they came together. they worked at a food bank for two hours and served side-by- side. maybe we were a little nervous, because they did not know one another, but they came together in fellowship and talked and found out that service can break down barriers. it can build relationships, and it can help us realize how much more we have in common, and as a result of that, these students from the mosque and from the jewish day school have served together 11 straight years. they have programs between the schools that go back and forth, and so i am very optimistic that if we promote public service service at the youngest of

ages, it is a wonderful way of getting away from the kinds of considerations that we sometimes have, whether it is in religion or arguing about public hollis e. >> enormous enthusiasm for the idea of mandatory public service for 18 to 25-year-old, except among 18 to 25-year-olds. [laughter] most americans over 30 thought that was a great idea, but under 30, they thought it was not. ideas about public transit, that it was a good idea for somebody else to do. so, chris, what do you think about a year of mandatory service? it could be in the peace corps, americorps, or habitat for humanity. >> one of the things we get to do, we pay taxes, we vote, we have to serve on juries. if you are male, you have to register for selective service. i do not know if that would change soon because of females

in combat, but this idea that you volunteer in a way for service, we have that to a degree already. we are not compelling people. we are not constricting people -- conscripting people into the military. an all volunteer force. just like anyone who volunteers for americorps, who volunteers for the peace corps, everyone who serves in the military today volunteers to serve. and i think that is important, because military service inspires other types of service. in terms of making it compulsory and mandated by law, that is a tough proposition. maybe an easier proposition is to make it a cultural expectation. this idea that everybody has an opportunity to serve, and i want to interject that i was

surprised as a whole that most people looked at opportunities to serve and thought they were ample because there is half a million people who did not get into americorps last year that would disagree with that. 580,000 people applied. about 80,000 people served. so if we had a cultural expectation that everyone had a you or some short term of service, whether it was in the military, americorps, the ease score, whether it was opportunities that are certified as bona fide national service opportunities, we would create country where everybody

serves, and as john often says, you can walk up to someone in a café and say, so where did you serve? where did you spend your year of service? maybe not everybody has an answer, but most people would, and that could lead to a better cultural view of service and that people want to do bigger than themselves, and that would elevate it, the understanding that just like you can serve in philadelphia, someone else chose to do their service on capitol hill or elsewhere. >> you are running the franklin project, aimed at a similar idea. tell us about this. >> yes, it was named for a wacky inventor, benjamin franklin, who not only believed in a constitutional government but also started an apron society,

the volunteer fire department, and the hospital. in fact, he did so much to promote citizenship and interface relationships. it was said that we should offer him a pulpit. there are people of the great world faith that supported him to his grave because he had a great vision of an acumen ago society and citizenship, so our commander in afghanistan, general stanley mcchrystal, he comes back to america, and he says for the first time in a war, less than one % of americans are serving. there was the assumption that defending the country and serving the country is someone else's job, and he went on to call for large-scale civilian service. i love the way you framed it. when you said the way we frame it to every 18-year-old, we make it a rite of passage to serve in the army or serve in habitat for humanity. you can serve in the navy, or you can join the peace corps. you can join your service effort with your faith-based institution, and we are working with millennial's all across the country.

along with dan glickman and others, these wonderful americans, condoleezza rice, and in addition to growing americorps and some of these other efforts in partnership with the private sector, creating the national service certification system, so any college and university, any nonprofit, any enterprise could create full-time national service divisions, because, 150,000 people want to serve in the peace corps, and that is like a generation of talent and idealism being needlessly lost. what? >> where i am from, if you tell me it is mandatory, you are probably not going to do it. i believe in freedom and encouraging to do things, but i must confess that i am very attracted by what you said, and i would like to encourage more participation. i like that year of participation. one thing we have talked a lot about, and we have ignored

something else, the keynote speaker talked about it, one of the realities we have to deal with is our government is in a lot of debt. we have got a lot of fiscal problems. a lot of these ideas are fantastic, but the question always has to be, ok, how are going to pay for it? and i do think that is part of our civic responsibility, too, not leaving our grandchildren with an overbearing debt that could destroy our country, so that is a little bit of rain on the parade here.

this is all well and good, but one reason we do not have a whole lot more of these positions is there is a cost factor involved, and we have to keep that in mind. >> susan, one of the powerful components, and i agree with you 100 are sent, the fema core is mobilizing national service participants and saving the taxpayers of $60 million per year, and all of these agencies are looking. how do we put people at in the national service and reduce the cost to government? >> i lost my home and community to katrina. what i saw at katrina, i will always be appreciative of and indebted, faith-based people, the eagles that came. let me tell you, it changed the attitude of people of illegal aliens, immigrants, because we would still be in debris down there, and there were volunteers, and they came from all over the country. they paid their expenses. it was muslims and everybody, and i have never seen anything quite like it in my life, and that is the american spirit. it is there more than you realize. it sometimes takes leadership or an event to inspire it to come forward.

>> the national chamber foundation, the effort, i think we need to herald some of the things we heard this morning from john, and that is what corporate america does to harness their employee core, and these are outside of the mandatory year of public service for our 18-year-olds. it is a culture of contributing to your community, and corporate america has stepped up to the plate in amazing, amazing from early childhood to the dropout issue, to the environment, disaster relief, and on and on and on, and that is part of the culture. what i worry about is we are going to chattel, like israel, our young people into something, that we are missing something in the bathwater if we just do that. >> let's take a look at the results of our second.

9 >> we'd go back to education and the lack of civics being taught. how can you appreciate your government be transformative in the lives of citizens if you do not understand how it works. .n emphasis on civics education appreciation that government plays in the action and the difference they can make. i grew up in a very small community. very poor. there was a woman who had the enormous dignity in the fact that she was a poll watcher. if you ask her anything about herself she would always say i work at the pharmacy but i am also a poll watcher. she appreciated their role she was playing in the community. i think we have to incur reached

the imagination that whenever through civic organizations in your town, service and the military that you are playing an important role in helping to preserve the great republic. a great point that part of what they are doing with the franklin project. there was an expectation of service that senator robert has been talking about for over the decade of real and expectation of service. we have seen it to chris this point about return to service of congress. peace corps volunteers. their level of volunteering is significant. it will develop their level of civic engagement. foundational, i believe what we're talking about in terms of the service are arena to a height level of voting.

>> let's face it, people are turned off by the process. either one, the system. in my response has been that every election involves a choice and perfect is not on the ballot. you which one is closer to your point of view? we also, those of us in public life, have a responsibility of recognizing the effect that nastiness, vitriol, the dysfunction of our political system now is turning off a lot of our fellow americans, and i do not blame them. >> in 1994 i served as an observer in south africa when mandela was elected. i watched people who never voted before stand patiently in line for 10 hours -- a very informed

electorate who had never voted before. then i came back, primary election day in philadelphia, throughout the commonwealth, 25% of the people eligible to showed up. this past primary election, it was 9%. i think it is one a combination of changing culture, working on these great initiatives to encourage people to serve and create more opportunities to serve, but also it involves a breaking down the barriers to voting. we have a controversial voter inlaw before the courts pennsylvania. and it is very partisan. i would like to see opportunities for people to vote which makes it easier, online voting, where there are very few cases of fraud not to

be making it onerous for people to vote. i think it is a process of harnessing all these different things. >> i was going to say the same thing about breaking down barriers to vote. if we can do secure banking online, i think we can do secure voting online. if you see you have more than one day of voting, where you have increased voter participation, extended voting in that way, make it easier for people to get to the polls, easier to exercise the franchise, i think you will get increased participation. >> how about voting on saturday like in louisiana?

i thought that was great. it is one of many things we could do to make it easier for people. i am from a shipbuilding community. it was very difficult for the shipyard workers to get to vote, and if on saturday, it would be easier, and that is one of many things we could do to make voting easier and more understandable. >> consolidating election day and school board election on some off cycle -- let's get up with primary or general elections -- there are many things we could do to encourage participation. >> between of the skepticism is a fundamental american trait and that is what we found. almost 2/3 say they trust the federal government to do the right thing only some of the time. we did not give the option none of the time. 13% volunteered none of the time. this attitude, it does not matter, why bother, and i wonder if the panelists think that is one of the reasons we see people not wanting to vote, but not only wanting to run and a campaign -- does that have an effect? who would like to speak?

>> sure, a loaded question here. i think karen discussed this earlier that people do not get proper education in the schools about the problems of democracy and what we can do in government to solve them. they think of government bureaucrats, and holding up examples -- we saved a million lives over the last decade from malaria in africa. that was largely because the government went from a $35 million investment to a $1.2 billion investment and brought to world together around saving all these young mothers and children. jim mentioned high school graduation rates. the good news is after four presidents set a goal of 90%

high school graduation rate, for the first time last year we able to report that the nation was on pace to make that graduation rate. i asked cokie roberts, good news is not news. it has to be cynical and divisive and partisan. i think there is his effort called the partnership for public service. they hold up people in government and look at exhibit a -- olympia snowe, dan glickman, harris walker -- if you do not think voting or leadership matters, think about what they have been able to accomplish. we need to resurrect that in people. >> i have faith in the government only some of the time. i know there are a lot of good

people doing their best in trying to make it better, and they have to answer to the superiors, but i have to remind people we are still healing with human beings. preferences, prejudices, abilities, lack of abilities, but i spent a number of years in the house and as the whip, majority and minority. i analyzed the demographics of every member who i was trying to influence. it was obvious to me, people talk about their congressman or senator, they put them there, and most of the time they reflected the makeup of the demographics of the congressional district they were from. that was true in my own case.

i was born in a rural area. we lived on the coast. i was involved in the fishing industry. district after district, while there are exceptions, most of the time what you get from government is what you put in to government and who you elect. >> i think it is going to the senator's comment, and there is a disconnect in the way people think about their service in their communities and the service of those who represent them. at the lunch today, i met a lot of young people serving in a lot of capacities, and governor granholm, she spoke and said to them that their service was not about that, it was about something there, it was not about you, it is about everybody. they figured and shook their heads yes. i wondered and i did not ask, i wondered, what if we asked them about service at the federal level, about service in congress? is that not about you? many of them had the perception that the people who run for office, who take the federal positions, it is many times about themselves, and it is a larger question among with lots of factors involved. i do not know if the perception is right, but it involves the electoral process, it involves campaign finance, it involves the way the processes occur on

capitol hill, and i want to table this for later, because that is the next stop on this tour, to talk about electoral reform -- and the public service perception at the ground level and the way people look at their service in congress or at the federal level. it was interesting, enlightening what these young people who are dedicated to service were thinking.

>> we asked would you currently consider serving in the local, state or federal level? here is what you told us. by three to one, people would be willing to service. that in encouraging. a couple more comments. one, public service means stepping up on your own and not waiting for the government to do it. from cindy, i believe public service should be requisite for most persons receiving public assistance.

is that feasible? and here is one, how is it so many public servants get rich from public service? and a tweet from ted -- has washington become a modern day politburo, leaders who can no longer serve the people? anyone say yes? >> want to take the mike? >> have congress people become a modern day politburo, out of touch with the people, that federal officials, members of congress, others in washington are really disconnected? >> i want to quote a great political leader, trent lott, who just said five seconds ago you get the government you deserve. i want to echo something and experience that eric had -- whether you want hank paulson to serve as secretary of the

treasury or fill in the blank, some wonderful person, people will serve when tapped on the shoulder. sometimes you have to say we need you. if i had a nickel for every person who served as the bush who said when the president asked you to serve, you served. i am sure that is true on your side of the aisle, vicky. i think americans have that in

their dna. we got to go find them, too. >> i do not think we have a group of elitists. have you looked at the house lately? they are very reflective, and i do not mean that in a negative way. most of them are not wealthy. most of them make a sacrifice. when you talk about the amount of travel, going back and forth, the time away from family, the fund-raising, and what you are paid when you have to maintain some living arrangement in washington and some living arrangement back home, because if you don't, people will say he has gone off to washington and he is not one of us anymore. it was a great honor to serve in the congress, and i appreciate every moment i was able to represent the people of my district and my state. we will leave the last few minutes of the discussion to go live outside the white house where we are hearing remarks from members who just spoke to president obama about the situation in syria. take a very important to the toects -- >> very important the situation in syria. >> are you satisfied this can be done with almost no risk to u.s. forces? >> again, there will be no boats on the ground, that is obvious. there is always risk to u.s.

forces. even at a distance, cruise missiles or other capabilities. the risk is very slight. there will be a limited duration to this attack. what needs to be unlimited is support for the efforts of embedded, syrian opposition. i should not say unlimited. obviously there are certain capabilities you will not provide light chemical weapons. what has to be far more robust is our support for the syrian opposition. i believe that is going to happen. and i know senator mccain, senator gramm were asked for similar assurances of robust support. i am confident after being in the oval office with the president this morning and vice president and others that we are going to make more robust our support for the syrian opposition that is vetted to make it clear to the american people and to assad that this is

not just a strike from limited operation but as support of the majority of the syrian people that are willing to take him on. okay? thanks. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] 3] >> senate armed services committee chair carl levin briefing rereporters after meeting with president obama. joined by a number of other leaders from the house and senate and members of the pentagon. he said he is confident he will work with congress to pass a resolution authorizing military intervention in syria. he met with house and senate leaders of both parties of the white house.

here are the president's comments before the meeting got under way in the cabinet room. the leaderso thank of both parties for being here today to discuss what is a very serious issue facing the united states. and the fact that i have had a chance to speak to many of you and congress as of whole is taking this issue with this openness and seriousness that it deserves is greatly appreciated. i think indicates the decision for us to present this issue to congress. as i said last week, secretary kerry made it clear in the presentation at last week that we have high confidence that syria used an indiscriminate chemical weapons that killed thousands of people, including over 400 children and in direct violation of the international

norm against using chemical weapons. that poses a serious national security threat to the united states and to the region. syriaonsequence, i am -- needs to be held responsible. i have taken the view that syria -- that we need to take action. we will be much more effective, stronger, if we take action together as one nation. this gives us an opportunity to present the evidence to all of the leading members of congress and various foreign-policy committees. it also gives us an opportunity to discuss why it is so important that he be held to account. this norma against using chemical weapons, that 98 percent of the world agrees to is there for a reason.

we recognize there are certain chemical weapons that when used can not only end up resulting in a grotesque death, but also to end up being transmitted non-state actors, pose a risk to allies and friends like israel, jordan, turkey. also international norms like nuclear preparation to reach a proliferation do not mean much. i will be working with congress. we have set up a draft authorization. asking for hearings and the prompt votes and very appreciative that everyone here would begin the scheduled hearings and intends to take a vote as soon as all of congress comes back early next week.

to key point i want emphasize to the american people, the military plan that has been developed by joint chiefs and that i believe is appropriate is proportional. it is limited. it does not involve boots on the ground. and not not iraq afghanistan. this is a limited, proportional staff that will clear a clear -- sent a clear message to the assad regime and other countries that may be interested in testing the international norms, that there are consequences. it's as the ability to degrade his capabilities. it also fits into the broader background that we have to make so wee can bring about can have a transition that can

bring peace and stability not only to syria but to the region. i want to emphasize once again what we are envisioning is something ltd., something proportional, it will degrade the capabilities, and at the same time we have a broader strategy that will allow us to syria to freelow itself from the kinds of terrible civil wars and death we have seen on the ground. so i look forward to listening to the various concerns of the members here today. i think it is appropriately act deliberately, and i also think everyone recognizes the urgency and will have to move relatively quickly. to an excellent discussion. >> [inaudible] >> i would not be going to

congress if i was not serious about consultation and believing that by shaping that authorization to make sure we accomplish the mission, we will be more effective. in so long as we are accomplishing what needs to be accomplished, which is to send a clear message tobut one of the reasons why left because i got did a clearf my -- message to assad, i am confident we will be able to come up with something that hit that mark. all right? thank you everybody. i am. thank you, guys. thank you, guys. today president earlier with remarks before the meeting before the white house. the john boehner as he left

white house this morning. >> the use of chemical weapons is a barbaric act. it is pretty clear to me the united nations is unable to take action in need and not likely to take action. states for our entire history has stood up for democracy around the world. the use of this weapons has to be responded to, and only the united states has the capability and capacity to stop assad and thearn dictators around world that this type of behavior is not going to be tolerated. i appreciate the president reaching out to me and my colleagues in the congress over the last couple of weeks. i also appreciate the president asking the congress to support him in this action.

the is something that united states, as a country needs to do. i will support the president's call for action. i believe my colleagues believe we will not tolerate this type of behavior. we have allies in the region who need to know that america will be there and stand up when necessary. thank you, all. >> house speaker john boehner following a president -- a meeting with the president this morning whether monetary action is the best response for the use of chemical weapons back on august 21. over 1400 people were killed in that attack. obamaa seated press says said today he is confident congress will authorize a military strike in syria, as lawmakers were holding their

first public hearing. how to respond to last month's sarin gas attack. the president meeting with leaders pushing his support for authorization for a limited military strike against assad's regime. he is open to changing the language to address lawmakers' concerns. " as long as we are publishing what needs to be accomplished, which is sending a message to assad, not just now, but also in the future, as long as the authorization allows us to do that. i am confident we will come up with something that will hit that mark." we will hear from nancy pelosi. microphoneng to the in just a moment here. >> is a pillar of our national security. and what he has done up until now, will say he killed 100,000

people. the humanity through it, decades ago, 170-some countries --porting the convention from a humanitarian stay in port, cannot be ignored, or we cannot say never again. secondly, the destruction from variety that they should use them. the president listened to our collects. the speaker was clear and he has told you our view. i associated myself with his remarks. again, i believe the american people need to hear --e about the intelligence fromportion of the remarks nancy pelosi. we apologize for that. you are getting the cuts camera view, not the complete version. we will have that for you in

just a minute. we are taking some of your tweets. a congressman heading to a briefing, stills ethical, looking forward to getting more information. the jeff miller says intelligence and intend to vote no for the authorization to military action in syria. also, these remarks from --gressman desjarlais francois hollande said he is waiting for the a decision from congress on possible military action, and insists he will not

strike against the assad regime alone. and is conference -- in a new will supportrance the democratic opposition in syria in such a way that a response is provided. we are receiving some of your facebook comments this morning on the question of how members should vote, your members, senators am a how they should vote on syria. withis a lost cause mccain. quote --." back and watch mass murder?" make sure who it was. if war wass televised, people would stop this insanity. we are taking your reaction on our facebook page.

from nancy pelosi as she left a meeting with the president this morning discussing syria. >> good morning. good morning. the president honored us with his recitation this morning, that he does not take going into a military action lightly, that there are compelling reasons. the intelligence is clear that this attackrated using weapons of mass destruction, really. weapons of mass destruction, deterring their use is a pillar of our national security. assad has done that. that is a differentiation from what he has done up until now. people say he killed 100,000 people in the what is the difference with this 1400? on --400, he crossed the

crossed the line with using chemical weapons. president obama did not draw a red line. humanity drew it decades ago, some countries supporting the convention on not using chemical weapons. that fromly something a humanitarian standpoint cannot be ignored, or else we cannot say never again great secondly, from a national security standpoint, it sends a clear message to those who have weapons of the structure of any variety that they should forget about using them. it was a very constructive meeting. the president listened to our collects. the speaker was very clear, and i am sure he has told you his view. i associated myself with his remarks, about, again, i believe the american people need to hear more about the intelligence that

supports this action, and that is that the responsibility for this chemical weapons use is clearly at the feet of assad. now we go to the next step of having further debate in the congress of the united states. and i'm hopeful, as the american per-pupil -- people are persuaded, that assad did this, that hundreds of children were killed. this is behavior outside the circle of civilized human behavior, and we must respond. withe you ready then to, your membership, getting on board with the president, because we have hearing from the house all over the place? >> on these kinds of issues it it is aquestion of --

question of discussion, make sure that people have the information they need to make informed decisions, to make sure they have the full value of the intelligence that says this is how this happened. then members have to decide -- they want to ignore the fact that this humanitarian disaster took place or not? then there is the larger issue of syria's behavior, if they get away with this. again, very respectful of all of the concerns that the members our constituents have. in my district i do not think people are convinced that military action is necessary, but it is important for them to know that the weapons of mass has taken us use to a different place, that the president takes obviously -- but thisent would --

president does not take this lightly, and what happens will be targeted, taylor's, of short duration, and will send the necessary measures, and we go from there. it is not a rush of whipping, is a member of discussing, and some will not be comfortable with it. i from the humanitarian standpoint think that waiting for the you and and waiting for putin -- for u.n. and waiting for putin to react into the chemical weapons use by assad is a luxury we cannot afford. i have to go. thank you all, very much. >> do you want to compare this to the holocaust? >> no, no. i'm thinking more of were wanda -- rwanda. think of risk will

reject, but i want to remind you because i have reading what some of you have written to say that the president has never gone forward if congress has not approved, when it has taken up the issue. i remind you in 1999, president clinton brought us all together similar to this meeting here, but over a time to talk about going into the balkans. the vote was 213-213. no, abouticans voted 30 on each side, something like that went in a different way than the majority of their party. that was when the planes were really ready to go into bosnia. he went, and you know what happened there. i do not think the congressional authorization is necessary. it is a good thing, and i hope we can achieve it, and i look

pretty confident on the evidence, the intelligence about the national interest that is at stake that we have a good conversation to have with our members. i myself -- i will tell you the story and then i have to go -- as i was leaving san francisco yesterday, said to war with syria -- are you yes war with syria or no war witch syria? five years old. talking not about war, but an action. yes or no? i said, what do you think? i think no war. i generally agree with that, but they have killed hundreds of children there. they have killed hundreds of children. and he said, five years old, were these children in the united states? and i said, no, that they are children wherever they are.

news he isow what listening to, but a five-year old child, with the wisdom, how does it infect -- affect our interests? it was outside the circle of civilized behavior, where humanity drew a line decades ago that i think if we ignore we do peoplemperil many other who would suffer. i go back to the point in the congress, failed for lack of majority, but president clinton went in. >> [indiscernible] >> i think that is a subject of discussion. some people want it broader and some people wanted more narrow. that is an open discussion. >> [indiscernible] >> i want to hear what my

members have to say. thank you. pelosi with comments after meeting with the president this morning on syria. congress is holding its first public hearing this afternoon at about you as plans for military intervention. this is in response to last month's sarin gas attack. and kerry, chuck hagel, general martin dempsey will appear before the senate foreign relations committee. he will have live coverage of that hearing guinea at 2:30 that hearing at 2:30 eastern. readyl have a camera for any congressional action. 2:30 eastern on c-span. now president obama as he prepared to meet with congressional and military

leaders on the possible use of military force in syria. ease are his comments this morning before that meeting got underway in the cabinet room. leaderst to thank the of both parties for being here today to discuss what is a very serious issue facing the united states. and the fact that i have had a chance to speak with many of you and congress as a whole is taking this issue with the soberness and seriousness that it it reserves is greatly appreciated, and it indicates the decision for us to present this issue to congress. as i said last week, as secretary kerry made clear in his presentation last week, we have high confidence that syria used, in an indiscriminate fashion, the weapons that killed thousands of people, including over 400 children, and indirect

violation of the -- and in direct violation of the international norm against using chemical weapons. that poses a security threat to the united states and the region. as a consequence, a sock and syria needs to be held accountable. i have made a decision that america needs to take action, but i also believe that we will be much more effective am a we will be stronger if we take action together as one nation. so this gives us an opportunity not only to present the evidence , to all the leading members of congress and the various foreign policy committees, as to why we have high confidence that chemical weapons were used and that assad use them, but it also gives us an opportunity to discuss why it is so important he be held to account. this norm against using chemical weapons, that 98% of the world

agrees to, is therefore recent, because we recognize there are certain weapons that when used upn not only and up -- end resulting in grotesque deaths, but can also end up being transmitted to non-state actors, can pose a risk to allies and friends of ours like israel, like jordan, like turkey, and unless we hold them into account, also sending message that international norms around issues like nuclear proliferation do not mean much. and so i am going to be ok with congress. we have sent up a draft authorization. we will ask for hearings and a prompt vote, and i'm very appreciative that everybody here has already begun to schedule hearings and intends to take a boat as soon as all of -- a vote as soon as congress comes back

next week. the key point i want to emphasize to the american people, the military plan that has been developed by our joint chiefs and i believe is appropriate, is proportional, it is limited, it does not involve boots on the ground. this is not iraq and this is not afghanistan. this is a limited, proportional step that will send a clear message, not only to the assad regime, but also to other that may be interested in testing some of these international norms that there are consequences. it gives us the ability to degrade assad's capabilities when it comes to chemical weapons. it also fits into a broader strategy that we have to make sure that we can bring about over time that kind of strengthening of the opposition and the diplomatic and economic and political pressure required

so that ultimately we have a transition that can bring peace and stability, not only to syria, but to the region. i want to emphasize once again, what we are envisioning is something limited, something proportional, it will degrade assad's capabilities at the same broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, allow syria ultimately to free itself from warsinds of terrible civil and death an activity that we have been seeing on the ground. forward to listening to the various concerns of the members who are here today. i am confident those concerns can be addressed. it is appropriate we act elaborately, but i also think everybody recognizes the urgency here and we are going to have to move weekly. with that, through all of you here today, i look forward to an excellent discussion. >> [indiscernible]

i would not be going to congress if i was not serious about occultation and believing that by shaping the authorization to make sure we congress the mission, we will be more effective. and so long as we are publishing what needs to be accomplished, which is to send a clear message to assad, degrading his capabilities to use chemical weapons, also now and in the future, as long as the authorization allows us to do that, i am confident he will come up with something that hits that mark. all right? thank you, everybody. >> [indiscernible] guys.nk you, >> president obama this morning. the ap reporting francois hollande says he is waiting for a decision from the united states congress on possible military action in syria, and he

insists france will not strike alone. the french leader and president obama have been the most outspoken world leaders on the need to respond to the the suspected chemical weapons attack. now more remarks from those who attended the meeting with president obama this morning, iodine --ith the diane feinstein. >> hello. as chairman of the senate intelligence committee, i am fully supportive of the president's action. i think it is key and critical. i think it is important to the security of the world, and particularly, the middle east. we havehis afternoon -- a meeting of the intelligence committee to see all members are

and representatives and i have been, and we will have a second meeting on thursday. the meeting we just attended actually in my 20 years, was one of the best i have been to. it was thoughtful, it was considered. with the president made the case, secretary of state made the case. i think the discussion was appropriate, and my hope is members left this meeting with a great sense of purpose, and that purpose is to get this passed in both houses. >> i agree with senator feinstein. that was one of the most effective i partisan meetings that i have been a part of since i have been in congress. democrats and republicans, working on an issue that is important not only to the american people, but to the world. the first issue is, it is clear

throughout the world, not only with the united states, that you have the assad regime using chemical weapons to kill his own people, including over 400 children, probably around 1200 people right now that have been killed because of chemical weapons. the world decided years ago that chemical weapons would never be used, and yet we have a situation now where we had a regime that is using chemical weapons. we have to deal with this, not just the united states, but the world. he have to deal first with the humanitarian issue, do not allow anyone, whether assad, al qaeda, korea, will, north be able to use chemical weapons without any accountability whatsoever. ed is a major issue. we as the united states have resources that no other country has, but we cannot be a sheriff for the whole world either. we are coalescing countries who are coming together to understand how serious this issue is as far as chemical

weapons is concerned. we must do something. if we do nothing of now and allow this to go on, it sends a message to michael wetlands -- weapons will be -- message that chemical weapons will be used. if we do not do with it now, it will continue to go on. weapons of mass destruction. the issue of congress being involved is important, because we need to educate members and also we have to educate the american people. how important the issue is, how we are acting, why we are acting , and what are the consequences if we do not act. we're not going to have another iraqi or afghanistan. it is to deal with the issue and accountable for using chemical weapons killing women and children. >> [indiscernible] i think right now the focus

is to deter chemical weapons, but what will happen in this occurs, if it does occur, is it will hurt us on right now. it will hurt his regime. it will make them weaker, the occurs,no matter what because of the focus we have in holding him accountable for using chemical weapons. >> let me say strongly i think it is important we support the president, it is important is bipartisan. i hope we have heavy votes in both the house and the senate. as my colleagues have mentioned, we are talking about weapons of mass destruction. this is a war crime. to turn weapons of mass destruction on your own population is the most despicable thing that any one can do. if we did not respond in kind, it was sending message every sub, every dictator, every terrorist group in the world that you can commit war crimes and murder your own citizens impunity and nothing is going to happen. iran,her side of this is

hezbollah, and other enemies are watching. they're watching to see how we handle this. when we tell iran a are not allowed to have a nuclear weapon, iran is watching us carefully to see how we respond in syria as a test of how we will respond if and when they create a nuclear weapon. i think american credibility is on the line. it is certainly in the best trysts of the united states. we have the capacity to do this. i believe the states stands for something. we stand for human rights. we stand for what should be done. i we haved war said that weapons of the search and cannot be allowed to use. i support the president. i think we should also the degrading assad's military because i think that just to

have a strike is fine, to send a message, but we have to be careful. as long as that man is in charge of syria, there's always going to be a problem and ultimately we want to talk about a post-assad syria. all those reasons, a military income in the national interest, we need to do what the president is asking us to do. >> are you confident the president is interested or open to a strike that as you say would degrade the capabilities and not be a limited or tailored strike? >> the president made it clear he is not talking about a pinpoint strike. he is talking about a strike that has teeth, that sends the message that weapons of mass destruction on your own people is unacceptable, but a message that tells assad we are not going to let him stay where he is and reached havoc and rain terror on his people.

i think it is going to need both. s. preparedthe u.u to do in a broader strategy? >> i think the message will be loud and clear, and i think we are taking a first step and are confident it is going to work. >> [indiscernible] decision he made the on saturday, why he came to that conclusion? >> we did not go into what the details are, but the president has said he feels this is something where the president and congress does together. speakstronger if we can with one voice, shocker if both the executive branch and the legislative branches are saying the same thing, and i think he expects us to get the but -- look, there are a lot of people who are questioning this. we have our work today. he have to convince the american

people, the congress, that this is morally right to do, and i think we will. >> was anyone in the meeting questioning this? >> questioning? >> military action? >> they made a compelling case that on humanitarian aces among that this is something that the united states is uniquely positioned to do. i think it was a very compelling case when you're talking about the slaughter of men, women, and children. i will always are member the pictures of those poor children foaming at the mouth and then dying. and i think we are in a position to help, and i think the president was very compelling today. >> [indiscernible] >> i cannot talk to every single leader, but the general to supports strongly the president, and it was in both parties. the leadership in both parties in that meeting will

support the president in doing this. >> was he talking about his trip to russia? >> the president said he would be speaking with other world leaders during his trip, but did not going to details. >> would the president go at it alone? >> i think congress will vote for it. once people understand what this stake is. humanitarian, and we cannot allow it to go unchecked, and is also in the u.s. national interest. hezbollah, a terrorist group, and iran are watching us. stake, andly have a it is not just syria. the military aspect of it. there is a compelling taste that the president made to us. he will make it to individual members. the vote will be positive. thank you. >> we leave these are marks at

this point. we will follow the story on the c-span networks as we go live now to the carnegie endowment for international peace for a discussion on international weapons at the defense department is working to acquire conventional global strike weapons. this discussion just getting underway. day, it is ar tribute to the topic i guess and to james'scholarship that so many of you have turned out on the first day act into the new year. pleasureme a special to introduce james and to moderate the discussion that will follow after his presentation, because i think book,eport is really a which is available outside, is a model of scholarship and careful

analysis. when you read it, i think you'll find it is by far the most exhaustive public treatment of -- topic, which is basically beyond the label of conventional strikes, but looks at possible conventional capabilities that the u.s. could consider developing and analyzing from a technical perspective, from a functional perspective, looking at trade- morein a way that is much detailed and careful than exists in the public domain. and what i especially admire about him, and i think you will too, when you read it, is that james is looking at it in kind of and open-minded way, so he is not making an argument for or against the concept or a particular application, but

actually looking at the different options that have been proposed and then kind of describing what would technically be required and what technology does exist and what the trade-offs might be, so that iu are left, when you finish, think, being exposed to a very careful and rigorous analysis, which probably will not lead you to a clear conclusion, but will give you a sense of the very important trade-offs involved, the additional information that would be necessary to make a sound decision. and to my mind, that is what excellent analysis should do for you. those are the kinds of tours on which they should take you to a topic. so it is with great pride that i personally and at the institution is associated with this report. it really is an excellent piece

of work. froml not delay us longer james at his presentation of the basic outlines of the report. i should say james is a senior associate here at carnegie. not unique in the sense in that he has written assessors throughout in strategic affairs that have a scientific background. he is a physicist from cambridge university, a scientific technical background and capacity, but then for the last number of years has been working and strategicl issues, so that blended technical capacity, to start strategicand analysis helps inform this report in ways that are very

important. james, let me turn it over to you, and then we will have a discussion. >> thank you, george. as a huge number of people who i should thank for the report, and i will not list everybody now. the organizations that i would just like to single out for thanks are the three organizations that contributed funding to this report. my genuine thanks to the macarthur foundation who provided primary support for this problem. -- project. also the hewlett foundation and the carnegie foundation of new york. i will take 14 minutes and then look forward to having a conversation with you. let me start by talking about be now is the right time to talking about conventional global strike. it is in fact an anniversary this year. it is 10 years since the u.s.

oteri issued a so-called mission need statement -- the u.s. military issued a so-called mission need statement. in this case, high-precision conventional weapons capable of striking targets around the or hours.in minutes ever since that mission need statement was issued, this has been a part of u.s. policy to acquire these new capabilities. we had a national debate -- i say we had a national debate -- i was not living in the united states when this took place, but in the mid-2000's there was a debate about a global strike, and that was triggered by the decision of the bush administration to seek funding from congress to take nuclear warheads off trident missiles, which are the sea-based legacy

deterrent, and replace those warheads with conventional weapons. aat prompted very reliably national debate, where a number of congressmen and with hummus congresswomen took part in this debate. back in the crux of the issue was something called warhead and to give the. the concern was that russia or possibly china in the future would see the launch of one of these weapons and mistake it for a nuclear weapon and launch a nuclear response. 2000's, a mid- tremendous amount has changed. there has been now almost a decade of research and development into very different technologies from those that were considered by the bush administration back in 2006, 2007. the focus of threat detection has changed. after the00's,

september 11 attacks, terrorism was the primary focus. today the u.s.'s threat perception is moving back to state-sponsored threats. spread of nuclear weapons, the spread of anti-satellite weapons. the physical environment has also changed radically since the mid-2000 hot. many of these new technologies are being discussed are much more expensive than the conventional trident system was, and it is coming at a time of severe downward pressure on the defense budget. for all of those reasons, changes in technology, changes in the physical environment, changes in the nature of the threat, and in most importantly, because it upon them -- the obama admin street has indicated they want to move to acquisition, to actually buy one of these systems in the not-too- distant future, it seems as it were it is examining the whole

concept of a global strike. let me tell you what this report is not, and this is something that george has mentioned. this report is not an argument for or against acquiring conventional prompt global strike. it is not an argument against or for any particular conventional global strike system. what it does aim to do is to raise a series of issues that i think have not had adequate consideration. almost all of my recommendations that i make are process oriented. that is to say, it is about how theuggestions about u.s. can get this decision right. pointing outby what the national academy said in the report that was mandated by congress in 2008. the national academy has endorsed the idea of the tribe

didn't -- trident modification, but it said, in the longer term more versatile action -- option investment.xpensive those citizens we are considering are exactly those more expensive, longer-term, more versatile options. what i think is missing from the debate about prompt global strike is the big picture of the nation hostile should usually strike policy and national security strategy. so what i want to do today is highlight four issues. first, a lack of clarity for the role of these weapons. i can make him lack of discussion about the military benefits and weaknesses of conventional prompt global strike systems, versus the non-- prompt alternatives.

thirdly, a lack of attention that is being paid to enabling capabilities. that is the stuff that makes the weapons work. fourth, the full range of international ramifications. let me commentt, very briefly on the technology. the goal of conventional prompt global strike is usually described as developing high- precision conventional weapons capable of reaching a target anywhere in the world within one hour. that description, while it is often reputed, is increasingly and in accurate description of the technology developed. in the most recent budget request by the president, funding for the one global rain system that was under was heavily reduced, and the focus of the program is now on a regional system, or intercontinental system, but certainly not global systems.

are three basic technologies, and you can find a lot more about the technology in the report, but let me highlight the three basic technological approaches. first, if you can take a ballistic missile, replace or develop a new one, stick a conventional warhead on top, and this thing goes through a standard ballistic trajectory, up into space, back down again, and at the very end of its flights when it reenters the atmosphere, you can add a pair of reentry flaps that can search with target. the second option, which is the favored option, is a blues-glide system. these are hypersonic gliders, a bit like paper airplanes, if you like. 20y are capable of gliding times the speed of sound in the upper atmosphere. these would be launched into the upper atmosphere by rockets and then glide thousands of

kilometers under their own steam. the third option or hypersonic cruise missiles, normal cruise missiles, they have ever done nymex (they are powered, but they are a lot faster. this is a bureaucratically set apart from the global strike, but a similar goal. finally, i will not talk about this today, but i would like it in the report, that russia and china are both very interested in these technologies for themselves and are developing them as well. firstly, the four big points, that there is a lack of clarity about the possible roles for conventional rock global strike. strike.ntional global there are ideas that have been floated by u.s. officials about what this technology could be used for.

a nuclearo counter mission. this is essentially denying a , notroliferator russia or china, that ability to use a nuclear arsenal, going off nuclear country's weapons. second, countering anti-- satellite missions, and this is a mission that is largely focused on china. defense suppression. that is, countering advance , and thissystems mission is mostly about china, but by no means exclusively about china. and finally, the counterterrorism mission. the pentagon has not yet made about what these

weapons would be used for. and this is a problem in my mind, because all of these different missions have quite different requirements. one weapon cannot necessarily service all of these different missions. one distinction that has not been made that i think is critical is the difference between promptness and surprise. promptness is getting a weapon from me to the target very quickly. surprise is the target not knowing that the weapon is on the way until it is too late to do anything about it. surprise is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition. let me explain that. could takeweapon hours to get to the target, but it could surprise an adversary. a fast weapon, even if it moves

very quickly and just takes an ifr to cross a long this is, an adversary can detect it on launch, that might not be good enough for surprise. promptness and surprise are two conceptually separate attributes. and this decision between them has not been made. and this distinction is important. let's say that the united states becomes worried that china is about to preemptively attack u.s. satellites. scenario, surprise would be critical. yes the site china is about to attack u.s. satellites and the u.s. one student take out chinese capabilities. in that scenario, surprise would be critical. -- new debtided u.s. were weapons were on the lake, it will use its capabilities for the u.s. could

not them out, so surprise would be critical. prop this i think would not be promptness would not be so critical. an attack on china would be after only after a prolonged crisis. whether or not weapons took one hour to reach their target or eight hours when not be so important. as a counterpoint, consider north korea has used nuclear weapons and u.s. wants to stop them from using any more. promptness would be critical in that scenario. they are reducing the time the u.s. weapons to to arrive from eight hours to one hour could save a lot of lives. birth korea would shortly be expecting an immediate u.s. response. it would be very hard to get surprise in that circumstance. also, the defenses would be different in those circumstances. china would have defenses that

would be difficult to penetrate. north korean defenses would be softer. the ranges would be longer for china than in for north korea. are these reasons, these distinctions between missions tend to be lost, when officials and analysts talk about in very abstract terms using conventional prompt global strike to threaten high-value, highly defended them distant, fleeting targets. haverent missions different targets, and that is a place where strategic acquisition process should start from. the kinds of recommendations that flow from there, is the department of defense, if not doing already, should adopt a scenario-based approach for acquisition. invitationalsior -- senior official in the bush administration who were thinking about this in abstract terms,

but not in specific scenarios. i think congress should push the administration on articulating what the military rationale were these weapons are. make isoint i want to different conventional prompt mobile strike weapons are not always equally good ways of achieving the same military ends. they all have distinctive strengths and weaknesses. and which weapon is best in some sense depends on the scenario. let me make this a bit more concrete for you. one of the challenges, one of the reasons why the u.s. is interested in conventional prompt global strike is to defeat advanced defenses such as air and missile defenses. there is also a gps denial where it virtually tries to stop the weapons receiving gps signals.

that is something i discussed the report but will not discuss today. one thing u.s. adversaries might try to do is the very important high-value targets that gps might be used to threaten, might be protected with advanced air and missile defenses. buying to defend -- trying to defend a large area with this old offenses is very hard. trying to defend the last targets is more plausible. gps weapons traveling fast, they do not trouble fast enough to make the point defenses very hard, and as early as 1998 the national academy was saying the hypersonic cruise missiles would potentially be vulnerable to these defenses. systems, the hypersonic gliders i have been talking about, they start at

extremely high velocity, 20 times the speed of sound, but after traveling through the atmosphere, for thousands of killed minders -- to the they said down, and they arrived at their target at the speed of a medium-range ballistic missile. they are not unimaginably difficult either, and especially over the timescale that we have gpsthink about here, with c procurement, that is not so daunting. rangentrast, intermediate- as the missiles would be the most advisable against advanced defenses. however, these kinds of weapons are vulnerable to other countermeasures. i have mentioned some missions for conventional front mobile strike require a surprise.

one way an adversary can mitigate surprise is by early warnings. ballistic missiles are particularly easy to detect with early warning radar, whereas post-glide weapons are much harder to detect early with radar. whiching on countermeasures adversaries adopt, some conventional prompt mobile strike systems are best against some countermeasures and can be ineffective against others, so the weapons best in one scenario can be weakest in another scenario. comparet just need to different weapons against one another. we also need to compare them .gainst non-prompt alternatives and the key non-prompt

automotive is also -- often stealths als technology, that penetrate advanced air defenses. i certainly do not have the clearances to know or to be able to make even an educated guess about whether over the next 20 or 30 years stealth or speed will be the best way of penetrating advanced defenses. but i do think that this is a critical issue that needs to be taken into account in internal analyses. there was a time when they were's -- when there was a lot more money available it was more tenable to say all different alternative ways of addressing the same problem should be investigated. at a time of fiscal austerity, it is necessary to privatize -- prioritize the option that carries the least risk in

achieving military goals. none of these options have no risk. the question is comparing risk. suggestedi d thesee do is develop missions. the effective countermeasures is a crucial part of this analysis. as our weapon costs. the non-prompt weapons are a lot more expensive than prompt websense, you can bring a lot more non-prompt to bear against any particular target. third issue i want to talk about today is enabling capabilities. capabilities are what make weapons systems work. these include intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance for locating targets. , and -- command and control for authorizing a strike and battle

damage assessment for assessing whether or not weapons have had the desired effect on the target. from the point of view of enabling capabilities, perhaps the single most challenging target out there our mobile targets, like mobile missiles. a potential targets for conventional global strike our mobile. nuclear armed can move,issiles they are mobile. china plus anti--should elicit missiles are mobile. there is a different issue associated with them. that no coincidence

potential adversaries are investing in mobile capabilities , precisely because they are hard to kill. the united states famously discovered this in the 1991 gulf war against iraqi, when the u.s. did something called the great scud hunt, i attempted to hunt cuds.iraqi mobile s in the sorties against scud- related targets, the united states achieved a grand total of zero concerned kills. that is how difficult these targets are. now, u.s. capabilities to attack mobile mrs. have improved immeasurably since then, or very significant leak, let's say. and today the most very effective means the u.s. would have been tracking mobile missiles, locating and tracking them, would be to aircraft, manned and unmanned, operating from within the theater. radar-based

airplanes, private example. uav's may play a role in this. it does not make much sense to use aircraft operating from within the theater to provide targeting information for long- range weapons. because if aircraft can survive in the theater, if they can't beat what ever air defenses there are, i not just outfit those aircraft with missiles? because then they would be a lot closer to where the targets were so they would be more effective in hunting down mobile targets. and it would be a lot cheaper than developing prompt global strike. existing u.s. surveilling capabilities, hunting down mobile targets, are not really

targeting dataor for conventional prompt global strike. systems thatnce would make a lot of sense for conventional prompt global strike would be the based radar. survive in could not the theater because they were being shot down, and the u.s. had a globe-spanning array of space-based radar that were capable of locating mobile targets from a distance, that would make a lot of sense. the u.s. has some space-based radar at the moment, but not enough to provide continuous coverage. over the past 15 years there have been various acquisition plans to develop a globe- spanning constellation of space- based radar. every one of these has been canceled. and the cost of these

satellites, or constellation of these, is an order of magnitude more than the cost of cgps weapons. if you read -- that is an example of to my mind a clear that affectsting u.s. capabilities, and the gao has called upon the pentagon to conduct a study into enabling capabilities. the pentagon issued a non- concurrent concurrence among where you concur with that recommendation and explain why you're not going to do it or you are going to do it in a completely different form from the one that was suggested. i am worrying that enabling capabilities are being left out of the rss. the fourth issue i want to flag up today are the international remicade's -- ramifications. sorry -- one last thing on enabling capabilities. area for good

congressional involvement. i think the congress should require the administration to of neededstudy enabling capabilities with plans to fill those gaps. this needs to happen before c and this needs to happen before acquisition. the final thing i want to bring up is the full range of ramifications about global strike. one ramification, warhead ambiguity, has attracted all of the attention so far. and never mind you, that is the risk that russia or china could detect the launch of the weapons, misidentified as a nuclear arms, and launch their nuclear stocks. there seems to me one particular pr