in some way as to make religious believers, in fact, into second-class citizens. here is what i mean. let's say tomorrow somebody were to say let's put a statue of old there next to the u.s. capitol voltaire nextf to the u.s. capitol. there would be a debate, do we admire him, it would be on the merits. knowtear yes or voltaire -- voltaire yes or no? if somebody said let's put a statue of moses on the steps of the u.s. capitol, people would say, you can't do that, it is outside the first amendment. vol s had more impact than taire, but the point is it would not be debated because moses

would be tossed out without consideration if somebody whose very name violates the first amendment. i'm saying this is discriminatory against believers. [applause] are think -- here you saying the establishment clause, you are now wanting to reinterpret that come up the toond amendment -- you want reinterpret that, but the second amendment you genuflect in front. the idea that religious people are discriminated against is flatly not true. this is a country that absolutely recognizes your believes and you are allowed to practice them anywhere. what you are not allowed to do is bring them government and have government say this is the correct one. >> hold on. >> there is a difference. although there was the court in georgia that had the 10 commandments in a statue. read the 10 commandments and see if that makes any sense for secular democracy.

>> you are saying i'm allowed to have my religious beliefs in private and not impose them on a public square. >> you are allowed to have them in the public square. you are not allowed to have the government establish them as the right one. that's the difference. it's a huge difference. not only are you allowed to have them in the public square, in our political debate every candidate almost has to bow down and say, i go to church every sunday. it's ridiculous. why can't he be a candidate credible as an atheist. >> i think you should be, but in a society in which there is the consent of the governed, the reason politicians do that is they happen to have religious people who vote for whom they want. if they have the guts to say i'm in a theist and i don't care whether religious people vote for me, that would show a little bit of courage. but if you want religious people's votes and you pander to them, i don't have somebody for you. >> it's fine to pander to them. my point is you are making a

false parallel. volatire just as a person would inside whether we like them or not. moses, if you put a statue of moses or jesus in someplace, not in a public square, and a you are not allowed to and you shouldn't be. >> so what we are seeing is religious figures and religious .iews are singled out so the supreme court has not gone your way on this. while they used to interpret the staff bushmen clause as saying that -- the establishment clause as saying this is fine and the secular square, now the supreme court has been more nuanced. let's look at dartmouth. if people go to dartmouth college, and we are a state institution, let's make the public square, and said i wanted to start the atheist society. wonderful, we recognize you, here's $2000. then somebody goes to the college and says, we want to

start a society for catholic christians. according to him, that's a state activity. because it's religious. >> no. doesn't dartmouth have a catholic group? >> it's a public school. >> there is a catholic center in the middle of campus. it's allowed. >> i am arguing for a nondiscriminatory runcible where believers and nonbelievers alike share without discrimination access to the public square. if somebody wants moses up there, we'd debated on the merits, the same as we would voltaire. itwhere do libertarians have right and where do libertarians have a wrong? >> where libertarians have a right and wrong? libertarians and

sometimes come together. i will tell your where i think they have it right -- a deep skepticism of government, of the imposition of the state into our lives. i think where they have it right is full support for sexual freedom. you can do your thing. anarchists and libertarians would save full gay rights. i was having a discussion with a libertarian outside one of my talks and i said, i think we could agree on full rights, including the right to marry. he said, no. the state should not eat involved with marriage -- not be involved with marriage. if you want to get married with your cold, you can do that. i said, that seems right to me. we can agree on that. i think the other place you get it right is to close the pentagon, stop the trillion dollar drain on our allies. i think libertarians believe that. i think they should.

that is where they get it right. you only say where they get it wrong? >> libertarians are right, they are certainly right to be suspicious of government in general. i believe that whatever the government does, it does it badly. [applause] that is as true of the defense department as the apartment of public housing. >> you like the roads? how about clean water? >> here is the problem -- on the issue of defense, i think that libertarians are sometimes inconsistent. jefferson used the phrase empire of liberty and his point was that if we believe in freedom, it is a little inconsistent and hypocritical to be freedom only for us. we should want other people to be free as well. i don't believe in achieving that bite invading other -- by invading other countries. i like the reagan doctrine. you fight for your own freedom, we will help.

so when they were fighting against the soviet union, we did not send troops but we sent material assistance to the rebels to overthrow -- and that was the beginning of the end of the soviet empire. is half right on foreign policy. it is the result of completely wide open economics, where libertarians are right is that the government, just as it does not have the right to interfere with your life, it does not have the right to reach into your pocket and take your wallet. [applause] >> where the libertarians get it wrong is that they think that the market is holy. but say, government bad, the corporations that have taken over the government, they are good. that is nonsense. the idea that somehow the government is spying on us as a bad thing, but google spying on us is a great thing because of the love of the market and private inner sides -- private

enterprise. >> shouldn't the government not --thehe power to dish out corporations and the government, should the government not have the power to issue back to the back to the -- dish corporations? >> what do you mean? , they have politicians that make for verbal -- favorable conditions for policies -- conditions for corporation. >> i'm not following exactly what you are saying. is ank the government wholly owned subsidiary of big capital. it is a very dangerous situation. you look at something like where we are in health care, we are the only industrialized nation that does not have universal health care for its citizens and meanwhile we pass this kind of weak bill a couple years ago

which basically gives hundreds of millions of dollars to the insurance industry. what is that about? it is about the government giving corporate welfare, which is what it does best. >> we have time for one more question. tois a point of fact, i wish point out that there are statutes of moses and mohammed in washington dc just above the columns on the supreme court building. we actually do have moses in washington dc yearst nelson mandela this and we would all agree that we are against apartheid. >> now. to speak toike you support that they -- we israel with massive aid but that they have codified into law that arabs are second-class citizens. why do we support an apartheid system today and will we look as ridiculous as other governments

-- even cameron was part of an organization that supported up apartheid. we look as ridiculous today as he did now? [applause] the challenge of the state of while america was founded as the society of individuals, a minority of one, israel was founded with a different idea. that was the idea of having a jewish state. think about that. it was the idea of creating a jewish state. the jewish state differs from the modern state in the way that the old testament efforts from the new. the old testament was a single community with a single ideology. and moses came with the 10 commandments and he saw aaron war shipping the golden calf, aaron did not say that he had a first amendment right to worship the golden calf.

israel does not have a full separation of church and state. it is a jewish state. it seems you are attacking the legitimacy of having a jewish state. [indiscernible] we have established a constitution and way of life for us. we also recognize that we live in a big world and in a big world, we make allies with people, some of with we agree on 100% of the time and some of us who agree with them 5%. based on they is idea of the lesser of the two evils. that, you -- if you

forget that, you get a trouble that -- a country that is causing nonstop trouble in the middle east trying to build nuclear iran. this is all the legacy of the sanctimonious jimmy carter who said he wanted nothing to do with that in the middle east. why do we support israel? what you have is little israel, a little outpost of western civilization in a large piece of real estate that is fairly hostile to it. i agree that israel is a problem. why is that a problem? not necessarily just due to the palestinians. it seems that like every 15 years, all be arab states get together and gang up on israel. of dust them off, pistol whips the whole of them combined, and it is kind of embarrassing. [applause]

we have to recognize that the last 50te over years is bound up with hours, for better or worse. it is a tough spot. i don't agree with everything they do. i don't think we should be giving -- i'm not saying that we should be giving the liens and aid to israel or egypt, for that matter. putting up for debate, but i am glad we have a small ally in the east and i think it israel was to vanish off the face of the map, that would be very bad for american interests and it would also be very bad for the jews. >> really appreciate your question. [applause] i want to point out two things. all supportwe nelson mandela now. we did not support nelson mandela when the fight against the apartheid was going on. he was only taken off the terrorist watchlist in 2006. that's get real about, now we all love him and he was a grandfather that reconciles. how about his speech when he was put in jail for life?

how about reading that and seeing who the real nelson mandela was? he was many things, but he was a freedom fighter. and when he was, the united states officially did not support him and most of the people here would not have supported him. that is what i mean about getting real about history. i asked you about slavery and women's rights, and the question is will there be something 40 years from now that your grandchildren will look around and say, really? you did that, and just like we say that about slavery. are there things we could do better? extracting the last drop of oil from the ground. that is one example. mass incarceration or money in politics. these are all things that your kids may look at you in and say, really? it cost obama $1 billion to be elected and you call it a democracy? but about israel, it is an apartheid state and there are things we can do about it. it is ridiculous that this

country alone supplies israel, gives of the kind of money that it can stand up on. it was created not in an empty land, but in a land with people on it. powersmost colonial which takeover and want people stay, israel has systematically pushed out the indigenous population and that is going on to this date, the settlements and the burning. there is something you can do -- the bbs movement. you can find it online. this is something we should be aware of and participate in because israel and palestine exist there and there is no justice unless we can figure out a way -- they can figure out a -- the palestinians also have self-determination and a future to live for. [applause] >> that is all the questions we have time for. they will both be outside after the debate is over and they can answer your questions at the book signing table. i would like to mix -- ask mr.

have some much time for the event. i am sorry. if you have an additional question and you want to ask the speakers, consider asking them after the event. >> [inaudible] >> how do you feel? i am open. >> i could care less. >> maybe we could have each person come up to the podium and quick question, and we will sum up and answer the question so we are able to keep the debate in time and at the same time, here everyone out. without the reasonable? -- would that be reasonable? [applause] -- your turn. i'm sorry, i meant let's take all the questions and we will comprehensive glee answer. -- comprehensively answer.

>> i am a sophomore at dartmouth. i am an immigrant myself. i came from korea to the united states about six years ago and i have benefited tremendously from an education here. i would like to contest your assumption that america constitutes an unequivocal good force in the world. that america created mass prosperity for all people the world but that seems very condescending and the -- it to me, it seems -- not everyone in the world is enamored with america and your exotic concept of western modality and globalization has had some good effects on the world and has also caused negative repercussions.

thatld just like to say for me, the greatest thing about america is that it's a melting pot of a population and its ability to own up to his mistakes, whether it be slavery were substitutions of its indigenous peoples. it seems very contradictory that you would propose to represent the immigrant experience and the immigrant oyster and the immigrant perspective on america when you are so holy by list -- wholly biased in favor of american exceptionalism. [applause] you are right about chicago. i went to the university of chicago. it is a great city. you are right. dinesh thomas a student of mine

-- one issue is very important for everyone in this audience. it is the greatness of the constitution and the first amendment. congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion and the free exercise of their of -- free exercise thereof and the freedom of speech. that does not authorize a religion to announce that abortion is illegal in the constitution. that is a violation of the first amendment and you have to know science to know that. what everyone in this audience needs to know is that what is not great about america is you live in the most scientific and technological society in the world and our citizens and our students need to know more about

science when they discuss clinical things -- elliptical things. -- political things. [applause] >> my question is to you, dinesh. you mentioned that he like thomas jefferson about the constitutional convention. what you say about his belief that if you do not change the constitution every 20 to 30 years, you are enslaving the next generation? my name is rachel. my question is for dinesh. he talked about great britain and how they went into india and put their thoughts and ideas in what india should be light and the united states went to iraq with their guns and try to create democracy, but what has iraq benefited from the united states going there like india benefited from great britain going into india?

my question is to mr. d'souza. -- i did, i did know not know a whole lot about either candidate. i agreed about things like american exceptionalism. american capitalism has fostered a lot of things like innovation. i guess i came into this agreeing with a lot of your ideals and then i hear you talking about things how the native americans would have continued shooting their buffalo and bison unless they had things the the trail of tears and american government colonialism imposed a member or house saying the poorest person in america owns two cars or things about how israel has gone around pistol whipping other countries every 10 years or so. trulystion is, do you believe the rhetoric you're speaking or is this a cost benefit analysis from what gets

the most attention impress and what factually speaks to be ideal that you are trying to support? [applause] >> my question goes to mr. bill ayers. i'm just a citizen of the state of new hampshire. the point i'm trying to make was this -- it was going back to your questions of why we wen t into iraq. i believe that the majority of the congress did vote on that and based upon the facts that they had at the time, we went into iraq based on that, weapons of mass destruction, and i think mr. d'souza was accurate on that as far as that goes. we did go there. as far as where the money went

to, as far as halliburton and everything like that goes, my not onn is why were you the front lines going against that? i will tell you a little story about something that i heard from two kids that went and actually served in iraq. one served for three to wars, one surfer to. two.rved for the point i'm trying to make is that when you talk to the people on the ground, one of the troops over there fighting, what the people over there want is what we have here, and that is freedom. [applause] that is what they want. they want to be like us. it makes us assassin -- it makes this discussion go way overboard when you put down this country. there are plenty of things wrong with the country, but there is outweighed by what is right with

the country including our boys going over there and fighting for those people because those people want what we have. they will always want that. --n there were -- why whether they were put down by a over there or not, that is where they are at. [applause] >> mr. to sousa, your balanced and broad historical perspective shows how important immigration is to this country. people like you are the future of america, not the jaded and clichéd blame america for everything tight. i hope your friend gets a visa. a consistentlych hypercritical view of america and the west and the right in our high schools, college, and media? [applause] >> my question is for mr. ayers. i have read a lot of your writing and i would like you to comment on what we can do as activists to help prevent the

handing over of public education to corporate interests and testing agencies. [applause] if there are no more questions, i would like to ask mr. ayers to give a brief conclusion of his remarks. answer these questions at the same time? >> in five minutes, can you do a little overview? >> you start. [laughter] >> sure. i'll start. i remember before i came to america, on the outskirts of mumbai, there were a group of, i think they were yale anthropologist who would come to india to study the local people. and of zoomtents lens cameras and they were recording those and they were basically recording the lives of the slum dwellers outside of bombay. slum dwellers would come up to

the anthropologist and say, i want your jeans. i want your camera. and it's a, oh, no, that is a very simplistic point of view. you unfortunately inside the prism of ethnocentrism. thee not here to affirm superiority of western culture. your culture is just as point of from your view as ours is. clearly, these were veterans of sociologist classes at the ivy league and the slum dwellers would say, yeah, but can i have your jeans? can i have your camera? no. what am i talking about? there is a one-way movement in agrarian,-- away from impoverished societies of people who are grinding and eking a living out of the ground, people who were living in the rest of the world the way they have lived for millennia. all of those people can now see that there is a better, more

prosperous, more abundant way to live with more possibility and it is nothing short of shameful to go around lecturing those people on what they should want from the benefits of western privilege, enjoying all these telling them,and it is a disgrace and you have no right to do it. those who want what we have, and frankly, they will all want our generosity. -- they do not want our generosity. this is probably the greatest insult of globalization. chinese? we don't need you. we will come over -- we will become the manufacturing center of the world. your aid workers home. this is powerful stuff. they have learned our recipe. here is my point -- here we are. what to be in the middle of the 21st century?

don't sit around saying, we did civil rights, we did feminist rights, we have done gay rights. rights now?- who's you can do that. that this country on the top of the world will be sliding right down to third or fourth status and other countries will come up and take our place and those will have the kind of power that we have had since world war ii and it will be a very different world and it will be a little bit of a tougher world because those are people who believe in wealth creation but they also leave and conquest. we cannot expect them, when they have our power, to achieve our priorities. i assure you that the rise of the east, the rise of asia, is going to mean not only the end of a lot of western priorities, it is going to be the end of progressivism. why? many of those countries want modernization, yes,

westernization, no. what america still has is the gift of the world. let's talk about coria. isn't it wonderful that south korea is a free country? north korea isn't. at the united states not fought the korean war, it is very possible that the north would have engulfed the south. [applause] we would have a dictator who just killed his uncle putting people in mass graves. that is the world we live in. sitting around talking about multiculturalism when we are living in a real world where there is a north vietnam in a south vietnam and the north over read -- overran the south. the world is still the way it is. look, i am optimistic about america because it seems to me not that america does things right all the time. we do things wrong a whole bunch of the time. we do try. we do try to live up to ideals

that remarkably were there at the beginning. there is no new ideal that we have invented. the principles were always there. the founders didn't envision abortion, but they did envision privacy. butidn't envision the nsa, they did envision unreasonable search and seizure. they didn't envision civil rights, but they did invention equal rights under the law. that is right there in the fifth amendment and that is right there in the civil war in the 14th amendment. constitution can be amended. there is a process to amend it. that is my point -- if you want to change the constitution, follow the law. follow the process. don't sit around and say, jefferson thought it would be great to do it every 20 years, therefore we get to a point where supreme court justices will ignore the constitution says and do what it should say. there will be a time when the

supreme court will be controlled by the other side and they will do it to you. even though we respect with the constitution says, if we want to change it there is a way to do that. ultimately, i think america remains the great defender of wealth creation. the 20th century, america invented the airplane, america did not invent the car but it mass-produced the car. computer, -- the america invented the computer. revolutionnformation of the late 20th century and early 21st century. america played a critical role in creating possibility, and i'm not talking just about chinese people or indians who can, who do not have to go to the beach to wash their clothes. their lives are transformed. the have the sense of possibility that you have here. they're thinking, how do i get my kid to dartmouth? that is the sum of their aspirations. -- summit of their aspirations.

i am saying, let's make it possible for them to do it. let's realize that we have a great formula and let's fight, be community activists, not just to redistribute the pie, but to widen the pies. thank you very much. [applause] the national geographic did a study some years ago of 18-25-year-old american kids. they asked him to identify countries on a blank world map. 80% could not find a rock. 80% of american young people could not find iraq. 80% could not find israel or palestine. for two percent could not find invalid and 10% could not find united states. that one makes us laugh but the others, not so much. it is hard for americans. does what american exceptionalism leads you with.

-- leaves you with. it leaves you with a sense that you we are the center of the universe and everyone should be like that. what is not exceptional is that not everyone feels exceptional. the idea just seems to me like a fool's errand. why would we argue that we are the most important and everyone else should what, bow down? the thing about american exceptionalism and the thing about the history that nash brushes -- dinesh brushes past is that it is a false construction. the history of the slave owners that founded this country, they really didn't want to have slaves but they did it because it was necessary to found the union. that is an invention. there is no truth to it. look into the history and understand it. the idea that there are people out there lecturing people on what they should want in other countries -- who? where are those people? the people lecturing on those who want our spending billions

of dollars to invade those countries. that is ridiculous. iraq, 80% oft iraqis wanted us out within two years. very typical of invading occupying soldiers everywhere, you can hear almost every week some soldier in iraq saying that we didn't accomplish everything, but when we got here there was nothing here. nothing? in the cradle of civilization? it is an arrogance that drives us the wrong way. it is an arrogance that is not only foolish but deadly. the country as it is is a massive contradiction as i said. beauty and also wishes with human denial. it is a place that both drains us and or punishes us. -- and replenish his us.

the tools are everywhere. the client intervention -- i often say that the bumper sticker that says if you're not pissed off, you're not paying attention. it is a good bumper sticker. you should be a little pissed off that are the things that are out of balance that can be fixed. it is only part of the equation. the other part is love and generosity. we live in a system that asks us to be greedy, narrow, and small. we should fight to be large and inclusive. the recipe for activism is to see the world as it really is, dive in, be astonished, you something, everything. if you repeat that for a lifetime, you will discover what is great about america one word about education. situation that we in with education is catastrophic. i appreciate the question. it is catastrophic because we have constructed education as we

constructed health care, food, and other things, as apartments. nothing more. nothing less. i do not buy that construction. i think it is a human right. that means everyone has a right to access. that is how we should view education. crushing the collective voice of sense in makes perfect that context, and reducing education to a test score, as if that makes an educated person. education and democracy, if it is anything at all, it is based on the incalculable value of every human being. it means that what the most privileged children have for their children, we should well for all of our children. we should demand a. we should insist on it.

and we should make high-quality education a reality for all. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. that concludes the debate for the evening. we ask you, as you leave, to take a look at the tables outside. they will be signing books. if you have an interest in

.

.

captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008 hundreds, if not thousands, of people will start working again. i've seen it happen in my prior life as a mayor, and i see opportunities for this all across the country. in dubuque, iowa, dubuque, iowa, usdot helped redesign the roads in part of the city where old mills and factories laid vacant. and when we did that, ibm moved in and gave those old factories a new lease on life.

you all know this. you get it. you understand it. and the chamber, as i mentioned, has been one of the loudest voices calling for an increase in the gas tax. your president, tom donohue, has been a very vocal leader on this issue. prodding congress to be courageous. now, at d.o.t., we happen to believe we can pay for infrastructure a different way, but i would much rather see a national debate about how we get there than whether. that's why i'm glad tom is standing up. and we absolutely agree that congress is going to have to show a little political courage to fix this problem. their courage increases when their core constituencies like the folks in this room tell them

it's okay to figure this out. it's actually the fiscally responsible thing to do. we need you to speak up. all of you can play a role in putting our transportation system on a more certain and sustainable curious. and we do it by let congress know that a one or two-year band-aid won't cut it this time. tell them what's at stake for you. tell them what's at stake for your employees and the products you sell. tell congress to get to yes. i know they care about your priorities. i know they care about your companies. i know they care about the jobs you create. and they care when you tell them yourselves. so our mission is pretty clear. we've got to create the context for a solution this year. i'd be committing malpractice if i didn't tell you that.

but the truth of the matter is, we've got a lot of work to do, and you're a critical partner in that work. thank you very much. it's great to be with you. [ applause ] >> the secretary's willing to take a couple of questions this morning. so let me ask you to do this. we should have roving microphones in the room. raise your hand if you've got the microphone in your hand. please flag down one of the people holding that microphone. and then when you stand up to ask your question, as tom donohue would say, tell us who you are so we know what you really want. no one has a question for the secretary of transportation? all right. mr. secretary, i have a question for you. >> all right. >> d.o.t. has been doing a lot of work on connecting the economy with transportation, especially in the area of

freight. can you tell us a little bit about what the department is doing and what your vision is for making sure we can move goods in, out and through this country officially? >> that's a great question. sounds like you've thought about that one before. so one of the really smart parts of map 21 was the requirement that usdot go out and pull stakeholders together to develop a national freight plan. and we've got a committee of 47 people, from all walks of life, all parts of the transportation ecosystem who are involved in helping us develop this plan. the vision of it is multy focal

plan. in easing the flow of commerce across our country. i would say once we have done that analysis and we have done that work, and it will probably be ready before the end of the year. we will identify some of the gaps in the system. from there, the challenge is how do you get those gaps addressed and, you know, i think that's a place where a strong competitive program that encouraged not just one off projects but ones that had real scale would be useful. and that may involve, you know, multiple states coming together to solve a particular problem, whether it's rail or highway or whatever.

i think that's what i'd like to see. but that's -- that's my view. >> do have a question here. do stand up and introduce yourself, please. >> good morning. one of the things i'm sure you came across as a mayor, and i'm sure in north carolina, when you're trying to get these projects off the ground, is the issue of streaming and permitting. map 21 did some of that. how would you take in that mayoral experience and the business experience, look at some of the issues we have with environmental and permitting and streamlining when we're trying to get some of these high-job producing projects off the ground. >> yeah, no, it's a great question. you know, i had a similar situation as a mayor. we had a city that permitted everything outside the building and a county that permitted

everything inside the building. and the two groups of people that did that work didn't sit next to each other. didn't -- there was no common plat for for these things to get resolved. and a lot of this -- the review process were sequential in nature and not concurrent in nature. so they weren't all doing the work at the same time. which meant it took longer. one of the things that i think is under emphasized in the media and the political world is how much president obama cares about, you know, making sure government is working well. and doing everything we can to ensure that on an interagency basis, we're get things done as effectively and efficiently as possible. the truth is, on a given project, they'll be a d.o.t.

review. they'll be an army corps review. sometime, a coast guard review. lots of different agencies involved. and they don't all roll up to the same agency leader. and what i can tell you is that is a focus for the president. it is a focus that i have. and we're looking at ways we can get things done even without congressional action to get things more streamlined. there's good news. the number of categorical exclusie exclusie exclusi exclusions. the need for process has actually been increased under this president. so more projects are moving faster. but the ones that aren't moving faster are the big ones. and we've got a responsibility to try to work on making sure we're getting as much done as possible. but i'd like to see us cutting the time, you know, as close to half as we could get in terms of getting projects moved through our system.

>> great. next question. >> mr. secretary, what's your personal take on the keystone pipeline? >> that's a very good question. i do have a view on that. my view is that secretary kerry is going to be a great figure to resolve that one for us. >> other questions. they see a couple of hands over there. give these ladies a moment to get through the crowd this morning. >> thank you very much for participating. i'm wondering, given the challenges that any administration has to get proposals through omb and given

the fact that senator boxer has announced a very accelerated schedule for moving forward on map 21 reauthorization, how does the department anticipate making its priorities known to the senator and to the committee on both the house and senate side? it seems unrealistic to think that the department can actually put together a complete reauthorization proposal. perhaps some sort of an outline? how do you envision that going forward? >> well, in the past, a lot of the policy frameworks the administration has had on transportation have come through the budget process and -- but i wouldn't count us out. i wouldn't count us out. that's all i'll say right now. >> we have a question in the back corner there. >> mr. secretary, joe sculley

with the truck renting and leasing association. you said the d.o.d. believes there's a different way to pay this. can you elaborate on other ways you have in mind? >> basic outline, you know, there's been some fairly substantial work that chairman camp of the house ways and means committee and chairman baucus, former chair of the senate finance committee, have been doing on corporate tax reform, and if you look at those proposals, there's a -- there's actually a -- a savings -- or a dividend, if you will, that comes through, through doing that, and we believe that some part of that dividend could be used to support infrastructure

over a multiyear time frame. there's paper on those ideas and concepts that have been produced out of congress. and we think it's a good framework for getting past some of the gridlock that's been in place over this issue for a while. >> mr. secretary, i know your time with us is up. thank you