does anybody have a crystal ball to predict that? i would like one. i am not trying to make light of it by any stretch. sometimes decisions work and sometimes they don't. the department ultimately has to answer to those. the secretary is looking into how they can detain more convective -- convicted criminals. the courts are clogged. there are years long backlogs. there is only so much detention space. host: let's see if we can get caller: thank you. i would like to as the lady that clarify something for me. it seems to me that they are thinking that the democrats added the immigration bill to

the homeland funding bill. i do not think the democrats did that. the republicans put that in there in order to have a fight with obama about his executive order. i feel that they are so well because the homeland funding bill should be separate from anything else. anything else. they should not have attached that bill. i would just like you to clear it up for people, and me, to let the people know who attached that immigration bill to that homeland funding bill. host: certainly a topic that you have been writing about recently. guest: republicans did add the rider to limit any funds to be used on immigration. that has been job by some republicans. some have said, let's do what is called a clean bill for an entire budget bill and that we will separately work on the immigration bill.

again, there are pending lawsuits. everything is on hold anyway. but, they did attach the rider and that was the big hangup. it continues to be a hangup, even within the republican party. then, of course, democrats are saying buell -- we do not want to pass a short-term bill. we certainly will not pass a bill that includes this, gives us a clean bill, we will vote on a up and down, then we will bow on the immigration bill. it is still up for debate what will happen this week. be funding runs out again friday at midnight. there has been some conferencing saying that this divide, we want a clean bill, we will worry about the other part later, we arty have a victory in tech is we don't want to mess this, we want to stop -- what they see is a uncut searn unconstitutional push

from the president. the judge did not caller unconstitutional -- he rolled on a very nerdy understanding that there was a need for public opinion. he did not go through the rulemaking process. that is what the judge has pointed out so far. later on in the case, he may rule something else, but that is where we are now. host: we will thoroughly be looking out for your reporting with the associated press. we appreciate your time this morning. that is our show for today on "washington journal." we will now take you to the center for strategic and international 30's where an event is underway with liam fox. have a great day. [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> many of us know dr. fox is being the former secretary of state for defense, named by prime minister cameron from 2010 22011. csi s claims dr. fox as one of our own. i assure you, dr. fox gave us a very lively and spirited debate about what the future of europe will look like. i'm sure some of that will be reprise for us this morning. prior to former secretary of state for defense, dr. fox served for many shadow secretaries for health, as well as foreign secretary and secretary of the fence.

also a general practitioner, dr. foxconn give us -- speak on health issues as they relate to england. we are delighted to have our other guests with us. dr. fox, i think i give you a sense of the importance that we subscribe to this conversation. we look forward to your remarks. dr. fox will give his introductory comments, and then we will move into discussion. we welcome our audience for a lively debate on the u.s. u.k. relationship, and i think we will have a broader discussion on the international challenges that we face. with that, i ask you to welcome me in welcoming dr. fox. [applause] dr. fox: good morning, ladies

and gentlemen. it is a pleasure three back here at the sis. it is not a quiet time in global events. in fact, i cannot remember a more to real-time and global events. what a time to talk about the relationship between the united kingdom and united states. when winston churchill first use the term "special relationship" -- he did so as a wartime leader. it was basically an intelligence relationship, a military relationship. these somewhat disney connotations that special relationship gained in later years are not for me the concrete foundations that it has. this is a relationship about our security in a dangerous world. there are so many threats in this very interdependent world. one of the changes that

churchill would have been astonished as he is the level of -- that we now have. we have so many warnings as to how interdependent we have become in years. whether it is the terrorist attacks of 9/11, sars, the japanese and ami. what is very clear is that what is contagion and one part of the global economy will spread to the rest. and fact, this whole concept of "over there," is a term that will become somewhat dated as we move ahead. of both that i wrote about global security threats, it was pointed out to me that back in 1993 not exactly a very long time ago there were 130 websites in the world. at the end of last year, there were 654 million websites.

which is a change, quantum leap in information. it is also a lot of terrorist haystacks in which too high paris needles, which is up and want to come onto in a moment. i want to set out the generic range of risk that we face before i come to some of the specific. the rise of religious fundamentalism, the spread of transnational terrorism financial in balances, competition for commodities. that's before we even get to the state on state threat that we face. i began by setting out what the risk i thought were failing states and the ones that i identified uzbekistan. i said pakistan is not out of maligned intent, but instability. most of us politically, are used to dealing with our

opposite numbers. in a place like pakistan where frankly, we're never really sure who is in charge -- whether it is the politicians, the military, or isi, we have to develop a whole range of relationships. from the british perspective i have to wonder why india has to partition and has been a successful economy where pakistan has gone backwards. that partition, nobody knew what to call pakistan. it did not correspond to any natural historical or geographical entity. in fact, it is an acronym. pakistan is a made-up name made up of the initials of the provinces. i think that is a fair bet that if your name is made up, it is not probably the most stable entity.

i say that -- this is a worry because here in washington, with all the focus on iran at the present time, people seem to have forgotten that pakistan is sitting on something like 120 nuclear warheads, and they will be able to produce about 24 nuclear warheads per year from here on. it is the nuclear problem that no one seems to want to acknowledge and talk about in detail. then of course you have the rise of transnational terrorism. it is nothing new. it changes manifestations. the worry that we have is that this nuclear proliferation, and places like pakistan, will find its way into the terrace game. people say, well, if it is so easy to make a bomb, and there is so much material out there why did we not see one? no one seems to know that in 1995 in moscow, the nuclear

material was there, it just was not attached to a bomb. or that in chechnya, we have had material attached to mind. the threat is there and it will increase. we need to look at the full issue of proliferation in light of the increased terrorist threat. we also need to understand some of the other risk that is coming from left field. one that icons like talk about is the risk for competition of commodities. in particular, warfare. he will talk about china. -- people talk about china but one of the missed parts of the equation is that 40% of all people alive on our planet today get their drinking water from a river that arises on the tibetan plateau. why do you think china is so intent on to that? is that the dalai lama or the fact that the world's richest

resource of water? unless we know the data, we will not make sensible interpretations of events. and we are likely to make policy mistakes. the rise of religious fundamentalism, particularly islamic fundamentalism, is there. we are facing this crisis now with isis. the most recent manifestation. we need to be very clear about the threat that the islamic state poses to us. for small, the humanitarian threat, the immediate threat to the population that lives under the control. we have seen what they are capable of -- beheadings crucifixion setting people on fire for a video camera. things that we thought -- violence and we thought had been left behind in the middle ages. the second threat of course, destabilization of the region. they would love to see a full-blown religious war. this is in fact part of what

they are trying to achieve. then of course, there will be the university of jihad, if we allow them to do so. they will export terror to western democracies if they get the opportunity. we have seen cases in the united kingdom of people who have gone to fight for isis and then come home. personally, i do not believe you can have a sabbatical from civilization and then come home. you can come back and say you are sorry that you did it. we have to again, think about the domestic problem. then, nuclear proliferation itself. iran, clearly the big issue. there were so may people describing a breakthrough in the relationship. big disappointment there. for the people in iran, they have not notice much of a difference. the repression, persecution

continues in iran. what people seem to fail to understand is that the shots are still called by the supreme leader. if you read, there is a great book called -- with a political consistency that most western politicians would kill for the leaf in purity of the islamic revolution, his age hatred for the united states, all very consistent over a long. period. i think it is unbelievable that people will look at the evidence in front of them and say, maybe they are not trying to achieve a nuclear weapons program. there is no possible excuse for the levels of nuclear work that

they are doing at the present time. they are trying to get a nuclear program, in a clandestine way -- it says to me that this is a country that is not open about its intention. there is a problem here -- a generic problem in the west, that there happened to many occasions in which we have allowed wishful thinking to take the place of critical analysis. we want something to happen. we have used the data to try to make it look as though that is what is happening. it's not happening. not in the case of iran. why should we worry about a nuclear iran? it provides an existential threat to israel with all the implications of that. secondly it is not worth the paper it is written on, and if

iran gets to nuclear status, why should egypt saudi arabia, and turkey not want to follow? that means a nuclear arms race and in one of the most unstable regions of the world. at the end of the cold war, the united states. the soviet union from having nuclear weapons. should we want to leave something better for the next generation than a nuclear arms race? this is a challenge for all of us. i worry what is happening today in the negotiations. some say that we need to get a deal. i think no deal is better in a bad deal. what do i mean by a bad deal? i think that any deal is a bad deal that allows iran to become a threshold nuclear state. because of the dangers that i've mentioned. i practically worry that -- about the potential of a bilateral agreement between the

united states and iran that does not come from the p site plus one. we need to stand together in the face of international threat and not be divided, and i'm sure that is something we will talk about in our wider conversation. and then, on the happy list of threats that we face, we didn't really think we would be facing a state on state threat to the extent that we are facing today from russia. it is in houston -- puritans russia. we still wanted russia to become a useful partner in the international family of nations that we have simply been turning a blind eye for too long. there are two basic principles followed by feuds putin that make it extremely difficult to normalize relations with russia.

the first is that he still clings to the soviet idea that he should have a veto over the policies of the immediate geographic neighbors. we've seen what that has led to an recent times. the second is this concept that he believes that the protecti on of ethnic russians lies not with the country and systems allow under which he lives, but with an external power, i.e. russia itself. these two views are the root of many of the problems that we face. we can see the manifestation of these today in ukraine. i do not believe that you can take puritans word -- putin's word. i think what is happening in the ukraine is truly shocking. the annexation by force of crimea. the destabilization of the eastern borders of ukraine. the fact that while nato carries

out normal military maneuvers and exercises, russia is actually testing weapons systems live in eastern ukraine. these are real time testings that russia's actually carrying out. we're standing by and arguing about whether we should give the ukrainians the means or not to defend their homeland. just think about it. if we are asked a saying, we cannot give ukraine the secure forms or anti-take capabilities, or uavs that they need, because that might exacerbate the crisis, that sibley says, we will never give anyone the means to defend themselves because that might make the aggressor even more angry. this is a ridiculous politics for us to hold. we need to recognize that the

defense of the baltic states for example, '. we are only one miscalculation by putin away from getting an article five from europe, and we need to waken up to it. we have been serial appeasers of puti and it has not gotten us veryn far. when there was a cyberattack, we did nothing. when he had invaded georgia, he is still there, we did very little. we made some sanctions. but, appeasement has a bad track record. it had a bad shot great book -- bad track record before, it has a bad track record today. why does england look to the united states?

you are the world's biggest economy, the world against military budget, bigger than the next 11 combines, which is very reassuring when you are a close ally to the united states. more than that, we need a partnership of values. we need to understand that we are who we are, not by accident. we are who we are by design and buy decisions that were taken by those who went before us. we are built on the concept both our nations, on the ability to exercise of free market -- economic liberty in the free market, we understand the values in terms of prosperity and security and free trade. we understand the need for rule of law to be applied independently. and we understand the concept of diversity across race, religion, gender. this is what unites who we are

and we need to take ownership of this and expanding this in a very unstable world. to my american political colleagues, i would say this there has never been a time when we were more able to shape the world. an era of globalization, we need to shape it in our image and by our values. this is not time for america to look inwards. this is not a time for america to become isolationist. there was never time for america to be more on the picture than today. i think that is the best place to begin our conversation. [applause] >> thank you. that was wonderful. a great tour de force. i think what we will do in the next few minutes is we will have

a conversation, then i will turn you over to the audience. i will warn you that csis audiences are very tough. they asked tough questions. i am a mere warm-up. you gave us a broad tour de force. i think i will focus a bit more on europe in our questions. let me start with russia because that is where you concluded. the murder of boris ne, do you think that is a turning point will we see a different environment in russia. i think one of his most poignant remarks, literally days before his murder is that he thought they needed to be an awakening in russia, which i think in some ways is the most powerful threat to vladimir putin. using these unbelievable and images from moscow, literally steps from the kremlin, do you think

this is a turning point for russia? dr. fox: potentially. given what we have seen before, we have seen false starts. being a vocal app opponent is noot -- of any of the russian president to happen silence, it would be nice to think we would get a change. honestly, i'm not that optimistic about it. >> you had a conversation, as recently as yesterday, talking about the level of defense bending. very concerned about british defense ending. a lack of commitment to 2% of gdp to defense spending. really, offers some reflections

is nato ready to confront russia? we have seen some extraordinary military exercises. since david cameron has been prime minister, russia has gotten very close to air sovereignty in the u.k. 43 times. are we ready to confront is militarily? dr. fox: you added militarily at the end. i think our biggest problem is having the will to confront. you can have as much military capability as you want. if you do not have the will use it, a becomes largely redundant. nato, of its political capability and its military capability, it is the political one that i worry about. it is not just the ability as far as military equipment, it is about the willingness to show our longer-term commitment to the lines.

only four of the nato allies meet the 2%. that is supposed to be the floor of the spending, not the ceiling of the spending on defense. if you look at what is happening, for example in the libyan con crisis, the nato elements were not have been able to carry that out without the united states. the big problem with a lot of the european members of nato is that too many of them were very quick after the cold war, in particular, to get into nato. they don't reckon is what an opportunity was for everyone to get the insurance policy, by asking just a few others to pay the premium for us. we are in the position where there are too many countries taking a free ride on the united states, in particular.

that is why i think is very important for the british to show the more leadership to make that 2% commitment. we have given our ward to the country that we will play our part in the lines, and we must do so. holman, and the war from warsaw looks very different than it does from london or washington. there is a palpable fear there about what is going on. and about the geographic proximity of putin is getting them to awaken up. other laces increasing defense spending are places like estonia, but they are coming to the threat late in the day. we do need to get our political act together in nato. we did talk about this willingness. i go back to again. part of the problem with nato is the european union. and the european union trying to take on a defense and security

role. that is not what the eu is for. that is what nato is for. if we try to duplicate what nato is doing inside the european union, and worse if it has the diverse enough funds away from the scarce funding that we are giving nato into a duplication in the european union, that could be -- to our enemies. >> i will turn to the eu, i want your thoughts on the eurozone and immigration. before i leave russia, in euro your opening remarks, it you mentioned churchville. on the one hand, he described the rise of not theism -- wartime prime minister to create the defense, no choice between war and shame. you will have war and then shame that comes later.

we need a new strategic framework for this challenge this challenge facing the west. how do you strike the balance between the political will to meet mr. putin with strength? mr. fox: we need to be willing to confront him. we have seen his modus operandi. we need a stronger pr presence in the baltics. he is moving some of the baltic states interfering. he has been encouraging republican serbs in the balkans. setting the illegal referenda in crimea as a president. he still has forces in georgia.

he has now annexed crimea. how many lessons do we need? this is the ability now to cause instability at will in terms of european security. we need to counter that. we need to have a larger and permanent presence in the baltic. we need to be fussy baltic patrols. we need to look at countries like poland and see if we need a greater nato presence there. we need to use the powers that we have to show that we are not going to allow this concept of fear to take hold. for example, we should be sending our naval power into the black sea just to show that we have every right to do that and that this is not a apawn of putin.

there are things we can do, but we need the will to do it. >> let me turn to the european union. in some ways that may 7 election is in some part about the future of great britain in the european union. obviously, you have been a critic of the eu and britain's role. expand a little bit on what you have been watching over the last several years, whether it is in the eurozone, and how the 19 eurozone members have been dealing with an ongoing economic crisis certainly in the last few weeks, it has been an unprecedented conversation, but more broadly how the eurozone is dealing with issues like immigration. mr. fox: how long do i have a g? >> a few minutes. though ahead.

-- go ahead. mr. fox: no one under the age of 57 has been able to take part in the referendum. it is one of my most vivid memories. my parents still have the same views that they helpd. lord mandelson said and britain that, europe is a too important of an issue to be left to the electric. which i think tells you all you need to know about the mindset of the bureaucracy and brussels. and in an era in which people are caught cross political systems, seem to be losing fa ith in the political system itself. every people control over their own destiny is how i think you can restore faith. the euro zone.

well, a lot of our european partners are now becoming serial economic harm us. the whole concept of the euro which we decide to stay out of, has i think been a disaster. i remember on the night we were voting on this in the house of commons, john major said to me, who in their right mind would go into anything in life that does not have an exit? we are now discovering with the greek situation what happens when you don't have an ac exit. the euro i think, was always flawed. there were two models they could take. first of all, to say, it is so important for this concept, we will do everything to make it work. they did not do that. or you could have said, it is purely an economic project, and only the countries that make the

grade are allowed to join. they did not do that either. in fact, the wrong countries were allowed to join, countries that were not close to making -- and then being allowed to join, they diverge, rather than convert, creating instability in an already flawed architecture. we are living the consequences of that today. what you're getting is monetary policy that since germany, the largest economy, and i'm afraid members are too long, and history too short. the reason that i mentioned my parents boston's position is because they thought we should join the

common market. i worry now that what we are getting in the euro is the ra free ration of those tensions economically that will lead many of us to the same disadvantageous positions that we had before. how do you go about de-risking the euro is the biggest question. using go back to the national currencies and abandon the euro, that will not happen. you can throughout the outliers in southern europe in particular, greece, spain, portugal, probably italy. that would defy their drive. , that will not happen. the third is the throughout the largest outlier, germany. that will not happen because they like the euro. it is a devalued currency for the size and strength of the german economy. germany has done very well because of that. the fourth way is for the countries inside the eurozone to

morals towards economic political, and monetary union. i spoke to a member and brussels recently, who said, those are the four options. what we will do is continue to take the risk of effectively and hope that they bomb goes off on someone else's watch. i regard the euro now as being the single biggest threat to global economic instability. what is happening in greece will be replicated in the future because the basic problem is not being sorted out. the most important issue for european politicians is the risking of the euro. 58% of young spaniard are unemployed. how long do you think you can tolerate those levels of unemployment being foisted on a population on what is a political project. this is not a sensible way to be running either the economics or the long-term socials

stability in europe and i wonder how many europeans on the current term will be sacrificed before european leaders waken up to the truth of what is happening he. >> setting aside the e eurozone, which has its own rhythm -- trade between the u.k. and the eu has increased. can this conversation about the uk's role within the european union, are you not completely under estimating the economic benefits and london as a financial center, that is benefiting? mr. fox: we were told that if we did not join the single currency, that would be the end of london as the economic center. it did not quite work out that way.

i take a very simplicity view of this which is money goes where money can be made and money can be moved. money comes to london for both of those reasons. money can be made because of our free market, especially at the moment. it can be moved because of our system of commercial law. that will continue to make it attractive whether we are inside the european union union or not. i have not really notice norway or switzerland for suffering for not being members of the european union. of course there are gains for being inside it. what i would like us to have a debate that looks at the ledger in terms of its pluses and minuses, but in a very realistic and hardheaded way. we would have to look to see whether britain to leave the european union, what that means in terms of our trade, the rest of our european partners export

much more to us than what we exported them, the other 27. the balance is very much in one direction. so, i think that we do need to have this debate, but i really rather dislike some of those who will say, we could not stand on our own two feet. britain could not -- britain could not exist outside the european union. what it is nonsensical. what i would like to see is a renegotiated deal with your. i want to go back to the common market. i want to accept the levers that britain could use in our national interest where it differs from theirs, which it does on a whole range of issues. >> one political party that has benefited from the anti-european, and the u.k. stance is the u.k. --

on may summit, it will be a real mess. a hung parliament, a difficult coalition framework, where the small parties, particularly the spanish national party the u.k kip, may be determining what things look like. how can you explain this to americans? mr. fox: i will he flings you the lottery numbers this week also. what does look like it is happening at the moment is the two main parties are increasing strength again at the expense of

the smaller ones. for all the talk of the breakthrough, in a country like britain, it is very difficult for parties to break in. i think, and you will see, with some justification as a former chairman of the conservative party, i think when you have an economy where we have created 1.8 million jobs, 1000 jobs per day since we've been in office, with historicly low interest rates, and people feeling the economy in the top pockets, it is hard to believe that they would throw out a government. i think the labor party leader is uniquely unqualified to leave the country.

i think that when it comes to the election, people look at the fact that in damon david cameron they haven't experienced prime minister at a time when national security is not looking great. i think they will decide not to make the change. i think conservative will be the biggest party. i think we will be close to an overall majority. i remember, the first election when i was elected in 1992, the scenarios not that dissimilar to this one. when in fact, john major one the highest number of votes than any prime minister in history. >> as a member of parliament, you served on the constitution committee and had a great deal focus on constitutional affairs. for those of us watching the

debate, last fall's referendum which was quite a heart stopper, not quite sure how that would evolve, and now we see where the scottish national party will -- we think, do very well on may 7. it may cause labor to not do very well. what does this mean for the united kingdom? is it becoming more disunited? will this election poll at the very fabric of the united kingdom? mr. fox: tony blair's proposals for dissolution were in balance and would have repercussions. we argued at the time, it was my role at the time to comic, and i argued that what was happening was of recipe for the rise of nationalism. i did not think it was such a heart stopper, the referendum. your faith in the bookies would have been well placed.

some of the bookmakers -- the trouble with it is on the independent side, who lost the referendum, think they won and have been continuing to push more and more in that direction. that has been a problem. it is also now they apparent that the labour party looks like it will do very ba badly in scotland, and i is a problem of their own making. what does that mean if a grouping -- that will depend on the outcome. the nightmare summit scenario is a labor mp. that is a nightmare for me because money will move away from my constituents up to the border to scotland.

the real worry is that the smb mp want a nuclear free country. i want to what price the leader would paid to get -- that worries me more than anything. >> my last question and then i want to bring our audience into it. i want as your question i get asked very frequently. does the united states still have this close exclusive relationship with the that it has had in the past? does the united states still consider itself a european powder? is it so engaged as a was in the transatlantic relationship, or hasn't decided that we will -- hasn't decided that we will look

at our relationship in asia? mr. fox: i we thought the concept of the payment was bizarre. clearly, the united states does have to focus on pacific affairs. it is not have the luxury of choosing which way to look. global security, for the reasons we are discussing, because of our interdependence is not something you can decide which geographic area you will not worry about and which area you will this regard. it's not like that. as events in ukraine are showing. the u.s. is still the global superpower, economically and militarily with responsibly. we need the u.s. to be in the game. i wonder what signal mr. putin got that america would not be as

focused on is translated to area, but it will focus on specific. i wonder what signal he took from that and if that has actually been adventitious to wider security. >> interesting. i have given you your warm-up. i'm ready to unleash the audience. if you could identify yourself, please, with your name and affiliation. we have about 60 minutes. i would ask for the comments to be short. the questions to be very consistent. with your permission, i will bundle the questions. we have one there in the front. >> thank you very much for a tory view of the world. my question follows on asia. i was going ask about the pivot. does the u.k., or eu, or nato, see asia as an outsider purview? how you see asia?

>> we will stick to the site for a moment. >> thank you. you have spoken quite a bit about diplomacy and defense, and the need to build political will in those areas. i'm wondering if you have any thoughts on the third d development, and how the relationship between the usaid and united states, and development in the u.k. has transformed, and how you think it should transform in the future. and if that is a significant aspect of what you are talking about. >> one more. >> doctor us, thank you for joining us today. united states central command. quick question. it seems like one of the emerging narratives about the debate of the future of nato is that there are some member states focus on the ease, i think ukraine the filth that.

how do we, the united states and united kingdom, help to change that narrative from an "or" to an "and." >> south versus ease, great question, can nato do both? can the you clien -- alliance be united? mr. fox: the very first question i think goes to the heart of this discussion. increasingly, you have to understand the applications of globalization. we disregard other parts of the world simply because they are not close to is geographically. i think of the 20 century, it has been a century of the block defined by our geography. we cooperate with countries that were close to us. in terms of physical geography rather than countries that were

like us, in terms of our values or political system. increasingly, the world is shrinking because of the effect of globalization. as i said at the beginning, we cannot afford to disregard risk that are rising in asia anymore than we can disregard risk in europe. they will both affect is very quickly. i think politicians have a problem with this. if i'm allowed to say that. i think politicians on the right resent the loss of sovereignty that in heavily comes with globalization. and therefore what it do not happen. politicians on the left this like the unavoidable implication of risk that has to be paid for. our systems of government also, with a very unique way in which we have silos, and say, that is economic policy, trade policy, for policy, secure policy.

failed to grasp globalization and the risk that come with that. we have to look more widely at risk and emerging risk and recognize that whether we like it or not, it will happen. the question is how well we prepare for it. i think someone called his book the end of history would have better hit his mark in terms of how we are moving. you cannot choose the conflict. this is the problem with security thing, we will reduce our spending because we think the world is becoming a safer place. complex choose you more than you get to choose the conflict. that is one of the lessons of history and we have to be ready for the unexpected. libya shows the real shortcomings. it also showed the dislocation, i think, of our military action

and our plans for longer-term political stability. and fact really since the marshall plan, i cannot think of an example where we have both military action and reconstruction stabilization -- where we got it right. we have a lot of thinking to do there. it is a common to all of this? it is very useful in terms of being able to help out in the short term. my own view is that if you want to alleviate global poverty, you do that through free-trade. i think capitalism has actually given a much greater step up to the world's poor than any amount of aid. i do think specifically, well targeted eight, is very useful. i do not just mean in terms of physical or monetary poverty, i think that we should be using our aid budget to get a change in behavior and values. in particular, i think our

taxpayers to provide us money live by certain ethical values and i think that we should be using our aid budget more. to get a change in behavior. for example, i think countries the exhibit religious intolerance, that do not give women equal rights, do not central to school, we should be trying to use our aid as a lever in those cases. we should be trying to apply the values our people live by to those countries that we give a two. i think in the eight debate -- a debate, it has been focused on public health, as a doctor obviously, very important, and the alienation of poverty, but i thing is also be involved in the promotion of our values. if you go back to where i was saying of the very beginning, that we are who we are by design and not by accident, if you believe that, as i do, then you

have a more was thoughtfully the other people are able to benefit from those values too which i see are eight program being -- aid program being very important. you do not diminish the need for hard power by south power -- soft power. >> i have been mean to ask you this question. we've followed very closely the house of commons vote on syria. clearly, u.s. syrian policy has been a great conversation topic here, the lack there of, or in if we have a coherent policy. has it been a turning point in how democratically the unite kingdom looked at for policy challenge, or was that in some way a way of trying to litigate the past and past decisions

about tony blair's decision on iraq? mr. fox: it was an aberration and mistake. i would not take it as reading too much into how britain sees its role. this was a house of commons that was recalled from its summer holiday, three days before they had to. people on their family holidays do not take too well to that. there was not much preparation done briefing them. a lot of it was about domestic politics and i would not be too much into it. however, i think the damage, irrespective of the reasoning that produced the outcome of that vote, has been very substantial. there are two things you shouldn't do in politics and life. don't make promises that you know you can't keep, and secondly don't make threats that you are willing to carry -- unwilling to carry out. if you make bread lines and then they are cross, you don't do

anything about them, then you must make sure that your next redline is not tested. it was not only about the specific issue. it was about how many of our allies, as well as our enemies perceive our willingness to enforce the policies that we set out for ourselves. that is a very dangerous world to get into. >> i think we have time for it to more questions. one there. >> i am in exchange officer british exchange officer, working and the pentagon. i want to ask about information operations regarding russia in particular. i would like your opinion on how costly it was to cut the russian bbc world service in 2011. as far as i can tell, the only r reasonable means of countering rt, russia today, as an e information network, it

was extremely costly as far as being reversed. >> national defense university. on the big defense issues that u.k. will face in 2016 is that main gate decision on replacing -- how strong of support in the conservative party is therefore a like for like replacement? very quickly, since you were the defense minister at the time, use signed the defense treaty with france, are you satisfied with the level of british-french defense? >> you will end up on a strong note. last five minutes. mr. fox: on the question of information. as well as forgetting about the concept of terrorists in

general, we seem to have forgotten the value of propaganda. you would think we would have entirely lost our institutional memory from the cold war. both of these are really important things. russia is now becoming extremely a debt, as isis is, in conducting an information war. despite having all the tools at our disposal, we seem to fail to recognize the importance. we need to really raise our game . the whole information piece. in terms of nuclear -- very strong within the conservative party as far as replacement. the biggest argument in britain against it are, why would you send the much on a system that you will never use, which utterly failed to understand the trends. we are using it every day. it is a deterrent. then, when they say, you cannot

afford $20 billion in terms of capital costs for the new program, i point out that we were very happy to spend $9 billion for three weeks of the olympics, but we are reticent at spending $20 billion. we need to think about our priorities on that one. clearly, the next defense minister, you will have to take into account the heavy cost of countering terrorism. that, i think, is cited in. it is a big cost. i would say that the defense budget is driven by four things. for drivers and constraints. the first is the international security environment which is deteriorating, which suggest that you need an uplift in the budget. secondly, to ribeye -- driven by the commitment to our 2% nato

commitment, our commitment to upgrade a nuclear commitment. it is also the gap that we chose to take in 2010, but which we will not able be able to take then you're got the fiscal position which is improving dramatically. and then, the fourth one i think is your international obligations and your willingness to have a role in global affairs. i think that we have given our word as a country and a member of the alliance. we need to keep that word. if we want to be able to propagate the values and systems i've been talking about, we have to be willing to find a means to protect them. i can see no option that arrives

in the budget. i fail to see how you can produce -- without increasing the budget. remind filling in the gaps we will have to hesitate deteriorating security picture. the budget will go up. smart politicians would turn a necessity into a virtue. >> it is always a great opportunity to have a great discussion with you. you have given us a lot to think about. we will focus in on the outcome of may 7 and see what the future holds for british politics. although the u.s./u.k. elation chip may become located, it is vitally important -- relationship may be complicated it is vitally important. thank you for the discussion. [applause]

>> if you missed any of this conversation, we will have it online shortly. c-span.org. maryland senator barbara mikulski announcing her retirement. she is said to be stepping down at the end of 2016. the washington post reports she was the first woman to chair the appropriations committee. it is a post she had to give up this year when the democrats lost control of the senate. she is formerly a social worker and has been a forceful liberal presence. the four foot 11 baltimore native -- the four foot -- the four foot 11 inch baltimore native -- the house and senate continue to pass best continue

to look to pass -- continue to look to pass additional funding for the department of homeland security. the senate begins work today at 2:00 p.m. eastern. a motion to work out differences with homeland security funding. the senate is to begin initial debate of the president's initial veto of the keystone at so pipeline. you can watch live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate on c-span 2. tomorrow benjamin netanyahu will be addressing a joint meeting of congress. he was invited to speak by house speaker john boehner who did not consult the white house before extending that invitation. that is scheduled for 10:45 on tuesday. a short time ago, the prime

minister spoke at the 2015 aipac policy conference. here's some of what he had to say. [video clip] >> i will be speaking in congress tomorrow. [applause]

>> the reason we don't trust politicians. we know they don't believe all of the words that come out of their mouth. and so we keep a safe difference

--distance. can i turn my back and make sure this person will not stab me. if there is any doubt self-interest prevails. >> you have thought a lot about what we might do to change our system and the united states. can you tell us a bit about the path we should consider going down to fix some of these problems. >> it is a complex problem. citizens have to approve of the government and so they should have the last word. there should be some difference

between serving citizens and giving power and the responsibility to people who may be we like and elect. your question somebody may look good and be a good leader and be popular but they might not be the best administrator. government has be able to attract people who are willing to lead and inspire and to attract people. i would say what is interesting is his government in a lot of western come best countries able

to attract the best people? is it exciting to be in government? i was listening before in countries that are less rich than this one. governments have to pay more and get better people. in this country maybe that is also true. there has to be recognition that comes with serving. so you get the best people. >> i think that is very true. people can get relentless and pretty soon you want to go into that. good people want to get things done. or even worse you get people who

want to use government for offices and get a nice job or whatever. that is not what you want. i think it is a real problem. you want to attract people -- what you're agencies dues and protecting insurers depositors or the reflection of the tax code. and i think it is important about public servants not always being good administrators. we need better management and government leadership. there has been a slow recognition of that. you cannot have people who

execute their agencies and you need to get out there and explain to people when you're doing it. that helps with staff morale and helps attract people. we had incredibly people at the fdic. but folks did identify with the service that we were providing and wanted to be a part of that. again, you need to have, you're never going to be, especially in the financial services, you're never going to be able to compete on a compensation basis. frankly, i didn't want people like that. i didn't want people looking for multimillion salaries working at the fdic, make money if you're doing the right way.

25 years ago when the wall fell in berlin and after the, as you say the end of history and other important papers and books, who would have, 25 years ago, would you have predicted that today you would have more countries that have become autocracies instead of democracies? >> that's not true. >> terms of the large countries of becoming more, you know russia, turkey, india -- >> they were a military dictatorship back then. >> in terms of governance, they have become a little bit less democratic versus not. >> i do disagree with that. there are about 35 electoral democracies in 1970.

depending how you define it it's 110-114 right now. there has been a huge increase in number of democracies. >> maybe i'm wrong in terms of 25 years. maybe it's 10 years or so. >> in the last eight years there has been regression. >> i'm sorry, i said the last 10 years. >> the last few years. >> in fairness, he did say you might disagree with him. [laughter] >> the point, sorry, the point i was trying to make is that the reason why i think some of these are getting more traction is that maybe they are perceived by the citizens, right or wrong, to be more effective. and the citizens of some of these countries including china have seen the government in some ways perform, the issue we have in democracies is that our governments are seen to be maybe

less able to perform and to change. that's really my point. so my point is not so much about a system, that system, i'm just saying there is a perception that by letting, by a government that is more effective, citizens at the end are going to be better served. that makes the democracies harder. >> i'm looking for a point of entry to start changing this situation. so what i have heard so far is that we have a set of public institutions that are not professional, come at the tent -- competent, service oriented that one problem is that the human capital in these institutions isn't as strong and appropriately motivated as it should be at all levels as simon pointed out. one reason for that is the polarization in congress which has led to gridlock over complexity of regulations and so

on. yet congress is elected by the very citizens that should be the consumers of the services. i was in scotland this summer around the time, just before the referendum. there was very little publicity about campaign publicity, no billboards, hardly any bumper stickers or signs. the turnout in that election 84.5%. in 2012 when president obama was re-elected, the turnout here was 58% of the electorate. we had a race for mayor of los angeles, second largest city in the united states last year, 16% of the registered voters turned out. how do we fix that problem? >> is it australia where it's the -- a lot of it, you get fined if you don't vote. >> a modest fine. >> i think what it does, it says it's your civic duty.

i think there is something -- i get a kick out of our politicians who are getting mandates when they get a percentage of the percentage. isn't the mandate the people who didn't vote? [laughter] i think the thing that fascinates me is why the polarization. yes, we're polarized. i had a conversation with a member, i congratulated her for the 9% approval rating and asked her what do you think the reason is? she says it's the system. i said you do realize you're the system. so i think one of the things that fascinates me is why the polarization. if you think about what makes functional organizations functional and it goes back to trust, it's relationships. just good old fashions human -- old-fashioned human relationships. and some damage was done when

newt gingrich implemented some of the policies of the contract with america and one of the things he said was leave washington and go back to your districts. there was a time that when you won a seat in national office and federal office, you moved your whole family to washington. you may have fought on the floor during the day. you sat in the bleachers with your opposition at night and watched the kids play ball. tip o'neil they would bash reagan and famously get on the phone and chat as fingerprints -- chat like old friends at night. politicians spend so little time in washington. they don't move their families there. they don't really know each other of it's just that simple. >> there is a prior reason why that is happening which really has to do with money. >> absolutely. and there is a cost for the money you make, right. with the breakdown in relationships, they don't know each other, how can you work with somebody that you just don't know? as you know, you can attest, it's much worse than the

polarization of democrat and republican. the democrats don't trust the democrats, the republicans don't trust the republicans. they don't know each other. they don't work together. lacking relationships, self-interest prevails. we hunker down with a friend or two, it's short term in our interests instead of long term of what we can do together. not until we can fix the quality of relationships within the parties will you ever see a change in the polarization. >> of course, when there was less polarization, some people weren't happy with that either. we used to hear there is not a dime of difference between the two parties. so how do you fix the eroding social relationships among people who are supposed to work together and compromise while still having some creative tens ion and competition of ideas? >> i mean it was functional.

they would debate 80% behind closed doors, and debate publicly 20%. now they debate on the senate floor, for the theater. there is a great irony in congressman criticizing bankers for being short-term interested, when they are only interested in their own short-term gains as well. i, for one, do not believe that congress is the root of all of the problems in america. i believe that congress is a reflection of america. i think we are the ones who are polarized, the ones who are mistrusting, the ones that have no sense of direction, the ones who are quicker to disagree than listen. frank: that is under some debate. my colleague at stanford has data showing the american public is less polarized than the political class in congress. that suggests there is an institutional -- simon: our media viewing habits would not agree with that. frank: there is a lot of data other than just who watches fox and friends. but it is a debate.

so you are right, there probably is more polarization. but i think if you are going to fix it, you have to go to institutional rules. there are a lot of institutional rules that are opposing it. -- that are promoting it. popular primaries were supposed to increase participation, and they have increased polarization. the only people who turn out for a party primary are activists. that is how someone like richard lugar, who was a great senator got defeated by a tea party candidate who goes on to lose the main race. i think actually c-span in the chamber has had a destructive effect. that has killed deliberation. senators and congressmen do not talk to each other. they talk to activist audiences out there in tv land. sheila: i would agree with that. i do not know what is causing what is effect.

-- what is cause and what is affect. effect. they cannot get reelected with 16% of the vote. they do not care. they do not have to deliver. there is not a broader populace holding them accountable. you are absolutely right. the personal relationships were a lot better. they are not there. i think one feeds on the other. i think gerrymandering is a problem in the house. i worked for the senate, so maybe i am biased. i think having a longer process -- the primaries or caucuses are the worst in terms of having a narrow group of activists that decide who the party candidate is. i like runoffs. i like getting the top two and having them go to the final of the general election, as opposed to these primaries which lead to the phenomenon where you can get elected with a very, very small percentage of the voters interested about you.

we need better personal relationships. we also need reform of gerrymandering. gerrymandering has to go. those districts need to be drawn where it is impartial. some states have set up separate judicial panels. michael: i will call on nicolas in a second. maybe he can address this. we started with a discussion of innovation at the city level. we have been focused on the federal level in the united states, at least implicitly. the question is whether the local level is the place to start. nicolas, you have written about evolution as having some advantages for reforming certain functions. you have a view about that whether or not it is expected to see the pushback against polarization may become from the bottom up, rather than at the congressional or presidential politics level.

nicolas: i was going to make a point a little bit on the prior discussion, but it is exactly the same point, which is, on big issues that are issues for everyone, if they are debated in public in front of c-span -- you are not trying to find a compromise. you are trying to win votes. and that is damaging. we created a committee, a task force for california. 14 republicans and democrats, very prominent. it was a strong experience, but also ideological views that were not in office at the time. and we had a series of meetings, i think 12 meetings over about a year, to discuss and come up with the proposals on very deep

issues like tax reform. republicans and democrats who had ideologically very different views were able, after difficult discussions, but still constructive discussions -- they were able to come up with, i think, very thoughtful bipartisan proposals. that was done, frankly, in a place like this, a rand environment. behind closed doors not to hide anything, that to be able to deliberate openly. important issues by people who the public respects on both sides. to be able to give that space to political passes on both sides is a little bit what is lacking. to go to your question about cities being able to potentially be more effective than states or countries, i agree. simply providing clean streets or water should not be

political. it is just, again, a service. so that makes mayors and sort of local officials potentially more effective. michael: let me turn to the audience for questions for any of the panelists. i know the microphones are coming around. people can signal if they have a question. >> you have someone behind you. you will be next. go ahead. >> this question is for nicolas berggruen. last night, we talked about "interstellar," and the opportunities for governance on a new frontier. this morning, you heard from admiral rogers regarding cyberspace and some of the

challenges associated with governance of cyberspace here on our planet, but internationally. i am curious if you have given any thought to a virgin frontier of governance which might be something like "interstellar" or governance of cyberspace on a grand international scale, and how that might take shape and form, contrasted to your comments about the state of california that there is no easy recipe. nicolas: i am not sure that there will be easier recipes for cyberspace. in truth, what has happened -- i think it is a good thing, but the consequences are enormous. cyberspace has become incredibly relevant. i mean the same way as 50 years ago nuclear weapons -- or let's say nuclear power became incredibly important, for good or for bad. you can create energy, but also

weapons. the same thing with cyber. the cyberspace is a fantastic opportunity to share and communicate information. at the same time, if we are going to be in a position where we need to understand, between nations, what we are allowing ourselves to do or not to do between let's say civilized countries. are countries going to spy on each other? are countries going to do economic espionage? up to what level? what should countries permit or not? to cooperate there and to establish limits i think is going to be incredibly important. and we are just starting this kind of global negotiation. but i think that it -- it is going to make friends and enemies, and could really

exacerbate tensions, especially china and the u.s.. michael: do you have a question back here? >> i just had a question. full disclosure, i work with nicolas. [laughter] i just had a question about -- nicolas: a spy in the audience. >> the role of globalization. it seems a lot of our focus is on national governments and their incompetence but they are operating in a very different context than the one they are created. national governments were in control of their destiny in a way that today they are not. how much of the incompetence we are seeing is not about improving relationships or tweaking our regulations, but more about the fact that we are operating in a context where they cannot solve the problems they face, the cause they truly are global problems, and they are going to look incompetent in the face of that? sheila: i think that is a fair

point. but i do think there are things that should be getting done that just are not getting done. i think there needs to be some accountability. we heard this during the crisis, the 100 year flood. nobody could see it coming? that was not true. the challenges are good because of globalization. we should have a simple fight tax code. -- a simplified tax code. our tax code is horribly unfair. we should not be allowing banks to borrow $25 for every one dollar of common equity that they fund with their balance sheet. that is crazy. there are obvious things that need to get done that are not getting done. i hate to sound hard-nosed, but i don't want to let people off by saying, it is hard. it is hard. i know that. but we need leadership.

that is why they are elected. that is why they are appointed. it's to be some recognition they have jobs to do. there are clearly things that can and should be getting done and people need to take responsibility for that. frank: if you look at the deepest causes of the financial crisis and the way it was the result of global forces, that you see accumulation of these very large surpluses -- china was the biggest, but they were in a lot of different countries. in a certain sense, the fed was blamed for to loose a monetary policy, but the fed could not control the ultimate flow of funds to the u.s. housing market, because there was so much liquidity sloshing around in the world. that is one of the areas where g 20 admitted this was a problem. they have not done anything to deal with that kind of issue. and i am really just not at all confident that that is going to happen. sheila: it is worse, if anything. there were some regulatory

approaches, but at the start of the crisis, we were letting banks take on more leverage instead of trying to constrain it. no mortgage lending centers. -- mortgage lending standards. they could have turned what was a crisis -- it could have been a downturn. it could've been a difficult spot versus a near catastrophe. local dynamics make it harder. there are still things that can and should be done. to throw up our hands and say, it is hard -- i do not buy into that. frank: does and that have to do with the fact that the banking lobby is too powerful? sheila: people talk about being too big to fail. there is a problem with being too big. i think there has been real progress in regulatory regimes that can let these institutions fail without exposing taxpayers. the work needs to get done. they are so politically powerful. a lot of the end-users consumers of financial services,

are fearful of speaking up because of the market power. even if we solved too big to fail, there is still this problem of too big, and it makes our system unstable. hassan: i am with the grand middle east board. i have two questions, one for frank and one for simon. frank, last time we met in your office, you said something very eloquently that i remember something to the effect that instability in weak states starting from north africa to the middle east and asia, will be a threat to nationstates, democracy. my question for you is, the stagnation in our political system and other countries like ours, which are generally seen as stable and a beacon of democracy, what will that do to

the whole concept of nationstates? and quickly, simon, i had it teacher at usc called warren bennett. he said something that, leaders are like beauty. you know when you see it. so my question for you is, in your research, do you still believe it is something that people are born with? can it be adopted? can they be taught? frank: in answer to your question, i would echo something that nicolas said earlier, which is that i think one of the big problems in the world right now is when someone like xi jinping or putin gets up and they say, look at us. we are on the move. we are making decisions. and then the point to washington or to brussels, and they say and look at these democracies that are really gridlocked. i think in the long run, i do not believe that this is the right argument, because i think

they have got a lot -- especially russia, but china as well -- they have a lot of problems with sustainability of the china model and so forth. and i think there are resources that democracies, but particularly the united states has had in the past, that have come into play slowly. there is no question that in the short run, this is been very damaging in terms of perceptions of the relative strength of authoritarian systems versus democratic systems in the world. i think that is why what happens in our country really does make a big difference for global politics. simon: there is a difference between rallying people and leaving people. -- and leading people. and time is the thing that distinguishes them. we see what we call leaders, and

you can throw putin in there. you can throw hitler in there. it seems to be leadership except for the fact that it does not last. there is a finite quality in the personality or the short-term solution they offer, usually blaming someone else. leadership, one of the things that distinguishes our democracy -- benevolent dictatorship is a fantastic form of government. the problem is succession. however people want to complain about whichever president is in power, what is always remarkable is the peaceful transfer of power. it is time to distinguish between rallying and leading. -- time will distinguish between rallying and leading. leadership is a skill like any other. some, because of the experiences they have when they are kids have natural capacity for that. some kids are great at basketball, and some work very hard to become good leaders. but it is a skill like any

other, that requires tremendous practice. the problem is we do not teach the skill very effectively. when you are junior in your job, we teach you how to do your job. you get lots of training and how to use the computer systems. if you are really good at doing your job, we will promote you into a position where you are responsible for other people who do the job you used to do, that but we do not teach you how to do that. because you were good at doing the job, we assume you are good at leading others. this is why we get managers. you are better at doing the job than them. you cannot help. we are good leaders. the transition they make -- the mba's or inside our company, we have to teach the transition where you are no longer responsible for the job or the results. you are now responsible for the people who are responsible for the results. that transition, like becoming a parent, is hard. it takes a lot of practice and is learned over the course of time.

it is why we want people to have experience, so they can practice leadership as we promote them up the ranks. nicolas: i was just going to say, on the issue of confidence in democracies -- people here probably are frustrated a little bit. how good is the u.s. at progressing and all that? look at europe. they are all wonderful democracies. and the european union was constructed with the idea, we should have a free trade area, and be peaceful after two terrible wars. but when you look at europe, it is not able to progress at all. and it is not able to come together, because of some of the big issues like economic development, economic coordination, foreign policy. it is having huge difficulties.

at the end of the day, even though they are all democratic environments, it is going to undermine more and more the confidence in the democratic system. and that is really a shame. in some ways democracies are their worst enemies, by not being able to come together and make europe function properly. you have in some cases -- you see it now. you have nationalistic parties in europe that really did not exist in a big way a number of years ago. it is really a symptom, and it makes it even harder for europe to come together. that is the danger. michael: we have questions on your right. >> i think history can be a great teacher, so this might be a question primarily for frank and sheila. the last time i believe we had this kind of partisan gridlock may have been the days of

reconstruction after the civil war. at the same time, probably the greatest economic growth we have ever seen, with the rise of rail, steel, and oil. what lessons might we extract from those experiences in the latter part of the 19th century? somehow, we got out of it. frank: it is a fascinating question, because you are right. partisanship kind of peaked in the 1880's and 1890's. the country could not decide whether it wanted to remain an agrarian jeffersonian country, or a modern, industrial, urban one. that is why i guess you have to temper your pessimism about this country at the moment, because i think in the 1890's, no one saw a solution to this. all of a sudden, you have this realigning election in 1896 that brought mckinley to power. you had great leadership in the form of theodore roosevelt and

the whole progressive era. they built institutions and fixed a lot of things. i would say that i guess the only thing to keep in mind is that history does not always repeated itself. itself. and -- [laughter] in theory, democracies should be self-correcting in this fashion. but you need three things. you need a kind of grassroots mobilization, where people are angry, upset, and want things to change. you need good leadership, as simon says. and you need an idea. you have to have a concept. it can be a really bad idea. hitler had an idea. you do not want the wrong kind of idea. you want roosevelt rather than hitler. those three things have to come together to really fix the problem. simon: it is important to highlight this sense of vision

a future we can build. this is one of the great things about the american experiment, the declaration of independence. we declared what we wanted a country. all men are created equal. this proposes that when we are on our best -- you compare that to the arab spring. everyone knew what they were against. mubarak out. nobody said what they were for. mubarak out. , now what? i think that was one of the distinction factors between america and the egyptians. we did not just say, england out. it started with a vision of where we wanted to go, and you can look at the declaration of independence. the rest of it is, and here is how england is preventing this from happening. i think there is a lot to be said from that idea of where we can go, which is really lacking in a lot of democracies,

whatever you want to -- sheila: i agree with that. maybe we have to hit rock bottom, where things get so fractious and bad that people are fed up and willing to give support to someone with a strong mandate. i would love to have a teddy roosevelt on the political horizon. all those things we were talking about. a leader, a strong sense of public purpose. he was willing to betray his own class to break up some unsavory business practices, to help the country and the economy more broadly. i think having that kind of leadership today would be good. i am not saying it is not going to be difficult and challenging. but i think if you have a strong leader with a vision and a way forward -- i think you have to make some tough decisions in the short term, so people can see where we are going. i think they would support it. simon: whenever we have struggled, our great leaders have always harken back to the gettysburg address, or the

roosevelt for freedom speeches. he basically are a reinforcement of the founding fathers. they always go back to the founding vision to take us forward. >> thinking about how we teach the next generation to be good citizens, what would you say, if you were on a curriculum committee, would be the right methodology or right messaging for civics classes, k-12? [laughter] simon: mandatory service. frank: i would say you should first just teach the civics class. [laughter] the content is not that complicated. but somehow we have lost this sense that citizenship is something that actually has to be cultivated. it does not come to people naturally, but it is a duty that all of us have. we have gone through a couple of generations where we think that

we have lots and lots of rights, but no duties. >> we will take you over to the house. they will be considering two issues. the house also scheduled to host israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu tomorrow before a joint session. last week, the house passing a seven-day extension for the homeland security department. expect more work on that this week. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.