one county in florida who were registered and who had voted in local elections and were not u.s. citizens. the only way to do this is to do what arizona, georgia, and kansas have done. require proof of citizenship when you register to vote. for those who are interested, georgia because it is a section 5 state had to submit its proof of citizenship requirement to the justice department for pre- clearance. the justice department, the obama administration pre- cleared the law and said it was not discriminatory under section 5 and that is why that law is in effect and in place in georgia. >> i would only ask that you look at the numbers of people who have attempted to vote who are non-citizens. you will see that they are

infinitesimal part of the electorate. in many times people who are in naturalization proceedings make the mistake of assuming they are able to vote. it does not necessarily show because some people have tried to vote that their intent, it does not prove their -- it was their intent to defraud the system. sometimes they're under the impression they are eligible to vote when they are not eligible to vote. the same thing has happened to people who have served their debt to society through criminal penalties. some of them believe they're eligible to vote when they are not. i think it is important to look at the proportion of people who engage in this behavior compared to the number of people who vote and are voting

lawfully. you will find the percentage is infinitesimal. we have to ask ourselves whether the burden to go after this tiny group of people is worse than the burden placed on legitimate, eligible voters. states are the people in charge of who is eligible to vote and who was qualified to vote in that particular state. if the student declares residency in their college town, the question becomes, do they have to transfer their driver's license from their home state? do they have to pay bills? what is it? i think if a student declares residency in their college town, and they are otherwise qualified to vote, the question i have is, why should they not able to vote if they have declared and they are duly registered. why should they not be eligible to vote? >> a moment of rare agreement. i certainly agree with that.

>> what impact do you expect from the doj decision on south carolina? have they considered similar laws or not? >> the south carolina attorney general has filed a lawsuit to overturn the justice department's decision. i think they're going to win. the data that south carolina submitted after the adjusted it showed that they took their voter registration lists and compared it to the dmv list. once they had taken out people who were dead, and tens of thousands, there were still on the registration lists. there were tens of thousands who had moved at a state. once they took a bad dinner out, it showed that before they have done anything to try to get people free aideed who do

not have one, only 1% -- a little over 1% of individuals registered to vote do not already have a driver's license. the idea that it is going to have a discriminatory impact, i do not think the justice department will be able to prove that in court and they will lose and south carolina's law will be upheld at a federal district court. i think that is a small difference. not only does south carolina provide a free photo id, they put in another provision. it says if you shop at a polling place without an id, and you sign an affidavit in which you say you had are reasonable impediment, that is the language in the law, that prevented you from getting a photo id trade with -- you will be given a provisional ballot and the ballot will be counted unless local election officials had evidence that you are not

the person who you say you are. >> the supreme court in the prof -- crawford decision challenging the law in indiana said they would not strike down a lot on a challenge. they left open the door for an as applied challenge. and so what we now have the burden of doing in the states that are passing photo id laz, it is the expensive task of finding out who is infected and who was not affected and bringing forth their stories. we think we're gathering compelling stories in missouri and wisconsin and arizona. we intend to litigate this as long as we are around. we think this is an egregious and unnecessary barrier to

voting under the guise of attempting to do something about fraud. we all should look at the pew study. it did talk about the flaws in the voting system. the flaws would do more to poor record-keeping. we have to clean up our voter rolls and if we get more states to comply with the national voter registration act and help -- the help america vote act, we would not have so many poorly maintained voting records. the problem is with the way that the state operates the election laws, not with the numbers of bend -- individuals who are trying to commit fraud. again, if you go to the polls and represent that you are not

the person you say you are, you are only successful in changing one vote. that is not an intelligent way to go about fraud. the real fraud comes in coming false information, telling people, moving polling places at the last minute, not purging the roles of dead people. that is where you get into the real numbers. these cases of individuals going to the polls and representing they are not someone who they are are rare. we also have to take into account that people have the same names. there are four william h. murphys in my family. what is deceased and three are alive.

they have the same name, two of them have the same card that looks just alike. it is easy to transpose the social security number or some other -- and a dress. some people will look at that is fraud. when that is really poor record-keeping that leads people to that conclusion. that people are trying to double blow. -- double vote. >> you kind of answer this but i was hoping you could sum up what you think [inaudible] what effect they will have on the presidential election in november. >> they will prevent people who are not eligible to vote from voting. where would that make a difference? it will make a difference in any state where there is a close election, you do not get that that often in national

elections but you get it all lot in local elections which are often decided by a very small number of votes. a good example of this is the state senate race in tennessee where they passed the photo id law. the state senate race which was 13 votes. in 2005 and 2007. the race, an election was overturned by the state legislature. why? because when the end -- the investigated not only were there some local election officials committing fraud, there were votes cast by individuals whose address was a vacant lot. and people who lived not in the district where this was going on. that shows how this kind of fraud can affect a close

election. i agree with laura. we have a problem with sloppy voter registration records. the pew center report shows that. something that has gone unmentioned. a year-and-a-half ago there was sworn testimony before the u.s. commission on civil rights by two former career lawyers in the voting section of the civil-rights division department of justice including the former chief of the voting section, long time career lawyer at the section who said that he had recommended eight states for investigation for not complying with the provision of the voter that requires cleaning up roles and nothing was ever done about it. he was specifically told by the political appointees within the division that the administration had no interest whatsoever in enforcing this particular provision of the law. >> that is certainly not what the attorney general. officials at the justice department have told us. they have told us they are interested in enforcing the voting rights act. then that -- national voter registration act and the help america boat act. i do not know who these officials are. the impact going back to your

question on the 2012 elections, what we do know is that it is not likely that these laws will be adjudicated before the election. the supreme court is not going to likely hear any more cases before the november 2012 election or issue any verdicts. and so, we are figuring out ways to educate people. we believe there will be many eligible voters who will not turn out because they believe they do not have the proper identification to vote. we believe the fraud allegations have the potential to scare people away from the polls and we're concerned about that. and so it is incumbent upon the media and interest groups who want airbus and participatory society to educate people about what the state law requires and to seek assistance of organizations like ours in trying to turn out and vote. i think it will have an impact on the elections. we just do not know how it will impact.

>> just following on what laura murphree just said. if -- you said you don't think the supreme court will resolve this before november. if the allies enjoyed in wisconsin -- the law is enjoined in wisconsin -- >> [unintelligible] >> the supreme court would see a need to resolve this before november?

[inaudible] >> the court in texas said that the court must give pre clearance to our photo id lot in order to avoid a grave constitutional questions about section 5 of the voting act. in other words, they are saying, if you do not let us use this law -- can you relate this to the ongoing litigation over section 5? >> there are a number of pending cases that say that when section 5 of the voting rights act was renewed, it was unconstitutional. in 1965, this was passed as a temporary, five-year emergency provision. at the time, it was considered

constitutional because there was systematic, widespread discrimination against african american voters in the south. but when it was renewed in 2006, there was simply no evidence of that kind of systematic widespread discrimination that justified it in 1965. there is no evidence to show that states like virginia are so different from states like maryland that the federal government should have approval rights over loss -- laws and the rights of a sovereign state. there are two cases at the court of appeals in the district of

columbia. i think the texas case is behind that, but i think they have a good claim that this photo id law, there is no evidence that is discriminatory. if the justice department objected to it, that is further evidence that section 5 is not constitutional anymore. >> no. congress went to great pains to establish a record in 2006. it was signed into law by a republican president. i do not know who was in control of the congress at the time. it was split control. republicans have used the voting rights act in redistricting and relied upon it

ever since it passed none could 1965. i doubt that in a split congress with a republican president if there was a record that was absent that did not demonstrate ongoing discrimination based on race, i seriously doubt the law would have been extended the way it was done could 2006. there was a case -- chance to make the case that was the longer a nation rife with racial discrimination. the opposite case was made. it was made that there is discrimination based on english language discrimination. 19: not think30 to a-have been extended in -- i do not think it would have been extended in 2006. >> i was wondering if there any other measures they you think would be adequate to prevent the fraud issue.

it would stop anyone that would be allowed to vote. perhaps there is some other one. has there been an example they have approached people saying -- approached a polling station with some other form of identification where they have proven they were impersonating someone else? >> i do not know about that. a couple of this ago i am sure you saw the undercover video in of new hampshire at the gop primary. in new hampshire has been a photo id law.

did they found the names of people who were still registered and dead and went in and asked for balance. there is a case from 2007 in new jersey where this happened in a real election where a poll watcher who happen to be the former president of the zoning board noticed a group of individuals on a street corner been handed index cards. he went past them and into the polling place. one came in, gave the name of a voter, tried to vote in that person's name, and when this gentle man challenged him, he ran out of the polling place. he chased him down, called the police. they arrested him. he admitted that he and this other group of individuals were from a homeless shelter. these two gentlemen had come to them and more pain than $10 each to two boats in the name of another voter.

-- paying them $10 each to vote in the name of another voter. this was documented in newspaper articles. they documented what had happened. that is a recent example. i have talked about photo id citizenship and something else that states should do is require all county court clerks and the federal government should require all federal court clerks to notify when individuals under the jury duty are excused after they confess their not - they are not citizens. why? because most jury lists are taken from voter registration rolls. there is a report of the reported instances of this all over the country. there'll be another way of getting people who are not u.s. citizens of the voter rolls. >> i think it is really

important that we not legislate by antidote. -- anecdote. hans is full of these wonderful antidotes. -- anecdotes. that is a very different thing been having people come to the state houses and put information in the record that can be reviewed and analyzed by both parties. it is a permanent part of the record. in the 38 year history of the main same day voter registration law, and there are only two examples of a voter fraud in maine's history. it was not even a hearing that demonstrated fraud was a problem before legislators attended to -- attempted to get rid of same day voter registration. in indiana, there is no legislation needed -- legislative record made that demonstrated any widespread

fraud in indiana. what we are seeing is state such a passing these laws based on these kind of antidote rather than hard evidence that there are widespread issues. we have got to push back on that. we have got to demand more of our legislatures. they should not be able to bring in copycat bills and spew them out. clear asking that legislators do their job. they insist on more-said that -- the people should insist on more data that can be reviewed by impartial entities. >> thank you for your time. in this election year, this is a major subject of debate. we look forward to more debate

on the subject. thank you very much for your attendance. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> rode to the white house coverage coming up tonight on c- span. rick santorum is unveiling a new economic agenda this evening in lincoln park, michigan. he is talking about what he would do in his first 100 days in office if elected. watched the speech live here on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern. the governors' association kicks off its annual session this weekend. we will have the opening news conference with the nebraska governor and the delaware governor, then two sessions on what states are doing to improve their economies and courage -- encourage entrepreneurship. on sunday, a look at what governors are doing to end childhood hunger, and then a discussion on the changing role of the national guard. that coverage is this weekend

live on c-span. >> we got started because there are -- there is a lot of conservative thinking that works across issues. but before cap, there had not been a progressive think tank working on national policy. >> the president and ceo of the center for american progress on the mission of the washington- based think tank. >> there is ideology behind certain arguments made in washington with very little fat behind them. our job is to make the factual arguments and the evidence-based arguments behind our own views. sometimes when the facts do not argue for our position, we reexamine those positions. we fundamentally believe the most important thing is to be right about what your views are. >> a look at the center for

american progress sunday night on q nine. -- q&a. >> two governors of this morning, touching on the economy, the presidential race, and social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. this is an hour. >> thank you, all for getting a bright and early this morning for our second state solution conference. also, thank you to people joining us on the wide-screen. we have the respective chairmen of the democratic governors' association and the republican governors association. they are two people well known to us in the washington area. governor bob macdonald of virginia is the chairman of the

virginia governor's association. across the river and across the bay, governor martin o'malley is the chairman of the democratic governors association. today is the first day of the governors' association winter meeting. we really appreciate and taking the time to join us today to take some questions from me and some questions from you in our audience. we're going to take questions throughout the morning. we are going to go an hour or so. i will intersperse those questions throughout rather than doing a hard pill that. you can join us on twitter. we hope you will. anyway, let's get going. we of governor mcdonald and governor o'malley with us. please join us up on stage. [applause]

>> thank you. >> thank you both governors for joining us. a special thanks to my home state governor, governor macdonell. >> to have the home field advantage? >> know, we are on neutral territory here in washington. governor o'malley was kind enough to join us. he was here for our first and panel. this is quite an honor. >> glad i could help. >> anyway, we have lots of stuff to mix it up on, but i thought you guys should give a quick overview. to be in charge of something, certainly to be in charge of a state, is to worry about things. what do you must worry about in your job as governor, looking after the health of your state?

governor o'malley, we will start with you? >> there is nothing more important, i think, to any of us right now than jobs and the economy and accelerating the jobs recovery. what i am most concerned about and what i am most focused on is making sure that we make the choices we must at the state level to make the investments that a modern economy requires in order to create jobs. that means protecting investments in education, increasing the skills of our work force, accelerating areas like trade and also the development of new, clean, clean manufacturing like pgm electric drive motors -- like the gm electric drive motors. these are the things we are concerned about. none of it is easy. we have cut $7.5 million from our budget but nevertheless we

have protected investments that allow maryland to have a strong breeze economy than most. but we know there are still -- have a stronger economy than most. >> governor, what keeps you up at night? >> nothing. when you have the same job as thomas jefferson and patrick henry, every day is a good day at work. thank you to politico for doing this. it is a great opportunity. we are focused on a couple of common things. jobs, economic development, how do you get your state to be competitive in a global economy and recover from the greatest downturn since the great depression? we have a 6.2% unemployment rate. both of our states have relatively low unemployment, but we still have several thousand people without jobs, so we are focused on new incentives, tax

and regulatory changes, international marketing, all of the things that will produce jobs in our state. secondly, balancing the budget in light of the fiscal stress generally in the economy and some uncertainty created by the federal government's inability to get things done on time, to manage the finances of the nation, as well as the crushing debt out there, no real plan on jobs that i see. we have to figure out how to make all of that work, areas like medicaid. huge budget drivers in all of our state. how do we make our budgets balance while still employing the services of government? those are the challenges that governors both republican and democrat are facing across the country. >> gov o'malley, does your approach in maryland, do you

see it marilyn president obama's approach? you have emphasized balance. what democrats mean by balance is that there should be spending cuts and tax increases. describe your approach in maryland, why you have said the taxes need to be on the table. >> sure. we certainly subscribe in maryland to the president's call that all of us do our part to be leaders in education, leaders in innovation, and leaders in rebuilding the infrastructure and a common platform upon which our commerce depends and our competitiveness depends. we do subscribe to the president's theory that if we want a better nation, we have to work hard and invest in order to bring that better nation into being for our children and our grandchildren.

we do not send back dollars that the federal government would send to maryland so that we can improve transportation and infrastructure. we do partner with the president in retooling gm so that they can become number one again in america and build cars that people want that are more energy efficient. we have made investments in the port of baltimore so that we can accommodate larger ships coming through the panama canal. why do we do that? because we want to create jobs at home and be more competitive. sometimes, we to ask citizens to pay more. we increase the tobacco cash -- tobacco tax. we now have 400,000 more people with health care than we had before. we believe that the future is

not a gift, it is an achievement. we are willing to do the things necessary to achieve it together. >> governor mcdonald, do you support president obama's approach? [laughter] >> i take that as a rhetorical question, because obviously the answer is no. george allen said the future is now. >> george allen the football coach. i am told richard nixon used to send place to him. >> that i do not know. >> if he is here -- ? >> double reverse. back to the question. we have taken a different approach than many governors around the country. all of us have the same challenge which is how do you balance the budget in fiscally difficult times? one, we realize that families

and businesses are making really tough decisions. they're having to make cuts and do things smarter with less. they're having to reprogram, retool, reform the way they do things. we think governors ought to do the same. because it is not our money. it is the people's money that they have sent to us. we cannot afford to do everything we have always done. we do not have the same amount of money. we're going to do is prioritize, make targeted cuts and significant cuts in some areas. we're going to reform government, consolidate agencies, get rid of boards and commissions, other things like that that will save us money. that is the way we are going to reduce deficits. at the same time, we're going to prioritize economic development, private sector job creation, and grow our way to a stronger virginia. for us, it has worked. we cut the equivalent of $6

trillion from the deficit when i became evident. a predecessor recommended a tax increase. i believed that was the wrong policy. we cut spending in the neighborhood of $6 billion, invested in job creation, education and transportation, and cut other areas we did not think would lead to that. we got unemployment down. we've had a surplus in the last two years. we have a lot of jobs coming back to virginia. that formula has worked better than the formula we see at the federal level, which is more taxes, more spending, more regulation, and more undermining, in some ways, the free enterprise system with government interference. i think it is working for us and i think it will work in other states. >> do you send money back? >> we have accepted a fair amount of federal money.

there is some we have not when strings were attached. reis to the top was one. i would love to have applied to that. i appreciate what the president and arne duncan are doing on education, especially with charter schools and merit pay, but the strings attached for adopting a fair federal common core were not acceptable in virginia. >> we think our kids should be benchmarks internationally and be able to compete internationally. we were a state that competed or race to the top and we wanon praise to the top. if it were not for the involvement of president obama and its transportation secretary ray lahood, there would be no silver lining constructed right now in maryland. >> governor o'malley, how closely do you watch what is

going on in virginia. if you could do all the things governor mcdonald said just by making targeted cuts and targeted investments without tax increases, why would you not do it? >> of course we watch each other, and we talked about this a little bit before. we both share this fantastic chesapeake region of innovation. if you look at the innovation, access to colleges and universities -- >> are you worried that virginia will screw it up by not investing in education, not investing in transportation, critical needs throughout the washington region but the virginia legislature is still in the grip of anti-tax republicans and an anti-tax governor that they will not make those investments and they will starve the golden egg? >> every governor is primarily

responsible for an concerned about their own state. i will say this. i think we are well served by having a strong neighbor in virginia. it is like being in a shopping mall. if you have a store, you want to be next to a place where a lot of other people are going. we want virginia to be strong. i can tell you, last year we had a rate of new job creation that was better than virginias. unlike virginia, we went four years in a row without a penny increase to college tuition. we were also named the no. 1 public schools in america four years in a row. we have increased the number of children who take ap exams of all types, and we have greatly increased the number of students taking science, technology, engineering and math courses. i think every state needs to do their part in order to make our

country stronger in education, innovation, and rebuilding our infrastructure. have we made cuts? absolutely. $7.5 billion in cuts. governor mcdonald's state is a aaa state the last i checked. our state is a aaa state. we have driven crime down to its lowest level in 30 years. we have more progress to make. but if you look at other key indicators, i would have marilyn stack up against any other state in the metropolitan mid- atlantic region. last year, we were 14th in the country in job creation. governor mcdonald's commonwealth was 18th or 17th. we still have a lot of work to do. one of the saddest things that has happened to our nation in recent years nationally is the under capitalizing of the great job generating and opportunity

expanding idea that is the united states of america. we would both like to believe that we are fiscally irresponsible in our approach to government, but both of us are also concerned about debt. 55% of that debt is driven by tax cuts during the bush presidency that primarily benefited the most wealthy among us. another 13% of that was driven by a series of wars that we asked our sons and daughters on a volunteer basis to go fight, but that our president never asked us to pay for, and it all contributed to our debt. we have seen that that debt and those decisions were also coupled with an under-investment in the job generating capacity and economic competitiveness of all of the united states. >> governor, i would like you to respond to that. governor o'malley basically laid

out the democratic philosophy that you can find in his state and that president obama is trying to articulate nationally. i would like you to articulate why you disagree with what he said. >> first, a disclaimer. ebner o'malley and i are friends. we work together -- governor o'malley and i are friends. we work together on a lot of things and we have a common heritage from ireland. >> we are neighbors. >> we're close. the point is, on a lot of things we get along. we have very different views when it comes to what is going on at the federal level and the approach to government. that is the duty of the constitution -- written by the virginians. >> finalized by maryland.

>> they could afford it. they pay higher taxes. i do wonder if democrats are going to continue blaming president bush for everything that is wrong in the country. an esp for republican governors. we do believe it is time to get serious -- let me speak for republican governors. we do believe it is time to get serious about rekindling the american dream. just go down the list of policies every three years, and i rest my case. what we believe is that you have to spend within your means. you have to balance the budget, without tax increases, on time. you have to encourage the private sector. this president has blamed wall street, a tea party republicans. he blamed the founders' last week for not giving him enough power. we believe in taking accountability. you have to be responsible as a

governor for getting things done in your state on time. we believe using the private sector to create jobs and opportunity is the way to go. virginia has been ranked for a couple years in a row as the most business friendly state in the country. maryland was 27th this year, at my request, we are going to invest tendered $30 million -- invest $230 million more in higher education. we are making strategic investments not only for the short term, but for the long term. our formula is working. republican governors have a similar philosophy. 11 out of 15 states that have the most business friendly rankings have republican

governors. seven out of 10 with the lowest unemployment have republican governors. on an empirical basis, the strategy republicans are using is working. i will compare that with what democratic governors are doing. >> i think we're all trying to do here is figure out how we build a new economy that lasts. that is not going to happen by itself. yes, there are republican governors who have been largely immune to the national recession, but let's look at some other states. in ohio, john cases, one of the new superstar republican and tea party governors, 30th last year in new job creation. rick scott, a superstar tea party governor of florida, 45th in new job creation. scott walker -- you remember

scott walker? let's ban the unions. that creates jobs. 49th in new job creation. >> of course, all the jobs are leaving illinois for wisconsin now. >> actually, wisconsin sent back the high-speed rail dollars. illinois picked them up. he also got the companies that build the parts and build the trains to come to illinois. maryland was ranked one of the top five states for new growth by the u.s. chamber of commerce, hardly a mouthpiece for the maryland democratic party. we were no. 3 on the economy index for potential for job growth. this is about building a new economy with new opportunities. the choices democratic governors are making, the choices the president is urging us to make for the country, are the choices that create a better future with more jobs and more opportunity. do you know how many times rick

santorum said the word jobs in the debate? not once. not once in a whole debate. what is he for? outlawing women's rights. outlawing -- you know, these other sort of cultural wars they engage in. what does that have to do with creating jobs and making the investments the economy needs to create jobs? >> we have been talking about economic issues and i'm sure we will get back to those, but you just mentioned some cultural issues that have been very divisive in the national debate. governor mcdonald, va. international attention for a proposal that was working its way through the general assembly requiring alter sounds for women before they procured abortion -- ultrasounds for women before they procured abortions.

you were initially willing to sign that bill. you did a turn the other day and said you required modifications. give us a trail of your thinking on that issue and why you apparently changed your view? >> you cannot believe everything you hear in the national press. >> this was from saturday night live. >> and john stuart. is that your news source too? if you read everything it -- if you believe everything you read in the media about maryland you would believe the governor o'malley is only interested in same-sex marriage and raising taxes. you have to be careful about what you believe. having said that, governor o'malley and i care about getting our budget under control and about jobs. i have proposed about 153 bills this year in the general assembly. legislatures propose certain

things. i am a pro-life governor. i believe the sanctity of life is important. what you believe about marriage, life, family is critical to how -- to who we are as a people. we had a bill that came forward that mandated ultrasounds for the purpose of allowing a woman to have fully informed consent prior to making a life changing decision. everybody on both sides of this debate believes this is critically important. this is about information. what we realized after -- i support the bill. i still support the bill. that does not override the governor's right to make amendments. we realize there are different kinds of alter sounds. what i recommended to the general assembly, and they adopted the other day, is let's make a requirement for it be a domino ultrasound.

we found out from -- for the of the donald -- abdominal ultrasound. i got legal advice that mandatory invasive requirements might run afoul of fourth amendment law. >> as you were educating yourself on this bill did you not originally realize that it might mandate -- >> it was not my -- >> i understand. did you not realize it might mandate and invasive procedure? >> during the course of the discussion, after talking to doctors and lawyers on my own after hearing some of the discussion raised in the legislature. normally, a governor will review these bills once they get your desk.

i was certainly supportive of the concept. once we realized exactly the medical and legal issues involved, i thought it was prudent to recommend to the general assembly that they made changes. they have made the change. the senate has adopted that change. i believe that bill will pass. virginia will have a strong woman's right to know bill. i believe it is the right decision. this is what a somewhat exasperated, and i know governor o'malley probably would agree with this. again, if you look at coverage of maryland, you think all they care about is same-sex marriage and tax increases. that is all i read about. as a virginian, 97% of the bills that have gotten through our on things that i advocated, job creation, higher education, k-12 reform, an energy plan, a

veterans' package to help our men and women returning from a iraq. that is what i'm focused on. we cannot always tell what the media will focus on because that is a different set of issues. the story of this session will be a balanced budget. what i am concerned about right now is that senate democrats are mad about committee assignments so they are willing to kill the budget bill. they're putting their committees ahead of their community, so now we have a budget in virginia at risk because we as senate democrats concerned about committee assignments. i have never seen that in 21 years in office. >> i thought those democrats were concerned about cuts to education. >> that is not what they said. they stayed pretty much silent when they killed the bed. what i have been told is they're mad about -- killed the bill. what i have been told is they're mad about committee assignments.

you do not believe that. >> no, i do not think it is smart to cut education. >> only in washington would in increase of $500 million be a cut. we increased education. >> governor o'malley, sometimes these social issues get disproportionate attention in the media, but for many people, that is the reason they go into politics and decide to become an activist, because they care very much about these issues. one the people care very much about is the issue of marriage. your bill in maryland allowing same-sex marriage is obviously historic. you are prepared to sign it. why? >> i am prepared to sign it because i believe that the way forward among people of many different taste is always in the direction of greater respect for the equal rights of all. this issue was debated last year

in the state. it passed the house. last night passed the senate. i look forward to signing it next week. this bill protects religious liberty and also protect the rights of individuals equally in the context of civil marriage. some of the other bills in our legislative agenda were harnessing onshore wind, some steps to curb the damage done by massive septic housing developments. this budget supports 52,000 jobs with the segundo highest amount invested in new school -- with the second-highest amount invested in new school construction. all of this requires a lot of hard work, and all of this requires a prioritizing of our budget and the things that make

our economy go. >> could you briefly describe how your own views on gay marriage have changed over time and do you foresee a day when this debate is no big deal and gay marriage will be practiced nationally and is essentially an exceptional? >> i believe there is an unmistakable movement and you see a generational me. certainly, you look at some of the polling. when i speak -- even in this debate, speaking with young girl legislatures, we found a greater openness to be -- younger legislators, we found a greater openness to the issue. among more senior legislators, there was not that willingness to look at this from a standpoint of rights. in my own evolution, i think good leaders who are progressive leaders always try to be a force for building consensus that

moves us forward in the direction of greater respect for it the equal rights of all. for a long time, i thought the consensus point for progress in our state was around civil unions. i was mistaken. i misjudged. the public move forward more quickly on this issue than i had thought we would as a people. i look forward to signing this bill. at the heart of religious freedom is the freedom of individual conscience. the freedom of individual conscience requires respect for the equal rights of all. >> governor, have your own views on this question evolves, and you ever see in the state of virginia a time when gay marriage may become legal as it is about to in maryland? >> that is the duty of our

framers under the 10th amendment, which unfortunately is regularly eviscerated by congress, republicans and democrats. the states are the laboratories of democracy, the laboratories of innovation, and the freedom to make different choices lies with them. that is what is great about having 50 states. we are free to try different things and see what works. on this issue, the people of virginia have already spoken. there was a constitutional amendment that passed by 60% that says marriages between one man and one woman. our citizens have decided. this is a matter of deeply held religious beliefs, obviously. in the governor's state, there are different views. there will probably be a referendum put on the ballot.

but our voters already decided in virginia, and we think it is the right policy. it is certainly in line with hundreds of years of tradition in the churches and not reflect the collective conscience of virginia. that is our policy. other states may have a different view. >> when i was looking at this issue from the perspective of the children of gay parents, that was -- i just wanted to add that in our evolution, my evolution, and the evolution of a number of legislators, we concluded that it was not right and not just that k -- that the children of gay parents should have less rights unless laws

than other children. >> this is a social question that seems to be very much in flux. have your own views on this changed at all? >> know. -- no. from all the data that i read -- and my views are driven by religious beliefs. everybody has got to make up their mind on that. but most of the data i have read suggests that the best environment for a child to grow up to be fully kate bubble of achieving the american dream and having -- fully capable of achieving the american dream and having the best in life is an intact family with two parents, a man and woman. unfortunately because of divorce and everything, that is no longer the person that every young person grows up and and that is why the governor and i spend a lot of money on social

services and so forth that help people when families are not intact. but that i think has been undeniably, for centuries, what has really held society together and is the best environment for children, but also for society generally. virtually all the data i read, from the right and laughed -- left, is that the empirical data is that an intact family is best. to the audience. raise your hand if you would like to be recognized. >> thank you. thank you very much. thanks to politico for the good program this morning. you both touched on national politics.

let me ask you. you are both from pivotal state. of butter o'malley, do you expect the state of -- gov. o'malley, the you expect the state of maryland to go in for the democrats again for the presidential race? governor mcdonnell, your state went democratic for the first time since 1964. to you think it will revert to its modern historical trend? you could be a vice presidential candidate with any of the major republican candidate, but rick santorum would have to change his registration. would you accept the vice presidential nomination? >> first, i do believe that marylanders will reelect president obama. the inherited one of the worst recessions since the great depression.

we have not recovered all that we have lost. we have had private sector, a positive job growth every month for 23 months. the people of maryland i believe will vote to reelect president obama primarily for that reason. >> president obama said during the campaign that if we do not turn this thing around in three years, this would be a one-term proposition. it has not turned around. we have the worst debt in american history. it has grown $4.70 trillion under this president, the greatest growth in the national debt in any term with any president in american history. it is going to grow another trillion dollars in the future. his budget would call for about $25 trillion in debt by the end of his term if he was reelected.

he promised that we would have bailout and stimulus and this massive government spending has created a trillion and a half of deficits every year. we have not had an unemployment under 8% since the first month of his presidency. listen, i am glad there has been progress the last few months. i am glad that we are dropping. i think that is a positive sign. >> i just wanted to thank you for admitting that. [laughter] he used to say that he is always making it worse. >> i just said it is good news. we could debate for a long time. your question is is he going to get reelected in virginia. i am going to skip. -- skip that. [laughter]

>> and just as somebody who knows the state, size it up politically. >> we have seen the president and his wife in virginia many times. >> if we send them your way, tell them that we are fine. >> he won by seven points. he was -- he ran a phenomenal campaign. i think he is a bad president but a good campaigner. we picked up three congressional seats and a couple of months ago we picked up the largest number of congressional delegates in the history of the republican team. on everything that he said he was going to do on debt and deficits and jobs, he has not delivered. there is no coherent strategy on

energy. he continues to torch major energy in the region, pushing things like car check and cap and trade. it has been poorly received. i think he is in trouble in virginia. >> let me ask you about that. the usual stance among people is i am not interested or i cannot even speculate about it, but you have been pretty direct in saying that -- , "sure, i would love to have that job." >> you must read more than the national media, john. what i said was -- i beg governor o'malley would say the same thing. if the leader of your party calls you and says you can help the party, of course you think about it. i would say that for anybody.

and the governor or any member of the legislation -- any governor or any member of the legislation. >> you ache for this job. >> my top goal is to be able to beat gov. o'malley and get more republicans elected this year. i believe this president has taken this country on such a radical left bend that i am going to do everything i can to -- i said for about eight months that i believe as a governor we have to focus on job creation and getting budgets done on time and getting things done and getting results. that is what we need but instead of what we have now, playing the blame game with this president. that is why i am supporting mitt romney. >> you are not exactly coy about

raising your hand and saying i want to participate in the national debate. recently as this morning from gov. mcdonnell that you might be a candidate for 2016. >> i accept gov. mcdonnell's nomination. [laughter] i greatly appreciate his hopes and dreams that he sees in me. [laughter] we are both -- i am head of the democratic governors' association this year. i am proud of the difficult things in our president has done. i am not shy about wanting to be a supporter of his especially in this national debate with so many democrats losing their tongues and feel like they cannot speak up about the difficult things. everybody second-guess the president when he did the recovery act. virginia did not turn any of those dollars down.

the reason that governor mcdonnell has been able to maintain a lower unemployment rate is because we used those dollars. on the auto industry, everybody second-guess the president. do not put the brakes on the bush recession. we cannot afford to do that. then they second-guess them on the turnaround of the auto industry. we have a lot of jobs in maryland that depend on the auto industry. last time i checked, va. as thousands of jobs that depend on the auto industry. i do not believe what his position is on this but i know it is supporting governor romney, but i do not know if he subscribes to the position that the turnaround of the auto industry was something that the president should have done. you cannot say that he was unsuccessful in doing that or say that we have not had 23

months in a row of positive job growth. last year, more jobs were created in the private sector in america while president obama was president then during all eight years of george w. bush. and president obama is not running against the almighty. he is running against alternatives who want to take this back to the failed policies that brought us record job losses and the debt that you proclaimed to be so against was wracked upper for this president -- wracked up for this president from george bush. they would all exacerbate and create a greater amount of debt than what the president has put

forward. look, we can go forward or we can go back. when the people are given a choice of more jobs and more opportunities or back to the failed policies, these trickle- down policies of george w. bush and a mound of debt, i think they are going to choose to move forward -- and a mountain of debt, i think they are going to choose to move forward. in virginia, i think they have seen their legislature take a hard right turn, and that is the overreach that they saw in wisconsin which has the 49th worst job creation rate. ohio as well as florida, the 45th job creation rate. they say things will get better and then you vote for the republicans, and they take a hard right turn.

all line gay relationships, women's rights, -- outlawing gay rights,ships, women's and while people care about jobs and the economy. >> i want to get questions from over in the wings. >> governor o'malley is the only one who has social issues on the top of his agenda. i am not sure what he is talking about. >> you know that he is accurate in describing that social issues have been very important for the republican caucus. >> you are just flat wrong. you are both wrong. 97% of the bills that we have advocated in virginia are bills that i just suggested, the ones that i put forward on my agenda at the beginning of the session on job creation, transportation, higher education, and i can go down the list of all of the significant

things that i am doing that will continue to make virginia a lead state. i disagree with some of the numbers that the governor has outlined. politifact outlined them about a week ago. >> that is not true. >> you used the wrong period of time. i rest my case. >> i should not have said 2.5 times. it was only 2.3 times the rate in virginia. for that, i apologize. [laughter] >> read politifact. as you can see, competition is good between states. it makes us both strong there. both of our states do well in job creation and have lower unemployment rates. i am sure he would not talk to you about the governors in

california and illinois and oregon and connecticut that have horrible ratings when it comes to their climate for business on taxes and everything else. democratic governors believe that increasing taxes and arelation and protectinprotectm the way to create jobs in the private sector. we do not. we believe that the more you unshackle without more government regulation and interference, the better they do. i think time will tell if this obamacare individual mandate which i believe is the largest intrusion in the federal government into the state's ability to govern in the american history, people will show to be an absolute budget buster. unfunded mandate over the next

decade. all like can do it -- is go back and say republican governors have 11 out of the 15 states for top business. you can have all of the other steps that you want. even though many states have taken -- other stats that you want. i wish they would stay out of that. i would like to have a lot more -- let them get out of that and let us keep our money. we can manage our money better. i would much rather have medicare be block granted by the states and not have the federal government come out with all of the standards and regulations. let us run our own programs. it is a different policy of government, and this philosophy is why we are going broke. one last thing. president obama had two years,

the first two years in his administration -- him and his party were entirely in charge. what did we do for job creation? nothing. what did we do to reduce the debt, i doubt something like simpson-bowles? he ignored it. -- debt, something like simpson- bowles? he ignored it. >> someone over here has a question. yes, sir. >> is this on? do you believe the great disparities in income and wealth in this country, the disparities between the 1% and the 99% is a socially good state of affairs? if not, what should the government be doing about it if anything? >> both of you address that quickly and then we will go over

to you. >> i think it is wrong to start dividing people. that is what this president has done. it is the traditional class war model. we ought to be celebrating the people who have made it in america. bill gates and steve jobs who dropped out of college and went to their basements and created incredible products that have blessed the world and created hundreds of thousands of jobs and a lot of wealth and opportunity for people. we ought to be celebrating that. we have people attacking in washington. to me, that is the opposite of what america stood for. those policies divide the country. yes, i am more worried about the people that do not take full advantage of the opportunities. we need to give everyone the opportunity. this is a nation of opportunities and not guarantees. >> the economic strength of

america's middle class, they are crying out for the first time since the second world war due to the disastrous policies of the presidency of george w. bush. the results of those choices have had three primary effects that we are all digging out from still. one of those effects has been the largest-ever racked up by an american president -- largest debt racked up by an american president. the tax cuts that he pushed benefited primarily the very wealthiest among us under the theory that if they had more money, the cloud would burst and jobs would be created. that did not happen. in state, it brought about the greatest job loss of any

president since the great depression. it has also led to a severe under capitalization of the basic investments that have always allowed us to create jobs and expand opportunities in the past. that income disparity is a symptom of those other three very damaging effects to our country. what we need to do is restore the strength of america's middle class. we do that by creating jobs, and part of that involves what tom freeman said. the investments we make it can only be made to get there. infrastructure, science, technology, and providing for our common defense. that is what always work for america before. we went on a bad experiment.

that model is great for wal-mart but it is not what builds a great republic. >> let's hear from this side. yes, sir. >> my question is to both governors. it is with respect to immigration. immigration is a federal responsibility, but can the state's lead the country to a solution on immigration? >> i hope so. jeb bush said the big failing of the current crop of presidential candidates -- i think he said it last night or this morning -- that they have gotten away from jobs. instead, they are all about fear and trying to see who can one up the other. a lot of the fear is of new

americans. president obama has done more to enforce our borders and deport those who have convicted crimes. i do think that what we need to have is a deeper and better understanding of one another. we need to turn away from the year and increase the human dignity that we see in one another -- from fear and increase the human dignity that we see in one another. on the referendum this year, in maryland, we said in maryland this test for whether or not a family pays in-state tuition in maryland is whether you are a resident in maryland or if you pay taxes in maryland. i think we can focus on a better future that we want for all of our kids. we can get back to the country

that in the past found a way to welcome talented, hard-working people from across the globe to make our country better. >> we got a couple of minutes left. i have a question about you guys personally that we have not talked about. you are a former athlete. where you an athlete when you were younger? >> i was on the football team. the position i played was usually left out. >> i am always curious about the fitness routine of the politicians. what do you do to stay in shape? >> i try to stay away from the junk if i can. i have a treadmill in one of the rooms of the governor's residence so i tried to do situps, pushups, run a couple miles, and watch fox news. [laughter] >> you can get the politico app.

>> i try to work out every day. it does not always work. >> it was a workout this morning for you and i. >> this was good. i do want to think politico. i try to work out. the older i get, the less i do the carbs and sweets. >> one quick question so we can finish up with the governor's. yes, ma'am?" this will be our last. >> better make it good. >> you just talked about more people have gotten health coverage in maryland. i wanted to know about your position on the future of health care in your state spending the future of the individual mandate is still unsure -- in your states. the future of the individual mandate is still unsure.

>> we have thrown ourselves into the health care exchanges and all of those things, so we think there will be a positive development. we think it will be a competitive advantage as states continue to fight it near us. >> governor mcdonnell, you will get the last word. >> if the federal government can mandate that you have to buy a product or service and if you do not you get fined, we are done as a nation. this is important. republican governors have come up with a broad plan for revising medicaid. i sent gov. o'malley the plan which i am sure he has read entirely so they can consider it. we have to have a better free market. you have to have a better pooling of interests and a

savings bank bank that is what we have in virginia but we look forward to some -- savings bank that is what we have in virginia. >> thank you so much. you guys a beenterrific. [applause] you should take it on the road. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> more coverage tonight on c- span with rick santorum speaking in lincoln park, mich., and he will be talking about what he will do in his first 100 days if elected. that is at 8:00 p.m. eastern. tomorrow, the national

governors' association kicks off its national meeting. the opening news conference with the nebraska governor and delaware gov.. then, two sessions on what states are doing to grow their economies. sunday at 9:30 a.m. eastern, a look at the work to end childhood hunger. leavitt to acquire 30 p.m. sunday, a discussion on the changing -- live at 2:30 p.m. sunday, a discussion on the changing role of the national guard. >> john carlos and tommie smith raised their fists in a black power salute. >> this is black power. it intimidated so many people think white people, in particular, by using that phrase, "black power." it made many people think that it meant destruction.

destroying america. it was nothing about destroying america. it was about rebuilding america and having a new paradigm in which we can truly be why each and every one of us said during that pledge when we were going to school about the land of the free and the home of the brave. we all want to be great american's. as young athletes, we found that something was broke and we wanted to take our time to evaluate and then take an initiative to fix it. >> discover more during black history month on c-span2 and online at the c-span radio library. search and share from over 25 years of c-span programming. >> russ feingold served until 2010 when he lost his bid for a

fourth term. he joined us on this morning's "washington journal." host: joining us next is former senator russ feingold of wisconsin. he has a new book out, "while america sleeps." what are you trying to do with this book, senator? what are you telling americans about the state of our international relations? guest: thank you for having me on the show. during the 10 years after 9/11 when i was serving in the united states senate on the foreign relations committee, the intelligence committee, i saw some changes in the way we were responding to 9/11. it was a terrible tragedy but we were going to work together to address this issue. then things started to go downhill with the divisiveness

over the mistaken war in iraq. then we entered a period where we seem to have gone back to sleep in being concerned about the rest of the world bank part of it is understandable because of the economy but part of it is political manipulation. i think that is dangerous. it reminded me of winston churchill. he gave some 45 speeches in the house of commons where he basically said i know we are not used to worrying about the rest of the world, but the germans are re-arming. i had never read his book. that title reminded me of what we are slipping into now. a country that somehow believes we can go back to our island

mentality, that we are over here on the other side of the world and the rest of the world will take care of itself. we cannot do that if we want to be successful. that is the spirit of the book and why i wrote it. host: i will segue quickly into presidential politics. i am wondering whether or not you think there is sufficient discussion during this year about international relations. guest: it is a completely insufficient discussion of international matters in the campaign partly because of this manipulation. the candidates on the republican side do not really want to talk about foreign policy partly because of the legacy of the bush administration and partly because barack obama has done a pretty good job. osama bin laden is gone. the present has a much better

reputation around the world than george bush -- the president has a much better reputation around the world than george bush. they want to try to say that he is always apologizing for america. they made fun of his foreign trips to places like india and indonesia. they had these absurd comments like with herman cain. they asked him about whose pakistan. instead of having a thought about that part of the world, he said i am not going to pretend to know about the country. it is not a joke. it is the country right to the north of pakistan and afghanistan. we have to send hillary clinton and make deals with basically a stain-like a dictator in the country.

-- a stalin-like dictator in the country. republican candidates' idea is to make fun of it, that it is cool not to know anything. it is dangerous for america. we need to have a conversation during the campaign and after as americans, not as political parties, that we need to be together on these issues even if we want to keep fighting about domestic issues. host: you referenced you were concerned about america's policy objectives. we were there for a decade. now republicans are criticizing president obama's decision to bring the troops home and we are seeing stories of major bombings across the country, thinking that perhaps al qaeda is destabilizing for there. -- further.

i am wondering about the gains that we made during the 10 years that you are concerned about that we might lose with that schedule. guest: the idea of going into iraq was a terrible idea. president bush ran around the country saying that al qaeda was operating in 60 countries around the world. that list included afghanistan, ireland, and iraq was not even on the list. why do you think they decided to go there? because of the foolishness of putting ourselves in a situation where we were playing the game of osama bin laden. if you look at his speech that he put on the internet, he mocked us. he said we send a couple of people to these places and the american military comes running. what we really want to do to the united states is bankrupt it. that is the trap that we fell into. i think we got out of iraq five

years too late. the idea that we were going to resolve all of the issues that have been there -- you cannot do that. you need to work with the governments that are friendly around the world to identify al qaeda operatives and try to keep them on the run or get them as president obama has done. if people want to argue that we should still be in iraq, that means we have to invade every country and abroad at some point and treat our troops there like it is a game of risk. host: i have the challenge of getting two complex issues on the table. the opening sentence of your book is actually a round of the passage of legislation that bears your name. the campaign finance reform legislation.

i am wondering since it now has three reviews by the supreme court, the latest of which was citizens united in 2010. what you think about the state of legislation today? guest: there is a misconception out there that the legislation has been overruled. the supreme court of limited a couple of the more minor provisions that i did not think were central. what i considered central continues to be the law. politicians cannot raise it. that is good. john mccain and i always said this was only one thing and we needed to build on it. in citizens united, the entire foundation that we built upon was destroyed. that was the longstanding rule that corporations could not use their treasuries. they could not use their money

for political purposes. and the law that labor unions could i do the same thing. the entire campaign finance system has been eviscerated and all the one of the building blocks still exists. that is incredibly regrettable and is why i created a group last year and has been very successful raising this issue of progressives united which is the group in america working with other groups to raise awareness of how devastating one of the worst decisions in the history of the supreme court actually is to our system of government. host: a question for you. you are critical of president obama for deciding that he will accept super pacs. some are calling this a game changer. will you explain why you think this is a bad idea? guest: i think is a bad idea to

allow his people to be involved in super pacs. i am proud to be a co-chair of his reelection campaign. on a wide range of issues especially international issues, i think he is doing a really good job. he is doing well right now. the only thing that is a drag on his campaign at the moment is any kind of affiliation with this corrupt system. i think it is a way for democrats to lose at the local level. if any democrat believes we are going to win a battle with corporate money, they are crazy. we are going to lose. we can ever compete if the question is who has the most money in a system of corporate contributions. guess what you are going to get for policy? you are going to get corporate policy and corporate democrats. we have seen this before.

what did soft money buy? it bought nafta and other trade agreements that shifted the industrial base overseas because democrats and republicans were both corporate- tied. it destroyed a lot of the differences and opportunities for individuality in radio. as i sit here in manhattan, we think about the corporate purchase of both democrat and republican votes to destroy our economic system through wall street. to repeal the glass-steagall act which was the protection after the depression of our banking system by separating investment houses from banks. while this was all part of this ugly system, it is back with a vengeance. if anyone believes there is an independent as the law requires

from the candidate, that is a joke. even the supreme court justices are saying this is a farce. i think this will be overturned especially if president obama gets to pick the nominees for the supreme court. host: this is from madison, wisconsin. ton y is a democrat. caller: first-time caller, long time listener. this is a great service to the country. senator, thank you for being a voice during the conception of the patriot act to say maybe we should slow this. in regard to the candidates and their willingness to speak about foreign policy, i was wondering about what you thought about ron paul. guest: it is great to hear from

madison, wisconsin. obviously, ron paul and i agree on some issues. he was willing to challenge some of our on wise interventions. he believes that we ought to have a congressional review of interventions overseas including to get more serious about the power to declare war on behalf of the congress. he opposed the patriot. -- act. there were a number of congressmen that were smart enough to say this thing goes too far. i do not agree with some of his other views that deal with aspects of immigration. i am not going to be voting for ron paul but we do have some common ground. i compare him to the pure talking points of the republican candidates on issues like iran or campaign finance. these guys really have no differences between them. romney, you are not quite sure

what side he is on one day from the next. host: our next call for the former senator is from illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. i appreciate all that you have done. i think you have a tremendous background in terms of honoring the constitution. i am going to give you a challenge because one book describes civilization. civilization is the proper unit for analysis. we are the stewards. we have a stewardship responsibility to our former government. that is why we have to save our process first before we go into other units, into other nations. they can look to us and we can demonstrate by example.

you referenced in your discussions with the white house. it is in manual for what is going on politically. i will pick up your book and i will read it next week. i have a lot of respect for you. i think we have to demonstrate the larger issue. thank you. guest: wonderful comments. i should be reading that book myself as i continue to study this subject. you make a good point about the constitution and our stewardship of. half of my book is about errors we made about how we look at the rest of the world and our military interventions. the second part is a concern about the way in which the fears of 9/11 were exploited for political purposes. one is in the area of the patriot act and legislation that was used as a vehicle to

put into place an old wish list of the fbi having to look into people's library records and doing searches of people's homes when they were not there. it was a power grab. that was one example. the other was the interpretation of article two of the constitution under george bush and his legal adviser. they basically took a new view. they said we have been attacked by a different organization so the law does not apply any more. if you want to do some wiretapping, we do not have to go to a foreign intelligence court. this is a direct attack on our constitution, the very foundation put together saying that there needs to be checks and balances. it is one of the most important developments coming out of 9/11. it needs to be fixed.

the whole story of america going to sleep has to do with the fact that our freedoms since 9/11 have not been fixed. host: this is a republican. a republican from madison, wisconsin. caller: how are you doing this morning? guest: is it snowing? caller: it is actually wrapping up. guest: good to get the report. caller: i just wanted to thank you for your service. i am a republican myself, but i voted for you over ron johnson. i am not too impressed from what i have seen from ron. if you were to run for president, what would your

budget proposal be? would you cut some spending and save us young people like myself in the next 20 or 30 years? what would you cut? not the obvious answers like defense. thank you. guest: this is what wisconsin has been about in the past. here is a republican that calls me up and does not agree with me on everything and voted for me independently. this is what we have to get back to instead of this blood and guts stuff. i thank you for your attitude. i have been thinking on a daily basis of what kind of budget i would put together a. when i came to the senate, i came with a specific plan that had to do with ideas, larger ideas about closing tax

loopholes. we put that into place. working with both parties, we got rid of the deficit before george bush got into office. part of the answer is going to have to be not having the bush tax cuts extended forever. i think people should have a serious exemption of up to $10 million per couple. it is not necessary to give up that revenue. i think there are many places where we can identify programs that do not work. i had a great deal of success in the senate. identifying things that no longer had their usefulness. ronald reagan was right when he said the closest thing to immortality is a federal program because it develops its own constituency. some of her federal programs,--

our foreign policy programs, they had their relevance at one time but they became wasteful and bloated. we need to have that kind of analysis. you say defense spending. making sure defense spending is relevant to the threats that are around us. way too much of the defense budget goes to those military contracts and things that do not work well. let's say you and i can agree that we are not going to cut it, but let's make it more targeted to what we need to do. those would be some of the things i would look to in formulating a budget. host: well, his question was predicated on future political ambitions. there is a bit of a discussion going on as you are talking about what your intentions might be in the future. governor, a presidential bid? water you thinking about for

your political future? guest: i am not thinking about running for office at all. my family is very happy about it after 28 years in a row being in public service. i am a private citizen. some of these guys that campaigned against me all right, to have an opportunity to look at the world in this way. it is a great thing to serve the public. i have an opportunity now to sit back and think about what i wrote about in my book. i never had the chance to do that because i had to adjust the day to day issues that i had to address. we had to deal with a flood and the budget in wisconsin. i have seen this, i was on the intelligence committee and the foreign relations committee.

i am very worried that we are losing our focus. i can do that as an elected official, but at the moment, i am having better success getting that message out as someone who is writing, thinking, and talking about it. host: the people should know that the style of the book is a tick tock of events. curious about how you kept all the details of that in the book. guest: i should have kept a journal, but i did not. i did not have that kind of discipline. a lot of it came from memory during the book. i have this tendency to come back from a meeting or trippe d make my staff listened to stories. i hired a research assistant.

i asked him to go and interview people who work with me to see if they remember the incidents the same way i did. we wanted to be sure that -- we went back and jeremy talked to the ambassadors of the time to see if they had the same recollection that we did. i believe my recollections are accurate as possible. some of the more entertaining stories, i knew they were right because i left pretty hard with a happened. -- laughed pretty hard. it is a serious book but there is some entertaining stuff that i think people would enjoy. we try to use it to make serious points. host: any push back from your colleagues about revealing details? guest: the guy that was going to introduce me, one of the funniest stories in the book was about him.

he asked me if i could tell the story in the introduction. so far, so good. host: next for the former senator, the white is an independent -- dwight is an independent. are you there? caller: everyone is talking about the middle east. corporations do not want to take any responsibility anymore so they moved jobs overseas while they get tax breaks. and all these wars is bankrupting america. they just do not make any sense. i would like to say on a couple of calls a while back, the segment a while back, the caller from florida -- he was a republican. they want to raise the minimum

wage there. my redneck friends here would say that everything would go about. -- would go up. that is all i got to add. host: thank you very much. minimum wage and the overall effect on the economy. guest: here is a caller who is saying wait a minute. you cannot just focus on the middle east. what about china and its influence in africa? what about the iranian influence in latin america? that is something that we need to become more aware of. al qaeda is still very active in northern africa. the former counter terrorist chief as i pointed out in the book says there is still a serious challenge there. there is a chapter about al qaeda in northern africa in

places like algeria and mali. in nigeria, there is a group which is carrying out huge numbers of attacks on western targets and internal religious targets. it appears to me they either have an al qaeda connection or use the same tactics. we have to be able to look at these different places at once. i am a strong believer that a strong minimum wage is necessary. it is important to protect the livings of people. if you do not have an adequate minimum wage, if people cannot make ends meet, the minimum wage i think is a good program. when i was in the senate, i consistently supported reasonable increases. host: this tweet from a viewer who writes --

guest: the nafta deal with china and other deals, central american free trade agreement, they are all out of this same broth. there were agreements that pretended to be balanced but were heavily balanced toward the country on the other end of the deal. there were not enforcement mechanisms in case the workers' rights in those countries were not respected. if there was fancy language of our respecting it but no way to enforce it. this is how we lost jobs to mexico and a lot of the jobs in mexico shifted to china. we lost a huge number to china and other countries. wisconsin was one of the most industrial bases of the country and we took a huge loss in

places like green bay, sheboygan, and also the loss of industry in a city like milwaukee which was once one of the greatest manufacturing towns. we still have some, but we have lost many jobs because of the trade agreements that were paid for with soft money that both parties were involved in. host: baton rouge, louisiana, good morning. you are on for russ feingold. caller: how are you doing this morning? i'm a ron paul supporter. i do not mean to put you on the spot, but i have read part of the previous guest, pat buchanan's, book. my question comes down to the economy and how we invest in

foreign aid. i get in trouble when i say this because a lot of people take it the wrong way, and i hope you do not, senator. i think we are a bankrupt nation. we will never get out of this debt with the policies that we have. i think much of it has to do with the security of israel. i'm not against the security of israel, but us going into iraq, on the verge of going into iran to try to prevent their nuclear proliferation, and there is no proof that they have these weapons or that they are really trying to have the advantage to get them, i guess what i'm trying to say is that at some point we're going to run out of money to help these foreign countries, paying israel to stay one step ahead, paying their neighbors to not attack. when our money runs out, what will happen to the state of israel?

china will not take them under their wing. the only outlet they will have will be to go back to europe. when they depend on europe, the jewish people always get in trouble when they go there. we simply cannot sustain this. host: russ feingold? guest: iran is not just a threat to israel. they are also a threat to the u.s. if they get nuclear weapons. because israel is an ally as well as the threat to our security, i think we need to take seriously what is going on in iran, but that does not mean i advocate an attack or invasion. as to foreign aid, i agree with a little bit. i do not want us to just throw more money at different countries in order to solve our problems. but i say in my book, "while america sleeps," it is to help reach out and improve our

knowledge of these countries while having a more positive relationship with these other countries. let's be citizen diplomats. maybe we should go for two or three weeks per year to help them learn certain things that would be of use to them and it did help us learn things as well. there's one guy in wisconsin named damon. he came to me in 1994 and told me he was a dairy farmer. he went to the former soviet republic and visit a dairy farm there. this farmer went out and he said there were so much bacteria in the milk that it could have walked to the market by themselves, that is a wisconsin joke, but it helped them come up with better techniques. 10 years later, he has gone to something like 30 other countries and has done the same thing. he is helping us sure that america's interest in other

people, that we want to share information and skills, and he learned about another country. he was able to come back to pulaski, wisconsin, and tell people what it is like. we lack a scouting report on other countries. even football teams go and scout the other teams. we're at a huge advantage when we do not have a significant knowledge of the rest of the world and we really need to bring up our game in this regard. host: ohio on the democratic line. good morning. caller: a have a lot of respect for you, senator feingold, and i hope you run for office again. the general was recently on zakaria on cnn. he was a rational and had a

deep understanding of foreign policy and he said the iranian regime was an actor. he said a strike at this time would be, in his words, "destabalizing." iran has never threatened the u.s. and comments from ahmadinejad have been misrepresented by the very same people who that is into iraq. i believe you voted against the iraqi war revolution and you were on the intelligence committee at that time. guest: i was not, but i voted against it. caller: senator durbin was and voted against it. do think those operating out of the office of special plans in the pentagon, those who created and disseminated false intelligence, should they be

held accountable? on c-span, they have often had the former head of the cia, michael shearer, on and he's in the three issues on what people are angry with the u.s. is our support for dictators in the region, the u.s. support for israel matter what they do -- no matter what they do, and also our military bases to access the oil in that region. if you could talk about the core reasons of people in that part of the world are so angry about with the u.s., as michael shearer has talked about. guest: one of the stories i tell in my book has to do with, frankly, my first experiences meeting with a large group of islamic americans and foreign

students in madison, wisconsin, did you days after 9/11. they had an open house to have a dialogue. they had a wonderful reception and had a great time talking. i asked the question the basically asked, what the source of the the dealings in the middle east war. there were comments about israel and the palestinians, and part of the iraq war, no-fly policies come humanitarian issues at the time. the overwhelming criticism was that we supported dictators and despots in the middle east, as you said. that is the big one. we have these values of democracy, human rights, women's rights, and yet we support people like ben ali in tunisia, mubarak in egypt, yemen, and even on occasion working with saddam hussain when it was convenient for us. this is what people say. it galled them that this is what we claim that we cared about it

we picked some died like musharraf and went with him instead of making connections with the people. that is a fundamental flaw. i know what people say. you do not know what you're going to get. we have to figure out a way to work with the actual people in the country and not just pick some strongman that will repress people and cause them to hit us much longer. the root of our relationship with iran have to do with the relationship we made in this regard in the early 1950's. it had finally gotten a free leave chosen prime minister. with the cia and others, we took him out of power. this was a great frustration for the iranian people that led to the dominance of the shah of iran.

this is the kind of mistake we have made. host: back to campaign finance, last friday in "the new york times," if the head of the progressive policy institute and former finance director for the democratic national committee had an op-ed. here is just a little bit of what was written.

guest: he could not be more wrong. we saw his comments in "the n.y. times." my director responded. it is like saying there's one series of organized crime's alleged open up another to balance it. we've already seen what this system of soft money did before mccain-feingold. as i write in my book, we talk about the bad the been actually hear people talking about these corrupt contributions on the floor of the senate while voting on it. the idea that this gentleman thinks it's a good idea to go back to unlimited contributions to the party, that is a complete defeatist attitude. what he is forgetting is that things are much better in the 2008 election when we did not have these huge contributions because citizens united had not yet occurred and we had banned soft money to the party. what happened? people went the more democratic

route. people who felt that they could not be part of the political process went back to giving $10, $20. corporate america saw that and they were worried. this saw the face of democracy and they were terrified. what did they do? the engineered a decision like citizens united. they said we would never be able to deal with that because we cannot get the decision overturned, so let's get rid of that. it's the most defeatist approach i could think of. host: tweeting this question -- guest: that's what i do every day. it is what progressives united is all about. i pounded it with some people i have worked with in the past ride around the anniversary of the citizens united decision. you can go to

citizensunited.org and be part of a group that is working to make people aware of citizens united and also to support legislation, such as the disclosure act to make sure people know where contributions are coming from, get rid of the federal elections commission which is a joke, but also to call up the candidates, democratic republican or anyone else, if they want to get involved in corporate money in this game to the unlimited contributions. this is a system that, i believe, is devastating for those who are progressives. we believe money should not control policy, that people should. we worked every single day, and i think with great success, to highlight everything from the super committee, which we were worried would give away the store and create a bad budget, to commanding that there be a real investigation of what happened on wall street and the

president took steps in that regard after we raised the issue. we're proud of what we have done and we want to encourage people to join us because we are specifically focused on this, but we have worked with other groups like democracy for america of and moveon.org instead of just shrugging our shoulders and saying this is the way it has to be. host: another call from wisconsin for you. an independent. caller: hello, senator. i was just wondering if you give your take on everything that is going on in our state right now. i do not know if you covered that already, but i got a late start in watching this. guest: we have not. he is calling from the granite capital in the world. our state has been thrown into a horrible situation.

gov. walker got elected. he won the election and it was one where all the democrats lost and he got into office. but for him. the problem is he decided to attack our state. he did not want to work with the other side and work with the people. he wanted to attack the public bargaining rights have been around for decades. we were the first ever in the country to have these laws. it is a basic right. he used every brutal tactics, every unfair approach. i served in the wisconsin state senate for 10 years and he broke every tradition and he had a desire to destroy this lot. he has succeeded for now. i was over 1 million people to sign the petition to recall this governor. we do have a recall law, so what is it for?

it is for a situation for when a governor has waged war on the working people of the state in a way that no one could have predicted that has divided families and friends, but a state that it usually very genteel and cooperative, community-oriented, and he has turned it into a war zone. we need to reverse that. i think we have a good chance of replacing that probably as soon as early june. host: our last call view is from kansas. a republican. caller: good morning. how are you today? guest: fine, thanks. caller: i just recently completed "the world american made." one of the points he makes is that americans, we have an involvement all around the world.

we are a superpower. the american instinct is two fold. on one hand, we want to get involved in something and as soon as the get there, we're looking for a way out. the instinct, i think, as part of the humanitarian feel. we were watching the news out of syria. we are told that we do not have a heart. it was tragic to see what was going on in syria. we were talking to each other and when we say someone has to do something, it has to be house that does it. and we were watching the news in afghanistan, the people in the streets rioting, the two american soldiers that have been killed over the burning of the qoran, and we think we just need to get the hell out of there. we want to be engaged in these things, but at the same time i'm really looking for the exit. how do we get our arms around all of that and do the right thing and see the job through?

guest: this is one of the chapters in my book, while america sleeps, talking about in for a penny come in for pound. once we go into a situation, we have the attitude that we have to stay there forever. getting the job done is a meaningless term. what does that mean? we resolve the differences that have been there for thousands of years? that's absurd and will not happen. our purpose going in was to get osama bin laden. , got him in pakistan. what are we still there? it's crazy. it is not making any sense and it is sapping our economy. president obama showed great wisdom in regards to libya. he did not have to send in boots on the ground to have people there three years and years because of the argument that once you are there you cannot leave until it's all taken care of. he very wisely engaged the community. we did things to make a

difference to keep the tipping point from going against gaddafi. we got rid of the guy. that shows the wisdom. that shows a president that gets it instead of the crazy idea that you have to invade one country at a time and stay there like we're playing a game of risk a set of having a better relationship with the rest of the world. host: russ feingold's new book, "while america sleeps." thank you for taking the time to speak to c-span this morning. we will be right back with our >> more road to the white house coverage coming up tonight, as rick santorum unveils a new economic agenda, speaking in lincoln park, michigan about what he would do in his first 100 days in office, if elected. watch the speech live at 8:00 p.m. and federal trade commission

john leibovitz on the obama administration proposal for new privacy protections for internet or smartphone users. >> there are millions of decent americans who are willing to sacrifice for change, but they want to do it without being threatened, and they want to do it peacefully. they are the non-violent majority, black and white, who are for change without violence. these are the people whose voice of want to be. >> as candidates campaigned for president, we look back on 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> can you remember the depression, when times were really hard and you left the doors unlocked? now we have the most violent, crime-ridden society in the

industrialized world. and i cannot live with that. can you live with that? >> c-span.org/thecondenders. >> we got started because there are a lot of conservative think tanks that work across issues, but there has been no single progressive think tank the works on economic policy, domestic policy, national security. >> the president and ceo of the center for american progress on the mission of the think tank. >> we think there is an etiology behind particular arguments made in washington, with very little facts behind them. part of our job is to make the arguments and the factual arguments, and the evidence- based arguments behind our views. i think sometimes when the facts do not argue for our position, we reexamine those positions.

we fundamentally believe the most important thing is to be right about what your views are. >> i look at the center for american progress, sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific. >> at the 1968 olympic games, john carlos and tommie smith raised their fists in the black power salute. >> this is black power. they intimidated so many people, white people in particular, by using the phrase "black power." that phrase made many people think that black power meant destruction, blowing up the statue of liberty or ground zero, destroying america. it was not anything about destroying america. it was about rebuilding america. having a new paradigm in terms of how we could truly be what each and everyone of us pledged in elementary school and high school about the land of the

free and the home of the brave. we all want to be great americans. as young africans, we found that something was wrong. something was broken. we wanted to take our time to evaluate, and take our initiative to fix it. >> discover more during black history month on book tv on c- span 2, and on line and the season video library. search and share from over 25 years of video programming. >> the u.s. corporate tax rate is 35%, but with various tax credits and deductions, most corporations pay less than that. we looked at the issue on washington journal. >> the rate that corporations pay in the united states is very different from the 35% that is the list. what does the picture look like when you start to analyze u.s.

corporate tax rates from other metrics? guest: good morning. you are correct that the 35% rate is the top rate, but the effective rate is much lower than that. for certain industries, it is lower still. the treasury estimated that retail companies are paying 31% effective rate, where as utilities are paying about half of that. basically because of the fact that the corporate tax code has many types of tax breaks for different industries. that complicates what kind of rates different industries pay. host: when those industry-based tax rates arise, what is the genesis? what causes congress to take a sector of the economy and give

it a more beneficial position? guest: strong lobbyists for one thing, i guess. but each industry argues there are certain reasons they deserve preferential tax treatment. if congress gives them that preferential tax treatment, it will provide benefits for the country. the oil and gas industry has had preferential tax treatment for decades. they argue that spurs increased development of energy sources in this country, and that benefits the entire country. the opponents argue that the oil and gas industry is reaping huge profits and do not need special tax preferences. it is an ongoing debate. host: when you listen to the candidates on the campaign trail compare the u.s. tax rate with

taxes around the world, i will take a look at how the u.s. backs up against some other countries we regularly do business with, japan, germany, and canada. if you look at this chart, japan is that 30%, canada is at 16.5%, and germany at 15.8%. when you look at different metrics, some of the analysis looks at it as a percentage of gdp. when we do that, the united states is always a -- is all the way down here, compared to european countries. another way to look at it is finding the -- the effective tax rate. that changes the picture again. what is the real measure of how u.s. companies fare against global competitors? guest: it would probably be the effective tax rate. that is actually what you are paying, not the sticker price on the car, the 35%.

while that is the top corporate tax rate in this country at the present, most industries, because of the various tax breaks they can take advantage of, are not paying that rate. you are correct that there has been a trend in recent years for countries to reduce their corporate tax rates, while the u.s. rate has been frozen. the last major overhaul for corporate and individual taxes came in 1986, under ronald reagan. treasury secretary geithner, when he unveiled the administration plan this week, talked about the fact that we have an outdated tax system and we need to modernize it. both sides are arguing that there need to be changes, in

terms of the way to measure it. the corporate taxes in 2010 made up about 12% of all federal tax receipts, but that was down from 24% of all federal tax receipts in 1960. there are different views, different ways to measure things. in the upcoming debate, you can guarantee that people are -- people are doing different sides of the issue whatever they think statistically better supports their case. >> the last question for you. what is the correlation between tax rates and job creation? guest: that is also a subject of debate. almost endless debate, if you think about it. if you look at it, we are having the same argument on the

individual tax side. president obama has not proposed -- has not put forward an overall plan for individual taxes. romney did so this week, talked about it yesterday. in that, people argue that the tax cuts of president bush, put forth and approved in 2001 and 2003, which have been extended, helped the economy. others argued that it drove up the deficit and that hurt economic growth. we have stronger growth in the clinton years with higher tax rates. that also is an area that is subject for debate. host: thank you for giving us some background on the debate on the campaign trail about u.s. corporate tax rates, and the

pluses and minuses of the current system. >> more road to the white house this evening, with rick santorum speaking in lincoln park, michigan. he will talk about what he would do in his first 100 days in office. watch his speech live at 8:00 p.m. eastern. tomorrow, the national governors' association kicks off with annual winter meeting. live tomorrow, the opening news conference. then at two sessions on what states are doing to grow their economies and encourage entrepreneurship. live sunday at 9:30 a.m. eastern, a look at work to end childhood hunger. then a discussion on the changing role of the national guard. the annual meeting live this weekend on c-span. >> we got started because there are a lot of conservative think

tanks that work across issues. but before c.a.p., there had been no single progressive think tank the work on these issues. >> the president and ceo of the center for american progress on the mission of the think tank. >> we think there is often and ideologies behind particular arguments made in washington, with very little fact behind them. part of our job is to make the arguments, and the factual arguments, and the evidence- based arguments behind our own views. i think sometimes when the facts cannot argue for our position we reexamine those positions. we fundamentally believe the most important thing is to be right about what your views are. >> a look at the center for american progress, sunday night at the decline eastern and pacific.

-- at 8:00 eastern and pacific. >> one of the freaky things about writing this book was thinking through the ways, particularly in the international human rights context, right straddled a moral imperative and aspirational ideal, and a more practical and formal mandate. >> from distributing food to the poor in india to sex trafficking in japan, richard thompson ford defines human rights, and how well-meaning western reform can lead to increased exploitation. also this weekend, saturday at 7:00 p.m., a house historian looks at the african americans who served in congress. he is joined by a former congressman. and a book party from "shooting from the lip, the life of senator alan simpson," written by his former chief of staff.

>> there are millions of decent americans who are willing to sacrifice for change, but they want to do it without being threatened, and they want to do it peacefully. they are the non-violent majority, black and white, who are for change without violence. these are the people whose fourth i want to be. >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> can you remember in the depression, when times were really hard and we left the doors unlocked? now we have the most violent crime-ridden society in the industrialized world. i can't live with that. can you live with that? >> mitt romney's economic plan

calls for abolishing the inheritance tax, cutting the corporate tax rate to 25%, and raising the retirement age for social security. he talked about his economic plans in detroit earlier today. this is about 50 minutes. ♪ ♪ [applause] >> good afternoon. this is truly an honor for me to be here this morning, this afternoon, and to make this introduction. this is a guest that is no stranger to this club or the state of michigan. introducing governor romney, as i say, is truly a treat. our country has never elected a president who was going and raised in the state of michigan. -- who was born and raised in

the state of michigan. it is clearly time for a change. [applause] our state has never elected a car guy. our state -- how do i want to say this? some of you may know that i am a car guy. ok? here in detroit, we know what it means to say someone is a car guy. mitt romney's dad was a car guy. he grew up learning about american automobiles, appreciating the workmanship and the dedication that our industry requires. the problems, the prospects, and the future of the automobile industry were often discussed at the wrong the dinner table. we in detroit -- at the romney dinner table. we in detroit need someone with a protective voice in washington, someone who understands our state, complex

manufacturing, our industry. believe me -- we have one who will be speaking here today. but mitt romney is much more than a car guy or a son of michigan. as important as those things are to us, there are much deeper. mitt romney is the only candidate in this race who has the background, the experience, and the vision to beat barack obama, and then go on to serve our country as our next great president. if we are going to change washington, we need someone who is not of washington. mitt romney's experience and records is about results, success, and kept promises. he is the only candidate in this race, republican or democrat -- i want to repeat this. the only candidate who has not worked in washington. i think that is a big deal. [applause]

he has never been in congress. he has never been a lobbyist. he has not been shaped by the distorted atmosphere and air in washington. in fact, his story is the opposite. he has had 25 years in business, balancing budgets, eliminating waste, and keeping -- frankly, keeping away from washington. he has started new businesses. he has turned around broken ones. i know he is not ashamed of the fact that he was very successful at it. i am incredibly proud he was very successful at it. in 2002 when the salt lake games were mired in scandal, many suggested it could not be salvaged. the committee called on mitt romney. and he answered their call. he went to salt rick ley -- he

went to salt lake. he restored the face of the country, the donor community, and the olympic community. in the yen, the salt lake olympics were considered to be the most successful to date. and i love this. he left behind a surplus. can you imagine that? do you think washington is bad? you should see the government in massachusetts. 85% of the legislature was democratic, the opposing party, and yet he was able to cut taxes 19 times and left a rainy day fund in the governor would be proud of. i am not going to spell out what the governor is going to say today. that is up to him. i do know this -- our country remained locked in economic crisis. millions of americans cannot find work.

they have lost their homes and the future is clearly not what they planned. here in detroit, we know that feeling firsthand. we have experienced this crisis more profoundly than most. i know great crises have a way of bringing forward great leaders. quite frankly, we have a great leader in front of us today. ladies and gentlemen, i give you the next president of the united states, mitt romney. [applause] >> thank you, thank you. wow. thank you so much. thank you, david. beth, thank you for your warm reception and i have to put a suburbanor david's auto group, huh?

i hate standing between you and your lunch. but i want to talk about policy today. this is not exciting or barn burning, but it is important. i want to give you a chance to think about the various plans i have to get the economy going again, nationally and here in michigan. i want to thank the folks at the for field for making this space available for as. -- at the ford field for making the space available to us. i guess there was trouble finding a space big enough, and this space is. also, congratulations to the lions for another great season. in michigan born and raised. i grew up here. i remember the first day of kindergarten. there were about 30 kids. as i looked around, i imagine that their parents dropped them

off at the school each morning, and as parents were confident our future would be brighter than even they had enjoyed. our parents believed in america as promised. they believe if you taught your kids the right values, if he made sure your kids got an education and taught them to work hard, then their future could be prosperous and secure. we all believed the future was full of prosperity. we felt that joyful optimism that comes from being raised in a land of opportunity, a place where, if you want to work hard and have the right of use, anyone can make it. we are the land of opportunity. that deep confidence in a better tomorrow is a basic promise of america. but today, that promise is being threatened by a false -- by a

faltered economy and, in my view, a failed presidency. for 36 months, the unemployment rate has been over 8%. 24 million of our fellow americans are struggling to find work. there are 3 million missing workers in america, people who dropped out of the work force. for closure of homes is at record high level. everywhere i have gone in this campaign, i have met americans who were suffering as a result of the obama economy. you can see it in their faces and hear it in their voices. they are anxious. they are scared about the future. i have met moms and dads struggling to get by. 1 works the day shift. 1 works the night shift. date barely get to meet and -- they barely get to meet and to

have dinner together. you have heard the new definition of the american dream? dick armey said this. it is not owning a home. is getting your kids out of it. [laughter] everywhere i go, i hear stories that are sad reminders of the failed presidency we see before us. president obama said he fixed three things when he became president. first, he said he would hold a 8% -- unemployment under 8%. then he said he would cut the deficit in half. he double-dip. and he said he would make medicare and social security solvent for future generations. three years later he has not offered, as far as i am aware, a serious proposal for medicare or social security solvency. we have seen a failure to lead.

that is why i am running for president. i want to restore america's promised. that means more jobs, less debt, and smaller government. in the campaign, i am offering more than a change of policy. i am offering a fundamental change in perspective and philosophy for washington and the nation. you may have seen earlier this week i put forward a pro-growth tax reform policy to get our economy moving again. today, this administration is focused on unemployment benefits. what workers really want is a good job. and rising wages. reform of the tax code is, in my view, one of the surest and quickest ways to achieve that goal. i will make across-the-board 20% reduction in marginal income- tax rates. 20% down across the board. [applause]

and think about this. by reducing the tax on the next dollar earned by all taxpayers, we encourage hard work, encourage risk-taking, encourage productivity by allowing americans to keep more of what they earn. and by the way, the businesses that pay taxes with individual income tax, they account for guess what? guess what percentage of american workers work for those businesses? personal income tax companies? over half of all american workers work for those kind of companies in united states. this kind of tax cut encourages all business to hire, raise wages, and small business is what pulls is out of recession. that is pertinent. second, i will make our business taxation competitive globally. i will reduce the corporate tax rate to 25% from the current

35%. we are the highest in the world. that has got to end. let's get competitive again. [applause] i am also going to make the r&d tax cut permanent so we can foster the kind of innovation that drives growth long-term. and i will get rid of the job- killing repatriation? . this rate -- this repatriation tax. if an american company, like ford is making cars in china and they make a profit there, right now if they invest in china, there is no u.s. tax. but if they bring the money home, then we charge them up to 35% tax. this makes no sense. this has got to end. we have to endure the repatriation tax and bring

dollars on. it is estimated to be $1 trillion that is over the seas. [applause] of course, i am going to maintain the 15% capital gains tax rate. that is the right level to keep our economy going. i will eliminate the tax entirely, by the way, i will eliminate that entirely for those with an annual income below to under thousand dollars. i will encourage business investment and economic growth. finally, i will repeal the alternative minimum tax. is simply not fair. -- it is simply not fair. let me make clear -- these changes i will not allowed to raise the deficit. strong economic growth, spending cuts, and broadening the base will offset the reductions.

americans will continue to enjoy the tax benefits that favor important priorities, including home mortgage interest reductions, charitable giving, health care, and savings. but there will be some changes in the current deductions. those to receive the greatest benefit from that 20% cut are going to see some of the most significant limits so we can keep these cuts progressive. bebel increase wages. they will grow jobs. -- they will increase wages. let's encourage investment and not penalize people for being successful. [applause] let me mention something else. all of you are familiar with a balance sheet who are experienced in business. the larger our federal

government, the government does not publish the balancesheet. in fact, we have one. we have to fix our national balancesheet. today, we face $62 trillion in unfunded promises in our entitlement programs, medicare and social security being the largest. we talked a lot about the $15 trillion of deficit debt that has piled up. we have to tackle that debt as well. it is the $62 trillion in unfunded promises that keeps our growth at. a few common-sense reforms are going to make sure that we can save social security and medicare for future generations. tax act or off the table. there'll be no change also for people who are near retirement or currently retired. the -- but younger generations have to strengthen the system. when it comes to social security, what i will do is

slowly raise the retirement age. we will also slowed the growth in benefits for future retirees. and tomorrow seniors will have a choice among insurance providers, including traditional medicare offered by the government, and as with medicare part the -- part d, private- sector insurance. seniors will be offered the lowest possible price. with medicare, like with social security, lower and seniors will receive the most generous benefits. starting in 2022, new retirees will participate in the new system. we will gradually increase the medicare eligibility age each year. in the long run, the programs will be increasing only as fast as life expectancy. those are the kind of common

sense solutions we need to have. we need to have a balance sheet that is in balance. is time to get that done. -- it is time to get that done. [applause] one more thing. my administration will make the hundreds of billions of dollars of cuts necessary to reduce spending to 20% of the economy by the end of my first term. and i will capet at that 20% level. then, without sacrificing our military superiority, i will balance the budget. there are three things we need to do. first, i will cut programs. i am going to look it every single government program and ask this question -- is this program so critical that it is worth borrowing money from china to pay for it? and if not, and i am going to get rid of the. i will start with the easiest cut of all. i will get rid of obama care.

[applause] you know, it is a $1 trillion entitlement we do not want and cannot afford. it is bad medicine. when it i am president, and it will be over. i will also cut subsidies to amtrak and funding for planned parenthood. we will repeal the davis that to save taxpayers $100 billion over 10-year period. we will take a lot of federal programs and sent them back to the state's. i am going to send medicaid back to the states and cap that. i would do the same for other programs like food stamps and job training. states are better able to perform these kinds of functions. and by the way, once the economy is really growing again, i believe we should return our spending level to the pre-

rescind -- pre-recession level and cap the rate of growth. taxpayers that save money and those in need the benefits of these programs will find they are more effective and efficient and responsive if they are run at the state level. there are such differences today. let states crafted their own problems for the port. welfare reform. i want to extend that conservative, small government philosophy across the entire social safety net for those that are in need of our help. and finally -- i said cut programs to balance the budget. second, send programs back to states where we cap the growth rate and let states manage the programs as they see best. in the third thing is to make sure the government that

remains, that government has to be efficient. i will shrink the size of the federal work force. initially 10% of attrition. then i will link the pay of public servants to the private sector. [applause] now, this is a plan to get america back on track. talking about tax policy, lowering tax rates to promote growth, talking about entitlements reform, deficit reduction, cutting spending, cutting programs and making government more efficient. i also want to take a moment to think about michigan. what it takes to get michigan on track, in addition to what is happening at the national level. that recalls in many respects around the auto industry. for michigan to be vital, the auto industry has to be growing

and thriving. i hope we learned lessons from the past. in my view, the industry got in trouble because the uaw asked for too much. it hurt domestic automakers and provided a benefit to some of the foreign automakers. the result of those missed steps was a cost penalty per car of about 2 and -- to thousand dollars -- $2,000. even the best engineers in the world, and they are here, could not overcome that kind of disadvantage. as we look forward, it is important that the uaw takes care not to impair the long term growth of the industry. cap a scant attack to be worked out between the government and private-sector so they do not become overly burdensome. and the companies, they have got to invest in new technology and take advantage of the massive

new markets. the largest markets in the world will be in brazil and indonesia and china and brazil. we need to get out of turn -- we need to get out of general motors of the future is determined -- so the future is determined by the marketplace, not bureaucrats in washington. [applause] detroit should not be the motor city of america. it has got to be the motor city of the entire world and i want to make sure that happens. [applause] what i have described, i believe is an economic plan that will strengthen america, strengthen mich., by making bold cuts in spending and common sense reforms. we are going to make our government simpler, smaller, and smarter. through pro-growth policy, we will get our economy back on track and get our citizens back to work. taken together, the plan i am

proposing represents the biggest fundamental change to the government in modern history. these are conservative, pro- growth policies that will no longer -- that will not only to start the economy, but it will return this to a society where values of opportunity are still higher than the use of entitlement. less debt, smaller government. i know president obama has -- is going to criticize my proposal. so be it. i believe the american people are ready for new leadership. i believe they really do deserve all old, conservative plan for growth, and unlike the president, i actually have that plan. my plan requires sacrifice. does it not -- it does not

require a leader to promise bigger and bigger benefits. it requires a leader if you need to call for sacrifice. if i am at elected president, i promise you this. we are going to restore america's promise. here and in michigan, the future will once again be a full of promise and prosperity. together, we can get our debt under control. we can rain and the deficit that imperils our future. and a pro-growth tax policy will encourage investment again, fostered risk-taking, investment. if we proceed with the policies i just described, he will see a michigan with rising home values again. kids will come out of college and find jobs that are consistent with their skills. businesses will come here,

because of your on parallel work force, engineering skills, extraordinary institutions of higher learning. michigan will once again be known as the engine of innovation. i am not promising that there will not be sacrificed. i do promise every day will be on a track to get better and better, and together we will make america strong during an. to do that, i need your help. next tuesday, i will need your vote. that is part 1. if you want to make this election about restoring america's greatness, and hope you will join the. this is a critical time for our country. i love the foundation of this extraordinary lance. i believe it was spoken by the founders of this country when they wrote the declaration of independence. they chose their words carefully. they said "we are endowed by our creator" with our rights.

among those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. that last phrase, pursuit of happiness, we often gloss over in our mind. it suggests that in america people would not be limited by government or the circumstance of their birth. because of these freedoms, our freedom, our liberty, and our right to choose our course and live, america is the place that people came with pioneering spirit. pioneers and innovators. parts workers came to work for them and build this extraordinary land. we have a president who wants to transform america into something we would not recognize. i do not think that is the right course for america. i love what we are. i want to restore freedom. i want to restore at a

conviction that people pursuing their own path in life will build their own future. so, i come to you and ask for your help. i want to restore america. this is a critical time for america. we have to choose who we are. what the soul of america is going to be. will we be a nation led by massive government in washington and taking a larger and larger share? you realize that the government represents 35% of our economy? we are inches away from no longer being a free economy. i want to get back to the american people being able to pursue their course and live. i love this country. i love what it stands for. i am optimistic about the future. i am convinced the american people, if they are led by people who are actual leaders who know how to call for

sacrifice rather than promise bigger and bigger benefits, americans will rise to the occasion. i believe that despite the challenges we have, if we have a president that will tell the truth and live with integrity, who actually knows how to lead, who, by the way, like cars, and police and the greatness of the american people, we will see michigan come back, and we will see american -- we will see american combat. and we will be the hope of the earth. thank you. [applause] thank you. >> that was fabulous. thank you it very much. >> thank you. >> we have a custom to ask a few questions we have been provided from the audience, if we may. >> ok. >> the first question -- china is a growing power on the world

stage. what should the united states due to nurture a strong relationship between the two countries. >> china is smart enough to know that in the free enterprise system, which they have adopted to a certain degree, that you're in competition. they want to strengthen their hand relative to us or a competitive -- or a competitor. that is what competitors to. they have taken advantage that are in many respects an unfair. the reason we have laws and regulations is to allow entities to create a level playing field so be more effective competitor succeeds. china has taken advantage of the fact that we have not been watching very carefully, that we have not insisted they abide by the rules. so, they hack into our computers. government programs. they steal the designs of our

aircraft for two years before we figure it out. so, the millions and billions you spent developing new products, they get for free. they have other practices that are interesting. stealing designs, patents, know how, brand names. things you spend millions and billions of dollars to build, they take for free. and finally, they have a practice of manipulating their currencies, which is holding down the value of their currencies so their products are artificially low-priced. the impact of those unfair practices has seen american businesses go out of business, where with a level playing field, they would not have. you have to have a president who is willing to call them on the carpet and say, hey, we love free-trade. i applaud the columbia -- panama deal. we will win on a level playing

field. you cannot have people like china cheating. they recognize that. they have to be sitting back and asking, when will they figure this out? folks say, if we crack down on them, there might be a trade war. this is how much stuff they sell to us. this is how much stuff we sell to them. we need to make sure we get to a level playing bill. in our common interest is a growing, thriving world economy. china can be an ally for prosperity in the world, but we cannot allow them to steal jobs. if we do, the consequences are unthinkable. the time has come for a president that will stand up to china. i will call them our currency manipulator and if necessary apply tariffs. thank you. >> i was actually thinking right

along with that. [laughter] the second question is, what should the united states do to respond to the growing nuclear threat from iran? >> yes, this is one i hope we think about with some sobriety. we are tired of conflict. we have been through 9/11, some long and challenging conflicts -- in afghanistan, which still goes on -- and in iraq. entering another conflict is the furthest thing from our minds. at the same time, iran is on the cusp of developing nuclear capacity. building material they can use in weaponry. and the consequence to the world and to us if they have fissile of material is unthinkable. if iran, the world sponsor of terror -- has a lot and --

hezbollah and hamas -- and they are there not only to disrupt the places they are, but to disrupt this place. to brush the non-proliferation treaty aside, to develop nuclear materials and potentially use it against it. they had even threatened they would use nuclear weapons against israel. they called israel all one bomb nation. small enough that one bomb would wipe them out. sadly, none of those steps were being taken pure 1, crippling sanctions on iran. as president five -- did not get to my place. finally got forced to try them out. we are at the cusp of the developing nuclear technology. this should have been done long ago.

second is standing behind the dissident voices in iran. it took to the streets looking for voices to support their freedom, and our president had nothing to say. inexcusable. 3, developing military options and communicating that we have military options to iran so they understand that combine with crippling sanctions, dissident voices on the street, and a commitment on our part to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming nuclear, that combination, i believe, would keep them from going down that path and prevent them from having to take military action, but they have to know that it is unacceptable to the president of the united states and the people of this great nation to have our future and our kids future threatened by a nuclear iran. [applause] >> this will be the third and final question -- do you think you are the republican candidate with the best chance of defeating president obama?

>> i not only think i have the best chance, but i have the only chance. i may be overstating that. my family is leading the applause. [applause] it is always hard to defeat an incumbent president even an ineffective one like jimmy carter. it is not easy to defeat someone who has got the white house and in some respects can effect -- affect the national agenda and can raise money in massive amounts. he will have hundreds of millions of dollars coming in from organized labor. not from members of unions to choose their leaders but they have money and that goes into pacs that the leaders of the union's choose to spend. if you took money out of your employees' paychecks, can you imagine if you control that? he will be hard to defeat.

the only way to defeat him is to have someone runs against him who is very different than he, who can present a clear contrast grid i have not spent my life in washington. the other couple of guys i was debating the other night, ron paul spent time on health care and is also different than the president but newt gingrich and rick santorum are fine fellas but they spent their career in washington. their background is the same background as his. i will have credibility on the economy. i will be able to talk to him about when he says he turned around america's economy, i will say no, everything you did make it harder for this economy to recover. obamacare did not encourage

people to hire more people. dodd-frank did not make it easier for people to make loans. when you force unionization, those actions all made it harder for the economy to recover. i can say that with credibility. i believe the best way and the only way we really have to get president obama out of the white house and get someone in who will put americans back to work more jobs, less debt and smaller government is if we nominate someone whose career is not politics, who has lived in the private-sector, and his passion is caring for the coming generations and that is what i represent. i want to thank youtube david and death for welcoming me here -- david and beth for welcoming me here and i apologize for keeping you so long from your lunch. i love this country. i actually love this state. this feels good being back in michigan. [applause] the trees are the right height. the streets are just right. i like the fact that most of the car as i see our detroit- made automobiles. i drive by mustang and a chevy pickup truck and ann drives a couple of cadillacs. i used to have a dodge truck.

i appreciate the state, the city, and the country and that i am lucky enough to be president of united states, a governor snyder will have a friend and ally and the white house. i will work to help michigan, america, and detroit to make sure we have a brighter future for our kids in your kids. thank you very much, good to be with you today. thank you very much. [applause] >> i want to take a moment to share with you all governor romney mentioned at the beginning that when we first announced to this meeting, 90 minutes later, we were sold out of our previous venue. i want to thank the great folks at ford field who made this possible. great job presiding and governor romney, what an honor to have you back home and won an honor to have to not only at the detroit economic club but

to unveil such important policy information. ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for investing your time with us and i should invite governor romney back to the economic club as president of the united states. how about that? thank you very much. thank you, governor. [applause]

>> more road to the white house coverage tonight with rick santorum unveiling a new economic agenda speaking in lincoln park, mich. about what he would do in his first 100 days in office of elected. watches speech live at 8:00 p.m. eastern. tomorrow, the national governors association kicks off their annual winter meeting. the opening news conference will be with the nebraska gov.. then two sessions about what states are doing to grow their economies and encourage entrepreneurship. but on sunday, a look at

governors work to end childhood hunger. then a discussion on the changing role of the national guard. the national governors association meeting live on c- span. >> we got started because there were a lot of conservative think tanks. >> neera tanden on the central american progress. part of our jobs is to make the factual argument and the evidence based argument on their own views. when the facts do not argue for

our position we we examine them because we fundamentally believe the most important thing is to be right about what our views are. >> a look at the center for american progress sunday night 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a." >> there are millions of decent americans that are willing to sacrifice for change but it want to do it without being threatened. they are the non-violent majority to offer change without violence. these are the people whose voice i want to be. >> as candidates campaigned for president, we look back at 14 man who ran and lost. go to our web site, c- span.org/thecontendors. >> can you remember in the depression when times were really hard and we left the door is unlocked? now we have the most violent

crime-ridden society in the industrialized world. i cannot live with that. can you? c-span.org/thecontendors. >> one of the weirdest things about writing this book for me was thinking through the ways, particularly in the international human rights context where rights struggle the moral imperative and in aspirational ideal and more practical than a formal mandate. >> from distributing food to the poor to sex trafficking in japan. defining human rights and how well-meaning western reforms can lead to it increasing exploitation. also this weekend, at 7:00 p.m. saturday, a house historian looking at the african- americans serving in congress

joined by a former congressman. at 11:00, a book party about the life of senator olson's then written by his former chief of staff and press secretary. every weekend on c-span2. >> now look at the u.s. missile defense program hearing from pentagon officials with the clinton and obama administration's in the whistleblower that disagrees developed by -- the programs developed by the administration. from uc-berkeley, this is 2 hours 15 minutes. >> welcome everyone. as people take seats, we can begin. my name is jack genzyme the director of the institute of governmental studies. with the department of physics, at this is the first such formal collaboration in cosponsoring this fascinating

seminar. this seminar is one of a series that we sponsor in the harold smith seminar series which focuses on u.s. defense policies and on the control and management of nuclear weapons. this is the third year of the series. we have had numerous distinguished experts come here to speak about these matters and the reason that they come is because of the person for whom this series is names, dr. harold smith, who will come up here in a minute. harold holds the department of visiting scholar with the department of intergovernmental studies. he has a long history at berkeley. he was a professor here and

share of the department of nuclear energy before moving on to work first in the private sector and then within government where he was the assistant secretary in the department of defense with responsibilities in the area of nuclear power restoration. he has many other honors and i will just mention two. one is the american physical society and the second, which i would love to announce, is commander in the legion of honor of france. without further ado, herald. -- harold. [applause] >> i should say that we have the privilege of being reported today by c-span. i probably wore the wrong colored tie, but we will be on

c-span today. >> friends and colleagues, the text today is from robert frost's palm. i will give a quotation from it. "i asked to know what i was walling in or walling out and whom i was like to devote fence. -0- to give offense." in the poem, he was too late. the wall had already been built, simply being prepared. today, we are too late to be asking these questions about today's wall, namely ballistic missile defense. it already exists. united states has unilaterally withdrawn from the treaty, interceptors have been placed in

alaska to defend against north korea. the obama administration is negotiating a european missile defense system to protect against iran which is "likely to give offense" to russia, and they already have. that is not the subject today. the subject is where we should go from here. not how or why did we get year. among the most pressing questions will be what is the obama ballistic missile defense approach and how does it differ from the bush policies? is the current strategy based on sound technical principles? what are the likely international ramifications of the obama administration's approach to missile defense? particularly in europe. to address those questions, we have three talented and highly

qualified experts. to my immediate left, michael knox at the goldman school recently returning as the assistant secretary of defense to global security. on my far right, dean wilkening, a former technical director from stanford. he has published and spoken widely on this issue. in the middle, a professor thodore postol from mit. ted as also published in spoken widely on this subject. each will speak for about 15-20 minutes and hopefully without interruption unless there is an absolute fit of brilliance from

one of us, myself included. this will be followed by 30 minutes of clarification among the speakers with a goal, unlike the recent presidential debates, to inform the audience, not to disparage the speakers. then there will be time for q&a from the audience. i will enumerate the ground rules for that at the appropriate time. with that, i will turn to michael nacht. >> thank you very much, herald. i'm glad to be back here again at igs. i want to give you an overview of the ballistic missile defense review report from early 2010,

why it advocated what it did, and a little bit about what has happened cents. my colleagues provide a lot of detail on the technological issues, the pros and cons of the system. i was tempted to spend time giving a background about this subject but harold told me not to do that. just to say that there has always been a debate for decades about the wisdom of missile defense, in the realm of the feasibility. in the most simple terms, if you and i both had offensive missiles that could destroy each other and each of us was confident that our misfiles could get through, even if we were struck first, then we have some kind of issue of strategic

stability through mutual deterrence. supposing in that situation, i fought to build up missile defense while still retaining my offensive capability, you could plausibly construe that as an offensive measure thinking that i was building the missile defense to degrade your retaliatory attack after i struck first. in the 1960's, the u.s. went through a time trying to explain to our soviet colleagues why we thought it was the stabilizing. the soviets had built a missile defense system around moscow and it's still there. anyway, the treaty ultimately was designed as a culmination of that effort with it limited to two sites.

this ultimately went away 30 years later under the bush and administration. there is a clause of supreme national interest which permits either side to do so. we did not illegally aggregate the treaty but we just withdrew. it led to an increase in tension with the russians. i will now skip further forward. under reagan, there is a huge effort that was proved to be a technical logically and feasible. there was a shift under george h.w. bush and again under clinton. we can talk about that more with that if you liked, why there was not a lot of process made with the russians. when president obama came into office, he requested a review of the entire program. the politics, the policy, the

technical capabilities, future plans, and we were also under constraints because congress had basically mandated that the administration provide them with their report on our approach within one year. this has been the first comprehensive review of all aspects of the programs into a published on classified open report and it came out in february 2010. it's on the web. if you google missile defense review report, you can read it. when we came into office, what we inherited was a proposal from the george bush administration to put some interceptors in poland. we wanted to put sophisticated radar in the czech republic.

basically it was justified as an attempt to deter or degrade an iranian attack on european targets. it did provoke the the russians and they saw this as putting a toe in the water leading to a capability that could degrade their strategic retaliatory capability. many times under clinton, george w. bush, and president obama, senior americans have met with the russians, given detailed our point presentations, and of the discussions to demonstrate, i think, that there is no way that these systems could seriously degrade a russian attack. not that we want the russians to attack, but we want them to feel comfortable that there retaliatory capabilities are not threatened. remember that you have 10 interceptors and it works

perfectly, if you attack with 11 misfiles, you will win. it overwhelms the system. you can confuse the system with decoys of various kinds. you can blind of the radar. now i you can use cyber instant communications systems. there are things you can do to try to dissemble the system. you will hear quite a bit about that, i thank, from my colleagues. the administration decided to come after many meetings, consultations, memos, and other activities, and after consulting with many experts in a variety of persuasions, to modified the approach. what was proven by the president was that the european adapted approach, epaa, what it

entailed was a group but interceptors placed in different places, some of which yet to be determined, and some radar that would be interconnected that could defeat what we saw it as a growing misfile threat, particularly from iran, but also against other potential threats against european targets. the poles and czechs had never approved the bush plan. there legislate tors had it, essentially, ratified the agreement, so there was nothing actually concrete that would have made clear that we could have even implemented the bush plan. we chose to diversify the portfolio, so to speak, to look at a number of different ways,

including at sea, and there was something a little bit like this already in northeast asia with the japanese and south korean colleagues against north korean threat. i should add that it was not just a military and technical objective involved in this decision. there were other aspects to other dimensions, other motivations in this decision. one was to essentially deterred the adversary. we did not want to use this. we did not just want to have it there so that when the war started week and use it. we hope never to use it. the plan was to demonstrate credibly to of the military's that they would pay a higher price for launching such an effort and was not likely to achieve their military objectives. deterrence was a key policy

motivation. and at the same time, there was a motivation of the assurance and reassurance of our allies. nato now has 28 members. i remember have a kid it was 12, 16, now 28. i had the privilege to chair the nato high government group, the group that oversees the nato nuclear weapons policies so i have met a number of times in brussels with representatives with every member of nato, except for france. 27 out of the 28, so basically all of them. as you can imagine, with any group of 28, there is a tremendous amount of heterogeneity. if you are on poland on the edge of the russian border with the history they have had in russia, you have one of you, and if you are in spain on the beach, you

have a different view. it is not easy to come to a consensus view on what to do, but overall there was very strong support among the nato members to go forward with what the u.s. had proposed. they thought it was important to reassure the public and other government officials that the u.s. was going to be there, especially during the time when president obama was advocating the nuclear weapons. this has been the cornerstone of the nato alliance of 1949. this is come in in a way, a third angle in defense policy motivating this, a non-nuclear dimension to alliance cohesion that is fully consistent with

the president's approach to reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons without in any way leading to an unraveling of our alliance to nato, the japanese, whenever. although not in the form of a treaty, there has been extensive cooperation with israel. they are growing sophisticated missile defense systems intended to deal with the death threats in their neighborhood. there's a lot of collaboration with israel in terms of technology, radar interface, strategy, intelligence, and so forth. turkey, which was originally not that interested in supporting this project, ultimately now has agreed. romaniabase for some intercepto. there are a lot of into

laterals for allies. where we run into a problem is that none of these issues are totally resolved. it is an ongoing alliance management issue, but i would seek -- i would say it seems manageable. where we have run into a problem is with russians and china. by all accounts the senior analyst of the russian federation have persuaded their leadership of what we are proposing and particularly downed lines -- down the line, this is a decade-long program with new systems coming on board by 2020, and this is a

quite advanced interceptor from what we have. the russians extrapolate the capabilities we think we are going to have, and we have been engaged in missile defense cooperation of tyre and -- cooperation talks, led by lawrence livermore. she has been negotiating for quite some time, since the spring of 2009 until now, and they have not reached an agreement. the russians are very concerned, and if they feel there is not an agreement to share more data and operational capabilities, the russians themselves would

consider withdrawing from the new treaty they just signed with obama last year. we have a lot of work to do with the russians. i should finally add there is another dimension to the motivation. we should not lead us to withdraw the original bush plan, but there is a russian improvements aspect to this strategy. you may know that as early as the spring of 2009 president obama and vice president biden have spoken about the russian reset strategy. when we came in, it was very bad. the russians had invaded georgia. they were very upset about the expansion of nato. they were very upset with the

u.s. withdrawal, and part of the obama approach has been to run improved relations with russia, not just to get along better, but with concrete objectives, because on the nuclear side, the american position is a proliferation of nuclear weapons and their use by terrorists is the top threat, a top security threat to the united states. it is not a threat of a military vehicle exchange in which the russians. it is the fact that nuclear weapons will be acquired by the states. it is the likelihood of a will be used in the southeast asia or middle east or they will be detained by non-government

groups, some of whom have a willingness to die in support of their goals, so the obama objective has been to bring the russians and chinese more closely aligned with our view and we have to stop nuclear threat. we need persuasive arguments and measures we have taken that would be in their interest, so we wanted to do a variety of things they would support, sanctions against iran, and in the chinese case as well there have been issues with more cooperation in the front against courier, -- korea, but improving relations with russia has been the table in how we set june deployed weapons systems -- how

we set to deploy weapons systems, and is not resolved. in china they are making a smaller argument, although there are actual force is not known, and there has been some revelatory articles that they may have 10 times the number of nuclear weapons the community thinks it has, and their strategy is not known. their deployment plans are not known, but the chinese are also saying that bringing russia and china with missile defenses coupled with conventional strike capabilities, long-range missiles with conventional weapons but super accurate that could attack point targets like silos and radars and other hard to get targets, that this poses

a threat to them as well. that is why the nuclear posture review we proposed both strategic stability talks with russia and china to get these issues on the table, have sustained dialogue and discussion with them, present data, and hopefully reach some agreement. you know if you are a student of this thing, going back to the cold war, there were meetings. the first meeting that really mattered was 1972, so it took 12 years. obama talk about stability as of april 2010, so do not expect a result by the end of the seminar. it takes a long time to exchange views, if not to have a treaty,

then to have a common understanding, an agreement of the rules of the road so we are not in an adversarial position. we do not seek to be in an adversarial position with russia or china on any of these issues, but i hope this gives you an overall flavor for what was modified -- motivating the agenda. there has been controversy over the effectiveness of these systems. they can be confused. specified in the missile defense review report is the stipulation that before new capabilities are deployed, they must undergo testing under real estate operations, and this is because a lot of the tests overall were not realistic

conditions. and they were rigged. there has been an effort to end the missile defense agency to establish more realistic conditions. this is contentious. you can look of the parameters and say this is not realistic. the full approach is not expected to be deployed until 2020 common so there is time for many many tests to build a high confidence system. will it be foolproof, no. could it deter adversaries beaumont -- adversaries? possibly.

is it worth doing? yes. it is a thoughtful approach, and that is basically my set of remarks and why we established what we did and where we are headed in policy terms. >> that was a nice setting of the stage. we are going to be moving more to the technical side, but i do not want anyone here thinking they do not understand the politics of the situation. we will go to people skilled in the world of political give-and- take. i really like standing room only. it is terrific, but there is no need for anybody to be standing with at least for terrace here. gartner region in four -- with

at least four chairs here. i would like to invite president wayne. our next speaker is dean. i have already introduced scene, so we will move right over to him. >> thank you. thanks to the institute for hosting us and for the audience for your forbearance. take that weren'ill apology. i am going to give you a flavor of the day's adaptability approach, and let me begin by

jumping off where michael ended his comet spirited -- his comments. in my view missile defense is becoming technically feasible. we are at the early stages of building systems that are beginning to work. there are still some challenges. it is not a perfect system, but this is good technology. this is not star wars. this is very concrete technology. these interceptors were byron physically colliding with their target. that was developed out of the program. there was an experiment in 1984 fed was part of the street it -- the strategic defense initiative, where it was first

demonstrated you could physically collide with a target in outer space, and that experiment has basically spawned the entire missile defense assets we have today. i am going to focus on europe. the approach really focuses on any nation, but most of this focuses on europe, so i am going to focus on that as well. one usually starts with some sort of threat. now in europe, we focus on iran. they are doing some interesting experiments on stolen propellants.

they have a 1,300 kilometer missile, the technology probably received from north korean, and they have recently tested a sullen repellent missile with a range from 2000 or 2500. some are suggesting we may seem a range of about 3,000 kilometers in the near future. today the missile threat from iran is quite localize. israel is very concerned about it because they are in range. turkey could be concerned, but turkey is a friend of iran, which is one reason they resisted nato attempts to join the missile defense effort until very recently, and they agreed to employ a radar.

in the next several years, the missile ranges are starting to encroach on southeastern europe or southern russia or other regions. the saudis are concerned about iranian missile capabilities. in about a decade or so, iran could have the capability to launch missiles but cover the entire european continent. the bush administration was mostly concerned about intercontinental ballistic missile that hit from north korea or iran. in my view they got it backwards. it is these medium range missiles. beforeong will it take iran gets them? who knows.

on the order of a decade, maybe two. this is the threat of. without a nuclear warhead, they do not pose much of a threat. they could be a political threat. in my view without some form of mass destruction, i would not be spending billions of dollars to defeat them, but iran does have a suspect nuclear roughens -- nuclear weapons program. they can build a nuclear device to sit on top of ballistic missile, and they could potentially threaten europe. michael talked about an emphasis on near-term threat to medium-

range missiles, a larger rate sizes. they use this emphasis on proven technologist nikko's the defense system is fairly mature, but the language has changed a little bit. the standard and naval systems is quite matured. the ground system is the least reliable. this has been failing for a host of reasons. it is also more expensive. these ones are down in the 6 million, tend to 15 million, so this architecture, though on

these more mature assets, is going to be more expensive. most people talk about the infrastructure. the most important technology behind missile defense is the center architecture and the cabana control. there is a forward-based radar curio -- radar. both of these are quite mature. there are also optical systems that are maturing quite rapidly, and not only these types of sensors, but they are

going to be connected together so the data from anyone sensor can be shared with in the interceptor, and that is extremely important. they are based on different versions of the standard missile 3. the block one b interceptor is undergoing flight paths and right now. that is the base michael munson was negotiated. phase farina is an interceptor jointly developed between the united states and japan who -- phase 3 is an interceptor

jointly developed between the united states and japan. that is supposed to be deployed in poland, and finally, 2b on ships and land around europe in 2020. funding for the snizzle was in the 2012 -- was cut recently in the 2012 budget because congress feared there were too many developments under way. an extremely important aspect, multiple radars, if one gets into the discussion of cooperation there is possibility of russian radars. infrared tracking and a command control system.

here is the evolution of a , a verticalsile launch tubes and cruisers. this is the top of the cruiser. here is some cooling equipment and other things. it is a very powerful high- frequency radar. there is one located in israel today.

this is the space we can see against the cross section. this shows how large it is. thises and a fairly small cross section, but it is representative of what might be coming off the end of a ballistic missile. this is not the exact location, but the phase one deployment was this ship, which moved down here. it could be moved to protect israel. there is still some debate, so the question this is -- the

question is operating ships is very expensive so they are talking about moving it to land to cut costs. this is probably not the best radar during road -- the best radar. to some extent the jury is still out. this is the drone being used in afghanistan. . the idea is to use this to track ballistic missiles. that configuration is not

exactly what you want, but it is the beginning, and in fact, if you design a better in for red system -- a better infrared system and i just showed you, this shows space looking down where you can see. it depends on the objects you are looking at, the heat coming off of death, so for warmer objects -- coming off, so for warmer objects, this is room temperature. for colder objects, that is -50 degrees or minus 30 degrees centigrade. the tracking is not quite as

good. you get substantial coverage. why is that important? here is a missile heading towards europe, and the trajectory flies through the fairly reliably, but the problem is the target over flies this. if i overlay and puts it off the coast, i get three-dimensional coverage over europe, and it is this sensor that starts providing tracking information. let me talk about the defended

area, and this is one way to look of whether the system is effective or not. can you defend an area as large as europe with this? i want to introduce three concepts that are important but rarely talked about in the newspaper. there are several modes of operation for missile defense. one is standalone and where the radar associated with the interceptor carries out all of the tracking, guidance, and consummates the engagement by itself. launched on remote -- i am going

to show you some maps of how wide an area, and i have a couple different speeds for these missiles. here is stand-alone operations. here is the missile trajectories. it starts detecting the object, on track said, and has to carry out these intercept 04 of the object falls too deep in the atmosphere to work properly when

i operate it is a very small defended area the tends to be behind the interceptor inside. this is standard. it is also fairly ineffective. it tracks this object. i send that information to the interceptor i consummate the engagement within the field of view of this radar. this has to tell approximately how close they are getting. this has been tested in the

field, and they have success so far. the standard area is growing, but it is not that large. the one they are heading for is called engaged on remote. good our launch might interceptor, and i consummates the engagement, and a second sensor tracks the missile, and the only sane a greater dose, is it is a communication.

this is called engaged on remote to. you essentially remove the radar and with the interceptor site. phase one, this is the kind of threat. did you could provide some localized defense in the eastern mediterranean. you would need two or three ships, but about is what the

picture looks like today. phase two is largely the same picture. maybe you will have a couple of ships here, and three years from now, the range may expand to 2,000 kilometers or something like that, so fairly localized with two or three or maybe four sites. good things get interesting.

it is supposed to be employed on land all of these are based on public domain information. what i have done is shown of family of curves and representing the kind of coverage you would get from europe. maybe this would extend through europe. good who knows, but i have shown the maximum range for england. you have to have these airborne sensors. now you get huge defended areas. you can practically defend all

of europe. i have shown these infrared platforms, and a family of curves. maybe it will remain slow. maybe they will put a faster one, but if i put these together, let's assume the speed is 4 kilometers a second. i have two lan-based sites alone. i can cover the entire continent in europe. i did not point this out, this radar in turkey they only agreed to put our radar in. no interceptors, and

unfortunately it is outside of the radar for most of the assets. this asset is an extremely important radar location that needs to be defended. if i put a whole battery there instead of the whole radar, this is the kind of area you would start to get. if i do not have engaged on remote, this is what it looks like. if we do not get engaged on remote, a broad area is virtually impossible, so the

highlights the importance of that particular aspect. i was talking about the issue of russia, and i want to touch on all little bit wind and the concerned, but phase 4 is designed to help the united states. here i put interceptors in poland. i assume a standard missiles of different speeds, and this shows the footprint going against an iranian icbm, slicing through the united states. if the interceptor speed is four and a half kilometers per second, this is the defended

area right here. you cannot protect the united states. if i increase it to 5 kilometers a second, i can do a good job of defending the eastern part, but the west part is out of the footprint. 5 kilometers a second, a forward-base side could helen the fund the east coast, so that would work. if you want to cover the entire continental united states from poland, your interceptor's be has to be around five and a half kilometers per second. why are the russians concerned. you the foot shows print, the defended area for

those launched from all of the non launch locations in russia, a 5 kilometer a second interceptor, which is higher for any of thus interceptors' currently being talked about, so if i put that and it has a speed of 5 kilometers per second in poland, which has been the source of most of rush of cost concerns, you cannot protect the united states. you might be able to catch them going to maine, but the rest of the united states, alaska and hawaii, you can not intercept. thehreaten russia's icbms speed has to be above 5 kilometers per second, closer to 6, so just to summarize, and the

kind of observations i would like to draw, engaged on remote is essential. the system to tie those assets together is key to the system. if you do not have it the system does not work. is where things get interesting. turkey is outside the defended area, so that is a follow-up discussion, how about accepting a few interceptors. you really have to be above 5 kilometers per second for an

attack from a european launch system. if you do get above that you can do a nice job defending the united states, but then you start potentially posing a threat to russia of. you cannot defend the united states from europe without potentially encroaching upon russian capability, though in my mind to do not encroach mary much. russian concerns are more political in nature than military technical. center issues are key. you need more than just one or two radars. multiple radars, and of rapid control system, and i think that is about it.

that is the kind of capability this thing could have, and there are several key pillars. >> that was very helpful. you have given every benefit of the doubt, they did does not threaten the russians very much until phase four, so the russian objections are much more political than technical. that is what i warned you about. would you like to take it from there? >> i have no more to say. where do i begin?

>> i am concerned about where you end. >> i have not been doing any of the talking so far. let me start by telling you about a way to protect you. i am going to put new airport's security in place to protect you from terrorist attacks on an airplane. however, i am not going to let anybody x-ray your luggage or anyone else's luggage. i am not going to let anyone looking into the luggage. i am not going to let dodson is the luggage. -- let dogs sniff your luggage. i am simply going to let people look at your luggage and the

side on whatever criteria they think matters whether or not it has a gun in it. this is the level of discrimination capability these missile defenses have today. in fact, you do not even have to have a suitcase, because a suitcase would weigh something, because you put a decoy in the near vacuum of space, this thing could tumble along into a distant radar operating at thousands of kilometers or two and infrared sensor. it would be an object of does or does not carry a nuclear weapon. when i start talking about countermeasures, keep in mind that hitting the target is not

an easy task. the hard task is finding the object that has been thrown at you, and if you think the tories are difficult to build -- if using decoys sound like a difficult idea, let me go into some scenarios. imagine you have an adversary that has the technical capability to build a long-range ballistic missile. they have the ability to build a nuclear when an -- nuclear weapon and the reentry vehicle with a fuse that would detonate but they cannot figure out how to inflate a balloon and deploy it along with it. if you believe there is such an adversary, i have some bridges to sell you.

i was a little surprised might have worked on this, because this is near and dear to my heart. i do not see any evidence of ballistic missile defense review had any technical input of any kind. i think the document is amazing. good i wrote a rather elaborate article on it. i cannot remember anything normally, but this one i have but to remember. the u.s. is currently defended by the missile defense system deployed by the air force base and will be repeatedly defended

for the foreseeable future. this is clearly stated in the ballistic missile defense review. the last test failure was an experiment sometimes called the stg-06 followed by a replication, the ftg-06a. those experiments were set up to make it easier to intercept a warhead. they inadvertently spewed out material that caused radar to fail because the material active like radar chaff, which we no

defeats this system. there is no article about it in a technically sound community. breakthroughs that allow for a tune have a chance of working -- the new breakthrough but allowed it to work, let me be clear. there are no new technologies, none. there are no propulsion technologies, and new sensor technologies, new material ballistic missile defense technologies that gives a greater capability. but i will have something more

to save. this is a proven missile defense, yet it has never been tested against a tumbling target. 1991 where it was originally 96% signed not successful, and it showed it was 0% since the fall -- successful, and it would 20, which should tell you something about this community and its ability to tell the truth. they were tumbling target at high altitude.

the missile had design features that caused it to tumble at high altitudes and be a brin -- and be a very irregularly on reentry. we have actually studied its. if the target is cut into pieces, you can just as well cut a single stage missile into many pieces. the radar in that sense is totally incapable of telling which pieces, so basically, the countermeasure problems both on

the ground bass missile defense and the adaptive approach face are the same. they are different. and one has smaller interceptors. one has bigger interceptors, but they are both basically useless if they face countermeasures of the kind already described. but me tell you this is something i have been talking about for more than a decade. the new stuff has been for the last few years. the department of defense just published a report. the report was out for by ash carter when he was assistant secretary. now he is deputy secretary, so he asked for this report, and let me tell you what i think happened.

i think the defense science borard inadvertently hired some people who actually did a study, because the people who signed these documents had nothing to do with what the study is, and that whenso carelessl the unclassified version of the document was put out, they inadvertently spilled the beans, so let me tell you about this document now the deputy asked for.o i wrote to them just a month ago. we have not received a reply,

but there is going to be a newspaper article. the defense science board report stated the following. none of the radar are up to the job of actually supporting the systems workability. they are all too short range. i will show you a chart that will show you the radar cross section of a rather typical cone-shaped warhead is at least 10 times smaller than what scene showed was the case -- what dean showed was the case. if that is smaller about means the range of the radar is not

only the game but the radar reflectivity is what determines the radar, so a small cross section, and you can typically expect an unsophisticated and warhead to be 100 of a square meter, then all of these have shorter-range, and i would like to point out is not hard to make radar cross-section thousands of square meters. this is one of the grave problems they have. you could easily make a warhead stealthy. this department of defense report to the deputy secretary asked for also made an amazing statement. it said something i have been saying for more than 10 years,

so what i have been saying for more than 10 years is if you had your suitcases and you are just inspecting them with your eyes, you cannot tell whether or not there is a bomb in the arm by just inspecting them with your eyes. you have to look around, but you are not going to be able to identify in which suitcase is a bomb simply by looking at it. there is a lot of technical detail behind this statement, which is correct in terms of the analogy i am giving. the department of defense has not demonstrated the ability to detect warheads. this is the report defense

secretary parker of four years ago. it also says the capability the missile defense organization has been talking about for a long- time has not been demonstrated. let me demonstrate. i have an object. i want to destroy it. if i do not have time to see if i destroyed it, i would shoot two interceptors simultaneously. if i have this problem, are greatly underestimate my defense. there has been a lot of talk about not shoot, look, shoot. you have time to shoot a separate interceptor if this

fails, but this report states shoot, look, shoot is not possible because the department has not demonstrated if they hit a target they will know if they destroyed a warhead or if they will be able to tell it from another target. if you have lots of debris coming at you, and you cannot thailand whether it broke apart or something else that is traveling with -- if you cannot tell whether it broke apart or something that is traveling with it, you cannot use shoot look shoot. it makes it clear the department of defense has not demonstrated this capability. this report also releases some

interesting intelligence. the intelligence shows that adversaries are already testing missiles the release objects that could be the cores within tens of seconds of and. if you could build a rocket and you could a warhead, you should be able to deploy of -- deployed of balloon. and this should be no surprise, so this is currently what we are facing. let me make a general statement. here is the argument. we are going to make it so hard to use illicit missiles we are going to deter them from using

it. that could be true. i am not opposed to the use of military force in all situations. i have worked with the military, and i have great admiration for what they do and how they do it, but you can only determine an adversary if you have a credible y to do what you claim. if you do not, you may actually encourage the adversary to build ballistic missiles and the core is, and if you want to improve relationships with allies, you will have angry allies if you claim you are defending them and they wind up with a nuclear warhead shoved down their throats because they

have been told they can deal with it, so these are some general statements i was not intending to make. you can stop me at any point. i think it is getting too violent. i do not bite. i just kick common -- i just kick. i want to make a few points, but i will cut it short because i have taken time on this other matter. how does the voice system differ from the phase adaptive approach? the phase adaptive approach substitutes a large number of smaller and slower interceptors for a very small number of very large interceptors. these are on mobile platforms.

it is not clear you need an interceptor to defend the united states from this system. a 4.5 kilometer interceptor is better. i have talked with numerous people in the department of defense, the white house, congress. nobody has ever suggested this. you cannot determine whether it is for cord 5 kilometers per second, because the nation who

-- the nature is designed mostly for safety. let me ask a question. is the correct strategy based on sound fundamentals? i would argue no, not in terms of logical reasoning somebody trying to be a strategist would argue, because strategy ultimately have to beimplementet implement a strategy, if you do not have the means to implement a strategy, then having a strategy that is not based on realistic means to implement is simply crazy, especially when it

is a military strategy. technically, the problems are very severe because you have no ability to tell the decoys from the warheads, and decoys would be extremely effective in reducing the capabilities of the system. let me give you a couple of quotes from this report that the deputy secretary asked for. the successful operations of these defense systems is predicated on an ability to discriminate in the xl atmosphere. the missile warheads -- discriminate the missile warheads from other pieces such as rocket bodies, miscellaneous hardware. the importance of achieving reliable midcourse

discrimination cannot be overemphasized. that is the report statement. it goes on to say that the department of defense has not demonstrated this. they have made a statement about what system requires this. we sit down. we designed the system. we say it has to do this well to meet our objective. we look at the technological possibilities, and if we are being honest, we say well, this system cannot meet these military objectives, and we throw it out and start over and look for something else, or spend our resources on a military enterprise that makes more sense. just talking totally military, not getting into the question of whether or not the resources should be spent on other issues. that is a big question, and it deserves discussion. so, why are the russians worried about phase three of this

system? phase three is important. it is not a squatter they are worried about, they are worried about face -- it is not fazed four they are worried about -- phase 4 they are worried about, it is phase 3. you would have to be deaf, dumb, and line to not realize that this is so political it is hard to believe. i think the people in the white house are so worried about republicans calling them towers that that is their concern. let me tell you, -- cowards, that that is their concern. that is where the fear is. there are people in the white house to understand exactly the technical facts i am describing here. if the system has no

capability, why are the russians worried? let me just step back and tell you why phase three is important. phase three is supposed to come somewhere between 2018-2020. it turned up there so far behind in building the kill vehicle -- it turns out they are so far behind in building the kill vehicle that it will probably be 2020. in 2020, the new start comes to an end, and the united states begins a new arms reduction negotiations with russia. the russians have said, we regard this system as threatening, and we're going to withdraw from all future arms reductions with the united states after new start and, or we might even withdraw from noon -- new start at some point

because of this. some of the people i am working with, a big pentagon insiders, are worried about this, and they should be. i think the russians are very serious about this. why are they worried about this? i just told you. it is worthless. it is just your money, but you know, after all, a lawsuit to care that as well and it -- wall street took care of that as well and the people in the white house are protecting you from why street just as well as their protecting you from foreign missiles. i used to be sick over missiles, and then i saw how they handled wall street. i thought, if they cannot even handle this threat to our country, how can they handle missile defense? by the way, i used to tell people that i worked in an area that was distinguished by its

intellectual poverty, but now that i know something about economics, i no longer say that. ok, so let me give you the best and worst of both worlds. first of all, the other guy build a missile defense and unleashes a very powerful bureaucratic forces. so if i am in china, russia, or the united states, when we build all these multiple warheads that got us into so much trouble, i point at the other guys miss all the fence and say hey, we need more missiles. -- missile defense and say hey, we need more missiles. and if you do not give me more, i will find a way to make my case to your political adversaries and point out that you are not doing what you need to do to defend this country. anybody who looks at the obama administration and the way it behaves when faced with threats should have no trouble

understanding that this can occur in other environments. this is not a unique vulnerability of democratic societies. many people think that mr. putin is going to harden up even more because he wants to show his electorate in russia that he is in charge and he is going to build on fears that people have. i would be glad to tell you unfounded fears, but we are dealing with a social, technical, political phenomenon here. it is not purely technical. it is not purely social. it is not purely political. it is very difficult for political leaders to resist these forces. that occurs in all societies and a matter what the political system is like. -- no matter what the political system is like. so, what does the adversary's

leadership really think? that is the question you are going to ask if you are the military planner on the other side. so, when i see -- i worked in the pentagon. i'm highly sensitized to who says what. when i see general james kirk right in front of the senate saying that -- cartwright in front of the senate saying that -- he was actually asked by a member of the committee, if there was a crisis between the united states and north korea, what advice would he give the president of the united states in regard to grounding his missile defense system? and he said, i would tell the president that he could have complete confidence in the system. you could see the eyebrows raised in the senate among senators.

now, this guy is the second most senior member of our military. i worked on nuclear war plans. and i really worked on them. i was at the ground zero level. i had a lot of access when i was at the pentagon. so i know what goes on in these plans. it should make your hair stand on end. what the statements of a military leader of that level does is it potentially creates the possibility of a misunderstanding. when i was in the pentagon, i looked at the moscow abm system. a worthless system. a worthless system. i could go into -- i give a lecture on the moscow abm system

in one of my courses. i looked at that system and said, why are they doing this? what do they believe? what might they do in a crisis or a confrontation that could inadvertently get this into a nuclear war because they believe something about the system that is not true? from the point of view of the military planner, the fact that the system does not have capability does not stop them from speculating about the potential for accidents that could lead to nuclear war. let me just and here because i can see that harold is getting out the club and i am sure that my colleagues here will have their own clubs to use against me. thank you. >> thank you very much. we're going to thank all three speakers, of course. i had promised and i will keep that promise that we will take some time just to let the three speakers clarify what the other

speaker may have said or may not have said. i think we will keep the same order we had. michael, would you like to just comment on what he has said? >> yes, i will be very brief because we want comments from the floor. i will just say a couple of things. first of all, dean has been an adviser to the defense department on these issues. recently and currently. so he is very knowledgeable about these strengths and limitations of these systems. let me just comment on two points. one was any technical input. i think he said there was no

technical input. these are some of the technical groups that porter the details of our systems. and remember, we're talking about systems that are in the process of evolving over a decade, and there is always lots of uncertainty here. we are going to find out about our own systems, and we might find out about the threat. technical groups represented included -- you have to make your own judgment about their veracity -- the navy, the air force, the office of science, technology and policy, the white house, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, several of the national laboratories and others. there were reviews or at least

interactions with technical experts in britain, france, and other countries in the nato alliance, and other allies. these concepts and plans were briefed to the most senior russians, who had many technical experts present. so, the notion that the ballistics missile review reports -- >> the fact you're appealing to different organizations -- i have been in the pentagon. i have watched the show raids. you go and talk to a bunch of different people. you select what you want to say and you say it. are you willing to say, for example, the current missile

defense system is defending the united states right now? do you believe that? >> that is a different point. >> with the mean? -- what do you mean? >> we cannot get into an exchange. i am responding to a couple of the points that you made. i am responding in the way i would like to respond, not the way you would like me to respond. >> fine. >> so that is the first point. it is factually incorrect. second point, was the motivation of the administration solely to appease republicans? nothing could be further from the truth. when the report was released, it was announced by senior republican senators intimately familiar with missile defense, members of the armed services committee, as a sellout to the

russians, that we were appeasing the russians by withdrawing from poland. that also was not true. we were developing systems and plans as i described which would, over 10 years, making it increasingly difficult for potential adversaries to use ballistic missiles against targets in europe in any sort of cost recalculation -- free calculation. it would be increasingly difficult for them. this is kindergarten level understanding. we have done more work than is publicly available. we did a lot of work on how to defeat it. do we have all the answers? no. will we have the mall in 2020? i do not know. probably not.

will we increase the dow the potential adversaries could be content -- doubt that the potential adversaries could be effective in their attacks? i think yes. do we have the credibility to use these systems? 100%. do we have the intent to use them? >> 100%. if deterrence is about capability, we will have substantially more capability tomorrow than we have today and we will have 100% intend to use it. i can assure you that the iranian government is fully aware of this, and the north korean government is fully aware of this. just very briefly on the

national missile defense, i did not talk about that in my talk. others raised it briefly. on the table, we have two systems, modest systems, one in alaska, one at the air force base, that coupled with other raiders around the world, intended to defend not only the united states, not against a full-scale attack from russia but limited attacks from other ad series. this is a policy that the u.s. has -- other adversaries. this is a policy that the u.s. has sustained. obama has chosen not to augment the capability. that also has been attacked by republican senators. we have a system in place, just to demonstrate a willingness to defend the united states against

limited attacks, and intended to make it more difficult for them to attack regional targets. final point, there are three layers of the tackle the layer defense. -- three layers of attacks called the layer defense. different elements of the defense are focused on each phase of the trajectory of the attack. there is terminal intercept. as these technologies mature and as the networks and the sensor networks mature, we have expectations that the ability to degrade the attacking missile

in boost phase, recourse or terminal phase, will grow. so the likelihood of penetration will be reduced. policy is about prediction. you are establishing policy because you expect if you do it is most likely that the following will result. sometimes you're right. sometimes you are wrong. but i think it is not helpful or constructive, the wood is often done, to impugn the motives purely -- though it is often done, to impugn the motives. dr. carter, who was undersecretary of defense at the time of the missile defense report and is now deputy secretary is in noted technology and policy expert, erodes scholar -- a rhodes scholar, a

longtime harvard faculty member. hopefully will now be one of the key figures in the defense department as deputy secretary to oversee and evaluate the missile defense program. i think we have the best capability we could have looking at the s -- this. it is a free and fair society, and we're delighted to get criticisms when they're on a particular point. by the way, members of the congress and the congressional committee staffs have some technical experts and they have looked at these systems too. it is a work in progress, but i personally believe that the motivations are sound and that

the capability that has been put into it is quite high. we're continuing to work on it and it is a valuable investment of about $8 billion a year. >> thank you. again, we will keep the same order. feel free to comment. >> very briefly, the thing i like about ted's analysis is he raises one of the most challenging issues for missile defense. can you tell decoys and the rest from real warheads? that is the achilles' heel, a very challenging problem. in my view, well the problem has not been solved and we cannot do it perfectly, we can do a reasonable job. >> they did not say that. they said we do not have the capability. >> let me finish.

>> you spoke for 25 minutes. let them speak and then you can say what you want. >> i am going to correct some of the facts. >> but not in the middle. your diatribe is not necessarily fax. >> anytime you want to talk technically with me, please feel free to do so. >> i think dean was talking. >> let me try to get out some of these points. the countermeasure debate is a tough one. i have wrestled with various ways to explain it. in my view, countermeasure decoys are not easy to build, credible ones, ones that can fool radar and infrared sensors that we have today. but it is true that if i can

find a certain missile defense architecture, i can always come up with a countermeasure to defeat it. i can also, once given a countermeasure, i can design a system to defeat the countermeasure. both statements are true. missile defense systems do not work perfectly. there are lots of different countermeasures. some of them are easy, almost trivial to defeat. some are very tough to defeat. there is a probabilistic calculation, but it is a difficult problem. tumbling targets, missile defense agency is very aware of tumbling targets. i do not believe that is a showstopper. ted mentioned that if you cut the missile into pieces, the

radar and infrared sensors cannot tell the difference between those trunks -- chunks. that is absolutely, technically not true. you cannot do it easily, but you can tell the difference between the two. there is a very good report i recommend if you like to get into technical details. the report says -- >> radars do not have adequate range. is that what it says? >> it does not say that either. if you increase the radar by a factor of 3 than in the most stressing case the radar is adequate.

the defense science board report nowhere says that you cannot discriminate decoys from warheads. that statement is never found in any of these pages. the one place it says that the department of defense has not demonstrated that you can do kill assessments. once the kill vehicle hit something up there and gets the splatter, with chunks of stuff coming out of it, then you will know that the nuclear warhead has been destroyed. that is a challenge as well, very different from the decoy discrimination problem. they do not say that the discrimination problem is impossible or cannot work. nor does it say that at the series are testing decoys that could be the defense. there is a wonderful chart that

shows some foreign release times -- foreign decoys. that is british, french, russian, chinese, and anybody else. it does not say north korean. it does not say iranian. so one of the open questions is, the adversaries for the system are iran, not russia, not china. maybe france, i do not know. [laughter] but there is no information on the open demesne about what iran and north korea can do. -- open domain about what iran and north korea can do. their ability to defeat the system is problematic at best. i have a paper coming out in survival, which is be journal for the international institute of strategic studies.

phase three does not threaten russia whatsoever. from europe, no threat whatsoever. if you put ships off the coast of the united states, it could do something, but that is not what the russians complain about, yet. >> that is not true. we wrote a paper. we published it under the federation of american scientists. we looked extensively at the potential that the united states could draw these ships back off the coast and defend the country, at least in principle. i want to be clear that in practice i do not think the system is going to work at all. it is just another way to pump money out of your pockets into the defense industry. but the interceptors on ships could easily defend the united states in theory. to argue that an adversary has the capability but will not use

it because they will not choose to, the faith adaptive approach is supposed to be adaptive by putting it on ships so that we can move it all over the place. that is in the ballistic missile defense review. why we would not, in a crisis, choose to do that, would depend on the crisis. it is certainly a possibility, at least in principle. to argue that i am only going to look at this particular military threat but not the other, both of which are in the reach of the technical capacity of the system is simply to mislead the public. you would have to pull this threat back and use it off the coast of the united states. to tell them you do not believe this would be the case is what i recall the comprehensive argument. if you tell them it can only be done from europe, then you are

misleading them. [inaudible] well, that is just -- i am just saying what -- all right. the system currently defending the u.s., according to the story you are defending, iraq has weapons of mass destruction so we need to go to war against them. that was discredited all over the place. so we're supposed to believe that because the air force, navy and contractors who get paid to tell the department of defense what it wants to hear and get used by the department of defense to make misleading statements to the public, this is ok. this is what you should accept as authority. what you should do is go and look at the analysis that is published. a right?

the warhead -- a 3 meter long war had that i can show you the data for if we take the trouble to bore you with it -- we do not need to, has a radar cross- section below 100th of a square meter. i have the data. i have published it. i know dean has seen it. i do notsquare meters. that diminishes the rain substantially. it means the radar will not be able to acquire the target long range. it also means of there is any chance of discriminating, you will not what -- you will not have what is called a signal noise to do it. if i can only dimly see an object because it is at the threshold of what i can see, even if i have resolution to see it i still may not be able to

identify it relative to other objects that look similar. only if it is an bright light where i can see the details i might be able to identify one object relative to another. incidently, i have to know what i am looking for. when somebody says we are going to solve the problem, i have a question. if somebody puts a warhead into a balloon and they threw out another much of balloons and -- a bunch of balloons with it. some are painted different colors and some are different sizes. how're you going to tell it apart? that is a technical question. >> i want to thank you all. it has not been an easy topic to discuss. i am pleased to tell you it is all going to become clear with a single clear -- with a single question from the professor of

physics -- hang on for just a few seconds and roger will come in. >> i am not sure that will be true. i can stipulate that this is a complex problem. when i think about it, i think we need to think about it for a long term. where are we going to be for 10 or 20 years? people have address two of the dimensions here. can we increase global security by pursue a missile defense? i would hope conversations among the the nation's we are having conversations with him well and form that question about whether that increase global security. i would hope r&d on systems like this would inform that part of

the dimension. we saw that in the chemical laser area, for example. i think the program has been stopped or slowed. r&d is an answer to the technical. the third dimension, which is the what you have not talked about and maybe we can focus a little more on that, it is about prioritization. we are looking at cuts in dod budgets. there are lots of things we can do for security. cost comes into this. how do you think about prioritizing the sources other things we could do? maybe we could get an answer on that. >> it is hard. every constituency is claiming that their area has to be the top priority.

it has to be an area that this sacrosanct from cuts. i think at the moment, iran and north korea are the principal nation state threats to the united states, to u.s. security, to our allied security as nuclear weapon states and as missile producers. we have to do everything we cam military -- militarily and politically to meet the threats. if there are other means of restraint, i think we are all for that. but you have to have substantial military assets put against the threats. that is what we are doing.

i do not think the missile defense against north korea or iran the would be cut. there is a phasing issue. funding has been cut for down the road. this is a priority area. >> did you want to address roger's third dimension? what's the was there was an answer to that question. -- >> i wish there was an answer to that question. how do you allocate resources from competing demands? i know of no good rational clear way to do it. in my mind the liability of missile defense, the issue is not so much the technical issues. it is the opportunity costs.

i spent $10 million a year on missile defense. would that be better spent on augmenting special forces, the navy for operations in the pacific? what about land and air force? what about cyber? that is all dod stuff. what if our economy goes down the tank. all the guns in the world will not sure our country up. i wish i knew the way to make the allocations, but i do not. the way the decision gets made on the hill and the pentagon, they hold a finger up. there are competing interests. a decision gets made. >> would you like to address roger pose a question? >> i would think if the country needs the missile defense, it has to do it in a realistic way.

we all know how the system functions. anybody who has been in the pentagon knows you can get any answer you want there. as far as the question of discrimination is concerned, i think there is a simple way to think of it from the point of view of a physicist, which i would argue is the easiest way to characterize a problem. then you are engineering details that are important. you have to ask for their physical observable associated with different objects i can exploit that will allow me to tell the difference between warheads and decoys? can the ad asserted develop this dreaded g to deny the variables -- the physical observer bowls. yes, you could look at a balloon and if it is in the summit might be different than not. if it has of thing in the, it

might be cooler or hotter depending on the thermal exchange with the object inside. is it plausible that an adverse sized -- and adversary cannot just put a warhead in a balloon and the other hollands out there and he them or not. can you conceive of variables that you could measure with practical precision that would tell you which of these objects contain a warhead? i submit the answer is no. i worked on this for great detail. i worked on the trident 2. he did a very detailed study projecting 50 years into the future looking at the measurable quantities. if somebody wants to talk detail with me, i am all ears. until i hear detail other than hand waving and "maybe it will

work or maybe it will not," that is not the way to plan national security for another country. there is a technical potential for building a defense. mike said it is not possible. i do not know how he knows that because i have been studying it in great detail. >> i did not say it. parts cut is what i understood you to sit here parts i said there are three phases. >> i apologize for misquoting you. >> there is extensive work going on at all three phases. >> there is doubt. that is one of the things i have been trying to do, incidentally with bill perry, in other hippie. there are things you can do. there are things you can do to try to build a defense of some capability.

i would be happy to talk with the privately. i have done a lot of work on this. we are talking to the russians about this. we are trying to talk to the administration, but they always seem to be too busy. >> they may not know what they are doing, but i know what i am doing. i think they are entitled at least, the ones who can get their hands up quickly, to ask a question. you have to give your affiliation and tell me who you are addressing your question. >> i am from the international studies. i would address it to all three. how do you build a political constituency to reverse direction assuming you we decided as a result of this discussion to reverse direction.

how do you do that in the context where the inertia of what you are doing may be creating tension with the parties to have identified as adversaries? >> thank you. i will leave it to whichever of you raises her hand to address that. >> by reversing direction, you mean like stopping the missile defense program? >> especially if national defense. >> we would have to mobilize support. you would have to have experts that can make a technical case that can ultimately lead to political support on capitol hill. that is ultimately how you do it. the vietnam war was stopped because congress stopped funding it. if congress finds a, it is door

to continue. -- and congress funds it, it is going to continue. >> in 2008 we had a financial collapse that threaten to bring down not only our economy but the rest of the world along with it. the reasons for it were really well understood by anybody who actually sat down and looked at the system of all the people who had responsibilities claim they did not see it coming. right now the banks that were too big to fail before even bigger. credit default swap still being traded. while the gambling is still going on. glass stiegel has not been put back in place. we are going to have another collapse. getting to missile defense. if such a threat to the country as the whole economy is not being addressed by the political

leadership, why do you think it will address missile defense? >> i would agree with what michael said. developing a constituency, there are vested interests of course. congress ultimately funds all of this. you have to get to capitol hill. >> it is the way it works. it is like making sausages. any other questions? >> i am the executive director of the western states legal center, it is a 30-year-old advocacy group. i have two questions and a comment. none of you mention any radar or potential radars that may be stationed in norway or scandinavia. you have any information? if anybody wants to comment on

what they thing is the significance that the secretary general of nato has recently announced it is likely he will cancel the joint planned nato russia summit on the margins of the nato summit in chicago because of the distance on a missile defense. the comment is -- this is not a sarcastic question -- why on earth would iran the launch a nuclear weapon if it had won at europe knowing that it would be a completely suicidal mission? second of all, i think it is wrong to call it midship -- nisan -- missile defense. under george bush, it linked offenses and defenses, that new strategic triad was not called by the same name in the obama

administration. all the pieces are still there it is operating the same way. >> thank you very much. you address it to all three which does not make my job any easier. do i have any volunteers? >> let me pick up on the last. you made. it is true the likelihood of iran ever launching a missile is very low. in my mind the problem is there is tremendous coerce of leverage iran it can gain by threatening to do that. they can split coalitions, they can persuade countries from joining coalitions. they may dissuade the u.s. from entering the region if there is -- let's -- let's take the strait of hormuz for example. they could threaten a nuclear attack against a u.s. ally or the homeland.

that threat is a potent threat. in my mind, missile defense give zero a shield that you can rattle to neutralize the saber rattling of the offensive threat. it is -- missile defense serves a strategic purpose without anything ever being launched. that in my mind is a significant virtue. the chance that any state or attack the united states of a nuclear weapon is pretty small. >> there is an important ascension in dean's statement that is in dispute here, which is the defense has been stupid enough to believe it does. that is an issue you need to decide about for yourself.

i personally believe -- this will sound a brutal to you -- the way to make the united states safest from this kind of attack and its allies is to make it very clear that any country that a texas in this way will look like a glass parking lot when we are finished with them. -- any country that attacks us will look like a glass parking lot when we are finished. we will not be ambiguous and our reaction at all. the last thing i want to do is give somebody the idea that they might execute a nuclear attack on the united states or its friends and allies and get away without a response. on the radar in norway, i could talk to you about it offline. i was disinvited after i showed this radar was an intelligence gathering regard.

>> there are no missile defense radars currently planned for norway. >> i will respond briefly. as i mentioned, the talks on missile defense cooperation have not gone through. it led the president of russia to make a very tough statement. i think until we get them back on track, it would not be discussed at the nato summit. there is a presidential election in russia. there are a lot of political issues that affect everything they say on all issues. on the third point, i agree completely with dean's point. if you extrapolate a little further, what is the.

if any of these weapons -- these countries have weapons? you see why would they do it? if we do not care -- if we think it is fruitless for them to consider using these weapons, politically or militarily, we should be agnostic or indifferent to their acquisition. " that is completely twisting -- >> i just think if you are in a position of real responsibility in government, you have to make decisions that you are not carping from the outside. you have a part of the weight on your shoulders of the nation's security on your shoulders. you're going to be more cautious than the more cavalier about such sectors, especially from a regime such as the regime

in tehran. >> speaking of a person from the inside, -- >> how many years ago was that? how many decades ago were you in the pentagon? >> 20 years ago. the you have a technical point to make or are you going to appeal to authority again? >> and gentlemen, there is no time. >> i think it is astonishing you were trained as an engineer and you have nothing technical to say. nothing at all. that is an interesting thing -- >> that is not my job. >> just to call people carpers. >> i promised they q &a. >> i want to make a statement here in >> but you do not want to be interrupted here >> please interrupt me. i would like to have the exchange with the. >> i think we had it.

>> states did nuclear weapons because they want to protect themselves. that is a big motivation. >> not all the motivation. clarke's not sole motivation, that is true. we could go through it with hundreds of levels of we were political scientist. >> or a responsible government official. the >> or an irresponsible government official. i do not hear any deviation from any spokesperson from the government. you are not even willing to make a clear statement that the gnv system will work as a defense when you were part of a report that made the claim. i can show with slides i have here that the last two experiments were attempts to rid the experiment.

the administration had to know about those experiments. states tried to get nuclear weapons because they want to keep us off of their backs. after the gulf war of 1991, there was a prominent indian general -- i remember everyone was talking about him. when he learned was if you want to keep the united states off of your back, have a nuclear weapon. the north koreans have learned that as well. why not the iranians? >> maybe they have. i have to apologize because we only have time for one more question. it better be addressed to one of the panelists. i have any takers? >> i will try and change the nature of the discussion a little bit by making a comment rather than posing a question. i just wanted to mention, as all

three of our panelists now, there is an accord that has come out from the national research panel -- national research council. i had the privilege of looking at the report. it should be imminent in the next couple of weeks. i thought as an outside reviewer, it does a very good job of going into considerable detail of what i think anyone from the outside has to admit is a rather arcane sophisticated topic. it is complicated in the nontechnical but equally important matters of operations, deployments, and many other factors. the report does not go into the greater political issues. i really do commend this to you. i believe it will be freely available as a pds to the public.

perhaps they are a little bit shy about mentioning, a lot of work went into it. a large export -- expert group came together. i think it will contribute to the discussion by clarifying a lot of the issues without necessarily resolving the issues to the satisfaction of anyone, let a lot everyone in this room. >> it is a report coming out from the national academy of sciences or national research council on ballistic missile defense. i think it is still being vetted right now. >> i want to thank you for a very fine comment. it breaks my ground rules that all q and a's start with questions. this is a highly complex subject. i think we were very fortunate in having 3 people willing to

inform us and discuss matters between them on an issue that i am fairly certain will be front and center of an american political situation for the next decade. i think we got to a good start today in trying to understand what these issues are and will be. the fact that the three panelists did not agree should surprise nobody at all. with that, i want to thank the three of you for a very fine job. [applause] i went to thank you all. the way you avoided -- it escapes me. i thank you very much.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> there are millions of decent americans who are willing to sacrifice for change, but they want to do it without being threatened and want to do it peacefully. they are the non-violent majority, black and white who are for change without violence. these are the people who is for someone to be. >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 40 men who ran for office and lost. the to our web site c-

span.org/thecontenders to see an -- to see people who had a lasting impact. >> the you remember times and left the door unlocked? now we have the most violent crime-ridden society in the industrialized world. i cannot live without. can you live with that? >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> more road to the warehouse coverage on c-span with rick santorum unveiling a new economic agenda. he is talking about what he would do with his first 100 days in office if elected. watch his speech live at it o'clock eastern. tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., the nga annual winter meeting.

two sessions on what states are doing to grow their economies and anchorage on to the newer ships. live sunday, a look at governors work to end childhood hunger. at 2:30, the changing role of the national guard. the national governors' association annual winter meeting on c-span. >> live saturday on "american history tv," five historians make their case for the 1862% of the year. the day ends with a audience to vote. live on saturday starting at 9:30 eastern on c-span 3. >> we got started because there were a lot of conservative think tanks that work across issues, but the forecaster had -- there

had been no progress a think tank that works on economic policy and domestic policy. >> neera tanden on the mission of the washington, d.c.-based think tank. >> we often think there is an ideologies with very little facts behind them. part of our job is to make sure the arguments and the factual arguments behind their own views. i do think sometimes when the facts do not argue for our position, we reexamine the positions. we fundamentally believe the most important thing is to be right about what your views are. >> a look at the center for american progress, sunday nights at 8:00 eastern on c-span "q &a." >> vladimir putin is running for

a third term as russian president. he was president from 2000 until 2008. he is the current prime minister. yesterday he had a speech to supporters in moscow. their election is march 4. ♪ ♪ ♪ [cheers and applause] >> thank you!

for putin! there is no other alternative. thank you! thank you! thank you! gregory has been singing for you. you know, dear friends, it is so nice to see so many women out here in sports, and politics and show business, women to us, men, are the greatest single guiding force. women, speak up! i want to hear you! there are so many real men here today, strong-willed ambitious. it is on your shoulders that this country stands on. are there any men like this here at luzhniki? yes. well done. have you noticed that women seem to be more active. hey ladies, speak up!

guys, why don't you show us what you are capable of? ladies, i think we have outdone the guys here. we're way louder. difference right on the stage in front of you, in front of this whole big country, you will see people who do care about how we will live in the future. good friends, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome a brilliant reporter, tv personality, mikhail laontif. >> happy holiday! happy day of the defender of the fatherland. this is the most appropriate day for us to have a rally to support our candidate because 12 years ago, had he not done what he did, we would not have

a fatherland to speak of. as a matter of fact, it was almost gone then. the solution to the russian issue was only a few months away and there would not have been a fatherland. today, we do have a country. today we do have an opportunity, ourselves, without playing to anybody else to choose our future. but no one have any doubt. russia will make the right choice. our opponents, our opponents are hoping for collective amnesia. they're hoping that the people have lost their memory. amnesia is not subject to political discussion. amnesia is something you take into the doctor's office. they want to bring us back to a point in time that occurred 20 years ago. they want us to repeat an attempt at national suicide.

that will not happen. the victory will be ourselves. the enemy will be routed. here is for putin, here is for victory. >> thank you, mikhail. and now please give it up for a coal miner, the chairman of russia's independence trade union of the coal mining issue. >> dear muscovites, dear citizens of russia, we have gathered here today to determine our future, that of our children and grandchildren. we need a strong russia. we need stability. we need development. we need prospects. we are a wealthy country and we can be a prosperous russia. all of the ethnic groups that live in russia constitute one single family. we are here today to say that

we will not have anybody boss russia around and give us commands and instructions in our own house. we want to live peacefully with our neighboring countries. we can see though that things are not smooth or calm in europe or latin america. countries are being destroyed in the middle east. we all know why it is happening. there is a creeping war for the resources and wealth of nations, especially small and weak nations. we don't want revolutions. we don't want wars. we won't let anybody disrupt our peace. we are a peaceful nation and want peace all over the world. we need a strong russia. we need a strong skilled knowledgeable leader who understands the life of the people. we do have a leader like that. his name is vladmir putin. on behalf of thousands of coal miners, i am calling on you to come to the polling stations on

march 4 and cast your votes. russia has been part of this world with its complicated and difficult history and with its unique culture. we won't let anybody define our future for us. only we coming to elections on march 4 can determine the future of this country. russia has been, is, and will be a great country with our president. our president is vladmir putin. thank you very much! >> brilliantly foot. it is such a happiness that we have such an opportunity to live in mosqueo, this wonderful city -- moscow, this wonderful city of ours. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the mayor of moscow, sergii sabanon.

>> good afternoon, moscovites. let us greet and welcome our friends who are watching us in other parts of russia. hurray! never has luzhniki seen such a massive crowd that has gathered here today to express their political will. the will to make the right choice. a choice that will determine the future of this land and of every single one of us. and it is not an accident that there are so many people here, gathered here today. moscow has always been the arena of the most important

historic events and we have a reliable historical memory and we know what can be the outcome of promises given by politicians, sometimes that outcome is complete impoverishment of the people and complete destruction of the country. once again we are asked to go to the barricades to destroy everything that has been done and to start from scratch. let us say whether or not we believe those petty politicians. no, we do not. but we do have a candidate more the post of president who doesn't just pay lip service, who works hard, works like a horse who has regathered russia again, who has forced all countries of the world to show respect for russia. we know this person, yes, this

is vladmir putin and i know him very well. i have known him since i used to work in siberia. i know him now they work in moscow. i know how this individual treats ordinary people, how he treats regions. i know how he makes decisions. i know how the buck stops at his desk. he is a real man. he is a real leert. he is a man of his word. he is a man of his deed. we will give him our support, friends. this country has a leader. this country has a future to look forward to. and here in russia, we have everything for that we have wonderful supremely talented people. we have vast mineral resources. we have a giant amount of land. but sometimes we're like

impatience, ambitious politicians are calling on us to engage in a revolution. dear friends, don't let the seeds of trouble be sown in this country. long live strong russia! [cheers and applause] >> yes to putin! our people, hurray, hurray, hurray to the defenders of the fatherland. hurray! hurray! happy holiday, my friends. congratulations on the pending

spring. hurray, thank you, sergii. i now invite to this stage a courageous defender of the fatherland, a test pilot, a hero of the russian federation. >> good afternoon. i congratulate all veterans on the day of the russian armed forces and navy. i congratulate young people on the day of the defenders of the fatherland. i'm not here to try and convince you, try to talk you into something. i'm here to explain why i support putin. i remember the early 1990's and i remember a time 10 years ago

and i know what the lot is like now. what vladmir putin has done is he has fixed an old car over the last 10 years. he now puts the key into the ignition and the car rides. i do not want us to be forced to turn left or right. i want our children to go forward. i'm here because i believe in russia because i believe in you, i wish that he will be victorious with god and our soul, with faith in russia, i wish you health and i wish you happiness. >> here we have with us representatives of moscow, st. petersburg and many regions of this country. dear friends, igor who represents the mining factory. he is a shop law manager there.

>> good afternoon. friends, i'm not an expert at public speaking, my job is in the tank building industry. today, however, won cannot be silent. this is our country and it does not belong to hangers on who are always unhappy about everything. it belongs to all of us. it's us, the best people of this country and the salt of the earth and that is why this country should develop in a way that we think is fit and we believe that in russia, there needs to be a strong industry. we believe that the authorities must respect the working man that money should go into the development of production.

this is a policy that was implemented, has been consistently implemented by vladmir putin since he has been running this country, and that is why we give him our support and we will continue to do so. we have seen this country make strides starting in 1999. we have seen plans resume their operations. we have seen the state defense being resumed and it is thanks to his work and his policies that we first developed a hope which was later replaced by our confidence in tomorrow. today we're here at this rally to say we are for russia. we are for putin. >> thank you, igor.

we have with us here the industrial heroes. we have with us here the entire russia. we have us here in siberia, far east, the volga area, southern russia, can you hear us? are you with us? attention, can you hear us? luzhniki! attention, dear friends, ladies and gentlemen, give it up for a presidential candidate of the russian federation, vladmir putin! [cheers and applause]

>> dear friends, i agreed you all, everybody who has come here today to the stadium here in moscow and those who are outside this stadium despite inclement weather, a great number of people have gathered

here, dozens of thousands. it is symbolic. i would like to call your attention to the fact that different people have gathered here, different as far as age, as far as their ethnic background, as far as their religion. as far as their gender, men and women are here. it is symbolic that we have gathered here today on february 23, which is the day of the defender of the fatherland because we are today indeed defenders of our fatherland. that's who we are. we have come here today -- we have come here today in order to say that we love russia. in order to say in a way that this whole country will hear

us. and i will ask you and i ask you to speak with just one word, to just answer with a simple word yes. my question is, do we love russia? of course, we love russia. and we're not talking dozens of thousands. we're talking dozens of millions of people like us who share our opinions in russia. there are more than 100 million -- there are more than 140 million people like us. but we want there to be more of us. we want there to be more children in russia. we want them to be healthy. we want them to receive quality education and after that decent jobs and we together are willing to work for the benefit of our great motherland. we are prepared not only to work, but to defend it, to defend it at all times and always. we will not have anybody in our

internal affairs. we will not have anybody impose their will on us because we have our own will. it has always helped us win at all times. we are a victorious nation. it runs in our genes. it runs in our d.n.a. from generation to generation. we will win again and i want to ask you again, shall we win? yes, we shall win, but it's not just enough for us to win at these elections. we need to look beyond. we need to win and overcome a vast number of problems of which we have plenty, just like everywhere else. they are injustice, bribery, rudeness by bureaucrats, inequality. however, i have a dream. i have a dream that everybody in this country, be the big

boss or ordinary person, live by their conscience, live by the truth, and this will make us much stronger. i have a dream that in the soul of every person in this country, there will be a hope, a hope for a better lot for happiness. i have a dream that all of us will be happy, every single one of us. how can this be done though? the main thing is that we need to be together. we, meaning the multiethnic yet single and powerful and unified russian people. i want to tell you that we're not pushing anybody aside. we're not messing with anybody. on the contrary, we're calling on everyone to rally around our country. of course, everybody who considers our russia their own motherland, those who are willing to take care of it, to hold it precious and those who

have faith in it. and we ask everybody -- and we ask everyone to not look beyond the national border, to not go left or right, to not cheat on your motherland, but to be with us, work for your country and for its people and to love it with all of your heart. i will ask you once again, do we love russia? [cheers and applause] >> yes. i want to thank you all for your support. i want to thank everybody who is here at the stadium at luzhniki and everybody who is just outside this stadium and everybody who is supporting us in every corner of this great, vast motherland of ours. i cannot hug every single one of you. i cannot shake everybody's hand, but i can see everything

and i thank you for your support, for your moral help. i thank you for every vote. we can still do a great deal for our country, for our people and we'll do it while relying on the talent of our people, on our great history that has been written with the blood and sweat of our ancestors. this year we'll be celebrating 200th anniversary since the battle, how can we not forget the poet and his heroeses warriors, we remember those words since we were children when we went to school. we remember those warriors before they went to fight the battle of moscow, they swore the allegiance to their mowland and they would die for it. do you remember how they said it? we'll remember all our greatness. so let us recall those words.

let us die at the approaches to moscow like our brothers used to do and die with promise, too. and our oath did we keep. the battle of russia continues. the victory will be ours. thank you. [cheers and applause]

>> dear friends, and we carry on with our rally. today we all feel a part of one big family. together in this stadium, we have a microcosm of the entire russia. where are the industrial, where

is sign beera, you're here. the volga area, yes, you're with us. we can hear you. we can see you. the central part of russia, moscow. thank you for the hospitality of our beloved capital city that has always brought everybody together at all times. thanks to you we carry on with our concert and i would like to ask to come out on the stage the man, the patriot, the citizen, a favorite of this country who celebrated his 55th birthday just the other day. this is nick lie and his -- nicholi and his band. equipment is being brought on to the stage and the lead singer will join us in a second

on the stage. please give it up for him and let us say once again, russia! russia! russia! russia! our presidential candidate is putin. putin! we support a strong russia. we are for a strong country. we want to live in this country. we want to grow in this country. we want to raise our children who believe in putin. we believe that this country has a tremendous future with a candidate like this, with his team, with his confidence, with every single one of you, thanks to you, russia will carry on. thanks to every one of you, russia has a great future carved out for it and this future is in our children.

we wish happiness and success to our children so everything will be great in our lives. happy and health to our children. good luck, the best of luck to our children. let us wish them beautiful lives in this country and in no other country. the band is about to take the stage and i can see that the musicians are on their way to the stage. please give it up for the band. how are you doing? we're here waiting for you on this stage. so happy see you, luzhniki and the rest of the country are happy to see you.

>> good afternoon, friends. from the bottom of our hearts, our band, we congratulate on the day of the defender of the fatherland. we wish you all the best. we'll do a few songs for you. we'll start with one that you know really well. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> and a live picture on your screen from lincoln park, michigan, that's the knights of columbus hall there in lincoln park just south and west of the city of detroit. you can see they're focusing in the camera as we wait for presidential candidate rick santorum. he is expected to give remarks shortly talking about economic plans, his proposals on his first 100 days of president, how we expect the candidate shortly. we can see supporters and reporters in lincoln park, michigan. michigan.