yes.ye our children.ren our children's fates depends o'' whether we don't leave them to fe depeebt. does. also depends on whether we it a educate, whether america is a we leader in science and the world. it also depends on what the po airs and airports, all of those things are important, and the right policies will take responsibility for both.>> >> carl. >> first of all, let me go for just a second on tort reform for 30 seconds and then i'll answer the rest of your question. sec i would remind you the president did a good thing in the healthng care speech that he gave to the country, a joint session of congress in july of 2009.alth cr he did say to the republicans si the we ought to look good for reform. two weeks later the administration with great fanfare laid out it for reform thrposal. after no discussion whatsoeverao with the republicans belated oun in its of the following. states can apply for patienty safety programs, dollars to run patient safety programs which io what thene trial lawyers are trying to position as an t alternative to toward reform. ae your state can apply for money for patient safety programs. however, if your state has passed medical liability reformb you're ineligible to apply. republicans took that as a r directep attack on them.rect atc the president made no effort toi thin out and see what kind of st tort reform proposals can we coe integrate into my package and what kind of support will i get. now, as for the others, we do need to do a better job of wucating our kids because that's where the income gap is growing and we are becoming less competitive. is money the answer? one of the districts with the highest per-capita expenditures in the country is the district e of columbia and it has some of the worst outcomes.ia and maybe we need an accountability so that we can have betterwe outcomes rather than just than s focusing on putting the money in could agree with you more about health care.nd the best and one of the most grope. is the answer to turn it over to the government? this was supposed to bend the health care curve. hhs says after passing the affordable care at the between private and public we spend as a country $311 billion more on health care at the end of then deficit but what if we did t nothing.. maybe we ought to do is work ona getting market forces and competition in health care to ce drive down costs on putting theg consumer back in charge of noted having so much of independence until party payers.third-partpa. free health care. >> look. i we raise a good point onraised a education. sometimes we say that educations is not part of the economy. and carl is exactly right. s have seen some pretty scary statistics in the past couple of weeks. median household income in the decades that just concluded actually went down for the first time ever since we have been ben keeping the statistics. restarted in the mid 1940's. is 0'kely the 1930's, but in the '40's and 50's's and 60's and 70's and 80's and 90's to the median household income went inw down. we have seen that in comes of the upper 1 percent, the top 1 percent over the past 30 years according to recent reports ose in while those in the middle class over 30 years have seen yv very, very little growth inlittt their income. i think we would all agree onn this. there is othneis way to make sue did not don't live in a country that is overly stratified in strafied income. there is one way for 80 or 90 percent of the people to get closer to 1%, and that is inf tt education. c and i think that the last two administrations have done more on education then quite frankly and i would add then the clinton administration to the line asthe clinn in terms of making education more of a priority at the more o federal level. now, i think we are watching al, walking basketball event. we are watching the fact that when k when carl first ran a campaign for governor running forfi that,ent there was a heavy emphasis on having a larger federal role in the education system. president obama and secretary arne duncan have done quite a bit as well, and the president would be the first to tell you that it is not just dollars. it is teachers and it is parents. but i will be honest today, i don't look across the aisle and see a lot of people either running for president on the republican side or in congress that that there is a healthy role or some role for the federal government to play in education. >> 30 seconds. >> there is a coalition that does not like testing. the teacher unions do not like it and some of the right to not like it. but the administration is lowering the standards of the no child left behind law. it extended the time for meeting the proficiency standards. you touched on something. you talked about the decade, the last decade of median household income. i look at the census numbers and this confuses me and disturbs me. this chart shows the change in median household income of the last decade. it shows the change from the bottom of the recession, 2001, where it grows 3% from the work load. and here is what has happened since the end of june ,2009, 2009. household income dropped 2%. this is the first time in which we have a recession and median household income has not risen v but declined from the time the economic gurus say the recession something something is fundamentallydiffe. different. my explanation is we have an is overhang that is causing people iran companies to set on their cas afraid of what the future brings, word offraid at regulation, obamacare, will obaa happen to the business. as a result on willing to makeus the kind of investment they need to make. >> commercial break because that was a really long 30 seconds. c respond. y> i think the only thing i thel would say about that charge is y don't think many people thinkha, the recession ended in june 2000. >> i agree, but as with the 200 >>onomists say. tell me. >> what about larry summers. tho [laughter] >> i remember after thebout lary recession ended in 2001 there were a lot of people who didn't think the recession ended theiro command a lot of thef pe war in. congress telling us it was a jobless recovery. >>usehold income went out. >> we have the worst overhang crisis of excess debt, stuff that was constructed during arud bubble, lack of confidence since the depression.lack little wonder that when you have that the growth after word is slower. we can all agree on that. the question is how do you make that growth be faster we allh t? agree on what we want. we all want to see inclusivencle growth as rapidly as possible p overos the next year's. next some people think you can shrine your word a glory. some people think that if we cuu government will fill better and there will be some kind ofhere l renaissance. ren herai hoover tried that strateg. trying that strategy in britain right now, and so we have a good experiment to evaluate it. i think if you look at the economic experience a around thn world cutting government overent time is absolutely necessary ans right, we have to figure out right now some ways of gettingtt more people into the stores. we have to figure out ways towe give more people able to buy the houses.e to buy we have to figure out ways to get people to buy the stuff thaa factotion's factories are capable of producing, and that is what we have to focus on as n well because of tell you one thing about debt problems, and i've studied them are around the world. this ides one of the few things that we can probably agree on.ie m we grow we have a much better chance of managing these debts. so let's focus on what can get this economy growing over the next year's. we grow faster the next half half dozens, it is hard to believe the are not going to beo beli maer what eler what else happens if we don't grow you can't cut,d entitled, commission, do what wheryone. if this economy doesn't grow ist not going to be happy time for the country. [applause] >> that's what i was trying to >> with my question. the questions from the audience. first to robert gibbs. mike h. from chesapeake rights president and helped usher in economic prosperity by balancing the budget. h why has the obama administration not focused on his example? >> look. there is no doubt. broad agreement that we haveagre come as you heard, and mary and others, as serious debt crisis. if all we're going to do is cut- three-quarters, correct me ifqur i'm wrong, three-quarters of our economy is directed by says ecoy by umer spending. not a surprise are now in a world the anxiety that there isf not a lot of consumer spending.o undertaking massive cuts.xactly inactly right in the see what happened in britain. g a fraction of what the group wac announced as a part of our gdp today are so ago.you want >> you want to take some?>> >> yes. >> this is what i do. what i'm an economist. deficsed to cut the deficit fast. the country needed stimulus.l c when bliill clinton became president we had interest rates there were seven and a half. 7.. we have factories that were full and businesses say they could ap crd to get the capital in order to invest. therefore cut the deficit andute e interest-rate downring down investmentes comin get and grow the economy.e that was what you needed to do to on what the economy. you can't hurt yourself jumping out the basement window.yourselg interest rates are 2%. there wasn't any room to bring down the interest rates by cutting the deficit in the shory thn.the defi in the reason people were investing to have to do a capital cost oft the fact that there was some ans walking into the store and knowe by their products. soons.ent conditions, different solutions.>> >> that means is follow-up. what you say to the people who thethat businesses are uncertain about the futureare nn because of a number of things,sf regulations and laws coming out of washington and specifically m the obama administration.>> >> a couple things. first look at the number of laws and regulations that have comeas out of the obama administration committee hasn't been very different from what came out oft the push to ministration in the first ten years.in the fir two y second, i look at what happened in the financial sector during the years between 2001 and 2008. beu really think the problem was regulated too hard? do they think many to make sure they are low more? t i think it would need to make c? sure there are more careful.f w confidence to be there.ird, third, i talked to these guys. the biggest problem in their lives is not about laws that come from the government of weather will make customers. remember from now. that is the importance of import uncertainty. investment collapses in sectors of government and debt relative to other sectors the government is not involved in. it is not.ot invol? what about the famous obamacaree truth is that obamacare went businesses, if they want to, do something they would never havei been allowed to dong before. a lot of people in the president's party are upset this.the presidt's stop having any health insurancf cost. pitt $1,500 a year, let them goe into the exchange. publ pblic plan. that is a lot less than the coss you're now paying for workers. ny if anything that is reducinga the cost that businesses are going to a base for health insurance. outryone wants to complain about washington. the president is not just doing this stuff because he likes it.c he's doing this stuff because, s remember, what he inherited was an economy in free fall. that is what he inherited. free falling carson just kidding. thirty seconds. want to get to these other kiddi questions. >> i want to focus on one thing. companies will be able to dump their coverage.heir c small-business people and big the ness people i've talked to will be dumping coverage, but they don't like it because they don't think it will work well for their employees. affor the affordable care addison's an 24 million people will be inin these changes, 21 million people not currently covered.y we know have six studies that pe show between 78 and 87 million people are projected to losehin their coverage. four under and $50 billion over the next decade to coverheir 24 million people.wh happe what happens if the number of people that we have a much is larger number of people dumped into the coverage and put on the taxpayer tab. it's going to be 24 million people bordered 50 billion. what happens if that number into being 100 million or 75 million5 what will that do to our country? a chilean and a half for a $2 trillion over the next ten illion t this half of the program.r that's why we have to repeal obamacare exactly because of obama- what dr. summers talked-about. [inaudible conversations] [applause] >> laura h. from chesapeake. rise in the polls began when he posed the 9-9-9 plan. doesn't that contradict the insertion that americans will not support the national salesp. tax even with the substantial cut in the federal income tax. >> i'm not certain.hat first of all, simple, but i'm not sure the people are going into a fully understanding. and 9 percent federal sales tax on top of your local sales tax. when people find out it's on top of the local support for a dropa itt is a 9 percent flat tax. the problem is that the average effective tax rate, for anybody making less than $100,000 a yea. , some were less than 8 percent, so we will ask everyone in america who makes less than $01,000 to pay more io federal income taxes.ederal i may like that as a tha conservative, but i'm not sure , like it as a conservative political consultants.al consul. the final thing is the most most oblematitic. sort of ac. consumption tax advocate. only if we were the united states of mars in writing our initial constitution. i we made the decision now hundre. we years ago to go down the route of taxing income. coadown the a 9%, which most people think is a 9 percent corporate tax.take take sales, less cost of doing business and take the difference 9%tween the two * 9 percent and ithe tax?r tax., it is take your sales last yeare cost of materials and other thu input excluding labor and pay 9on tent on that. a value added tax that will moreate more cash and put as in a european-style situation where each company will be paying a ecreatchunk of change to the federal government. it may take care of m the revene it may problem we have been talking t about, but i think when people start to understand more that will have more qualms. >> call rove is not an adviser for the herman cain campaign, as we can see. next question. >> and not an adviser to any campaign.ot a >> there youn go. especially not that one. patricia from williamsburg.>> the implications for the united, states if the world currency replaces the u.s. dollar. >> you know, it's like askingine the question is like what's etthg to happen to the world if people all the sudden flood by clapping their arms. we're not going to have a world currency. the united states does get a greater vantage out of the fact that the dollar is the central'' currency in the world.at of thea it looks as borrow money dollar cheaper, it is an important asset for us as a country, andma it is why all four of us agree why that we have to do everything wo keep the american economy strong, we have to keep the economy strong by ensuring thate the growth of federal that is an excessive, and we have to keep the economy strong by ensuringks that it grows so that the dollae remains the key currency in thee world. >> christine for senator simpsor kristine from virginia beach.if a president obama enacted the ht recommendations of the national commission on fiscal commi responsibility of reform where would the economy be right now? >> and don't know where the economy would be, but he would'' have been savaged to pieces, anh that's why he diedn't do it. w the economy would have been void fted.se i tell you what happened, and that think i know my colleagues of the other faith know that president clinton went to president obama and said youa know you appointed these guys. you put them there, you did an u executive order. they came out with five, 60 percent, and i would wrap my arms around the. obama did not accept that very a beautifully. president clinton has been a big help to us in this process. i do think all you need to do is have a plan. the reason they don't mess with germany and france and england, the rating agencies is becauseea they have a plan. we have no plan, and we may hav to december have no plan. when that happens watch out. for your charts. if you torture statistics long enough eventually there was confess. [laughter] [laughter] >> i can tell you that it will called the tipping point -- thep tipping point will come when the money guys decide it will come.u it will not come because somecoe government or something you saw in the past happened. u saw it will be when the money guys are protecting their money, andl they never lose in the scam.ey. and so the tipping point was asked all during our deliberation, especially by dick durbin. you mentioned stick turban he voted for this.d for this s a democrocrat. now, coburn voted for this, too. cot him. that's what you haveld going ony stereotyping people left and erican stght to my gasping when you mention their name, but i caneig tell you one thing, if we had a plan, and that was the plan it m would have be.een a boy in thing in the economy of america. until we get one we will have he be a buo >> to you have any hope of the>o super committee and what they're doing and capitol hill? t >> i said 5050. my good colleague last week said to & give. it reached over and said that never heard you say you thought it would be only a 10 percent chance and he said changed my mind because i talked to all 12 of them and they're locked in ay huge fines of entitlement and tax increase. you don't have to do a tax increase.o a tax jst go in and dig around in a tax expenditures like : did. take $6 billion out of the ball and grover call that a tax increase. if that's a tax increase, the tt drinks are on me all the long. drinks [laughter] m b we would be ree ally junk by now. a lot of stuff to win on to rea >> i didn't see it. >> really quickly. i want to get to questions. >> i have a disagreement. senat. if president obama had embraceda to bema would be at a lot furth along in he would bewo in much tical shape. >> that's what i said. >> did you? >>said a clearer. [laughter] the other thing is i wonder ifeg we don't make a mistake by trying to get the grand bargain and slamming this all into one piece of legislation, i am reminded of the compromise of 1850, which i think you votedi a on.m >> i did. [laughter] >> a great debate. i remember it. >> the compromise of 1850 is offered up by henry clay and goes down.it goes wn. then along, a couple wise men. let's take the five elements and have them voted on serially. all five passed. go now, a different group of people voted to admit california as a e free state and thereby determina that the senate would always be controlled by a free state and voted for the fugitive slaventrd act, but i wonder if theythe fus couldn't take some elements of these i things, whether it is te particular it striking me you particget seven people on the committee to vote for change cpi methingould save a bunch of money and generate a bunch of revenue. which ge that will be a different view -- a different group that might grp blow for another change and reform of medicare. rorm on at the end of the day if you send them to the floor of theth senate and house and the protection you could get a senat different set of majorities toet n elements. >> to you have felt about the. super committee? [laughter] >> not jumping for joy. >> i'm more optimistic than erskine, but that's not a very itrong statement. i see marginally south of the senator. >> and that means, just so everyone knows, that those cuts that are in the bill would go into effect if they don't reach the deal.ffect would thatif do? do you venture a guess on the defense cuts and the other cuts that are kind of bait indicate if they don't reach the deal? >> remember, they don't happen until the beginning of 2013. and so what would happen if there were scheduled to happen is however the presidential election turns out in novemberwr would be another huge are would flurry of political activity in the fall of 2012 with the specter of those cuts coming inh january of 2013, not a certainty that those cuts come in 2013. look, we all ought to be able te agree that the country will beto much better served by working be m together and compromising on some theory of what the best thy cuts are. onn having some automatic on this mechanism kicked into placm without any reflection by human beings on the specifics of whics items are going to become aware, .nd that is true.ut where at me say something else that people don't usually say. the idea that somehow we'reow going to go slashing our national security budget because weu can't agree on how to reduce the deficit is just the irresponsible. we ought to spend -- [applause] god knows we ought to spend on t national defense will we need to spend and not to argue about that in the context of foreign o policy, but we surely should not ti cutting the forces to protect america and a time when american troops are in danger because wee can resolve the budget battle.en that ought to be something that everyone in this room can agree every >> i'm going to continue with>> questions. all my faults or a little behind, but i want to get to as many as we can. given the bad shape of the economy, is in mitt romney the strongest gop candid because of itis combination of business anm political experience?hi >> we will start to find out in 67 days when they stumble after the new year's into the iowa caucus on the third of january.o >> a figure that would be ae th. 'hort answer. dr. summers. >> doesn't the minimum wage contribute to high unemploymentt among minorities and teenagers, in the immigration, and difficulty in competing with china. >> there maybe some small -- i think it's relatively small onal ehe evidence adverse effect on employment to some groups. it also means there is higher incomes for a lot of people whose wages areinco protected bd minimum wage who would otherwisw be very poor. >> i think that's the trade-off. the minimum wage. i would advocate right now for a raising the minimum wage, but a time when the poor are getting e poorer and the working poor poom suffer more than ever haver are before, i don't think that's the time to go cutting the minimum wage at all. but the question applies to very real trade offs.real traffs. >> beverly from hampton rights after the republicans of losing the public relations workg regarding taxing millionaires. why are they so reluctant to raise taxes on such a limited >>mber of people? >> i haven't any idea. not a id. [laughter]i i think they are caught in a trap. tr that is one thing. go to the gatt. it won't raise you. let's say you confiscate everything that anybody who haso worthver $1over a million bucks, just take all of the yachts, the jets, offshore, and run the country for nine months. l's get t serious. we are in the holes 16 $16 trillion. that is in a comprehensible figure. com so you can't possibly get there with little things.. the essence of the question was es of e qu >> republicans losing. >> they are and will. sad yet the sad part of it is how did they get to this position? day the zero people like that to face this onslaught from the populace public? you know, this is huge bucks to them. d it's peanuts in the full game of how we have to dig ourselves ouf of here.cheme i think it's one of those dig os unfortunate things therein and are don't let me bring up grover. he is saying that if you do happen to let that expire and go to taxing that will be called ax tax increase. he knows where he's getting the ground right now.ow. he has to figure out that if that occurs everything might be okay to do that because i thinks it's disaster. you need help on this obsessionn >> iee do. i do. >> 16 trillion dollars is like to be the bar tab at the end of the night. [laughter] >> buying all of the drinks. >> de support occupy wall street and why or why not? >> i don't know -- i think many people have said they don't know exactly what he wants or what their demands are. i will say this. i am not at all surprised that there are people either sleeping in a part in the new york were living throughout the midwest that are frustrated where we are in this country and in this economy. we have watched the economic collapse -- it did not start in september of 2008. for people in middle america, the median household income. you have people in this country who are paying their -- you have some parents are paying for undergrads just at the school who are paying their 2011 tuition bill using their 1999 incomes. that generates frustration. there is also a huge frustration in this country. i think this is on both sides of the political aisle. we have watched for the last few years a different set of rules for people on wall street and people in banks and for everybody else. if they can gamble with that money and if they lose it, somebody will pick up the tab. if they lose your money, they were just taking a risk and so were you. i think people cannot understand that. i can understand exactly why they cannot understand that. we had a different set of rules. we cannot exist as a country if we decide there are two sets of rules for bankers and wall street -- one set of rules for bankers and wall street and another set for everyone who lives on main street. >> a quick lightning round before opening statements. gdp has increased for the last three quarters in the u.s.. europe has some significant debt agreement. perhaps we are on the road to recovery already. the you agree or disagree? >> it is a very slow road. we need to turn it into a highway and then it is right now if we want to be the kind of country we are. yes, the economy is growing but not nearly fast enough. >> what role if any does our policy play in either worsening or improving our economy? >> i am a pro immigration. i think we are benefited by having by having people come to the united states and having an orderly way in which people who want to come here to work for jobs -- we ought to have the system in place. we have an immigration system that says our number-one priority is to are you related to. family unification. i think we need to change our immigration system so it is easier for people to come and study and stay in the united states and put skills to benefit here. i think we need to find a way to let people who want to turn hospital beds in albuquerque or pickford and come here if those jobs go begging. we don't have a system that allows us to do that today. >> medicare will recruit -- reduce hospital payments by 30% in november. how will patients get to his future excellent treatment? >> this is a fundamentally important question. the question that hangs over our defense hangs over the medicare providers of the other end. we are going to decide how much we'd all you care for those over 65 in such an arbitrary way that we just are going to cut it in a huge and massive weight. my guess is we will have some of it in 2012. what type of services do we want and what are we willing to pay for it? in all honesty, for the past 10 or 20 years, we have not actually had that debate. we have had elections in debates about what we want your we have not had a debate on how to pay for it. he rightly points out what our bar tab is. we are going to have to have that debate because we cannot have a country where we decide every person gets their taxes cut, and we are going to invade this country. we are or to invade the country. we are quite at entitlements. we are or to add benefits to entitlements and not pay for any of it. those days are just gone. i hope that our campaign is a robust debate. i hope this. i hope it is a conclusion of that campaign. anothere don't have national campaign for four years. let's take that. to come together and try to solve the problem. >> last question. it seems self-evident that's spending cuts over a decade will be pushed to the last few years of the decade. these cuts will occur over two or three electrons away. when bonds future congresses to these cuts? >> nothing. the other part of it is, the group of 12 will grapple to the point of press the press and the sit down and congress and it changes the law that put this package together. don't leave that out as a possibility. you get the house and senate together and say, man. we can't do this. let's just get in here and change this to 2015 and a mess around and doing another piece of legislation. don't forget, they have to have legislative language presented by november 23. that is hard. it will be very difficult. then 2013. after a year of sitting there and watching the crash and listening to the pain, can you imagine the voting against oil and gas depletion allowances? can you imagine me voting against the abandoned land -- i come from a state if we were a country we would be the largest coal producing company in the world. nobody at home complaints to me about not doing my share. but if everybody -- the great escapes hatch is i am ready to do my share if everyone else will. that is a glorious escape hatch for everyone. >> and now for the closing statements from each one of the debaters. we begin with robert gibbs. >> let me begin again by thanking you all for coming and having us debate. maybe in some ways you were disappointed. in a lot of ways we actually agreed. maybe that is the problem with some of our politics. we are scheduling debate and we are not giving ourselves the ability to stop and agree. >> we are right to come to the several states that are coming up. november 18 as when it expires. november 23 is what the committee has to have its language. if we don't do something by december 23, we have automatic cuts that will take place in january 2013. we are like to have to have a debate in this country as i said a minute ago on what we want and what we are willing to pay for. i hope we have the robust debate. as i said, i hope we decide we are going to use the intervening time to put it with the campaign commercials and put away lining up in boxes on cable tv and yelling at each other and listen to each other. try to come to some understanding and agreement with about the fact that carl and i could probably walk out on a clear day and argued about the color of the sky. but the truth is, we agree on probably more than most people walked in here thinking we might agree on. the truth is, that can be the case in washington d.c. it is the case in almost every other place in this country. i have the great honor of traveling it around the country with the president he helped elect. we come and we meet with groups of people like you. i know there is another thing we can all agree on. that is that there is not any problem that this country will face this year or next year or in the next 50 years. it cannot and will not be solved. at every single attraction in our nation to talk history, efface the inflection point on what kind of country we are going to live and what we are born to pass to our children. we have made it hard decisions, we have had a tough debates, we have made compromises, and we have strengthened our country. that is the only way we are going to pass a stronger country that continues to be the envy of the world on to our children and grandchildren. i think in 50 years, we are still going to be the envy of the world. we're still going to be the envy of the world not because it does not require us to do hard things, but exactly because it does. because we have great people that can get together even in the most political debate and agree to ensure our country continues to be the envy of the entire world. thank you for having me. [applause] and honored to be back here again. but let me say -- make three quick points and then say what i want to say it's a conclusion. senator simpson was asked about the tax on millionaires and i believe republicans are behind a public relations death, but the odds stand firm because two >>irds of the so-called millionaires are smalllled businesses reporting on the taxesdual tax line. you raise taxes on raisin small-business and be raising taxes and job b creators. secondly, there are to be a limit on what the government can take from anyone regardless of how much they make35% -- [applause] -- 35% is a big shock. there ought to be a limit on how big the government is. the bigger the government, the smaller the people. [applause] bankers were regulated, but two biggest financial institutions were not regulated. fannie and freddie. when we in the bush administration attempted to regulate them, it took them 62 years -- we set out to regulate them between 2001 and 2005 but we got the bills to the senate banking committee to regulate them, they bought another two trillion dollars worth of mortgage-backed paper. that bill went down because of a filibuster in the senate. in the next three years between july of 2005 and when it went belly up in august, they bought another 1.5 trillion dollars worth of mortgage-backed paper. they sold it to the banks. they nearly brought down the world economy because of it. finally, there was a brief message about the iraq and afghan war. they cost $806 billion according to the latest estimate i saw from the congressional budget office. that was money better spent and the world is a better place in the $862 billion spent on the failed stimulus bill in all respects. there will be a big robust debate next year i hope between if we need more government taxation and spending. we can i was to agree on this platform, but let's be honest. this is what the elections are all going to be about. this big robust debate. it will be a choice between two different philosophies. when that says, let's make the government bigger. let to grow it to 25%. we want a bigger government. others may have a different view. one of limited government, of limited taxation, and a reliance upon the enterprise and energy of the free people of the united states of america. robert, i agree with him. the country is fundamentally sound because our people are fundamentally sound. at the end of the day, we are going to be all right. you know these guys when they are always and tolerant of people from utah, colorado, and nevada. i lived in all three states. all of those people and become sheepherders to utahe sheepherders. we all new people. is this heating up my time or can i take more? anyway. thank you for having us here today. i really appreciate the opportunity to be invited back to regent. the most important thing i heard today was 480 teachers a year graduate from this university. that is an impressive sight of what a christian based education can do to change lives of people all across the country and a fundamental way. thank you for having us. [applause] >> i am glad to have been here. i learned a lot. i learned a lot from questions and from colleagues in this debate. you know, the strength of our country is actually that there are many different perspectives. i knew when i accepted this invitation that it was not going to be a hometown crowd. [laughter] i have not been surprised by that. there is a lot in the perspective that is brought here that was brought to in america. without it, we would go badly wrong. there are not employees without employers. great strength of our economy is the private sector. it is private initiative. it is private entrepreneur said. the strength of america has a great deal to do with its religious traditions. utopian top down schemes can often do enormous damage. you are right, i think, in the kinds of concerns that you have. if we were not a country with a robust political debate, i am sure that someone in the progressive side take us to places that would not be where we'd want to be. nobody wants or should want a big government. -- for the sake of having a big government. what i would like you to think about. i am under no illusions under which political party is going to win at regent university in the next election. here is what i want you to keep in mind. nobody wants government for its own sake. but there are some things that we all do want that are going to have a hard time happening without government. we all agree easily that we are not 20 stay strong as it entry into force of freedom in the world without a strong military. only government can provide that. we are leaders because we are the best in the world in science and technology. that comes in large part of the supports the government is able to give. god knows i am an educator. i know, our education is vastly run too much for the benefit of the providers of the education. is room for the administrators and not for the benefit of the kids. but, you know, without a federal government, there is not going to be anybody to hold school districts accountable. i visited schools across the country what i was treasury secretary. i will never forget the teacher who said, you gave a great speech about the education is the most important thing in our country. the paint is chipping off of the walls and this school. why should the kids believe you? it takes government to make public schools work. so push the things you believe, i know you will. but remember, it is very hard to love a country and hate its government. the government has a role as well. remember one other thing. we have terrible problems. i have spent much of the last year traveling the world. i would rather face the challenges that the united states of america faces and then the challenges facing any other country in this world. i would rather have the citizens of the united states addressing the challenges they face then the citizens of any other country in the world facing their challenges. thank you very much. [applause] >> i happen to had been at harvard teaching when larry was president. i could not have gone into harvard if i picked the locks. but i was there. i will tell you what he is. he is a leader. he has a lot of guts. that is what leaders today do not have the scots. he had guts. he took on establishments. he took on the worst political system of all, the faculty senate. [laughter] i in admire him. let me just say that education has been floated through. if i recall only 7% of the entire education budget in the united states comes from the federal government. it comes from the local school districts. those are called governments. they are called school boards. if you don't like what is going on in education, don't in being on were 7% of the dollars are. go back to your district and say, what are you doing with the money? make that very important. i would just add that you can't hate politicians and love democracy. it does not work that way. let me just add -- what we were saying and our commission. if you want it, pay for it. if you want infrastructure, bulk of the trust fund. we suggested a gas tax. is it hot? we did. if you are going to have a fund, funded it. that is what we describe it. i hope you read it to. i just need to talk about social security. this is the greatest myth of all time. the beth that we are balancing the budget on the backs of poor old senior citizens is a myth. it is a total myth. we are trying to do something with the solvency of social security so it will remain solvent for 75 years. it was put in in 1937 and 1938 when the life expectancy was 63. that is what the set the retirement age at 65. it was never intended as a retirement system. has nothing to do with retirement. it is and in, supplement for guys wiped out. guys who did not have anything because of the depression. so what did we suggest? nobody will argue this. life expectancy today is a 78.1 years. we have suggested that you raise the retirement age to 68 by the year 2015. the aarp said, how will people ever be able to figure that out. i said, i think they will. i really believe that today will. i know that they will. what else did we do? we said the lowest 20% of the people in that system, we will give them a hundred 25% of poverty. it takes money to do that. the bridge pay little more. the little guy is a little less. we raise the wages subject to the tax 190,000. we change the cost of living index. we take care of the guy who is exhausted. we don't change the retirement age for that person. we had an older -- we said, there is a package for it. we tell people what they are because i will tell you what will happen. by doing nothing, which is so for the recommendation of the wizards at the aarp. by doing nothing, and the year 2036, you will wonder and bobble up to the window to get a check for 23% less. we also suggested that you reduce the payment into the social security payroll tax. everything i dealt with in my whole public life. you have to go behind those people like the fourth of july and be able to shovel. [applause] thank you. thank you all. this has been fascinating for my point of view. let me give a brief summary. hubert humphrey once said, freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, descent, and the debate. we clearly have that tonight. restarted at the beginning. dr. summers has been out the dire consequences of the obama administration. he said, the us cannot shrink its way to prosperity. the u.s. need spending in both the public and private sector. nobody wants government for government said on at all. simpson said, yes he did slip in the suit he is wearing. he also said you have to walk a mall. everything needs to be on the table. whatever you call it, it is a mess. he is not having norquist over for thanksgiving. robert gibbs said the economic collapse has been going on for a long time. he wishes washington would go back to a time of senator simpson and between the elections to get things done. we can solve the toughest problems despite our parties. karl rove said spending our way to prosperity has not worked. removing regulations and giving certainty to businesses would be key. one point he called senator simpson centered sourpuss. something about wyoming and sheep. i cannot follow it. he is a two-time tighten. here's a quote from henry ford, coming together is the meeting, keeping together is progress, working together is success. i think tonight we have seen some items that both sides can truly agree on. one last thing, in the media we do not do a good job of showing what all these numbers flying around really are. to get a perspective of how big the situation is. 1 billion seconds is 31 years ago. one trillion seconds is 31,688 years ago. one trillion dollar bills stacked on top of each other would go 68,000 miles in the sky. if they were stacked and it to end, they would reach the summit. one that trillion dollars -- there has been a lot of talk tonight about education, to -- could pay the salaries of 18.2 million teachers for the year. the u.s. census bureau says there are 6.2 million teachers in the country. we don't have a perspective of what one chilling as let alone 62 lange, that does. it is a real honor. thank you very much. here is to class of the titans no. 10 next year. thank you. [applause] >> members of the voice for preservation coalition have been lobbying congress to guess to avoid cuts at the department to send charge of grants to the state. they discuss a new economic report picking up spending into your remarks remarks to the great grandson of president theodore roosevelt. alternate society president element is another's. this is about 45 minutes. >> okay, inc. whereas the debate to go. i am the president and ceo of the theodore roosevelt conservation partnership. want to thank you for coming today and the folks on the phone for tuning in and thank the national press club for hosting us. we have four speakers after me. there were several other people in the audience who can ask questions as well. the speakers are marketers say, president and ceo of the nature conservancy, dale hall, president and ceo of ducks unlimited, stephanie minx, president of national trust for preservation and meadows, president of the wilderness society. rt speaker and who will lead off his tedrow spoke on the theater was about the fourth. i want to thank him for taking a break from its investment banking world to come to us today. ted is obviously a leading figure in the conservation movement today as well as great green in the theater was about. also in the room ron reagan compasses haitian official alea agencies and brad southwick of suffolk associate this economic report will be profiled today. at the end of the marks will open the floor to questions. we will do folks here in person first will be allowed to ask follow-up questions and then we'll go shoot on the phone will not be able to ask follow-up questions. the reason we are here today is to stress the importance of federal funding for conservation , outdoor recreation and historic preservation. when the house passed h.r. one this spring as a wake up call to her communities. builds are reduced or eliminated to federal programs. they informed the foundation of conservation in america. programs of land and water conservation fund to the conservation program to the farm to work at it or even eliminated. programs were the hardest hit with a nonregulatory car share programs at this date and private landowners. one thing became perfectly clear to our community after h.r. one, we had to get past fighting for individual programs and work together on recreation and preservation funding. based on a simple premise, the new coalition was formed. america's choice for conservation reservation. at that time in the summer the coalition had about 670 groups and businesses signed on. the group sent a letter to majority leader reid and speaker boehner, making the case for conservation funding, but also offering to work with congress to make sure every program neared its funding and was successful and cost effect it is possible. as of today, that coalition is now grown a thousand groups and businesses that have signed on. the letter and list of coalition members are available at the front basket also feel that her website, www.t. rcp.org. we also realized we had to make a better case for conservation funding include the economic case for conservation. to that in the national fish and wildlife foundation commission report from suffolk associate and arguably the nation's leading economic -- after economics research firm. to a the jobs associated with conservation, historic preservation. i report released earlier this month documents these activities generate more than a trillion dollars in economic activity every year in support 9.4 million jobs. it also has demonstrated bringing in $107 billion in tax revenue to the country every year. that report is also available at t. rcp.org. so let me turn it over with that background to our first speaker, ted roosevelt. >> good, thank you very much. it's a pleasure to be here. all investors to research today, stewart said the old-fashioned sense of the word. stories that we protect assets that have been given to us. all here are dismayed by the collapse of our country's fiscal policies and we are dismayed by the dysfunction of our political process in washington that paralyzes policy or worse produces bad policy. in a desperate bid to rein in our fiscal deficits, we see cuts in discretionary spending that is essential to the outdoor economy of bicycling, hiking, hunting and fishing and historic reservation to name a few. the economic activity associated with outdoor recreation and historic preservation as prodigious. at first glance you think how can it be that large? the luscious cracker on the east coast, gulf coast or the west coast and look at all the marinas you'll see there, boating activity. they employ lots of people. americans want to go voting. more than one in four americans went boating. go to lewistown, an antenna and you'll see in you'll see in the small town dozen people 5000 people that the center, the most active and vibrant economic activity there is a sporting goods store. americans from all over the place come to buy and hunt and fish stare. cutting the federal programs that protect and conserve outdoor recreation is a false economy. as stewards, we should be outraged by the false economy, which is carried out will make our economy even worse. southwick's numbers do not take into account the value of environmental services. two examples. 80% of california's water comes from watershed summit national forests. the city of new york where i work, we would probably have paid, had we not put in place the catskill reservoir system, we would have paid 10 years ago, 12 to $14 billion to put in a filtering system. i hate to think about the filtering system would cost today. i am hopeful however that the creation of this coalition of over 1000 businesses, organizations, ngos to see and know the importance of national resource conservation, outdoor recreation and historic preservation speak for the country and its citizens. they represent a return to a nonpartisan approach to outdoor recreation and historic preservation. this country is unique because of what its forebears have given us. in terms of historic sites, public lands in wilderness, no other country has what we have. no other country allows it, citizens to as much opportunity to recreate over such a diverse and extraordinary range about dvds and resources. i urge congress to listen to this coalition and on at the bequest of our forebears. there is a quote on the walls of the american museum of natural history in new york city, which i will share with you. there are no words to compel the heading meeting of the wilderness that can reveal its mysteries, melancholy and charm. i leave it to you to guess whose words bizarre. [applause] >> thank you, ted. our next week or hails from the wall street area is marked her say, president and ceo who took over the great organization in 2008. >> thank you and thank you everybody. it's a pleasure to represent the conservative discrete group in coalition. america's choice for conservation recreation and historic preservation in the cmc is proud to be a signatory along with us and other organizations. so why would a thousand organizations rally together for this cause? i'm a talk about that a little from the perspective of our business, nature conservation. so why would people rally? the key reason is american support investments in nature. it has nature produces a very tangible return. nature is a vital underpinning for human well-being in america and understand. what kind of returns can you get from investments in nature? faith and plentiful water supplies. mitigation of natural hazards, reductions in pollution and the support of agriculture and forestry, outdoor recreation opportunity, this is a big deal. investments in nature generate jobs, economic momentum and may generate these very tangible returns that humankind count on. so that's why we think people rally around this cause is important for americans and legislators to understand. that's my first point. second point, federal budget spending on nature conservation amounts to a grand total of 1.26% of the federal budget. why do i mention that number? 1.26% of the budget because spending on nature conservation to cause the deficit and cutting spending on conservation can't fix the deficit. therefore it's important we urge congress to understand cuts to nature conservation should not be disproportionate. third point, third and final point. that is not to say that investments in nature and government activities in these areas can't be a nice, can't be improved, cannot be redesigned so we get more bang for the buck to the conservancy is strongly in favor of looking hard at federal spending in nature on conservation spending so that programs are grown and programs that should be cut back or cut back is appropriate. the key message i want to make his nature is not a luxury item. it's a rather should be viewed as capital, infrastructure, vital underpinning of the economy and human well-being. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, mark. our third speech or. it's also return his director of the u.s. fish and wildlife service. >> thank you. i think it is very appropriate that theater was about the fourth fourth is with us here today because the conservation movement in what we know today is the north american model for wildlife conservation really started with theodore roosevelt and move forward. so i think i want to they the foundation a little bit so people understand what conservationists have done for the fish and wildlife resources over time. they started off with the sportsmen standing up to argue against commercial hunting. commercial hunting was destroyed the resource, taking more than they could bring back an nature could restore it and it was the sportsmen, the hunters and anglers have stood up alone with people in the burning world of audubon and others back up to be one voice. he spoke out to say this is something not sustainable and we can't keep it going. and so it started there and went on through with the lacey act being passed to once the law started coming into places you can't violate the law in wednesday to move it over the line into another state. the same group of people argued for those. and then along comes the depression. the stock market crashed and if you think the recession that we've been through is bad, go back and look at the historic literature in the films about red lines and those truly disturbing at the same time with the dust bowl going on at the same time. and it was duck hunters have stood up and said it was for yesterday, but somebody has to pay for the resources. go ahead and tax us, make us buy a stand. in 1934, the hunting conservation stamp was passed. we know it as the duck stamp today and was passed in the 1 dollar at that time was offered to go hunting, which was free the day before the middle of the recession in the middle of the dustbowl. three years later, we had to pit men robbers asked pastor ponders the setup and pay taxes on firearms and ammunition, but the money must go to conservation, to the habitat. in 1937, ducks unlimited was formed to do just that. let us move forward through the decade. so from the beginning, user, if you outcome was a true conservationist that has stood up and said, conservation has to be done. somebody has to do it and we are willing to pay. that's the foundation of what his kindness here today and this coalition is really not something that has more members, but back in the days of forming a coalition to get rid of commercial hunting, the same sorts of people were coming together to argue against that. so this thousand group coalition is very important. so why are we really here today? we want and make the that conservation come and natural resources are true values in the system, should be of social values for us. but if you need to talk about the deficit and the debt, let's talk about then. its talk about what makes this money that doesn't make us money. we find out in the southwest report will confirm this is that the money invested in conservation are doubled, tripled, quadrupled by private dollars to we and others like us bring them to bill so for example the water conservation fund, 1 dollar appropriated by congress generates $4 in economic revenue and economy around the refuge. in the north american wetlands conservation act, 1 dollar is matched by us to take it over $4 conservation investment. and in the tax arena, more than $14 billion a year is paid directly back into federal treasury from the jobs created in hunting and fishing across this country so the investment is made by congress and the american vote is more than offset by the taxes paid back each year in the generating economy. sore point really is simple. first of all, we as a citizenry of poe's conservationists have always been there. we've always been willing to pay and were simply asking congress if you want to take care of the deficit, and we wanted to, if you want to reduce the debt and would like to come adult throw away those things that make you money. luckily what is their kitchen table in those things that cost us money and don't give this a return on investment. conservation, preservation and recreation give us that return our dollars that is exactly what the american people deserve. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, dale appeared our next speaker stephanie meeks, president of the national trust for historic preservation in a career nature conservancy staff member before the. >> hello, everybody. but me see if i can get this out of the right side. good to be here with you this afternoon. some people may wonder what this historic preservation do us part of this coalition a thousand organizations? the answer is quite simple. we believe the impulse that guy's conservation of natural resources is the very same impulse and valued that guides the preservation of our cultural resources of the country. when of the people who support the national trust support the conservation organizations involved in this coalition. and we believe this is all part of one equation about the sustainability of the american enterprise. i wanted to touch on two elements specifically in the southwick and associates report that was handed out were distributed by sun. one is on historic tax credits, federal historic tax credits and the second on the benefits of heritage tourism. the study that was released by a southwick and associates includes a report commissioned by the national trust for historic preservation to a subsidiary of the national trust investment corporation. the study was completed by rutgers university and shows there's really a very remarkable impact in one particular tool, the federal historic rehabilitation tax credit. i wanted to mention it today because jobs are in everyone's minds and we know they're certainly on the minds of all the members of congress. since its inception from the federal rehabilitation tax credit has created more than 2 million jobs. it's leverage $90.4 billion of private investment and aided in the rehabilitation of 37,000 existing buildings. in economic impact of $6.661000 billion jobs every year for 29 years. what they think is especially important to know if this is a tax credit that is more than paid for itself. it's generated $22.3 billion in federal tax revenue to offset just 11.7 billion in tax expenditures. this is a program generating jobs, generating high-quality jobs. also wanted to put a positive impact of heritage tourism. another significant economic driver and to say one specific example. in 2008, 15 million people visited civil war battlefields managed by the national park service, just the ones subset of the park service system and the 15,000 visitors supported 7700 jobs. so we know the heritage tourism, just that one example can be amplified semitones more over historic communities and other resources in our country. given the tremendous impact were gratified by the news a few weeks ago that the senator committee chaired by senator jack reid has suggested and proposed a very strong funding for historic preservation fund this year it has a $10 increase. it exceeds the funding level and recommends more funding and that it into law. we were pleased to see the senate has proposed $8 million for save america's treasures, which has been one of the country is the most important bricks and mortar funding sources for the rehabilitation and preservation of cultural resources in the country. the national trust was proud to help establish the program to be the principal private partner of three administrations in the implementation of the program. it's had really remarkable results in us hope to protect important american icons such as the star-spangled banner, rosa parks bus, ellis island in september 11 memorial easy stairway. we are proud to be part of all of that. all of these preservation projects help to underscore the bull of historic preservation and economic and cultural than even environmental sustainability. they demonstrate her country's commitment to maintain the very fabric of our life as a society and the national trust is pleased to be working with other partners in and coalitions. thank you very much. [applause] >> and our final speaker of the pana will be bill meadows whose 1996 has left wilderness setting. alice pelosi can redirect questions as they come in from the panel at the end of his remarks. >> thanks very much. you know, there've been several very eloquent statements here this afternoon. and on behalf of the work of this coalition but i'm delighted to be part of and help lead with my good friend, john now, businessman from houston taxpayers who has been actively engaged in conservation and historic preservation, mostly through the civil war battlefield preservation trust. you know, which you've heard lot of numbers. when you read the southwick report come to see a lot of numbers. they are persuasive. there certainly persuasive to many of our political leaders that on a conservation and recreation and historic preservation are indeed drivers of our economic environment. the core message of this one as an organization coalition is that investment in conservation and recreation and historic preservation is good for the economy, good for jobs, good for quality of life. i think these numbers are critical and make note of them, but it is this quality of life i think that we see. everyone here has talked about these issues as an asset. conservation, recreation and historic preservation is an asset for our country. when you think about the values this coalition represents, it is not just the economic argument. it is we are arguing on behalf of the critical aspect for a series of assets to her country. we can demonstrate that there is a return on those assets come a return on investment on those assets. it's really powerful. i think the reason we have 1000 members in the coalition is because people see the impact in their own minds, in their communities. for these investment are not something that are vague, uncertain, that we came about. they are in fact precise, tourette's and people who live in local communities particularly rural communities are benefiting directly on the investment in conservation, recreation and historic preservation. that's the story we're telling. we are delighted that the southwick study supports that very tangible ways. but it is steeper. it's about what is this country about them what are we trying to communicate to our political leaders? am very pleased the coalition has had an enormous impact i think. you just look at the mark in the senate. in his turn at the 2011 enacted budget. i think when we started this coalition in the summer, we never dreamed would be able to have that kind of result. we've got to take it over the finish line. i thank you for your participation and interest. i am delighted to field questions and direct them to people who might be able to answer them are precisely. so let me just start -- is there any press here who would like to ask a question and then i will turn to anyone on the line. >> you. bios to identify yourself and then i will direct a question. >> and sir gonzales or marker poles to in a direct my question to mr. turner said. and when and if you can go into detail about the conservation programs included in the farm bill and how you would just remind you are cutting us in ways that will be responsible. >> thank you for the question about the farm bill. that is a ripe area for analysis. we think they are great program because they love her private capital, so federal spending his letter to the cooperative funding from the year. and they are programs that do things. obviously in the country's best interests. for example, the creation of flood plains along the river create floodwaters and retain nature to runoff from farms, reducing flood, reducing dead zones in the cold. so those are pretty tangible and easy to understand. returns from the lovers spending. so we think those programs that up in compared well to other spending programs you want to compare it to. now how can you improve government spending in this area? that's a trickier question if you take a look at the agencies responsible for a lot of a lot of this funding can use the overlap between one agency and another in that kind of thing. so that is for the conservancy has urged federal government leaders to bear down and make some good progress. resubmitted papers along the line which we can provide to the audience. thank you. >> thanks, mark. others? from the press? anybody on the line? questions from others in the audience? we will interrupt when there's anybody on the line. did we tell you everything you wanted to know? >> though, i think you better off for a bottle of wine. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. diane hoffman from the nature conservancy. given our economic challenges that our country faces, do you think we are in a position today similar to over 100 years ago when the grandfather was president? >> that is a very good question. and the answer to it as it depends. i think you see a lot of similarities in the turn-of-the-century. there were americans determined to develop the economy at all costs without understanding, without caring about the environment. i believe firmly you cannot have a healthy economy without a strong healthy environment. you can see that in terms of clean drinking water. see a country like china, were probably 40% of its water supplies are so badly polluted they can even be used for industrial activities, much less for drinking. there's a very clear nexus or connection there. we are better in understanding that, but we still have people who are pushing too hard and they will have hidden agendas and they will try to attack writers to get their hidden agendas going. so that part still exists. they think is a nation where probably more informed. we've got to remember where to stick to our guns and sticks to her principles in the face of economic hardship. .. i have been very very pleased with the responses we have had. i think these issues, when it gets down to making decisions about budgets, there is more but these issues have really i think carried the day and communicating both sides of the aisle. other questions? >> laura peterson. i know this is a coalition of all sorts of conservation but i was curious if there are certain types of conversation or preservation that you think faces larger challenges or hurdles for funding or support from congress right now than others? >> anybody want to -- company. >> thank you. [laughter] you know i think that this is unfortunately across the board, one. and i think that there are clearly some of the issues have become a bit more polarized so i think it is not surprising that i think the challenge for the regulatory environmental protection is taking a lot more heat than let's say preservation for hunting and fishing communities. i think there is, there is a deep awareness at the local level of what impact conservation has on the quality of life in those communities so when you are able to translate these issues, for example on environmental protection if you translate them to water quality and sewage treatment plants for example there is a lot more support for conservation spending so it is a matter of interpreting these issues in a way that i think has greater resonance but i think it really is across the board although i do think there is a greater support for the traditional conservation work then than there is for environmental policy work. >> tom franklin, eudora roosevelt conservation partnership. welcome everybody. this is for you mr. meadows. as chair of or cochair of the coalition how would you describe your experience working with these groups then what do you think are the greatest strengths with the coalition? >> tom, thank you. go first of all it has been really quite rewarding experience for me. when john and i started this as i said before we had no ideal we would be able to have the kind of reception and in the number of people would be engaged. we never thought there would be 1000 members of this coalition so a lot of people work to get that done and i single people out on -- of the table particularly at tech some limited. i think the theater roosevelt conservation partnership has been really critical in building that coalition. the land trust alliance has been very helpful and i think the greatest reward is diversity. we knew from the beginning that we needed to be able to gather people at the local communities and have people who are able to talk with their individual members of congress. it is only when you are able to do that you were going to have the political success that i think we are on the verge of having. so that it's been the most rewarding is the response to the kind of intensity that i think has come from people within the coalition and their willingness to go the extra mile and communicating. a very strong political message, tom. >> i think john now would say the same thing. i think he has been -- we have gone and many members into the offices of many members of congress and we are getting the kind of comment we have had is oh i have heard that back in my community. we had a town hall meeting in this was an issue that was talked about. we just hearing that over and over again so it is resonating up and going back down as well. >> on ferguson, "congressional quarterly." i'm going back to the deficit reduction panel. are there any members on that panel that you consider to be natural allies are allies our allies on the issue of conservation? >> anybody want to take that on? go ahead. dale hall. >> i think the interesting thing about the supercommittee is that it is a mixture of house and senate. is a mixture of republicans and democrats but as we have our experiences with them over the past, everyone pretty much sees conservation recreation and preservation as a nonpartisan issue. i think the issue, the real issue and the challenge that they have is in understanding that there needs to be more education and less emotion. in emotional decisions, which we have been seeing a lot of those lately, i get mad so i don't want this and that's not related to any particular party. both parties can claim success there. but i think that all of us up here are business people. so mark for-profit and some are not-for-profit that when we make a decision we know it should be based on facts, not on a motion. i think what we are trying to overcome is a sort of way that came into congress and then believing that the people back home just wanted them to cut and all we are trying to do is say slow down, let's do real analyses. let's look at things for their economic, for their human value and all those things and then you can make your decision. if you don't agree with us, fine but we would like to know that you have really looked at our numbers, you have seen the economics that are driven by these different kinds of functions and a payback to the american people that come in. so i really don't believe that there is a friend or foe as you would on that supercommittee. i believe that we have people that we simply want to put the right information in their hands so they can do on the emotional analyses, good analyses and try and make good decisions. >> thanks dale. >> this is a question for mr. roosevelt and mr. tercek. you have a sense of private-sector experience and i was hoping you could elucidate more in some of the impacts you have seen with land cancer patient having in the private sector. >> i think you see a couple of things. in fact a number of things in terms of conservation and the impact on the private sector and a recognition of the private sector of the economic opportunities that we see. let's talk a little bit about climate change, which to me is a conservation issue. it affects biodiversity. it is leading to arguably the sixth grade extinction. is a huge issue. there are immense economic opportunities that have come out of driving policy to mitigate climate change, wind, solar, biofuels, biochemicals. these opportunities are very much part of what i call prudent risk management. you can leave or not believe in the science of climate change. i clearly believe in it but even if you are a businessman that doesn't fully accept the science, prudent risk management strongly suggests that the risk of the damage that will be done by climate change is something that requires policies and objectives put into place at the private sector can really address and that to me is a very good example of the combination of why good public policies to achieve conservation, natural resource management whether you are talking about protecting the salmon fishery in alaska and not letting the mind go ahead. these conservation issues represent very good economics. >> thanks, ted. i agree with that and i think the question is an interesting one. the first thing i would say is a former private sector person as these programs should be thought of as investment programs. we are not -- rather investing in infrastructure in a way that produces very tangible returns. that would be point number one and then point number two, what are the returns we are talking about? we enumerated many but there things like protecting air -- arable land, and that's important because we need food, protecting regulation of the natural water cycle. that's important. sequestering carbon. we can go right down the list. i mentioned flood control or reduction of pollutants and run off into rivers. these investment programs yield very tangible and real returns. then there is the even more obvious ones with jobs and spending connected to outdoor recreation. i believe as we think about the programs as investments and we try to identify specific returns that can be paid from these investments. is one thing included, these are high returning investments and not to be protected. thanks. >> i would just add and this is self-evident, but what happens when you think about these as investments and creating the kind of economic environment in which people can have some opportunity to create a return on investment? that is directly, almost always directly driven by the private sector so it is looking at the private sector relationship and the opportunity the public sector provides that really gives us the leverage we are talking about. >> a question for you dale. you spoke a little bit about the legacy of hunters and conservation. what are they telling you when you go out in terms of their concerns regarding conservation? >> well i found myself very privileged to be associated with ducks unlimited because ducks unlimited is really conservation organization. we have always respected hunters and try to support them because over the years, hunters have been our primary supporter but when we interview them and send out these surveys they say the number one reason they are part of our organization is because of conservation. and as we began to send a message and we have been doing that on a regular basis through our e-mails, through our web sites etc. to make sure people understood the issue, and what i have found is the more information that they had to understand what the issue is, the more support we get and when i go out to visit with our million or so constituents and supporters, i get nothing but support for this. i get people saying, how can i help? of course my answer is go talk to your member of congress and help them understand these issues. both the ecological values provided by habitat but also the economics that are provided. i get nothing but some port -- support from our organization from the people within its i think hunters are embracing this and they have understood for a long time that it is their role first to make sure the resource is there and then to go and do it. >> i just want to follow-up on dale's point. i think there is there's also a sense that a lot of the hunters are angry because they feel this is a partnership. they buy their duck stamp and they contribute to this thing. estate is taking a budget of money and in turn they reflect federal investment as well. that is down from 2.5% in 1970 so the percentage going into conservationist is been declining steadily so i think in addition to appreciating the conservation, people are a little ticked off that reduction is on the backs of folks actively contributing and undermining the partnership for much of the century. >> one more question than we have to close it off. there is one. >> i can identify some of the organizations by name. i've not read your report the report and i have no idea -- in serving outdoors to recreate at the expense of new development. development has proceeded outward rather than redeveloping inward and i'm just wondering if your report or any of your individual organizational thinking as approach the subject? >> i think the historic preservation story is an important one here. stephanie, do you want to address that? >> tanks is -- thank so much for the question. you are right certainly the outward progression of cities have been very challenging for landscapes and the natural resources community. the historic preservation community is very eager to see redevelopment in the reuse of buildings. it keeps our buildings out of landfills. it helps with keeping carbon limitations down as we think about the development of cement and harvesting of natural resource products that need to go into new buildings in new construction. so this report does talk about the benefits of preservation and natural resource conservation and the impacts of programs like the historic tax credits. i think i spoke about these before you came into the room. the federal historic -- which is designed to do what you have described, keep buildings and service, retrograde and upgrade them so they can meet the demands of the 21st century workforce and to have all of those tangible environmental benefits and in tangible cultural benefits to stay intact. >> let me thank you for coming but let me just say one more word and closing. we have talked about reducing investment in conservation and recreation and preservation over the last many years. what we saw this summer beginning in the spring really was decisions being made about these budgets that did not consider conservation, recreation and historic preservation at all. we would be negotiating continuing resolutions and can budgets of 2011 and 2012 in our look at the debt ceiling debate and nowhere was there a voice for these conservation recreation and preservation interest. that is why we founded the coalition and you can see from the response that there are many many people who agree, that voice needs to be heard. we have tried to amplify that in many ways that participation in town hall meetings during the summer, lots of people calling in and sending letters, faxes but these are issues that are very local. so it is being able to communicate effectively to your elected representative. it is too bad these issues have become political. the economic investment of these values are real. we understand them. reseed trillions of dollars in economic impact of the work work that all of us at this table and many in this room are doing. almost 10 million jobs directly related to that impact. i am delighted that southwick was able to do the kind of study that documents much of that. i think it adds great power to the story but ultimately it is going to be a story that is decided by the congress and they make decisions on yes or no on conservation and recreation and preservation. we think we have told a good story. we are asking all of our members of these 1000 organizations to communicate that to their elected officials. thank you for being here and thank you for helping us tell the story. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> you will receive the answer in due course. >> i'm prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over if that is your your decision. >> he was u.n. ambassador were president kennedy during the cuban missile crisis and twice ran as the democratic nominee for president and lost. adlai stevenson is featured this week on c-span series, the contenders from the stevenson family home in libertyville illinois it. live friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. for preview including more of the speech go to our special web site for the series, c-span.org/the contenders. >> next to discussion about a report released by the task force on russian u.s. national interest. the report says the obama administration's new policy has contributed to improving the relations between the two countries. there will be remarks from task force co-chairs rand allison and robert blackwell. this is hosted by the center for the national -- go. >> welcome. this is an event which is cosponsored by the preservation interest. my partners in crime is right here and he will speak later but let me introduce norman blackwell who will preside over today's event and was co-chairman of our task force on the u.s. policy. >> thank you dmitri and good to see so many friends here. as dmitri has said, he and graham and i have been preoccupied with the national interest issue for well over a decade. the two centers have released two previous reports on the national interest and therefore, it was perhaps logical to try to use that optic to look at the relationship between the united states and russia. we recruited 20 or so very distinguished americans to be part of the task force, former national security visor, chairman of the joint chiefs, head of the cia ambassador to russia and so forth and worked for i guess five months on the report. it will be available to you as you leave. and it is being released today and put on the web sites of the center and the council on foreign relations where i am affiliated. just briefly, the question might arise, why now for such a report? the reason at least we all felt to work on it and to publish it now was a sense of urgency about the future of the relationship. so, the way we are going to proceed first, graham allison will speak about why the united states and americans should care about russia. i will then go over a selected list of prescriptions, policy prescriptions in the report. there are dozens and dozens of them but i will confine myself to about a dozen of them, and then dmitri who is just back off a plane from russia will give us his impressions of moscow. and then we will have a conversation about the report and the substance, which we will discuss today. so with that, let me ask graham to lead us off. >> thank you and thank you for coming. it is great to see so many friends, many of whom have been dealing with russia for a long long time. indeed arnold, think i read his book when i is was a graduate student so very especially pleased to have arnold here. let me say first on behalf of the bell for center for science and international affairs, which i am the director, that we have been very pleased to have the opportunity to work with the nick sun center and several iterations of reports on the american national interests, trying to define what our american national interest and we are happy to work with its new incarnation as a center for national interest and dmitri on this project. so, most of us here in washington probably are familiar with i would say the two standard refrains that i hear most frequently when the subject of russia comes up in conversations in washington. the first says, who cares? 20 years after the cold war, russia doesn't matter any more. in the second one basically just says -- we have heard enough about that topic and we are tired of it. and then maybe a little bit of voice that i would think speaker boehner's speech last week is a good illustration. this for ward is quite contrary and says that those two reflexes are profoundly mistaken for a government, a responsible government who is taking its responsibility to defend and advance america's national interest. so the place from which this report starts is what is good for the u.s., not as what is good for some other country and not what is good for russia but what is good for the u.s. and what interests of the u.s. russia impacts and therefore what policies the u.s. needs in order to defend and advance american national interest in the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. so for this group, this is not too complicated a quiz but maybe i will even surprise some of you. no presentation is complete without a quiz. so a few questions. one, which is the only nation on earth that can by its leaders all unilateral decisions he raced the u.s. from the map in the course of an hour? is really absurd and it is a deficit from the cold war but it is hard to ignore. if i would just stop there, that would be more than sufficient to assure that russia commands the daily attention of anti-american president. so, which nation, second question, which nation has done more over the last 20 years to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other states? third, what nation has done more to prevent the loss or theft of loose nukes to terrorist groups? forth, you can see nuclear is on my mind that but that is not surprising. go to the energy world. which nation over the last decade has added more oil and gas to global energy markets? so there are four. obviously the answers are russia, russia, russia and russia. we considered 10 reasons why russia batters. and these are reasons why russia matters to an american government intent on defending and it dancing american national interest. so to take another question, and what nation is providing the most important lifeline to the 100,000 americans fighting in afghanistan today, today? so, most people don't know but over the last several years, as relationships with pakistan have been difficult, russia now accounts for half of the daily deliveries. the russian northern route which russia can turn on and turn off that is -- at its own discretion. if you go to the question of iran, which speaker boehner had a lot to say, what has russia done recently with respect to iran? as it impacts american national interest. most importantly it did not deliver as 300 air defenses that could be operational there today. .. that's just a free vote. so i think the next time you hear any similar reasons you can see it in somewhat more detail, the report does a good job on this staff. the report also offers some realism about russia in terms of numbers. and some of those numbers in terms of a realistic assessment of fresh air to remind you impression matters even more than you thought. so who is the number one producer of oil and gas combined hydrocarbons every day to day? it's not saudi arabia. it's not saudi arabia. on the other hand, it also reminds you why russia is i think especially difficult state with which to have relations that advance american interests because of its own internal problems. so i would say there's some very good numbers in charge in of the report as well as a lot of. the analysis in the report goes for the purpose of identifying the russia that we have to deal with in the analysis of american national interest is to remain a why do we care? what do we care about? but do we care more about something else we care about? but the hard part is prescriptions. so i leave that to. >> thank you, gran. we hope once you've had a chance to look at the report in detail, if you have comments on any element in an act you send them along and we be grateful. the overall tenor of the report is of a group as they say 20 or so former policymakers who worked on russia and therefore needs no tutoring about how difficult it is to do with moscow. many of us have done that for much of her professional career. and the report makes clear that this is a relationship that is six translate challenging because of russian behavior. so in that spirit, let me just read to you a small number of the prescription better in the report. as they say, there are dozens on the various dimensions of the relationship. so i'll just read a few to give you a flavor of it. the united states should engage russia to develop and implement a jointly produced in concrete roadmap with a firm timeline to attaining the highest possible standards of security for all stocks of wetlands, with his usual plutonium and acu everywhere in the world. so we are proposing that a lateral initiative at the united states and russia. the united states should engage russia to orchestrate international consensus that there will be no new national ptu enrichment for plutonium reprocessing. again, a proposal for a bilateral u.s.-russian global initiative. the united states should explore with russia a new strategic stability concept that reflects the fact to washington and moscow no longer any means prepared to destroy each other, but rather potential partners. the next round of u.s.-russian nuclear arms reduction should combine deployed in non-deployed weapons to lower your concealing a strategic warheads to 1000 or fewer. the united states should perceive that develop being antimissile systems in europe and hopefully in line with the realistic assessment of existing and future threat and available technologies and funds. the united states should prepare to launch a genuine insensitive dialogue, first with its nato allies and then with russia about a new inclusive european security system that would give russia a meaningful voice and that would include an effect of rapid response mechanism of conflict prevention, interdiction and resolution. in making major international policy decision, the united states should consider whether u.s. action would consolidate russia chinese cooperation not the expense of white u.s. goals. as long as it appears feasible, if she's being broader u.s. objectives vis-à -vis russia should have priority over expanding nato membership in ways that could undermine co-op or ration on u.s. priorities. the united states should strengthen joint corporations to correct and analyze intelligence on terrorist threats, including nuclear, biological and conventional catastrophic terrorism threat to the two nations and their allies. the united states should intensify discussion at the endgame in afghanistan with the russian government, including military to military talks. the united states and russia should rapidly complete the u.s.-russian agreement on russia's wto accession. the united states should work with the european union to press russia to negotiate seriously with georgia to complete a georgia russia wto agreement while encouraging russia -- sorry, while encouraging georgia to limit talks to issues that are within the scope of the wto's work. the united states congress should graduate russia from the jackson panic amendment restriction and develop new legislation on russian corruption and human rights. the united states should revive efforts to send a bilateral investment treaty negotiated in the mid-90s. the united states should ask that the democratic political change within russia will likely occur gradually and need not necessarily lead to american-style the. the united states should support russian led effort that democratic and market reform when they occur, but should avoid steps that are likely to be viewed as interfering in russian domestic politics, which are often is. and finally, in view of the vital american public interest at stake in the u.s.-russian relations, which grants enumerated and washington's eliminated leverage over the slow democratic transition come to the united states should not allow democracy to dominate its approach to russia. those were a few of their prescriptions and not demetrius just up the plane from moscow will give you some sense of what is the buzz there. dmitri. >> thank you very much. biodegrade credit and stability for this enterprise of world war i and said we have an important issue. we have a problem with an opportunity and a catalyst throughout this exercise. and i couldn't have a better partner than graeme addison which is home to work with many years and of course graham is a remarkable combination of expertise and russia and expertise under the united states in particular american security policy. one reason i wanted to set up the entries to be part of this exercise is because i think that we have a very serious problem in our relationship with russia. part of the problem is and what russia is in part of the problem is in how we handle it. it makes very clear that we do support the administration and the polish have brought some significant achievements. the state also however excited still quite fragile and is yet to be done. one important conclusion, which several of our members felt strongly about and there was among them, was with the word that the united states does not drill in the bilateral relationship, it takes two to tango. and even the smartest and the most courageous will not deliver results unless certain things would happen in russia, particularly with russian foreign policy. the same time it's also clear that some very important decisions have to be made in the united states. and i for one do not doubt and fear d. and goodwill of the obama administration. but as i report says clearly, it is not just a question of good intentions. it is a question of presidential leadership. it is a question of being prepared to do difficult things, sometimes unpopular things. and that ability and willingness film needs to be fully demonstrated. when i was in moscow, i seen the question of a russian tea place and stared fairly persuasively by most russian commentators after it was announced that mr. pooch and will now again president in mr. medvedev is likely to become prime minister. according to a recent public opinion, both organized by a government controlled opinion center, 66% of the russians believe not in a democracy, but it's around the bureaucracy. 74% of the people believe that elections are not going to be free and fair. 81% is basically saying that that. by that i mean, they approved the state of affairs, but they kind of accept it as a way of life and are not planning to do anything about that. i did not smell. spring in the making and moscow. there was also clear that the questions in russia that u.s. foreign policy. and that is not always understood in the mid-states because we understand that focus on what russia has not done right and we have focused on many frustrated i expect nations with russian democracy and in fact about the quality of russian partnership with the united states and the west in general. the russians have their own narratives, which is very different it would be surprising to most americans. i remember years ago i asked a real russian democrat, leader of clearly pro-democratic, i asked him what would be the one thing you'd want the united states to do to promote russian democracy? he said, don't pump survey again. when i was in moscow, the thing that was mentioned to me, most of the russian consent of that american combat was of course the player. and the reason was that russian abstention at the u.n. security council was a presidential decision made by president medvedev despite strong reservations and many other quarters, including the russian foreign ministry because it was made as a personal request of president obama and because the russians rightly or wrongly thought that bought the resolution was quite broad, that it would not believe the two involvement in the libyan civil war and would be limited to protecting and civilized. the handle the resolution in 1999 against yugoslavia appeared against russian objections and it was an embarrassment and a lot of people saying here we go again. here we will follow and assurance and what happened is quite different from what we expected. i am not presenting this as an argument that the libyan decoration is wrong. i am presenting this as an argument that eat very different narratives. and when we think about an american foreign policy decisions, we have to think also about unintended consequences, how decisions would be viewed at their nations, particularly by azerbaijan powers and we make a decision about libya, which was an important decision. but i don't think that most people view the decision to send in effect give. u.s. relations with powers like russia or china that are afraid of the conduct of the u.n. security council resolutions. i do not think -- at least i am not sure that we put the decision in the broad strategic context. we clearly are dealing with a country who is different worldview, who has different values and not only on the part of the russian leadership, but also on the part of the bulk of the russia might. let me mention specifically one issue where we had a very serious problem with russia and that is the problem of russian corruption. corruption is pervasive and it affects not only how russia has ruled. it also affects the quality of the russian relationship. it is at this point in china, we do not have a strong economic component in the relationship with russia. we have a lot of western business leaders, american business leaders coming to moscow with president medvedev signing declarations of contentions. and yet, they are not the majority of them with a few are not prepared to make major investments in russia except admits that. very few in the american business community are prepared to promote engagement with russia and the united states. that makes the relationship inherently fragile and that is clearly russia, not the united states that has the sole responsibility. well, with the responsibility of our own decisions and the emphasize what graham has just said. there are russian decisions which we kind of take for granted that we do not think what would happen if the decisions were not made or were reversed. a decision about as 300 missiles, not to supply them to iran was a russian decision essentially to acknowledge the listing agreement with iran. russia was the last to tempt iran $800 million. it clearly was a decision based on the russian judgment about the quality of russian relationship at the united stated and what this relationship could deliver to russia and very important economically. the relationship allowing nato supplies across russia began with a top-level decision, which i understand was quite controversial in russia. if you just ask what would happen, if these decisions were not made, and how it would affect americans from fundamental interests, they think the answer is pretty clear. many years ago at the center for the national interest we were called the nixon center at the time, we had a meeting with medvedev, who at that time was not president medvedev, but was chief of the russian presidential administration, president putin's administration. and there is a conversation about the separation in iraq and about russian reservations regarding the set duration. in medvedev said that clearly they were not in agreement to the separation. they clearly did not seem it was a good idea for the united states were for the region in general. but then i said something rather striking. and he said, but of course. you will have true partnership with the united states. if we could feel that we would get genuine and it fits of that partnership. we could decide to ignore our disagreements and support our american partners because that partnership would be more important than our differences over any particular issue. but he said, we are not true partners yet. and don't ask russia to deliver what you would expect of a partner when you do not treat russia as a partner. our report makes clear that one fundamental issue in the u.s.-russian relations should are not our differences over specific issues, but mutual distrust. this mistrust is serious and is evident in most capitals. the situation pretty much in washington is no question about that. but what i want to say is my conclusion, we have to be honest with ourselves. it is not likely that we will be able to have it both ways, to treat russia as a rival and to get an assist from russia as if it was a partner. we have to make some difficult choices. do not thank you, dmitri. the four-week in our discussion, let me just read the last two paragraphs of the report and that we will move on to your comment and questions. the last section of the report is entitled the consequences of failure. just as the united states should expect russia to adjust to many of its policies to achieve a sustainable cooperative relationship, washington should recognize that moscow is unlikely to support u.s. policy goals if the u.s.-russian relationship significantly deteriorates. as a result, the failures to establish an ongoing relationship would be quite crossly for the united states. u.s. officials must carefully weigh not only the american national interest to marky mark oc with russia, but also the cost and benefit of failing to do so. keeping in mind russia's capacity to act as a spoiler and a number of carriers and a number of issues that are of vital national interest to washington. in our considered judgment the past fours concludes, the choices clear. the united states should pursue a sustainable cooperative relationship with russia to the dance vital american national interest. it do so without illusions regarding either moscow sometimes neoimperialism bashan for the pace of democratic change in russia. with that, let me open up our conversation. when she raised her hand if you wish to make a comment, ask a question. these identify yourself and your affiliation. i think we have -- i'm not sure if new mexico's around -- no promises because. >> yes. they do a standup just so everyone can hear you. >> could you perhaps outline. the opposition -- [inaudible] >> well, thank you for the accommodation for the report. we don't think everyone just to be specific and our prescriptions agrees that the u.s. nuclear arsenal and the russian nuclear arsenal should go to 1000 or less. i could enumerate five were like that. we don't think there is a unanimous view in washington that nato should disguise a new security system in europe with the russians and so forth. but again, thank you most importantly for the commendation. >> a shorter answer with e. if there were a sensible report, which i think it is, how can there be anything other than opposition in washington? [inaudible] >> that really was my point, too. from my point of view, it's a good list. it is far from a consensus on it in this country, so we have to decide ourselves what it is that we want before we can even imagine approaching the russians on it. i remind you that not too many years ago, under similar circus dances, i not remember what it was nato enlargement or serbia, you and i and sam nunn wrote a paper, very, very similar to the one you are writing now, reminding everybody how important russia was. the problem that we had then is similar to the problem that we have now because some of the answers to your question is not just a. it is so what? the big question is so well? because a lot of people to agree with this general conjurer of where russia is and why russia could matter to us if they did the right thing, if we did the right thing, but the probability of that happening because of the lack of consensus on our side and the disarray on their site is so low that it's very, very hard. i hope this is not what shall encounter, but it's very, very hard to get people to go beyond so wet when these questions are addressed. >> thank you, arnold. that may well be true. but that doesn't lessen the application for us as citizens to do what we can. none of this work in the government. and what we can do is sit dance what we think isn't analytically sound sound set of oppositions insensible group that prescriptions. but that is so we can do. we can try to persuade. we can't coerce and we certainly can't decide. none of us are in government. so what we hope is that this report will stimulate a debate and have people talking beyond this so what. and we will see if it succeeds in doing that. >> yes. >> jim, and. >> jim was a member of our group. >> when the report started questioning to me was not just so what, but now well? if you look at what he said with a basic components on it, they laid out in april 9, 2009 in london. and if you look at that list of priorities and goals, if we get wto, is pretty well finished. at least the bumper sticker parts of it are finished. the real challenge now is okay, what is the next set of bumper stickers? is it a new start for new reduction? is it something different in europe? i just don't know where that is. there's one comment i made up the report. that is one of the things that really isn't fair. as i agree with you, reset is quite a success. it's a great accomplishment, but it also still fragile. the question is, what is going to come to the next three or four years? whoever is president to keep the momentum going. and i don't see that in prescription of shows. it is also a question of what. >> thank you, jim. what we try to do as you note and note any chance to take this with you and study it as you wish, is to give a menu and the various dimensions of the u.s.-russia bilateral relationship. we tried not to recommend as jim says, issues that had already pretty much been decided in the first phase of the reset. so we tried to do that. if you look through the prescriptions, there are many issues that the united states if the administration wish to do so, could pursue, which would give a new scent of impetus to the u.s.-russian relationship, given that there was similar objective on the russian side. and then, the administration has to decide which it wants to do because obviously you cannot do six dozen. so if you make each of you have a somewhat different list emanating from those policy prescriptions and that in fact, as jim said, with he a good to have because if you have six dozen and you only get to pick for, what for what they'd be? other questions, comments? i have one here and then i think i saw a hand back there. [inaudible] i am a student ambassador for the united states. thank you for the presentation. i'm looking forward to the reading of the report. this outcome i like to take the opportunity and ask. when you look at the new genuine travel with russia and the nato states formed in european resistance, that's what it became russia a place that russia deserves. could you elaborate on that? >> yes, i would say there are two broad models that one can think of. there are probably more, but at least you about russia and european security. .. >> [inaudible] it does not say. what we've tried to do all of us have about these matters, a consensus document so we tried to stick as close as you can to the report to represent the views of those who were working on it. i will be imaginative the event but it the question is could be cut is if we pursue the model we should have specific ideas about its dimensions ought to be and it has not been done and we follow these pretty closely. >> obviously four or five out there that could the wrestle back and forth but it is not very concrete but if the idea to see the source of it that inflation is good is basically the best line on the topic for me is the soviets fbi program that basically after a 1991 the soviet union, the plant itself up for adoption and there were no takers. this all gets complicated with the russians but still the notion is a question that many russians ask and the proposition that they just along outside is sufficient and to define a set of principles would include the integrity of the states and obviously the entry component but the ways that activities in one state impact security and well-being of another state. where does it stop? with the boundaries and how does it relate? and ultimately russia has the report points out, it borders poland, nec, than what? and there is a lot of components that don't quite work but those that leave them on the outside with the unsatisfactory proposition spend these are important questions about the relationship about the security system and your point* is well taken to suggest fat it should be changed in of fundamental way. but then the question to replant russia? one is to say that they don't quite deserve it could to give the aggressions do demonstrate and if you invite them then read just provide legitimacy. that is one possible approach. to say we will have tried with the european powers by what was happening and to influence with stolid russia with security insurance but essentially not to give much priority in the assumption was hitler and stalin but they could never agreed strategically weisel we have discovered that what are the implications? one important conclusion and are the considerations that the direction of the attendees superpower from what you say it sounds like you have not mentioned much about american business they have adopted russia 750 companies most are fortune 500 micki billion is no problem with repatriation with 80% to create lots of jobs. john deere loading up on jobs. i am sorry i gave a capitalized version but yes there is a section on that. >> i was a deputy director and tell with a lot of the think takes in town the deputy at the center of presidency in one of the things i found out is there is a lot of great reports 60 on the shelf is there any organized orderly plan? not just the hope that they pick it up? if you're not proactive but i commend you on the effort because it is very much needed. >> yes. but to see if it is successful there are a lot of others on people's minds as we all know but we will do our best to market it. >> it is worth to say a few things but it is precisely right it probably doesn't have as much as it should because most people don't appreciate how many american businesses are doing very good business in russia and could be doing it even more but for many years chairing the investments oppose him if i look the development of america and development business is much more than what we wish for in to go to germany they think it is great for americans to talk about corruption but didn't want to come here because it is more business for us. we say no problem and still make you mention john deere, a coca-cola to sway the decision to put another five played dollars into china. this is one of the biggest marcus -- that might result has a very significant facility. fear is a fantastic amount of facilities one a year do you effective business but the question of what is happening to? rush of business tuitions and it it ought to be but the business compounded to is one of the crucial elements because if you just will floor pledge to the economics are higher late security and it surprises me the president is doing heavier lifting every day. there is no parts of the business leadership and civil but to that is a barry 38 of orange to sustain from the american side? but you don't have in the community where they escaped come live a the diaspora of the israelis. >> thank you for the question and comment. over here? >> the recommendations in tend to have a considerable bilateral and the eyes of a lot of other countries are rounds of ram like turkey, india, china, korea, japan. and here as it is for us to think we ever have to take other two entries interest into account but there is a great power doing with another power like russia they do sell most successfully by engagingly other countries. and the fact the first country tends to be china or germany rather than the united states to indicate which was largely bilateral agenda is one that has to be moller. >> you have a chance to look at the report because we have to have no longer and. ♪ conversation about what you have in mind. adjust the back from india and the indians i don't think the mad chin chin there is much in common with the multilateral issues but to have more detail about what you have in mind. >> s someone, -- but one question is when it comes to europe and russia i'd like to take it to a new data -- geography but to go further down. >> think you invest their. by my colleagues pay one to speak to the sidelines not say anything about our brand but one report says positively the united states and russia seem to have diminished their competition in central asia. and in the report analyzes why that should be true and the report talks about but i think there are opportunities here, that i am not sure as you go through pakistan and into india if that is as true. the report does recommend that to rush to take a more active role to persuade pakistan to pursue more responsible policies. how much deployments they have is a question. and as i just said the relationship between russia and india is rarely the arms transfer relationship which is different from the old days but thinking of it as a strategic pollack as you did is the way the russians think of it and some of their behavior we don't like very much for good reason. but it is less incendiary as it was in there are opportunities now than it did not exist before but let me make one point* that my colleagues made in a different way. there are so many who have been in senior policy positions what i am about to say will not stop the press but we could make decisions on individual issues with very narrow categories to think how they affect the broader relationships jovi's have a few on human rights which of course, we feel strongly about and we are inclined to lecture others on the basis of that subject but often do not think how it affects their behavior on other issues. what the report tries to say come it does to use the word that the concept is used is the end of vegetable word and to put you have to recognize that some issue but as we the havenwood dimension of the relationship, it affects substantially the other dimensions of the relationship. myself, three times the by house and somehow we are not very good to do that and calling it the budget faint gained about the relationship it and to recognize those who run russia and they are influenced by our reviewer and as their return and the that takes that into account and the it's a serious possibilities to say which it is most important and which ones overlap with some degree to rise shin national interest gingrich should we be pursuing? >> we have one more than we will wrap up. >> the question is extremely important i a completely agree and first, the report is quite strong with the proposition with the american mission with russia but to get forded to washington about the he ruins budget but there is no measures to have a targeted impact and equally important to the news for promoting democracy in russia. blige but we have specific suggestions about what that might entail and is said wto strengthens the forces for more rule of law of for more integration into the system but the second picks up. and dmitri is very good article i always keep an article on -- from aa meyer for respective but "we should never take the stance >> the proposition in this it is and his spare imagery have pollack event there, did she i am sorry. >> [inaudible] >> please speak up. >> as you know, there is some port and commercial issues could to have the extension of nerve or train relations from what we achieved in the coming days since an unmarried a it but redo and induce the it in the coming months and is not a straight to commercial issue about favor prior written addition but the u.s. business day commercial of engagement is very emcor finch. >> thank you. let me just say we are available to help in that regard if and when it is appropriate because we agree when the debate aconites it is a broad debate about the u.s. mission to cut -- rushed up. there are views that we will try to ventilate as broadly as we can. last question over here. >> island florida. [inaudible] could not just thinking about it in an but to sell my question is how do see this but you don't make the connection of the u.s. interest to say this could be something or the interest with those reasons. >> but injector could answer your the veba tonnes it so i don't think there is but. >> -- oppose integration further east but it depends on what kind it is in if it is coercive of an obviously it is not the acceptable but the report makes clear that states and the former soviet union that these 70 so of that needs to me. >> and rather the report is the messiah of and on behalf >> they prepared the reports come a pianist, send your comments question suggestions and ideas about how we could use the report and its substance thank you very much for hosting us here today. [applause] [inaudible conversations] . .
Related Keywords
Nevada , United States , Alaska , Turkey , China , California , New Mexico , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Serbia , Jovi , Khuzestan , Iran , India , Wyoming , Iowa , Libya , Cuba , Poland , Haiti , New York , Moscow , Moskva , Japan , Germany , Azerbaijan , Afghanistan , Florida , Georgia , Williamsburg , London , City Of , United Kingdom , Pakistan , Iraq , Israel , Colorado , Saudi Arabia , Houston , Texas , Chile , Capitol Hill , France , Utah , Polish , Americans , America , Chinese , Soviets , Russian , Britain , Afghan , Israelis , Soviet , Libyan , Chilean , Russians , American , Cuban , Haitian , Robert Blackwell , Theodore Roosevelt , Dick Durbin , Robert Gibbs , Ron Reagan , Ted Roosevelt , Arne Duncan , Eudora Roosevelt , Hubert Humphrey , Henry Ford , Tom Franklin , Dale Hall , Stephanie Meeks , Graeme Addison , Sam Nunn , Laura Peterson , Jack Reid , Alan Simpson , Alice Pelosi , Herman Cain , Henry Clay , Adlai Stevenson , Graham Allison , Norman Blackwell , Brad Southwick , Diane Hoffman ,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.