tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN July 31, 2012 1:00am-6:00am EDT
negative campaigning with kenneth goldstein. then we hear from gregory at the senate for technology on cyber security legislation being considered in the senate. and they look at how the american public feels about big business and lobbyists. doug pinkham gives his assessment. "washington journal" is at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. tuesday, the nominees to afghanistan and pakistan. james cunningham has been nominated as ambassador to afghanistan and richard olsen has been nominated to pakistan. see it live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> we have to be clear about the many ways that we own ourselves
and that we all our history and that we make decisions that our history is special. >> comments on politics and education and the senate, your questions, calls, and the nose for the author of "surviving and thriving." live at noon eastern on c- span2's book tv. >> hillary clinton said recent allegations against her longtime aide have no place in our politics. the secretary praised republicans were critical of the first to tie her to the muslim brotherhood. remarks came her as she spoke at the carnegie institute. this is just under one hour.
>> it is an enormous pleasure for me to welcome my friend and the secretary of state, and hillary clinton. for the last three and a half years, she has traveled the globe relentlessly covering more ground and visiting more countries and talking to more non-governmental people than any previous secretary of state. under her watch, the united states has ended one more and is winding down another in afghanistan. has reset relations with russia, though that remains a work in progress. and has handled relations with china. and, as we will hear camera has evolved a sound response to the historic -- hear, has evolved a sound response to the historic change in the middle east. the u.s. has deep political,
economic, and moral interests in the outcome of the arab awakening. the fact the awakening has produced a free elections in countries like tunisia and libya, while it is challenging, it raises new challenges of its own. how will parties governed? what steps will they take to protect individual rights, including those of women and religious minorities and what can be done to reduce sectarian violence? the state department's report on religious freedom, and we have ambassador cook with us today, that report which was released today examines many of these issues and is the theme of the secretary's remarks. no one who has followed her career over decades in doubt
that secretary clinton as a personal commitment to freedom of expression and human rights that runs deep and strong in her veins. her intelligence and willingness to speak louldy t-- loudly truth has made her an effective secretary of state. we are delighted to have for today. please join me in welcoming secretary clinton. >> thank you very much. it is a pleasure to join you here today to talk about an issue that shaped the lives of people worldwide as much as any other, religious freedom. i want to thank jessica mathews, for that introduction,
and for her service of many years and her leadership as the president of the carnegie endowment. 15 years ago, she was writing about trends that were beginning to get people's attention. like the rise of information technology and the creation of global networks that existed outside of government. she said those changes would shape global events in ways good and bad and that governments would have to adapt if they wanted to stay on top of global change. she was certainly right about then and i have worked to make the integration of new technology and outreach to civil society groups and the private sector, diaspora communities a hallmark of my time is secretary so that it is not an afterthought.
it is not an add-on but it is integrated into the work we do. clearly the work we do will be affected by all of those non- state actors. i want to acknowledge two people. michael, our assistant secretary of state. someone with whom i have had the great privilege and honor of working over the last several years. and suzanne johnson cook, the u.s. ambassador at large for international religious freedom. someone i have had the privilege of working with in the state department and my previous internet -- incarnations as a senator. chris and bill, two of my top advisers from civil society. i'm grateful for their efforts. and all of the representatives from congress, from embassies, members of the religion and foreign policy working group,
and others who recognized and are committed to the importance of this issue and what it represents. earlier today, the state department released its latest international religious freedom report. it opens with the words that guide our work and the work of governments and individuals devoted to freedom of religion around the world. they are the words of article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights. listen to those words again because much of what i will say today is rooted in our constitution and our belief about the importance of the free exercise of religion. but it is important to remember that these words were adopted by the international community,
not just by the united states. here they are. everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. this includes freedom to change his religion or belief in freedom, either in alone or with others, and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teachings, practice, worship, and observance. these are straightforward principles that bring people together in heartfelt unity and disagreement. in the united states, religious freedom is a cherished, constitutional value. a strategic national interest and a foreign-policy priority. it is particularly urgent that we highlight religious freedom because when we consider the global picture and ask whether
religious freedom is expanding or shrinking, the answer is sobering. more than a billion people live under governments that systematically suppress religious freedom. new technologies have given repressive governments additional tools for cracking down on religious expression. members of communities that have been under pressure report that the pressure is rising. even some countries that are making progress on expanding political freedom are frozen in place when it comes to religious freedom. so when it comes to this human right, at this a feature of stable, secure, peaceful society, the world is sliding backwards. meanwhile, several countries with the verse of faith communities are in the process of navigating transition toward
democracy. they are wrestling with questions of whether and how to protect religious freedom for their citizens. this goes from tunisia to burma and many places in between. take, for example, egypt, which i visited two weeks ago. i had a very emotional, personal conversation with christians who are anxious about what the future holds for them and their country. what egypt and other countries decide it will have a major impact on the lives of their people and will go a long way toward determining whether these countries are able to achieve democracy. this is an issue that transcends religious divide. all faiths have a stake in defending an expanding religious freedom.
i feel strongly about this. because i have seen firsthand how religious freedom is an essential element of human dignity and of secure, thriving societies. it has been linked with economic development and stability. and it creates a climate in which people from different religions can move beyond distrusted work together to solve their shared problems. i have also seen how the opposite operates. the absence of religious freedom can create a climate of fear and suspicion that weakens the social cohesion and alienates citizens. that can make it more difficult to achieve national progress. and because the impact of religious freedom extends beyond the realm of religion, and has ramifications for a country's
security and its economic and political progress, more students and practitioners of foreign-policy needs to focus more time and attention on it. today i want to make the case for religious freedom and why all people and government should support it. i want to address the argument that people who stand in the way of religious freedom used to try to justify their actions. >> let me start with what life is like for many who live without this freedom. in the harshest places, certain religions are banned completely. a believer can be sentenced to death. strict laws ban blasphemy and definition of religion. -- defamation of religion. when your words are interpreted as a violation of those laws, you can be sentenced to death. violence towards religious minorities often goes unpunished. the message is clear -- if your beliefs do not have government
approval, beware. the same message is delivered by governments that seek the illusion of freedom by creating official, state-sanctioned religious associations. they say, look, our people can practice whichever of these pre-approved faiths they choose. but if people are caught going outside of these associations to form their own communities or receive instruction from their own religious leaders, they can be imprisoned. religious freedom is not just about religion. it is not just about the right of roman catholics to organize a mass or muslims to hold a religious funeral or bahai's to meet in each other's homes for prayer or jews to celebrate high holy days together. as important as those are, religious freedom is about the
right of people to think what they want and come together in fellowship without the state looking over their shoulder. that is where the state- exercised right of religious freedom is the first right enshrined in our first amendment, along with the freedom to speak an associate. because where religious freedoms exist, so did the others. it is also why the universal declaration of human rights protect freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. they all speak to the same capacity within each and every human being -- to follow our conscience, to make moral choices for ourselves, our families, our communities. these rights give our lives
meaning and dignity. whatever religion we belong to. or if we belong to no religion at all. like all human beings and all human rights, they are our birthright by the mere fact of us being who we are, thinking, acting human beings. they're not granted to us by any government. rather it is the responsibility of government to protect them. this, of course, is not the view held by regimes that block religious freedom. they choose to see things differently. in particular, there are two arguments they make to justify their actions. both are worth examining. the first is that only some people should be allowed to practice their faith, those who belong to the right faith.
they define religion in such a way that if you do not believe what they want you to believe, then what you are doing is not religion. there is only one definition of religion. they and only they and the religious leaders with whom they work are in possession of the ultimate religious truth. others depend on a tradition -- depending on tradition are wrong, heretical, infidels. they do not deserve the protection of the law. they may not even deserve to live. because this is an issue that inflames emotions, it can be hard to talk about it constructively. let me simply say this -- people can believe that they and
only those like them possess the one and only truth. that is their right, though they do not have the right to harm those they think harbor incorrect views. but their societies pay a cost when they choose to look at others with hate or disgust. human rights become real not only in interactions between citizens and their government, but also in those millions of ordinary moments among neighbors and classmates and co- workers, even strangers on the street. every time people choose tolerance and respect over fear and animosity, they strengthen human rights for themselves as
well as everyone else, because they affirmed their shared humanity. that is our religious freedom -- excuse me -- inscribed inlaw, becomes religious harmony flourishing throughout society. religious leaders have a critical role to play in this process. we need them to encourage their followers -- excuse me -- to embrace the the principles of peace and respect, which are not only tenets of nearly every religion, but also at the heart of religious freedom. and then, most importantly, we need leaders to affirm that respecting the religious freedom of others is in keeping with, not in opposition to one's own rights. when people of all religions can practice freely, it creates an environment in which everyone's freedom is more secure. leaders and governments, meanwhile, have their own responsibilities.
people can think what they want, but governments have to act in favor of protecting the rights of all. the world should and must hold governments to a different standard than individuals, whether they are secular or religious, muslim or christian, hindu, atheistic, or anything else. governments have a solemn obligations to protect the human rights of all citizens, no matter what religion as they believe or do not believe. some leaders try to excuse treating some citizens to prevent others by saying that is what the people want. they said they personally believe in religious freedom, but if a majority of citizens want to see a group locked up or thrown out of schools or fired from their jobs, well, doesn't democracy mean following the will of the people? the answer is there is a big
difference between democracy and the tyranny of the majority. the liberty that democracy provides does not include the freedom to do violence to the equality of all citizens before the law. that is why universal rights are often embedded in constitutions. they provide guard rails against laws that deprive members of minority groups of their rights. when popular opinion supports restricting the rights of a minority, leaders should remember that they owe their people both their loyalty and their judgment. when rights apply only to some citizens and not to others, when principles are subverted to power, that sows the seeds for legitimate grievances and
instability. a genuine democracy uses principles to protect the rights of people equally. a second argument that leaders opposed to religious freedom make is that they cannot afford religious freedom yet. they argue that the result could be instability. a rise in anti-government sentiment, the fraying of social ties, more acts of harassment and violence. this is the same argument that leaders invoked to justify cutting down on political expression, press freedom, or civil society groups, or any activity that questions the status quo and reflects the citizens' democratic aspirations. in fact, long practice and even
academic study shows that it is the absence of religious freedom that is correlated with religious conflict and violent extremism. there is also evident that conflict is more likely when states have official religions and persecuted religious minorities. that makes sense, if you think about it. when people are treated as equal under the law, hostilities among neighbors subside and social unity has a chance to grow. so does trusted the democratic process, because people are confident their rights will be protected no matter who is in power. in other words, religious freedom is one of the safety valves. it lets people have a say over important aspects of their lives, enjoying their societies fully, and channel their frustrations into constructive lives. otherwise, it is a recipe for conflict and extremism.
some governments are coming to realize this. for example, in libya, since the overthrow of gaddafi, the new government has chosen not to enforce some of his lost that restricted religious activity. they have enshrined the free practice of religion in their interim constitution and outlawed discrimination on the basis of religion or sect. earlier this year, the libyan supreme court overturned a law that criminalized insults against islam. they have come to realize that the best way to deal with offensive speech is to counter it with speech that reveals the emptiness of the insult and the lies. egypt is grappling with these challenges as it navigates its
unprecedented transition. i met with members of the new government, including president morsi. religious freedom was very present, behind closed doors and out in the streets. the president has said clearly and repeatedly in public and private that he intends to be the president of all the egyptian people. he has pledged to appoint an inclusive government and put women and christians in high leadership positions. the egyptian people and the international community are looking to him to follow through on those commissions. i heard from christians who want to know that they will be accorded the same rights and respect as all egyptians in a new government led by an
islamist party. they wonder, understandably, will the government looking explicitly to greater reliance on islamic principles stand up for non-muslims and muslims equally? since this is the first time that egypt has ever been in this situation, it is a fair question. egyptians are building a brand new democracy. what it will look like, how it will work, how it will handle religious pluralism -- egyptians will be writing the answers to those and many other questions for years to come. as i told the christians with whom i met, the united states does not take the side of one political party over another. what we do is stand firmly on the side of principles. yes, we do support democracy -- a real democracy. where every citizen has the right to live, work, and worship how they choose, whether they be muslim or christian or
from any other background, where no group or faction can impose their authority or their ideology or their religion on anyone else, where there is healthy competition and what we call checks and balances. no one institution or leader gets too powerful and the rights of all citizens are respected and protected. the egyptian people will look to their elected leaders to protect the rights of all citizens and to govern in a fair and inclusive manner, and so willingly. and if voters make different choices in future elections, then they and we will expect their leaders to respond to the will of the people and give up power. we are prepared to work with the leaders that the egyptian people choose, but our
engagement with those leaders will be based on their commitment to universal human rights and universal democratic principles. another important aspect of egypt's transition is whether citizens themselves respect each other's differences. we saw that capacity vividly in tahrir square, when christians formed a circle around muslims in prayer and muslims clasped hands to protect christians celebrating mass. i think that spirit of unity and fellowship was a very moving part of our regions and all the rest of us -- of how egyptians and all the rest of us responded to what happened in those days in that square. if, in the years ahead, egyptians continue to respect that precious tradition of what every single egyptian can contribute to the future of
their country, where people of different faiths will be standing together in fellowship, then they can bring hope and healing to many communities in egypt who need that message. as we look to the future, not only in egypt, not only in the newly free and democratically- seeking states of north africa and the middle east, but far beyond, we will continue to advocate strongly for religious freedom. this is a bedrock priority of our foreign policy, one that we carry out in a number of ways. earlier today, the united states did release our annual international religious freedom report. this is the fourth time i have had the honor of presenting it. it comprehensively catalogs the
official and societal restrictions of people around the world face as they try to practice their faith. it designates countries of particular concern that have engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom. this report sends a signal to the worst offenders, that the world is watching. it also provides information to help us and others target our advocacy, to make sure we reach the people who most need our help. in the obama administration, we have elevated religious freedom as a diplomatic priority. together with governments, international organizations, and civil society, we have work to shape and implement united nations human rights council resolution 1618. it seeks to protect people
under attack or discriminated against because of their faith. we raised these issues at the highest levels of international settings. i personally have discussed religious freedom in every region of the world, sometimes over and over again. we have appointed our first envoy to the organization of islamic cooperation. we have launched a strategic dialogue with civil society, in which we collaborate with religious leaders to promote religious freedom, a conflict prevention, and mitigation, and development center-religious dialogue. it includes a foreign policy working group that has provided concrete recommendations on how we can strengthen our approach to religious freedom and engagement with religious communities. beyond diplomacy, we expanded our assistance to individuals under attack because of their beliefs and to human rights activists working in hostile environments to promote religious freedom.
these men and women are doing vital and often dangerous work with great courage. we are proud to stand with them. as part of our human-rights dialogue with china, for example, we have taken chinese officials on site visits to see how religious organizations in our country provide valuable social services. we organize a visit to a catholic charity that provides help to people with intellectual disabilities, an organization that fights discrimination against arab-americans, and more. we are also taking the message of tolerance and inclusion to young people. a few years ago, hannah rosenthal and our special representative to muslim communities attended a tolerance summit together. it came away with an idea. they began asking young people to pledge to spend just one
hour working with people who do not look like them or play like them. -- pray like them. jews were encouraged to volunteer to clean a mosque, muslims to help elderly christians get to church, and other examples. it has elicited commitments from young people are around the world to spend tens of thousands of hours walking in someone else's shoes. it has even become one of the london olympics official initiatives. it is something that we all have a responsibility to do. seven years ago, when i was a senator, i spoke at a dinner on religious liberty. i challenged everyone there to think of ways we could personally for their religious freedom. including, in the words of eleanor roosevelt, "in those
small places close to home." i said it was up to each of us to ensure that our nation, which has always been an exemplar of religious freedom, continues to be. our mission is as important today as it has ever been. the united states was founded, amongst others, by people fleeing religious persecution, who dreamed of a place where they could live according to their beliefs, without fear, without shame, without the need to hide. today, we are that place. with all of our challenges, there is no doubting the importance of religion to the vast majority of americans or to the fact that people of faiths and people of no faith live in america openly and at peace with each other. the religious life of our nation is vibrant and alive.
that has been possible because of our citizens' capacity over time for tolerance and respect. but also because of the work of our government, all three branches, to uphold our constitution, to take extraordinary care not to favor one religion over another, and to protect equally the rights of all. this has required perpetual vigilance and effort. we all know there have been clashes and stumbles and vigorous, impassioned debate along the way. we are still searching for and moving toward that more perfect union. of course, we like any non- divine entity are not perfect. but we should be proud and
grateful for the wisdom of our founders and for the diligence of those who came after to protect this essential freedom. it is rare in this world, but it should not be. people are not asking for much. they just want to worship their god and raise their children and make their homes and honor their ancestors and mourn their loved ones in a way that speaks to their hearts and reflects their beliefs. what could be more fundamental to human dignity than that? that is what religious freedom makes possible. that is why the united states will always stand for the value, the principle that religious freedom represents, not only for us, but for people everywhere.
it is not only a value that we enshrined in our constitution. we know from long experience it goes right to the heart of the stability and security of so many countries in the world. in this inter-connected world we live in, that means it affects the stability and security of the united states of america. thank you for understanding the importance of this value and principle, and i hope for seeking ways to continue to further it, protect it, and spread it. thank you very much. [applause]
now i think we will maybe take a few questions, and jessica? in no particular order -- here come the microphones. >> thank you so much, madam secretary, for what you do in the world and for the united states. i am egyptian american. thank you for caring about egypt. i am the founder of a democracy for egypt. my question to you, madame, is not only the question in egypt -- i don't know if you read the last report that the change for egypt is asking president morsi right now that he is not delivering what he promised in forming the new government.
you mentioned that you will be observing closely and if there would be steps taken. if you could enlighten us on what is next. thank you so much for your effort. >> well, thank you, and let me start by saying that i do recognize that a democratic transition is a complicated one for any country, and in all to humility, it took us quite some time to get it right, to include all of our citizens, starting with african-americans and women and truly fulfill not only the letter of the constitution, but the aspirations of our people. as i monitor what is happening in egypt, i am conscious of how
challenging it is to get off on the right footing, to be absolutely clear what your principles and values are. as you are aware, and there was certainly a very concerted effort by the president and the freedom and justice party and others associated with it, including the muslim brotherhood, to make commitments about the kind of inclusive a tip that the government would represent, the respect that all egyptians would be held in, and the protection of the rights of all egyptians. now we are waiting to see how that gets translated into action. we are certainly aware of the forming of the new government, with the announcement of a new prime minister. we are waiting to see who is in
that government. that will be an important step along the way. we are looking for ways to support the government, particularly in fulfilling the economic aspirations of all egyptians. but we are going to judge by actions, not words. and the actions the actions are really just at the very beginning stages. it is important to make absolutely clear to everyone that we're not supporting any individual party or any individual. there seems to be a view on the part of some that we are, but that is not the case, never has been the case. we have supported a transition that we hope as lead to a democracy, which, as we have made clear, is not just about elections. there were mistakes in the past, and some of the ways that we shorthanded support for
democracy in our country, let's have an election and democracy, and maybe we never have to have another one. one election, one time. we don't have to be held to any standard as to how we continue to reach out and respect people. i have made it very clear that that is not the case. an election does not a democracy make. we are emphasizing the independence of the press, freedom of religion, the kinds of things that we have learned over many years of practice of what sustains a democracy. as egypt adopt a new constitution, as it votes again for parliament, as its government takes office, we will see a recognition, a
commitment to what we view as essential for democracy to be sustainable. now, am concerned that respect for religious freedom is quite tenuous. i don't know that that is going to quickly be resolved, but since 2011 and the fall of the mubarak regime, sectarian violence has increased. attacks on christians and muslims, sectarian violence, from both communities, has cost lives. we don't think there has been a consistent commitment to investigate and applied the laws equally to the perpetrators of such violence. that it and sends a message to the minority community in
particular, but to the larger community, that there is not going to be any consequences for acting out one's own religious prejudices or social and securities. that is the kind of recipe that can quickly get out of control in terms of conflict and also undermined the new democracy. i am urging the egyptian government at all levels to respect the rights of all egyptians. and i am urging those who are concerned, not only christians, but also moderates, liberals, secularists, to organize themselves. this is something that i started talking to the tahrir square veterans about shortly after the fall of mubarak, that it has been my experience that
when democratic space opens up, when freedom opens up and authoritarian regimes are falling, those who are unorganized will not be successful. how is that for a profound statement? [laughter] but all too often, people who are in the moderate liberal world that don't have the same commitment to organization and follow-through that those whose beliefs are so certain that they know exactly what they are going to try to achieve. there is the religious dimension, at the constitutional inclusive of the dimension, but there is also the political dimension. in a democracy, you have to get out there and work to elect people who represent your views. otherwise, you are going to be
sidelined. it is my hope that as we judge egypt's leaders by their actions, egyptian activists really get more focus on how to influence of the government themselves. i know this is a long haul, but that is the way democracy works. it does not happen overnight. oh, my goodness. [laughter] i don't know, jessica, you should be calling on these people. this young man in the middle, in the striped shirt. >> very lucky to see you here. >> thank you. >> religion sometimes mixes with other issues like terrorism. the terrorists, the separatists, mobilize supporters. how to protect religious freedom and counterterrorism as well as a counter-separatism?
thank you. >> that is an important question, because oftentimes when we talk about religious freedom, there is a tendency for people to worry about the free exercise of religion somehow supporting terrorists and separatists. i have almost the opposite view. i think the more respect there is for the freedom of religion, the more people will find useful ways to participate in their societies. if they feel oppressed, if there is not that safety valve that they can exercise their own religion, they then oftentimes feel such anger, despair, that they turned to violence and become extremists.
now, there will always be people in nearly every society who are going to believe that god is talking right to them and saying, you know, what you really need to do is overthrow the government, what you really need to do is to kill the unbelievers. there will be people like that. but we're talking about organizing society for the vast majority of people, having people who exercise their religious beliefs lawfully, protected by the law, and people who engage in violence, harassment, intimidation, or other antisocial criminal behavior are punished by the law. but one should not be punished or harassed merely because of who one is or what one believes, unless their actions associated with that. that often is difficult rub in
many areas when we talk about religious freedom. you know, it is not just religions against one another. it is even within religions -- within christianity, within judaism, within islam, within hinduism. there are people who believe in their version of that religion is the only right way to believe. in some of the countries we are most concerned about that are majority muslim countries, it is intimidation and violence against muslims who are in minority sects that we must worry about. we watch for many years the conflict in northern ireland against catholics on one side and protestants on the other. i think you are right that there always are issues about
terrorism, separatism. but those should be dealt with under the law without infringing on the rights of people whose religious beliefs are different from the majority. i hope that governments can begin to make those distinctions. it is not only important to do because you don't want to breed extremism, which you can do by cracking down on religion, especially if it is associated with the different ethnic group or tribal group, other identifying characteristics. but it is also because if you are not careful, people will feel that they are in a life or death struggle to protect their religion in the majority against the minority. i remember going to bosnia
after the end of the war in bosnia, and a woman telling me that she couldn't believe the hostility she started to feel from her neighbors. she said to a neighbor, "why are you behaving like this? we have known each other for many years. we went to school together, we went to weddings, we bury our dead together. why are you treating me like this?" the answer was, "because we were told if we did not do that to you first, you would do that to us." if the government doesn't step in and say, no, we are not going to let people be acting this way, we are not going to let them be discriminating, we are not going to let them be harming others on the basis of religion or any other characteristics, but focusing on
religion, they can get out of control of any government. as we know, governments and sometimes stoke religious discrimination for their own political reasons. you have problems at home, the economy is not doing well. let's go find an enemy, let's go find people who are over there. they are of a different religion. that gets everybody excited. you like a match and you cannot put the fire out. we need to be thoughtful about sorting out the problems posed by extremism and terrorism from legitimate religious differences that should be tolerated, respected, and protected. >> we have time for just one more. may i ask you, when the secretary is finished answering this question, to stay on your -- [unintelligible] >> jessica, why don't you call on the last person?
>> i am serving as the general counsel of the american egyptian strategic alliance, working to bring together egypt and the united states in a stronger alliance. one of the things we been talking to the egyptian government about is this issue of religious freedom, and we told them, look to your left, meeting places like jordan, lebanon, and palestine, where muslims and christians, particularly in palestine, have lived in peace for centuries. i am wondering if your conversations touch upon that. look to your fellow arab countries, where it is not a problem, frankly. just a quick follow-up question. i appreciate your emphasis on america, but we also have our problems here with respect to, of course, is, phobia, which i am sure you are aware of. i'm wondering if you have comments about his recent activity in, targeting one of
your own aides. >> well, on the first question, there have been disturbing recent developments with christians being attacked and driven out of iraq, christians in syria feeling like they are really going to be at risk, almost regardless of what develops in the terrible conflict that is now raging. christians feeling that they are under pressure in lots of places in the middle east, where, as you rightly say, they have lived for centuries it side-by-side. i think it is quite important for us to unpack that. why is it happening now? what is it? of course, it is a new political identity, it is an effort by islamists primarily, although not exclusively, to claim a democracy and see how it fits within their pre-existing
from works of belief. there's a lot of attention and concern going on right now across the arab world, particularly in places where christians have lived and would love to continue living. has several questions in egypt told me, our people have been here and i can trace my family back to a thousand years. -- two thousand years. i love this country i want to be a part of this country and i want to help build this country. i just hope i will be able to. it is at this point that leadership is incredibly important. leaders have to be active in stepping in and send messages about protecting the diversity within their countries. frankly, i don't see enough of that.
i want to see more of it, i want to see more of it. we did see some of that in our own country. we saw republicans stepping up and standing up against the kind of assaults that have no place in our politics. we have to set an example, there is no doubt about that. we have to continue doing so. but we also have to expect other leaders to do the same. when i think about how scared so many minorities, religious minorities are all over the world, and governments -- i believe that governments have a bigger role to play and leveraged than they exercise. to many governments, particularly in these fast- transitioning societies, when there is so much going on at
the same time -- too many governments believe their religious freedom is something you get to after you deal with everything else. it is just not a priority for them. we want to raise it up on the visibility list of what they need to be dealing with, and to try to send a clear message. you need to stand up for the rights of your people. you are a leader of a diverse society. if you are in a rock, you need to be protecting every community, not just one or two at the most. if you are in lebanon, you need to be standing up for every community. similarly, in egypt, pakistan, indonesia, china, india, and where, leaders need to be out front saying that an acting on a. -- and then acting on it.
i am hoping that we will see more actions that move in that direction, and the united states will continue to push and prod and persuade and, if necessary, look at ways to use consequences that can send a very clear message that we believe you will not be successful, you will not be stable, you will not be secure, you will not have a sustainable democracy. let me add one other thought about this, though. in some societies, what we're seeing, going back to the young man's question -- terrorism, separatism, and religion -- there can be as fertile ground if the government is not paying attention to all the needs of the people. we also are going to have policies that, if you are living in northern nigeria, you will see more development so that you do not only see -- take
on the security front, but take it on the economic development front. there are lots of ways to try to knit this together. it is probably the most exciting time but the most daunting time to be a leader in the world right now, especially in these new transitioning democracies. there are just so many high expectations that will be so difficult to meet. stand for principles, stand for values, and lead them to the space they should have to exercise the most precious freedoms human beings should have gone are regardless of who their leaders are. the united states will stand ready to assist them in any way possible. thank you very much.
[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tuesday, the discussion on negative campaign ads with kenneth goldstein. then we hear on u.s. cyber security legislation being considered in the senate. and they look about the federal government and lobbyists. doug pinkham gives his assessment. "washington journal" is at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> tuesday, mitt romney delivers a foreign-policy speech from warsaw, poland, the final stop on his foreign trip. we will have his remarks from the university of warsaw as 6:15
a.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span2. >> we did not begin as a city in kentucky. there was only a and vague region and a county in another state, kentucky. but we began in 1778 as virginians. >> this weekend, a joint book tv and c-span's local content vehicles from a legal, ky. biographer john david died on kentucky's senior senator mitch mcconnell and on rebuilding american politics, the internet revolution. sunday at 5:00 p.m., three weeks at farmington plantation in 1841 would be key in shaping abraham lincoln's views on slavery. toward that plantation today.
and the heyday of the steamboat. take a look back. once a month, c-span explores the history and literary life of cities across america. this weekend from louisville on c-span 2 and 3. >> the white local content nichols explore -- vehicles explore the area. >> the white house droid control policy director said cocaine use has declined. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. if we could take your seats. i would like to welcome you to the center for strategic and international studies. i am steve johnson, the director
of the americas program. is great to see this kind of turnout and a monday morning. we have a special guest and a compelling program. it is indeed a privilege to bring this program to you here today. before we get started, a couple of administrative details. please turn your cell phones to silent or vibrate and during the question and answer period, raise your hand so one of the staff members can get your microphone to use a we can hear the question or brief commentary that you may have. also, when you do speak, could you please identify yourself and your organization you represent? before we introduce the director, i would like you to think about the frame of reference that we use in dealing with the illicit narcotics.
in the 1970's, we started talking about the war on drugs yet we do not often talk about the war on crime which has been with us since the beginning of recorded history. we understand that is a management issue. i would ask you to keep that in mind as you hear the director's words this morning. i have asked the senior ambassador david johnson to join us. he has worked with the omdcp. it is -- from 2007 to 2011, ambassador johnson. would you do the honors? >> it is indeed a pleasure for me this morning to introduce gil
kerlikowski. he is the director of the president's office of national drug control policy which makes him responsible for coordination of the counter-narcotics policies and makes him as the coordinator as a -- of a desperate range of policy groups, one of the premier herders of cats. he is a career law enforcement officer having grown up in law enforcement in st. petersburg and subsequently serving as the commissioner of police in buffalo and as chief of police for nine years in seattle, where he had an extraordinary record of lowering crime and engaging with the community. steve mentioned, it was my pleasure to work with him in washington and to be courted by him. he brought a new breath of
leadership to this position and he had one of those signal achievements of the great leader. he brought a lot of great people with him and a breath of the imagination to this position which is impressive. it is my pleasure to welcome you to the platform here. >> thank you. [applause] >> good morning, everybody. it is a great pleasure to be backe. it is wonderful to be introduced by a person i have a lot of admiration for in ambassador johnson and the difficult path of cedar took and also the leadership that stephen provides to csis. i appreciate the opportunity and the relationships. csis is an important leader in
the international policy committee and i am delighted to be able to discuss with you the work of the obama administration in this area of drug policy. i have promising new information to share with you about cocaine production and consumption in this atmosphere. i want to take a few moments and talk to you about the state of drug policy. last month, i had a wonderful opportunity to travel to peru and with the american delegation for the international conference on the global drug problem. it was hosted by president jumala. in lima, i joined those delegations to share america's produce -- approach to drug use. what works, what are the obstacles each country faces, what is the best path forward in the 21st century? as i sat with drug policy leaders tried -- for more than
60 countries, there are areas of agreement. we were united in drug policies that were balanced, realistic, and focused on the public health and the safety of our citizens. bidding up to the conference, there was considerable discussion in the media here and certainly in latin america about earthquake's move to legalize marijuana. the news and statements would have suggested that the world wide legalization movement was afoot. it was not clear what kind of tone the summit would take. but the problems are frustratingly complex but the public discourse on these issues drives around the simplicity of sound bites. the drug problem is complex and requires a complex solution. i was pleased to see in lima
that the world. the leaders in drug policy agree on a three-pronged approach. it does not lend itself to sound bites. it is holistic, nuanced, and is a strategy that will actually be quite effective. institutional development is critical. we had the opportunity to meet with many people who whether it is fish farming or working in the other alternative crops, their success has been amazing. not only reduces the amount of drugs coming out of latin america but insurers the farmers to make their living from illicit crop production have viable alternatives to support themselves and their families. in a way that is safer and better for their families. these farmers have to be protected as they grow alternative legal crops.
that is why this administration has devoted nearly $1 billion to alternative development programs during the last three years. these programs provide economic incentives, increased securities to farmers, and drug producing regions in the western hemisphere. the global drug policy community is committed to reducing the supply of drugs. our focus is not limited to just less in america. last week it reported the u.s. was trading counter-narcotics enforcement units to disrupt the flow of cocaine into europe. planned forforts nigeria and kenya. because we know criminal organizations will exploit political rest and vulnerable countries, we have to be nimble and our response. another reason it cover the evolution of the drug countries other countries were thought of as transit companies. they are artificial distinctions.
drug-trafficking pays their networks and drugs and not in cash. drug consumption is of great concern. it strains the public health services in these nations that are all too often ill-equipped to help people who need treatment for addiction. the third prong of the global approach is reducing the demand for drugs. that is an important part of the administration's strategy. i know you have read the 2012 strategy and probably have your copies with you. they are still available. the president requested more money for treatment and prevention programs that he did for u.s. law enforcement. it is a fact often overlooked. we have spent $31 billion to support drug education and treatment programs. unitedold that the
states and europe are the only areas where drug consumption is a major problem. in the united states we are engaged in an unprecedented effort to reduce the drug consumption through prevention treatment and recovery programs. we routinely see evidence of this where the problem has not been visible before. latin american countries have their own drug use. just before the summit in peru i visited guatemala and visited a drug rehabilitation center. the women in the treatment center were from all over the country. only 12 women were able to stay there. the price of treatment was $200. it was a small but sent to meet a public health need that is not confronted by national borders.
in many cases the women treated had made enormous sacrifices to be there and their attempt to find treatments have been woefully ltd. before they arrived. my point is drop consumption is not a european or u.s. problem. it is a growing social problem in places we want mistakenly called transit countries. as we look for solutions to the global drug problem we must understand and recognize that the united states is not only capable of exporting helicopters or training narcotics units. we lead the world and evidenced based treatment. we do export acknowledge. through the initiative, we are helping to create safe streets in latin america and support democratic institutions. casri funding also goes to programs for use to provide
healthy alternatives to substance use. during my trip to guatemala i visited a youth drug prevention program. it was built on the framework of a u.s. program and developed into a program that reflected the culture in guatemala. the combination of american expertise and the cultural influence created a youth program suited to the needs of that country's young people. by exporting u.s. expertise and encouraging partner nations to make partners of their own, we can retreat similar programs in countries where drug use is increasing. this points to one conclusion. the drug control community must find ways to work together and increase our cooperation. both in cutting the supply of drugs and reducing demand for them. i am pleased to report there is
a significant amount of international solidarity on this matter. i told you i did have some good news. while there is more work to do, multiple across the board indicator showed that both cocaine production and u.s. cocaine consumption are declining. new estimates show in 2011 cocaine production in colombia dropped 25% from 2010 and 72% from 2000 to 01. potential production of pure cocaine is down, the lowest production potential level since 1994. it is the first time since 1995 that columbia is producing less cocaine than peru or bolivia. what about our own consumption? since 2006, cocaine use has decreased.
fewer arrestees are testing positive for cocaine. all 10 of the site across the country where this is tracked showed a decrease in 2011 compared to 2003. let me add a little context. it did not happen overnight. there is a sustained effort for nearly a decade. steady pressure across more than one administration in both of the united states and in colombia. it did not happen to the efforts made by the united states. this is a partnership by the united states and colombia. it was the result of a balanced approach that involves a these integrated steps.
the results are historic and have implications not just for the united states and the western hemisphere but also globally. the security threat we face in 1999 is gone. it has been accomplished without offsetting results elsewhere. we do not just have a safer columbia. we have a vibrant colombia. colombia is committing its own resources to help its neighbors for your information exchanges and regional leadership. these lessons provide a model for dealing with challenges they're out the world, particularly in central america. these numbers should not distract us from the fact that
transnational organizations are clearly a threat to civil society everywhere. we have seen that in our southern neighbor of mexico. the administration contends the gruesome drug-related violence. it is committed to partner with the mexican government to disrupt the cartels that commit such brutality. these pose a significant challenge. they do not just prey on citizens but they diversify through drug trafficking, sex trade, corruption, and terror wherever they operate. they are in the business for money and power. there is no limit to the schemes they will employ to extract illegal proceeds. in interview with pbs in may, the head "once the dominating cartel establishes territorial control it turns to the most probable part of its business,
selling protection. kidnappings, piracy, sale of organs, prostitution, and they will turn to anything illegal that makes money. the profitability of drugs is quite low compared to the profitability of these other areas." the united states take our response ability to dismantle organizations operating within our own borders very seriously. last year united states law enforcement agencies dismantled 612 drug-trafficking organizations that were on the attorney general target list. that focuses on a major drug- trafficking organizations that operate in our own country. we have interagency task forces operating in every part of the country to disrupt a major drug-trafficking distribution networks within the united states. we welcome the dialogue on the best tactics to address the
threat posed by transnational criminal organizations. we recognize it is appropriate to continue to examine what works best. transnational criminal networks would not disappear if drugs were made legal. these organizations do not derive all of their revenue through drugs. they would not simply disband if drugs were legalized. institutions like csis play an important role in developing a rational approach to the international drug is you. -- issue. too often we continue to face this polarized debate. this administration is committed to the way forward. legalization is not a policy nor is locking every offender up. our focus is on the science of addiction and tackling the international security challenge posed by transnational criminal organizations.
there is not a simple answer to the global drug issue. it is complex. it threatens the security of people everywhere regardless of their citizenship. i am grateful for the opportunity to provide some insight into the landscape. thank you very much. [applause] >> now we come to that part of the program where we have questions and answers. if you have a question, raise your hands. we will get a microphone to you. keep your question shore so we have time for more than just one. i think we had one go up here. you are next.
>> i am a retired economic analyst who graduated from college before marijuana showed up on campus. i was interested in drug policy when i went to grab school a few years later. it was pretty clear that marijuana is not more dangerous than alcohol. we know it is a far less dangerous drug and alcohol or tobacco. those two drugs are killing more than half a million americans every year. the number of marijuana deaths is so low it cannot even conduct studies. you're sitting message to our kids that the only drug we need to worry about is marijuana. i think that is a tragic mistake. >> we have a comment? >> i think we concentrate on a wide array of drug issues.
we clearly do not try to prioritize which is more dangerous than the other. it is a huge mistake to think that marijuana is a benign substance. it clearly is not. legalization is not an answer. when an illegal substance becomes legal we know that the use increases. it is not like the country is equipped to deal with the number of people that have alcohol problems and suffer from the effects of nicotine. i do not think we're in the position to take care of the people who become addicted to marijuana. we also do not think that locking everyone up is an answer. we do not think there is an end in sight. the officers in seattle that
reduced time for their work never thought they were going to work themselves out of a job. legalization is not going to solve our drug problem. >> good morning. we offer our support as an organization by the 34 offices in the different countries to support every initiative of the government to improve the view of this problem. we are very worried about the actions in every country. we are in a better situation to support every initiative that you are trying to go ahead with.
>> thank you very much. the public health approach is clearly critical and important to dealing with this problem. thank you. >> we have one here. >> i am mark schneider. thank you for the presentation. i think one has to step back and ask, given an optimistic presentation, why is it that most of the latin american heads of state were not convinced and have not been convinced and were quite critical of the current drug policy? many of the previous head of state in the blue ribbon panel similarly had questions.
i think the questions go to each of the three areas. they do not see alternative development. on the question of drug production, they see the balloon effect. there has been a rise in peru and bolivia. it averages between 180, 000 and 210,000 in cultivation. the third is in terms of what you are discussing which i think is quite important. it is the question about how you deal with the crime problem you see in mexico right now and the rising violence there.
would it not make sense for the u.s. government to support something similar to what latin-american as did? an independent panel that would provide an independent view. an independent review and study that would present their findings to the u.s. government. >> there is a lot there. a couple of things that are important. the oas is taking on this issue. this administration has never been shy about engaging in debate. the president and vice- president have made it clear where they stand. what is missed particularly the
in mexico is that oftentimes people want to use colombia as as a template. they're well over a decade in making these changes. if the numbers that are holding now, showing the reduction in violence, it gives some proof that this is not happen in a quick fix. americans are very happy to solve every major problem in 30 minute television show. we want quick answers. i do not think when it comes to taxes or the fact that when i listen to the 61 representatives of the country, people still in office, they are responsible for the safety and security of the people they represent.
i did not hear any appetite for legalization. >> good morning. thank you for your remarks. i wanted to dig a little deeper on what you said about alternate development and the solution. one of the things that came out of the work in colombia is that in order to be successful you needed security in these regions to even promote development to get crops to market. the success of colombia was a security environment. how do you as a coordinator create the enabling environments if the goal is to reduce stress? you need these kinds of stable areas first.
i was interested in pursuing that. >> from a long career, almost four decades, you did not change the level of crime unless you first that safety and security going into it. then it was the people themselves that felt more safe and more secure that made the changes that were necessary to save the crime was not welcome and drug dealing in our neighborhoods. that is a historic pattern of the violence and crime reductions that have occurred here in divided states. i think that pattern with clearly called in alternative crop. in talking to the people there, the family members were so pleased. there was safety and security. at times they said they have
less money in their pockets, the fact that they could take care of their family and the state and security and the crop would not be taken by the government made a huge amount of difference. we work very closely. the best example is the colombia national police. i am very heartened by what i have heard about mexico. the retired general is a key adviser to the new incoming president. i think we want to be a strong partner of safety and security. thank you. >> you highlighted the success that colombia has seen in
reduction of cocaine. what could the smaller nations of central america learned from the colombian experience? is there a danger that some of these countries are taking a heavy handed approach that might backfire? >> rather than speak about each of those countries with a different perspective, i think a couple things are worthwhile in colombia. the citizens were taxed at a level that they were able then to provide the infrastructure and security that made a huge difference. when you listen to president calderon's speech at the library of congress, these countries could make the important indication that is
needed to infrastructure and reducing corruption. it is really the foundation for this. i do not have sufficient detail about is the approach heavy- handed or does it violate human rights. in talking to a number of people in a variety of my trips, the protection of people and human rights has been something they have spoken to me about that they are quite proud of in many ways. >> we have one year and then we are going to start working our way over to the other side. >> thank you for your talk. you mentioned that since 2006
the number of cocaine users has declined by 39%. what part of that is due to government efforts? many people know an epidemic crested and people quit because they realize top awful it was. how much of that was due to government efforts? >> if i knew the answers to that i would become a highly paid consultant. i think it is two parts. one is that clearly reducing supply is incredibly helpful to reducing the demand here in the united states. when the product is less pure or difficult to obtain, that is important. it is not just in colombia. the second thing i think is important has been the
educational efforts that are often not given the credit to help reduce that level of consumption here in united states. i have spent a lot of my career in the african-american communities as several large cities. you can understand that their neighborhood word of mouth, information, devastation that cocaine caused, crack cocaine was not anything that people were interested in. they would very much move away from it. i think it really talks about this balanced strategy they have to educate people. you also have to provide treatment resources. people recover and go back to their families and being productive citizens. you have to do the enforcement. if you were to ask me what
actually had the most impact, i would not have that answer. >> in the center. >> i am a master's student at georgetown. speaking of your remarks of the general view is an adviser. have your office been in contact with anyone from the new administration in mexico? how do think that opinion will change the drug were there or policy in that country? quite since he does not take office for several months and many of these things are still forming and there are lots of places within the bureaucracy of the united states government from the department of state to
national-security staff that are involved with this, i would only tell you that from all of the statements that i have read in everything that i have heard, i am very encouraged. they will continue to look at this. the president calderon has said that these cartels can often replace legitimate government. he told me specifically of one time. he told me there is a strong reason for me to take this. the people of mexico elected people and i have appointed people to run this country. he said drug trafficking organizations and criminal cartels have no business trying to run the country. in my estimation he has been incredibly courageous in taking them on. his life has been incredibly strategic about making drug prevention and drug treatment a signature effort during her
entire time as first lady. >> lady in the yellow dress all the way in the back. >> some people in colombia the violence takes precedence. how do you get cooperation with colombia? >> the first part in recognizing the reductions in the forces and what has been done to them is important. they are certainly able to operate as criminal gangs can operate in some of our locales throughout the united states. the fact that the law
enforcement initiatives have been so well structured and thought out in the training and the equipment is particularly important. it is probably inappropriate for me to comment on president santos and the relationship of colombia other than to say i think there are a number of countries admire what has occurred in colombia from a safety and economic standpoint. the presidents have major trafficking important efforts along with the fact that they have also clearly embraced so many community-based
organizations. we have representatives that are here that have spent inordinate amounts of time saying here is what we have done to strengthen bill local communities to reduce this problem. >> thank you for those inside for remarks. i am with community anti-drug coalition of america. it is a strategy that is about 30 years old certified by the united nations. for the last six years we have been working in countries to build community-based, multi- sector organizations. the recession has been unbelievable. colombia has been one of the real success stories. we're also been to brazil, el salvador, you name it.
we're now working in asia and about six countries in africa. my comment is the demand strategy when embraced at the community level is having a tremendous impact. we are about to have an evaluation that has gone on for the last two-years in peru that says when this is in place you can reduce not only consumption but also crime as well. my hope would be that the u.s. would continue to have a very strong demand perspective in this policy both domestically and internationally. >> thank you. i think president obama's dedication to community building and strengthening community applies not just here but worldwide.
thank you for the work that you all do. >> i think we have a question directly in back of our last questioner. >> i want to thank you for your remarks. i have a two-pronged question. cocaine use has declined 39%. had you noticed increases in any other types of drugs? when you take a result of that, the decrease in cocaine with the increase of other drugs, has there been a decline overall? >> it is always frightening when someone has a part a and a part b. spoken as a true diplomat.
i think it is important to recognize a couple of things. in the last 30 years, drug use generally across the nation has declined in the united states. the fact that we have had some increases in the last couple of years is important to recognize. i do not know if the research supports people moving away from cocaine and then say i am going to do something else, especially when it comes to our prescription drug problem in this country. prescription drugs are not coming across any border and take more lives than cocaine and heroin each year combined. it has been a bit of an unrecognized problem until the past three years when we have tried to highlight it. we have tried to reduce prescription drug use. switching from one drug to
another does happen. we are concerned about people who are addicted to prescription painkillers, moving to heroin. that information is antidotal. we have to watch it carefully. there is one very important thing, prevention, giving people the tools and information of what they need whether it is through the media or role models and parents. it goes along way. it is a lot cheaper. >> over here and the gentleman over here. >> she mentioned the consumption side of cocaine. i am interested in the production side. i think there's evidence that drug cartels are switching to
easier produce drugs such as methamphetamines. i'm wondering what role that would play in production. >> our methamphetamine use is down by almost 50%. i think that is important to recognize. the point that you raised is that these cartels will continue to make money. there will continue to find new markets, whether it is in the most economically deprived countries are countries in which countries seem to be doing better, australia being one that is talking about their on consumption problems. they are very smart criminals. they have been able to not worry about borders or language or the evaluation of any particular currency. that is why it is important for
us to recognize that this is a problem about safety. it is also a huge public health issue. >> it would seem that one useful measure of the success of addiction efforts would be the median street price of a particular drugs in the 10 or 20 or 30 largest cities. is that kind of data being collected? what does it look like. >> of the drug enforcement administration looks at both purity and price per pure grain
in particular. this leads me to have some concern. this is the only measure that is needed about how to look at the drug problem and what we are facing or what we are doing. i think the more important thing is to look at this holistic play. the economists only use the g.d.p. are only one data point to tell you how the economy is doing. we have that information. i'm happy to provide it to you. >> a question right in front.
>> thank you. i am at the ambassador for costa rica. thank you for your report and your openness to receive the ambassador. you have been remarkably communicative. i appreciate that. i want to refer to the majors list. as you have pointed out now, the lines between production and transient and consumption have become increasingly blurry in the whole world. i am wondering if there is any chance that we can approach the day when the majors list will in fact be eliminated.
it may become irrelevant. it is certainly harmful to our countries to have been punished by the success of in colombia and mexico. i know you understand this whole issue very well. where do you think this process is going? >> the ambassador raises a point on the majors list. it is something that is required by the president by law to do on an annual basis. it is a fairly narrow definition of some of the issues surrounding the drug problem and the infrastructure of these particular countries.
there is no question in my mind, having met with you and your colleagues on several occasions, that the majors list causes considerable angst. i think it is well worth us being able to continue the dialogue and talk about where that should lead in the future. >> right to your right. then we have one in the back. >> i am from the institute of world politics. i was wondering if you could comment further between the connections between international terrorist organizations and the drug cartels, how they are learning from each other and what the policy on that is. not specifically just with colombia or mexico, but even down farther south in the smuggling areas and some of the deeper latin-american countries. >> i think it is important to recognize that terrorist organizations need the fuel of
money in order to operate or further their particular gains. it was important now that a little over a year ago the president released a transnational crime strategy that talks about this. i believe that for too long we have only talked about drug- trafficking organizations as a very narrow viewpoint about this particular problem. what has become even more here is how organized crime groups - murkier is now organized crime groups make money. the difficult problem we have in the united states is that we have a very antiquated system of counting crime. we know how many bicycles were stolen last year in the united states. we do not know how many people were the victims of identity
that. if we do not know how many people have their debit card tapped. i am sure that never happen to anyone in this room. we do not know where the profits have gone, whether it is to feed a group of people that may be using methamphetamines and a rural part of the united states or whether some of the profits may go to funds a terrorist organization. i think the crime strategy which brings the government approach to this issue is a great step forward. i think we need to recognize the threat to the global a economy that corruption and financial crimes actually posed to the world. >> right in the middle in the back.
>> i am from the spanish division of boys of america. there has been it congressman sam he consumes marijuana in uruguay. some say they want to distance themselves. we have what is happening in mexico with hsbc. the money laundering in the u.s. there is a lot that can lead to a negative perception. what is the opinion? >> what is really critical is to recognize that what is often seemed as the u.s. models is one of helicopters and models. the u.s. model has only one purpose, to keep these drugs out of the hands of people here
in the united states. that is a real misnomer about the u.s. drug policy, particularly over the past three years. we have done three iterations of president obama's policy beginning in 2010. i do not think he would find a more balanced approach. almost 90% of the world's drug treatment programs are evaluated and the science behind them comes from more done here in the united states. we are happy to export those kinds of real world practical solutions as a longtime police chief getting something done and having doable deed and making sure that it is practicable is critical to me.
if you look at the strategy and you look at the three years of changes, i think that is exactly where we are headed. there is no silver bullet or a magic answer. we have worked very hard to make sure that the united states is not just seen as our only interest is in keeping this out of the hands of our people. our interest is in making a healthier and safer world. >> we have time for two final questions. this lady with the dark blouse and then the young man with the dark tie. i guess those will be our final ones. we will take two questions. >> you mentioned the mexican and colombian cases. other countries are stronger than the smaller countries.
i wonder if he could go into more detail about what the united states should be doing to work with countries that have far fewer resources and far higher homicide and violence and crime rates right now. >> law enforcement here in the united states and prosecution here is really pretty good. it is reflected in the crime rates, not always in every city. it has reflected a decrease crime which then increases and a lot of other things. those capacity building mechanisms need to be exported. they cannot just be exported by
the united states. it has to be exported by countries where there has been success. when i look at the work that's colombia is doing the rest of the country in showing how the past that could be leveraged in a way that increases safety and security, that is important. the department of justice works very hard to fulfill their obligation when it comes to increasing the ability of prosecutors to be successful. i think these things are important. they do not just always get the level of attention and concern as to when someone is extradited or there is a particularly large drug bust. it takes time. it is hard work. i think there are successes in this hemisphere that can be used as an example.
countries with less infrastructure and ability to provide the taxing resources that are needed for security can benefit from some of them. the end result will still be the leadership of that particular country. >> and our final question. >> students for sensible drug policy. you have said you ended the war on drugs. with respect, you work with an administration that is a resting 1.5 million people annually for drugs. this policy has been pushed on the mexican government which has led to 60,000 deaths there. when have deaths like this, it is still very much looking like a war. when is the u.s. drug policy actually going to end the war on drugs? >> what i've always mentioned is
that it is a mistake to call it a war on drugs because it leads itself to a simplistic solution to what we know is a complex problem. most of the law enforcement in the united states done on drugs is done at the state and local level. it is not done by the federal level. i do not think when you read and listen to these speeches that presidents calderon has given, it is the united states that his administration has taken on criminal cartels. it is going back to what i originally said in his conversation with me. it goes back to represent it is. it does not belong to multi organization groups.
not just drug-trafficking. >> i want to thank all of you for being an attentive audience this morning. i especially thank director gil kerlikowske for being kind enough to join us this morning and to have a 40 minute dialogue discussion with you and to flush out the various points of view that we all have and the questions that we have in our minds about the direction of u.s. policy. and our relationships with close neighbors in the hemisphere. a big hand for director gil kerlikowske. [applause] >> thank you. >> we have about one our two- minute if you'd like to come up and meet him. i would encourage all of you to exchange business cards. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]
>> tuesday, the senate energy and natural resources committee holds a hearing on a backlog of construction on water projects in the west. see it live starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern. add to 3:00 p.m. eastern, the senate foreign relations subcommittee examines business opportunities for american companies in latin america. and dealing with increased competition from china. live also on our companion network, c-span [no audio].
the state if the institutional as asian of receiving behavior. to understand that, this is from another great sociologist and economist. it is to understand the importance of concentrated benefit and defused coffee because the state essentially claims a monopoly all legitimate use of violence and some given area, they have the ability to impose relatively small cost of large numbers of people. and then aggregate the result and a war that concentrated benefit to small groups of people. we heard some examples. imagine that we had a tax for every american of 10 cents the year. spread out over the course of a year, a tiny fraction of a cent
per day. no one would notice that or pay attention to it. we would not feel it at all. but the consequence of that 10 cents per year adds up to about $33 million. that is pretty good money. that will attract the attention of someone to be able to gain access to it. those who have to pay this tiny burton don't even notice it. but those who are in a position to influence the state will be attracted by $33 million available loot to be distributed into their pockets. we can look at this in terms of rates of state behavior, not just tax system but all kinds of regulations that on the face of it, seemed to have nothing to do with distribution of economic benefits. many years ago challenged by someone to pick through the federal register.
it is about 80,000 pages a year of new federal regulations, rules, an edict that will affect your life in some way or another. we open did iran and found a new regulation governing broccoli -- we opened it and found a new regulation governing broccoli. where did that come from? it turned out some broccoli producers sat around and set bob, how big is our broccoli? that was able to be designated as standard cytoskeleton broccoli, to the disadvantage of their competitors. paris a famous case of a man who had invented a machine that was able to break a for mechanically without breaking the membrane, so you could then store them into this and make
omelets and so on and be able to measure the amount in a better way to transport a. you could put them into big tubes, much easier. by accident, he found out that a regulation can now from the department of agriculture making it illegal to use a mechanical device to break an egg. indeed, who was behind that? the restaurant workers union. they did not like the competition in terms of a machine that could break and a and then put it into a tube for transportation. before kelly was able to hire some legal representation and fought against it. a little innovation was protected. all those that aid records lost their jobs and had to wander off into the countryside and diocletian. i suspect they did other jobs and add more value create there
was little cost imposed on all of us. the benefits would be concentrated. we were fortunate there was another concentrated interest, the manufacture of the machine. that found out but and are able to get that rescinded. as a general rule, whenever you find a situation where you can impose a small cost on a large numbers of people and aggregate the resulting benefits to small numbers of people, you will get rent seeking behavior in transfers of income. the process of civilization has been substantially one of taming power. putting restrictions on these exercises of power.
all talk about that in the next presentation. i should warn you sometimes we talk to our friends and it is really depressing. they will give you ever reason why the state will continue to expand forever. every incentive seems to be in favor of the expansion of state power, increasing budgets, more spending and so on. yet has not always turn out like that. there have been very important times when the state has retrenched itself and people have been levelled struggled for their freedom and expand the area of free and voluntary activity. my next presentation will talk primarily on the historical process by which people were able to impose some kind of limits on the exercise of state power fit let me leave you with the passage from one of my favorite sociologists. it was the very important
prominent german sociologists and when hitler came to power he left the country. he had an idea what was coming. not everyone did, by the way. some people had a very strong idea what was going to be coming and left the country. he went to turkey and taught in easton will. then he spent many years -- is taught in. -- he taught in istanbul. he argued that all of us carry this inherited poison within us, often define perception. all of us are accessories to this original sin that can be
excised and erased only with great difficulty and by insight into pathology and can recover by act of remorse. it is our responsibility to try to think what it is to live as free person, not to be dominated by other people, not to be bossed around. the idea that the passport does not give you your freedom. this is an institution that takes control over you. three people do not need to have passports to be able to travel. the state does not grant you these things. as the signers of the declaration of independence put it, to secure these rights, governments were instituted among men.
that has come to be understood by most men as to give us these rights, to grant us these rights, to create these rights. certainly not what the american founders had in mind. we have our rights as free human beings. we may call on governments to secure those rights but increasingly, governments have told us that we are indeed their own creations. without them, we would not be possible. that brings us back to that awful statement from the president, you did not build that, somebody else did that. that is part of that technology that we have to overcome. there is a little bit of time
for some discussion. i hope i may have touched it couple of buttons talking about predatory behavior. thank you. [applause] if anyone like to pose a question about the possibility of social or even without the state, i would be happy to entertain that. >> in your letter, basically you say it intervening on imposing something. heavier every knowledge possibility of a state being originated through the interaction of the people and they recognize the necessity of protecting each other? is there any sort of different origin for different kinds of states? >> i will repeat it. the question is, the story i told about the emergence of the states we experience today is that they originate in some kind of act of conquest, traceable back to that.
could one imagine states that originate through a kind of spontaneous order, or through voluntary delivered acts to securing benefits such as protection of our lives and liberties and so on. absolutely. the distinction i would make would be between states and governments, between state power and governance. we can have rules that are spontaneously derived or that emerge without any delivered pattern. a lot of those govern our lives. think about the ways in which pathways emerge in jungles. someone walked up with the first time and someone else followed and a little pathway was created, and then people
follow it and helps them organize their behavior. there are lots of rules that could emerge spontaneously and we see them all over the world. the principle of first-come, first-served. that seems to be something that emerges spontaneously. people figured that out pretty easily. sit to children down and give them a cake and ask them to divide it. they all figure it out pretty quickly. one cuts and the other chooses. that seems to be something we also along pretty well. it is not culture specific. states are not merely sets of rules. they are organizations. the firm is an institution, but general motors is an organization. have to emerge in some way through some delivered act at some point.
there are lots of institutions that emerged through delivered acts that are not predatory, such as condominium associations, all kinds of ways that we organize our lives. those that do not claim a monopoly:the -- on the legitimate use of force in a given territory. i will talk this afternoon about the emergence of municipal government in europe but has that form. people come together and come up with rules to govern their behavior and invite people to move van and so on and flourish. it isn't a way of kind of competition with the state principles, so we live with both at the same time. absolutely possible, historically well documented. that is where we should look for the source of civilization, not to those that were founded in
acts of conquest. what we need to do is tame them and make them behave more like civil society institutions, voluntary institutions of governance. >> i have done a lot of discussion with people and creating more voluntary solutions. what i cannot get passed in my own head is, let's say we did form along here decided. on one side we have a peaceful libertarians who are happy to be peaceful and on the other side we have people with really big guns want to take what the peaceful libertarians have. what is to stop the peaceful libertarian nerd from being conquered by the guys with bigger guns? if the answer is an army raised
by the peaceful libertarians, then what will stop that army or mercenary group from doing the same thing? >> i was getting at something a little different. a great deal of institutions of law enforcement today are not institutions of the state. even the theory of sovereignty does not describe what we live in the united states. let's take a simple example. who is the captors fugitives, people who have jumped bail? the police did not capture that many of them. that is not their primary job or responsibility. it is bails bought -- bail bondsman and bounty hunters. the fact is that private downing hunters, private persons, not agents of the state, they do not like violence.
it is very costly and dangerous to them. not glamorous or romantic. they are paid to bring back a person by the bail bondsman. in case you are charged and released on bail, you don't have the money to put up, you go to the bail bondsman. he is not an agent of the state, not an officer of the court, he is a private person. that person loan to the money but then says i want your signature on this, you are liable for, and i want your mom to sign on it also, or whatever people around you act as sureties. court,u don't come to and what happens then? that is forfeit if you do not show up. he hired someone to go and find you.
if that person goes and herbs you, that person as a private person. he is subject to your action against him for having harm you. he has to bring you back all in one piece, healthy, like, to the court. this is not an incentive that the police have. we should be aware of that. the bounty hunter, if he hurts you, he bears liability for that. if he does not bring you back, he did not get any money. when the capture people? 4:00 in the morning when the person goes outside for a small. they do not come in with guns blazing. they like to resolve the problem and get their money without a. the consequence is that the majority of fugitives from justice are brought back by a voluntary system that is not
part of the state. the mechanism does not correspond to that theory of sovereignty that we are taught in high school about the state. we have lots of social order and mechanism that do not rely on the use of violence and force. we get angry about gossip. it is an extremely important social institution that tells us about the behavior of other people. credit bureaus, we could have the government out there collecting every bad debt. they don't. i learned this through a painful experience could the government will not collected for me. you have to hire a debt collector to go and get the money that is owed to you. one of the ways we deal with it is through credit bureaus.
people share information. what does not pay his debts. he absconded with a bunch of money. other people will not loan him money anymore. that is an extremely effective mechanism. does that mechanism, no violence, minimal intrusiveness, get it helps people to coordinate their behavior. there are lots of ways in which we can govern our behavior without resorting to force and violence. the mentality is, the reason you get people to behave better and by pointing a gun at them. that is the only thing that will work. that works in some cases, but a lot of other institutions can be a veiled up. that is what i have in mind is
voluntary forces of social order and less reliance on social violence. i was then a debate on some of these questions and i did a little bit of research. i wanted to find out how many people were killed in any given year by private security guards. and how many people are killed by police who are uniformed agents of the state. the only data i could find that was reliable, it seems virtually no one is killed by private security guards at malls and so on. if you misbehave at a mall, they do not club you down. they ask you to leave because you are disrupting. you do not get beaten down. but how many people are killed by the police? the department of justice did an interesting study. police officers murdered by felons and felons justifiably killed by police. on average there were about 453
year. in the footnote, what is the definition? anyone killed by police is defined as a felon. in the killing by police is a justified homicide. i get it. this is so embarrassing, the department of justice did not release it in subsequent years. but anyone the police kill in this country is unjustified homicide. by definition, because there were killed by the police. that cannot be right. i would much rather be stalked by a private security guard at a mall than by any uniformed policeman in this country.
>> i was hoping you would make some comments on voter identification standards. >> that is an interesting point through the sangerville -- same people who insist we have to show our id every time we get into an airplane, they resist it when it comes to an exercise of an act of citizenship, which is to say voting. i don't like the idea of a national id card at all. i think it is very dangerous. i do think that insisting that people show some proof that they are qualified voters in a jurisdiction is perfectly reasonable. i do not have a problem with that. i think it is a reasonable requirement. you should be ample to demonstrate that you are qualified to be a voter and a
resident of that jurisdiction qualified to vote for mayor or senator or governor or whatever it may be. i find it ironic that we are forced to carry id for every other purpose, but the same people who are so eager to do that resist the idea of being asked for id to cast a vote. it seems like something is wrong with that. >> you began this morning talking about makers and takers. the most interesting slot i saw was capital investment per employee and wages, etc.. however, the idea of taking, expropriating money and the capital base, eventually we are broke, like you said. if you don't have capital, the wages will not go up and the continued progress cannot go up.
a question is, i don't know how he reached the opinion that we were not broke. >> the reference to the comment, i think we were disagreeing on what it meant to be broke. i think the government is broke. there is a distinction there. the problem is, the government has its hand in your wallet and has the opportunity to access all of your wealth. if you look at it from the perspective of being broke, we do have resources to travel in the and do things we want to. we are not broke in that sense. i meant that the budgetary imbalance, the difference between what the state has a statutory of obligation to pay in terms of future benefits, medicare, social security in a
range of other things, and the expected tax revenue is staggering. at least $80 trillion and probably substantially higher. people are recalculating it to try to figure out the total budgetary imbalance. in that sense, the state is broke. they can deal within a couple of different ways. they can confiscate a lot more wealth. the consequence is less wealth will be produced in the future cryptococcus day. there's a series feedback mechanism there. the other thing they can do is to fall, as expected obligations. that can take several forms. they can default on the official government debt. that is not unthinkable. many countries have done that and the u.s. might do that in
the future, simply default on the official government debts. the other former default is simply not paying what they promised to pay. they may raise eligibility, you have to be 75 to qualify for social security and so on and so forth. finally, another form of default is inflation. you can inflate the currency and diminish the value of the obligations. you just inflate away the body. that is another way of confiscating well. it falls disproportionately on those who are not able to shield themselves from the effect of inflation. elderly people tend to be hit very hard by that. that is what i meant by being broke. something will be done about it
but it will be a combination of more confiscation of wealth, possible default on official debt, and then simply going back and -- on promises that were made to people on the basis of which that made decisions about their lives, which is to say the contemporary welfare state has been built on a gigantic live. it was known for a long time that these obligations could not be met. that seems fundamentally unjust. >> you show the slides for your book. i was wondering how was received overseas. >> the reviews are very positive. my friend translated for me and talks about wealth creation and virtuous behavior and so on. i was happy about that.
my approach on this question is, i would like to help people in iran to achieve a free society. i think that is much more possible with this kind of initiative from civil society organizations and discussion of publishing in persian engaging people rather than crude missiles or threats of war which are likely to entrench the worst elements of the regime there and not to lead them toward more freedom. i am very frightened by militaristic rattling of swords.
i would rather engage people in a different way to help them achieve more freedom. it has come out in a number of other languages as well. i was in helsinki, finland and we have lots of robust debate. the finished edition was a big success. chinese, arabic, turkish, romanian, and gehring, etc. -- hungarian, etc. >> i am wondering if i could get a couple of historical examples and an outlook to the future on privatized courts and polycentric law. >> the emergence of the legal systems of western europe that are fairly well understood was inherently polycentric. that means a multitude of different jurisdictions that overlapped each other, even at the time of blackstone and his commentaries.
he articulates that a number of different court systems functioning in great britain, there was a process of consolidation, but what we call the common-law emerged from a multitude of different legal systems. an example, think about the british monetary system before they went metric. it was a lot of different monetary systems that grew together. anyone old enough to have been in britain and be really confused when you try to make change, are remember my mother said it was the most confusing thing she had ever encountered, so many shillings and pounds and crowns, and nothing that's up into proper multiples of each other. at the time, the english were well known as being very honest. she would just take a handful of coins and say how much does this
cost? the metric system, think about inches, feet, hands, pounds, all these different things. none of them add up to anything that makes any sense. i don't know how many deals are in a pint anymore. they grew over time. i like it, even though i do not understand it. i love the british imperial system of measures. legal systems are a bit like that also. only later do people come and try to impose some rational understanding. the best book i would recommend is but a brilliant professor at harvard law school. it is called law and revolution. it looks at all the different
systems and sources of law that interpenetrate each other within europe, that gave us a lot that we have today. i will give one example of one that persists, the international mercantile law. if you do business internationally, you are governed by a mercantile law. there is no state that enforces it as such, but you will find it all over the world. it emerges from the mercantile courts in europe, merchants and traders come to fares and want to do business. they want quick justice. they don't want to be in court for 40 years. they say i contract it for so much cloth for this amount of money and was not quality. they want a decision and then go home.
that produced a very efficient legal system that still functions. you can look in the u.s. today. uniform commercial code is passed by legislatures but created by private law bodies to look at contract locks and say what has been happening in contract law? but new contracts that people been writing? and they codifier it. it was not that that codifier is created it they went out and said what is happening in a lot? what all the people making contracts are doing. an italian legal theory is that you make law when you make contracts. you are actually creating a lot. subsequent to that, legislators will pass it as a codification. that is not what gave it its legal force, and they did not created.
it is created by people in the market economy. there are all kinds of legal systems today all around us that are not product of the imposition of state power or force. what we need to do is open eyes to be able to see the amazing world spontaneous order all around us. it is just everywhere. the suggestion that the institutions of the state could be diminished or get rid of, and then there would be some fantasy world to discuss how worked. most of the legal institutions that govern our lives fall into that category. the law itself is not a product of the state. it is fundamentally a product
of people exchanging and interacting. we don't have to do any science fiction experiment. we just have to open our eyes to see the real world we live in right now. >> thank you very much. i come from norway. we do not accept that you have been to finland and not to oslo. >> i was then oslo before i flew to finland. i am a big fan of oslo. >> just to relate to, the presentation of the previous speaker, last year in july i was in south sudan for the independence of that country.
the relationship between norway and the community in south sudan has been pretty much decided by focusing on development aid and not so much on business development and the things that create economic development. my question is, how can you create sustainable economic growth in a failed state review do not have the characteristics of what weber describes in his definition, a country like somalia, is always doomed to fail and become dependent on the international donor community, or are there any prospects for development? >> that is a great question. sometimes when you look at failed state, you can ask why they fail. foreign aid is one of the reasons why some malia fail.
there are several very good books on this. -- why somalia failed. one looks at why it was a catastrophe. the dictator in somalia received a great deal of aid that she was unable to use to provide resources to nomadic boat harbor, and then massacred their goats so they became dependent on the eight that was delivered to them. now we had the concentrations of people and constricted them to invade ethiopic. it was not a wealthy country to begin with but this is one of the ways that really began to collapse. this is one of the reasons for the nightmare of the malia. we can look at what happened
then in mogadishu. it is not an attractive place to live, but northern somalia is certainly a lot better. the astonishing violence in mogadishu was largely what were called the technicals. that is what these gangs are called. they have a pickup truck with a machine gun on the back and they've terrorized neighborhoods and extract resources from people. that was technical assistance to foreign aid delivery. we pay for that. with all those trucks and mounted those machine guns on them, and then it turned out renew the of a young guy 50 caliber machine gun and a truck, he becomes a pretty important person. so we effectively armed are turned out to be these horrific gangs. when the u.s. intervened, you
may remember black hawk down and so on. it was a disaster not only from the perspective of american soldiers but the people there as well. local stable equilibrium cannot emerge when you always fear an outside power with the enormous firepower of the u.s. or nato can come in and disrupted anytime they want. people will not make local binding agreement and create institutions of mutual trust and respect and so on. northern somalia, i am not romanticizing this, it is not as bad. it is much better than southern somalia. no foreign troops, that was the key. local leaders, tribal leaders and elders were able to get together and say let's work out of system so we are not constantly fighting each other.
he did not have the u.s. army or other foreign militaries intervening in disrupting them. those people or very lucky. as that do not come here, and u.s. state out. the people and south were unlucky enough to receive all of our systems, which disrupted local institutions that were able to generate more order and legality. our aid has contributed substantially to the creation of failed states. there are a couple of other really good books on the subject. one documents over and over what has happened. an economist and a number of books in english. the best way to avoid these problems is to stop the aid. that is a bit.
then allow trade. get rid of the trade barriers reimpose, as countries. there's an element of the trade initiative that president clinton did and president bush did initiate, allow people to sell their stuff to us. but some do that. reduce foreign aid to zero. i think that will begin the process of healing countries that have been deeply, grievously wounded by our foreign aid. >> this is a historical question. [unintelligible]
about the ancient greeks. [unintelligible] >> the word commonwealth means of natural order, natural society. it described an element of government. >> we will discuss it further later. that is an important question there. the greek term polis has given us the term political, but we don't use it in the same way the greeks used the term. this is often a problem in political history, to see a word that originated in one
context and then is applied to another. this is a classic example of that. the greek polis was a city- state. they were self government. it does not mean that our democracy and our sense of the term. they had different political systems within them. but the greek polis was considered to be the only proper way for human being to live. although i admire aristotle tremendously, we have to go beyond his political science. he thought you could not have a political body larger, more extensive than the voice of the herald could read sheriff i would like to discuss this with you further later on, to get the core of it.
the notion that greek institutions of democracy are the foundation of our modern political system are deeply flawed. there is a historical this continuity, in the dark ages, the end of classical civilization. it is only much later that people rediscover the greek texts and begin to take the vocabulary for that context and applied to different set of institutions and practices. that has led to a little bit of historical confusion as though somehow our political institutions were intimately rooted in greek ones, which is a substantial this continuity. let's talk about that again later as well.
le'ron to wrap up in a few more minutes. >> in regard to the narrative you presented today, does that continue into the future? are we approaching an ending point, or you do use c.s. on a longer run tangent toward some ultimate dateless society at some point in the future? >> i am suspicious of all philosophies of history of aiming, some place that it has to be, some end of history. i do not believe that. what he meant was the final political form of human community has been achieved and note challenge would emerge to it. at the time, i thought it was
interesting, but ridiculous. of course there will be all kinds of new challenges and new state formations that we cannot anticipate today, the rise of the radical religious ideologies is a good example of that. it was a surprise to him that these things were still as out there. we find that the enjoyment of liberty often waxes and wanes. sometimes we see the retreat of civilization and the growth of marxist, predatory institutions. sometimes they are beaten back. there's a constant battle between principles of liberty and principles of uncontrolled power. i do not believe for a moment
that the triumph of liberty is inevitable, but also do not think that defeat is inevitable, either. i think it will depend on what we do. i am deeply suspicious of all philosophies that posit some place we are headed to. imagine that we are walking down a hallway backwards, as though we should conceive of the human progress of the future. we can see what we have already been passed through history. we are blind. that is a better image of historical progress. >> i want to circle back to the discussion on administrative rulemaking and the federal register. i wanted to talk about the fda rat hair list. i wanted to know what are your thoughts on this list and do you think it should be publicized
in television commercials so that the american public knows the quality and the education of public administrators that are making these rules customer >> that is where you have government institutions that have taken responsibility for allegedly guaranteeing the safety, and purity of food. but you face the real problem there. that is that there is always the margin of getting an incremental degree of safety or cleanliness or whatever it may be. you have to articulate standards like that. it is unpleasant to think about how many spider hairs you can have been something. at some point, the limit is
greater than all the body they could have been realized in whatever product you are trying to produce. it is not worth it at that point. so all regulatory bodies, whether private or state, will have to establish some kind of standards. the mistake is some help thinking that they are letting all these spider harris go into things. there is not some guy from the fda sprinkling spider hairs on your food in order to meet the standard. they are saying that if you can keep it below a certain amount, that is good enough. to get it even further below that would be too costly. i think it is a little bit unfair to characterize the
regulatory process as somehow responsible for the remaining impurities or safety problems because they established standards. any kind of standard setting has to do that at some point because of the increasing marginal cost of eliminating them. this will be the last one, very quickly. >> i question deals with your argument that foreign aid would help decrease stake failure. is there any net benefit to foreign aid? >> it depends on who the recipients are. the political leaders love the system, trust me. you can map the flows in and out to a cayman islands and swiss and other banking economies. is very clear, a robust correlation.
this is one of the reasons why foreign aid is such a crime. it undermines democracy because their ruler and now knows my constituents are in washington, new york, paris, london, brussels, oslo, not down the street, not my constituents. they are no longer responsive or democratically accountable to the citizens of those countries. they are paying attention to keeping the people paying the bills happy. they do not have to live with the consequences. the net beneficiaries are the people who live there and the taxpayers to pay for it. the losers would be the bureaucrats who administer it. i spent a lot of time in very poor countries.
it is not to say there are no gray people in the united nations. one thing you see is expensive vehicles parked outside the very best bars. it is a great experience to go on these junkets and have an adventure at the taxpayers' expense. we have less than one minute. >> speaking about the greeks and the takers and makers and the previous lecture -- all lost my train of thought. the have anything more to say about the difference between society and government? political as opposed to social. >> i have a lot to say on that. a human being is described as the animal with reason or speech. when he talks about a man is a political creature, he means essentially greek man. we will talk about society and government later this afternoon. lunch is in the conference center upstairs.
at 2:00, we will start again. [applause] >> coming up, secretary of state hillary clinton talks about religious freedom. >> then "washington journal" is life. they hold a hearing on the nominations for ambassador to afghanistan and pakistan. the u.s. house returns for legislative business. in the white house drug control
policy director on the white house strategy to combat drug trafficking. thank you for being with us. why are republican leaders digging into this now? later, to events from the cato institute's annual conference of liberty. first, the beginning of economic growth in the industrialized world. followed by tom ahmar on the origins of the state. -- followed by tom palmer. >> thanks for being with us. >> we expect lawmakers will be working on taxes and expansion of the bush era tax cuts. what are republican leaders getting into this now? >> president obama called on congress to take care of the tax cuts and give certainty to the economy and businesses and taxpayers. the senate acted before left before last week and now the house is under pressure to follow suit. they are likely to project -- reject the senate version and pass a version written by republicans. we are likely to have a stalemate come out of this. >> there is legislation proposing to overhaul the tax debate. is it a total pro out and start over, or how extensive is it? >> it lays down a framework. it does not do the tax reform.
it said the process that says by the end of april of next year, here is how we will do a process for revamp of the tax code. it is definitely a house republican version. there are definitely things as senate democrats are not likely to accept. i would view it as a signal that the house is serious about saying we need to get to point to overhaul. we will begin laying out a specific marker for how to do that. this bill is probably not going to pass, but if it did, it would write certain procedures. >> taxes are not the only thing they are squeezing in going to
the break. an extension of farm programs would extend drought relief. what is the likelihood the senate would agree? >> right now it is probably pretty low. the senate is hoping this is a marker that will get them to conference so the senate can take the broad bill it already passed into conference. they hope the house will then match the one-year extension of the current law and then had shot an agreement. -- hash out an agreement. they are just wanting to get through another year and will come back to this next year. they have not been able to write a bill in the chamber this year. they are just punting on this right now.
>> both chambers are also working on a continuing resolution to keep the federal government funded. what are they discussing and why are they taking it up now? >> that is the question facing them, the viewers are familiar from all the time we have spent on the floor. they are talking about doing a short-term one to get them through the middle of november, or do you just give up for the year and pushed into next year? the key question is how long the continuing resolution will go.
conservative republicans are pushing for a continuing six none resolution. the hope they can come back into tighter spending cuts next year. the question is what the senate democrats will do. do they want a push to try to get a few of these bills and done in full at the end of this year? >> the senate is focusing on cyber security legislation. what is the likelihood that centers can finish the bill this week? >> there are a couple of fundamental questions they are trying to decide. some centers think the underlying bill should be scrapped. there seems to be a consensus that something should be done.
the real question is what kind of amendments will be debated on this. anytime you have a broad legislative bill in the senate it opens a chance for other amendments. the real questions are what the business groups do and where they are lobbying, and what other amendments it added or what debate happens on the floor. >> thanks again for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> today on "washington journal." a discussion about negative campaign ads. and later, a look at deals about this -- about big b