tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN August 31, 2012 2:00pm-8:00pm EDT
we need a better way than we are doing things now. even the campaign going on largely at the presidential level is personal attacks and slurs. it reminds me of that commercial, "where is the beef." a few policies and positions are set forth, with little detail provided and little focus on how they will do this and turn around the problems we have now. i am sure mr. barnett and i will spend time working on options to set forth before the people to provide alternatives to what we have and solutions to our problems. we need a government, of the people, for the people, by the people. we have gotten away from that.
i am not a politician. i am a citizen candidate. not a great speaker. i love my country. the founders of this country were not polished politicians. they were generals, farmers, scientists, and all sorts of walks of life that stepped forward to help serve their country. we need this attitude, we need to present that attitude before the people so they understand that there is a better way, there is a chance to have a better way through the reform party than giving up hope. the american people, many i have talked to, photographic shops at wal-mart, they feel the same way.
that there is nothing they can do and there is no hope. everything is out of control. the two parties are so polarized that nothing can be done and we just have to go forward and see what happens, when things collapse or crash. that is a pathetic situation and we can do better than what we have with the republicans and democrats. i look forward to assisting mr. barnett with his approaches and i believe that together, we can help to make a path for a stronger america, for ourselves and our posterity. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> finishing up our look of
speeches, a reminder that on our facebook page, we are asking you -- who and why? log on to post your answer and to read others responses. on our convention website, you can watch videos from the republican and democratic conventions, discuss the campaign, and share your own videos. here are some of the videos from the convention that just wrapped up. >> i am an alternate delegate from the great state of nevada. the most important issue in this election is the economy. when the mitt romney and paul ryan. >> i am here for the republican national convention. the biggest issue is getting the economy back on track so we can leave our kids a better country.
>> i am an alternate delegate from texas and i am supporting mitt romney for president because the economy is the most important issue and the president has shown he is in way over his head. >> i am a new jersey delegate from the 12th congressional district supporting mitt romney. he is the best candidate. >> republican vice-presidential nominee paul ryan spoke to supporters at a rally this afternoon in richmond in the wake of this week's gop convention. that events started a little earlier than we expected. we will show it to you later on c-span and that will be followed by your phone calls. pictures right now of president obama this morning who was prepared to leave for texas to visit with soldiers. we are planning live coverage of
that when it gets underway. right now, remarks from sam greenberg. host: we are joined by a democratic pollster and strategist who is also the co- author of the best selling book. we have been talking to our viewers about their reaction to mitt romney's speech. what did you hear? guest: i think he was successful in not being as abrasive and the primary. i did not hear anything that broke out of the box for me. it was solid.
he is not an eloquent man or charismatic. i did not think it was that revealing of him personally which is part of what he needed to do. there was the personal charity side but i am not sure that people came away from that speech and said this is someone i want to live with for the next four years. host: there was one comment that said something to the effect that previously he had said i am the guy who can fix it. the tone of this speech was trust me to fix it. guest: to me what was new was i am a businessman and that is what i will bring to the presidency.
he is saying now -- i think their success will bring the economy back. that is my world view and my experience. host: the headline this morning in "the financial times" -- how do you thing that will appeal to those who voted for president obama in 2008? guest: i understand the strategy because there is disappointment. if you want to look at the difference between the 53% that obama had and the percentage that he has now, these are all people who voted for obama and have a sense ofhe needs to identify with them and say you can fire him and turned to mitt romney. what i did not see was a reason to turn to mitt romney. let's acknowledge to get there you are disappointed.
what i did not see was a reason why to turn to mitt romney as the alternate. host: it is too early for polls after, but one of the snapshot polls stood at 47% for president obama and 46% 4 mitt romney. how much of a bounce do you think mitt romney can get? guest: this is not great for the challenger because you have the president's convention following this convention. usually you get five or six points. usually you bring other things together. john mccain had it in a very difficult headwind in 2008. he moved closer and in some slightly ahead. then it fell back. i do not think we have seen
that. host: stan greenberg is our guest for the next 45 minutes. we are opening up the phone lines for your comments. the convention starting tuesday in charlotte -- will you be there? guest: i will. my wife is a member of congress. she is a delegate and i am a devoted spouse. james carville and i do democracy corps. we will participate in other events during the convention. so i will be active and interested but not in the kind of role that i had with president clinton. host: the issue of medicare and the selection of paul ryan -- i will ask your thoughts on the
selection of paul ryan and have they changed since the convention wrapped up. guest: i think it makes the paul ryan budget central. i thought it was a very odd speech. it was quite different. it really was dismissive of the president. he spends a lot of time explaining it. even conservative commentators are still speaking about the fact that the speech needed to be forthright. you cannot have a theme on the first night, that we are the truth tellers. host: does that issue come back to haunt him? guest: eventually, the debates.
we have so much advertising. if you are in ohio, you are saturated with advertising. i do not think the conventions are going to move the numbers. the conventions tend to be biased toward people who are already for the candidates. the debates matter. they have big audiences and swing voters pay a lot of attention. that is when day move, cuts to all the advertising. host: the selection of paul ryan obviously brought the issue of medicare to the forefront as the number-one issue in the campaign right now. is that the issue that the obama campaign wanted to have as the number one issue? guest: yes.
when you get to the economic debate, it is pretty clear. it is going to be the president saying let's talk about what is a world view and what kind of economy we want to create or how we are going to have a middle- class future. then you get to the ryan budget. i think it is problematic for them because in the end they do want to turn it into a voucher and limit what people get from the government. that will erode their support. host: we have a couple of calls for you. we go to tampa, florida. hi, linda. guest: i do not believe mitt romney really has much to brag about when most of the jobs he created are very low-paying without any health insurance. my second comment pertaining to his religion.
i would like to know if he has any relationship with that warren geoffs. guest: i did not hear the very first part of it. host: the creation of jobs. he said his goal was to create 12 million jobs in his speech last night. guest: no one really thinks there is a plan here for jobs. but i do think plans matter. i am not of the view that it is all about personality. this is a very tough economic financial crisis and really took a toll on people. what jobs pay matter a lot.
jobs are paying 20% less than the people are very focused on grocery prices. it is tough out there. what record you have on this and what you are going to do to create jobs, people are serious and want to know what is your plan. i think the president has an opportunity at the convention to go much further in telling where he is going to take the country or create jobs. host: do you think his speech will be more specific? guest: probably. the as the president and it is in his interest to have this election decided by what you are going to do rather than what happened over the last four years. i did not mind that debate.
the country does not want a debate over whose fault it was. they want to hear what you are going to do. the more the president goes out there and says what he is going to do, the more mitt romney will be called upon to say what he will do. caller: hello. i just cannot believe these people talking about mitt romney when we have had a son dolly -- svengali in the white house for years. my insurance rates have gone up $20 in the last six months. through aarp. -- on television but they are nothing but a big insurance company.
the other thing is he has been on the golf course more than he has been a president. host: we will get stan greenberg's response. guest: i appreciate your point of view. he was handed a mess when he came in. 750,000 jobs lost each month. he would talk about private sector jobs created and the iraq war. osama bin laden and other issues. i think the country shares your judgment that that doesn't matter so much. it is tough out there and people want to know what you are going to do now.
people want to know can you make their lives better. i think mitt romney posed a strong question at the end of the speech or a choice in which he said i am focused on making your life better. i think that is right. people want to know how you are going to create middle class jobs. host: she started the conversation talking about medicare. we spoke a moment ago about paul ryan. i want to show our viewers some specifics paul ryan said in his speech on medicare. [video clip] >> for my mom's generation, my generation, and my kids and yours. [cheers and applause]
so, our opponents can consider themselves on notice. in this election on this issue, the usual posturing on the left is not going to work. we know the difference between protecting a program and raiding it. our nation needs this debate, we want this debate, and we will win this debate. [cheers and applause] host: paul ryan the other night, protecting and strengthening medicare. guest: as you know, his budget takes the exact same money from reforms and medicare. just no difference between what the president has proposed. just makes no sense.
ultimately, this debate will be serious. the fact they want to introduce a voucher and turn medicare into a fixed amount of money to buy health insurance is a shift for seniors. that will penetrate going forward. he says he wants that battle. that is what they should say, but the more this is debated, i think the more problematic it will be. host: do you think mitt romney did not want to have this battle? guest: once he selected paul ryan, that was his decision. they are talking about changing medicare in fundamental ways. host: let go back to calls. the independent line, go ahead. caller: yes, sir. i have a couple of questions. one is the voter id.
if i need an id to get on an airplane or money out of my bank, what is the problem with an id to vote? another question is where do the republicans and democrats make the distinction about income for middle class? thank you. guest: the latter is a good question. there used to be a fairly permissive set of policies for taxes and utility bills. using your address to prove that you are a registered voter. what they have created is a poll tax in which you have to spend money to vote. they ruled that violates the
constitution, in particular states. i think it is pretty clear where this is happening and why. the question you raised about middle-class income is very important. james carville and i have written a book about the income levels for middle-class. we are very inclusive. 60% say they are middle-class. if you do it by income, it is probably under $125,000. we actually think anybody working hard and wanting their kids to do better or go to college, that represents the middle class values that our parents gave us. that makes us unique in the country. i think that is what makes america exceptional. that may be one of the differences that ronnie and obama today. -- mitt romney and obama debate.
where you draw that line is fairly important. host: you also have some strategy in your book. you write that the president should make a big part of his argument that the country needs to elect republicans to rescue the middle class who are willing to work together. guest: this place is so dysfunctional. voters know it. i think the president came here innocently thinking he could work together.
we do know the republican senate leader did say our goal is to make him fail. bringing the government to the brink of default. it is a very tough environment. i think the president can go beyond the message and say give me democrats and republicans who will work together. we have this gridlock. i think there is added support if he goes down that road. host: let's go to dennis on the line. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i just want to say the speech from paul ryan and mitt romney -- you know, this is dangerous. it is misleading. they are misleading in their speech. i am a registered nurse.
about medicare and debt, they are lying. they are not telling the truth. i listened to them and -- i do not believe what they are saying anymore. last night, he blew his speech. i think he is done. thank you very much. guest: i think we will have a real election. it is not over yet. but you raise an important point. i am trying to understand the strategy because they are saying we're not going to be run by the fact checkers. some things in their speeches just factually enormous problems. there is a bravado and barreling through that we are not going to pay attention to
the fact checkers and we are going to go forward. i think people are skeptical about the media said they are checking their own sites. on facebook and twitter and going to sites and doing their own fact checking. it does not matter whether you are truthful or not. i think voters will find a way to sort that out. host: what is your way of getting the news in the morning? what are the first couple of things you check each day? guest: "the new york times" first. i use the ipad for getting the news. i download "the wall street journal" and "the financial times." "the washington post," going to the opinion page first. then we are back to the politics. host: are you also on twitter?
guest: facebook and twitter. there will be commentary after. host: a tweet from maverick guest: healthcare. look, cost is the issue here. if you listen to ryan and romney's speech, david brooks's column, they think the main problem facing the country is the cost of health care facing the government. if you think that, what you do is reduce the government's cost, trying to solve the deficit problem. in the books that we wrote, the problem is health care costs. it is not the government's health care costs. it is total health care costs. it is not going to happen.
it is just not going to happen. we have a health care reform law and there is reason to believe that law can make health care more affordable. there are some serious things that people can do that were pushed out by special interests to go further in this law to make it work. my view is double down. i think progressives should say the single payer debate is very interesting. we need to do it in a way and take it beyond the law because the goal has to be reducing the cost of health care for middle- class families. phonelet's go back to our calls. caller: yes, how're you doing this morning? you just hit on a lot of the
points i think we really need. we need some clarity in there. we know barack obama and what he thinks about health care. it seems to me the mitt romney- paul ryan ticket is we're just going to beat everybody. how they going to do better? i have not seen anything from them. they do not talk like people getting something done. i would like to see some clarity on mitt romney's income tax and how much money he has in overseas accounts. that would be a good start. he thinks he is going to get elected. i am a conservative. the better start getting some clarity.
host: are you going to vote for him? caller: yes. guest: let me try to help you get your republican vote on that. to be honest, obamacare as identified by the republicans, as we know it is mitt romney's health care plan put on the national stage. it is a conservative plan. it is an individual mandated -- the democrats are for single payer. individual mandate is what republicans and conservatives were for including mitt romney.
the right thing for him was to embrace massachusetts and his plan. republicans do not want to go that road. they think it is a replay of old politics that are dysfunctional. i think he needs to go a different road on that. i do think he would benefit by telling the country where he wants to go. in the end, he is going to say it is about what the president did. mitt romney is going to have to say with clarity where he will go. we founded independent polling a decade ago and every month we sent out memos on monday or tuesday about what we think the president ought to do in the convention speech. the convention speech. we release our data. our view has been the more people have access to information, they will be able to make better decisions. we do not have any special interests that fund us. host: a story said the democracy corps has outlined a passed to a democratic house.
how can that happen? guest: we focus on just the republican seats. most of those carried in 2008 but those that are most vulnerable. i think that is the danger for mitt romney. particularly in the house races where people have voted multiple times for the paul ryan budget. their vulnerability is raising taxes on the working poor and pushing 2 million kids into poverty and that 20% cuts in education. there are other things that people really dislike along with the medicare changes that expose the house candidates and makes it possible to contest the house.
host: back to phone calls. paul is on our independents' line. caller: good morning. i saw lots and lots of promises but no substance whatsoever in mitt romney's speech. mitt romney remind me of a guy in the bar trying to pick up women, telling her everything she wants to hear how beautiful she is and promising this and that. once he gets what he wants, he dumps her. when she asks why, he says, "you were dumb enough to fall for my lies." are the american people going to fall for these lies? that is the question. thanks. guest: i think you raised the right issue on this. i do think voters want to know what you are going to do. they know these are special times. they have been hit hard. it really was a great recession, maybe a depression,
and they know we have not come out and long term problems are facing the middle-class. they are looking to leaders to say what is your plan and where are you going to take the country? what mitt romney is saying is it is ok to throw this guy out. i do not think they are going to turn to him unless he lays out where he wants to take the country. host: jacksonville, florida, good morning to you. hello, bob? caller: good morning. i really appreciate c-span and i watched it quite a bit. one of my main goals is to watch the debate. also, i have a problem with banks not lending money to homeowners. in the stock market, banks should the banks and the stock
market should be left to the stock market. banks are hoarding their money and using it mainly for the stock market. that is really wrong. our last quarter say an increase in employment. i do not recall offhand. my main question is what do you think about banks being banks and leaving the stock market alone? that's where they are putting the money instead of into the homes. guest: i appreciate the question. i am not a policy person to answer the best policies to be for the banks. again, i have worked in presidential campaigns and i have watched them closely. the debates really are a decision point.
you can see people's brains after the final debate really making up their mind and moving. one of the choices will be about the banks. people do think they were one of the main causes of the economic crisis. even though they think president obama has been hostile to business and wall street, when you ask voters whether the president did more for main street or wall street, they thought he was more for wall street because he did not go far enough. it is not far enough in regulating the banks. people think they have not been checked or reformed. people think there needs to be more, not less, done with the banks if we are going to have a strong economy. host: just a reminder to our c-
span viewers. we will have all three presidential debates as well as the vice-presidential debate as well. also, gavel-to-gavel coverage of the democratic convention next week in charlotte. pittsburgh is next. caller: i think there is an important question that should be asked. my neighbor last year or last election -- there are 12 of us who live on the block. this time, only two of them are going to vote for obama so far. i think people are tired of hearing white men and this voter id -- that is discrimination which does not mean in any sense to me. these neighbors here are going back to obama, no prosecution
against the black panthers for putting violent on people's heads. they are voting for the guy and are being called racist. i definitely think it is happening in my neighborhood and from some other people. keep playing this race card because a lot of white people voting for him are disgusted at being called racist. guest: i appreciate your question. look, i will tell you one thing that is happening. what i do know is when you look at the effect of this crisis, the people hit hardest are young people and minorities but also the white working class, white voters.
their incomes were hit hard. the have seemed long term unemployment before president obama -- they have seen it long term unemployment before president obama during president bush. that is one of the challenges. to the extent that there is any recovery at all, it is slow and hard for a lot of those working-class folks who some of them voted for the president in 2008. they are thinking hard about how they are going to vote. a lot of them in michigan and ohio have come back at the in the states for obama. and finally i would say in the work that james and i have done with working-class voters, race was absolutely central to their thinking of what the problem was. it is the long-term problems of the economy.
there is a lot of anger around that. host: let's go to our independent line. caller: good morning. i am an independent but i voted for george bush and john mccain. i will not be voting for mitt romney. my dad serves, my brother serves, and my nephew is in the military right now. under this president, he has really taken care of military families. we do not acknowledge that, but he has done that. mitt romney has five sons and none of them have served. yet he wants to go to war with iran. i think that is alarming. the other thing is it is so unimagined to keep your money in overseas -- un-american to keep your money in overseas banks.
that is so on american -- unamerican. he ships jobs abroad and that is why we are in dire straits. he actually made money shipping jobs abroad. guest: i appreciate your comments about what has happened with military families. there was a lot of bravado at the end of the mitt romney speech yesterday about the use of military abroad and the strength of america. president obama has very high marks with the country on handling national security and the war on terrorism. he is pretty balanced in the way he has dealt with libya, egypt, and syria as well as support for veterans. i think republicans are on the defensive on the issue. i promise you people will
mention the cayman islands and other offshore accounts as a big deal. it is top of the list. you cannot be running for president and having an account in the cayman islands to avoid taxes or a campaign saying we are running on truth but not be willing to talk about these things. host: we talked earlier about president obama mentioning george bush and inheriting the economy from the previous administration. jeb bush said president obama has to stop blaming the previous president. [video clip] >> well, i love my brother. [cheers and applause] he is a man of integrity, courage, and honor. during an incredibly challenging time, he kept us safe. [cheers and applause]
so, mr. president, mr. president, it is time to stop blaming your predecessor for your failed economic policies. [cheers and applause] you were dealt a tough hand. you were dealt a tough hand, but the policies have not worked. in the fourth year of your presidency, a real leader would accept responsibility for his actions, and you have not done it. host: would it have been advantageous for president obama mentioning the previous problems? guest: he was not at the republican convention.
the previous president himself was not at the republican convention. but bill clinton certainly will be playing a prominent role. the bush years were a lost decade. the country has still right now if you asked who is responsible for the deficit or the state of the economy, many more people will say george bush and president obama. that is a pretty amazing conclusion. they are not looking for the president's to blame george bush. they want him to get on with the jobs. they do not want someone to come with the presidency who has the same policy as george bush. i think that is fair. do we want to bring in someone who wants to cut taxes for the very wealthy? do we want someone with that world view to be leader of the country? host: a couple more phone calls. bill is on our republican line. go ahead.
marietta, ga.. caller: this is bill. good morning. i do appreciate c-span. as a matter of fact, i recorded the whole entire convention. one thing i want to point out about lies being told, i would like to point out that our representatives here were caught up in a lie with "anderson cooper 360" on her quote about how romney was in lockstep with the rnc on their platform on abortion. the lie that she was caught up in because she'd misquoted the "l.a. times." here it was saying it does not
matter. things like that matter to the american people. the introduction of obamacare does matter to the american people. nancy pelosi's comment, "we just need to pass it. then we will know what is in it." guest: i appreciate the comment. i do think honesty and being factual, not being truthful, distorted or leaving out things is very important and i think voters will be demanding of leaders on this all across the board. the issue with dealing with this is what it is is the republican party's position on abortion. what we have is the vice president's position selected by mitt romney, the conventions position, and we are electing
governors, legislators, not just the president. the position of the party does matter. in that sense, i think she was right. host: stan greenberg, i want to thank you for spending some time with us here on "washington journal." >> live pictures now from bill thank you, texas where president obama is about to speak to troops, marking the two-year anniversary of the end of the u.s. combat mission in iraq. the president spoke with service members and military families about their standby mission. those comments should happen shortly, about 15 minutes from now. until then, a discussion on a hurricane relief efforts for
louisiana. >> we will hear from joe allbaugh. he is the former head of fema. this is the portion of hurricane is it that is still lashing a good part of the coast. as an expert on this, how would you gauge the preparation and the response? caller: that was a nightmare, katrina. this is a serious storm, still. still a lot of rain. i think we have -- it is to the the. -- to the day.
we are learning the lessons. be as a country are a lot better about preparation and response. people listened to local officials and actually about to waited to higher ground when they were given the order. i know there are a lot of folks who were not inundated by katrina seven years ago that are feeling the effects this time around. there's a lot more focus on mississippi, and there should be, not just new orleans. i think the people of the federal-state level and the local parish-county levels have done affected jobs sharing information. host: when you hear about the storms, what is the first thing that goes through your mind? abouter: i am curious whether individuals to prepare themselves. two, i second-guess whether
local, state, and federal officials have talked about this. the coastal states are probably the best prepared of any state in the u.s. with the exception of california and new york. they should have exercised this. i believe they have. by exercise, i mean coming together, sitting at the table like this, and then walk through a table exercise or a formal exercise and approve what they envision in their mind will work when it comes to reality. the same is true about local officials giving information. host: we are talking about hurricane response, disaster response. hurricane isaac. we have set aside a special phone line. the numbers are --
if you are of gulf residents being impacted by the storm, the number is -- we will get to your phone call in just a minute. you talked about officials preparing for the storm. this time around, i want you to listen to the tone of the new orleans mayor telling people ahead of time what to expect. this is what he had to said. [video clip] >> let me say very clearly for everybody knew the superdome or the airport or the convention center will be an emergency shelter of last result. in the event an evacuation is called, in the event an evacuation is called, everybody needs to make preparations, because we are not going to be
sheltering at their. if you have to shoulder in a place, you should begin your preparations. we are on high alert. i know the anxiety levels are high. the storm is somewhat uncertain. we need to take these precautions as quickly as we can. so, we will stay in touch with you. hour emergency operation team is working, and the governor has activated the esc at the state level. we have been through this many times before. the best wisdom is to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. host: what are you hearing from his warnings? >> -- guest: i congratulate mitch for being a head of the curve, as was governor bobby jindal. he has been through this once or twice. we watched up close and
personal the lack of communication in 2007 -- 2005, and sorry, with katrina. they have exercised since then individually and collectively with the fed's. they remember very well the press conference, the only press conference call before the storm. the sense of urgency was a sunday morning press conference that the previous mayor and previous governor have, asking people to evacuate. by that time, it was too late. the former head of the national hurricane center had been on the phone with those folks five days earlier, urging that they evacuate now. so, having this press conference, making that information available, telling exactly where residents may not run spoke a great deal.
i think the deaths in the storm are very, very low. nonetheless, there are a lot of people who did not think they would be hurt this time around who are suffering right now. the local official says evacuate come up listen. the coastal states did an excellent job getting that message out this time around. >> we do have that special line set aside for gulf coast residents who may be impacted by hurricane isaac. john, hi. go ahead. caller: if you listened to mr. romney's speech last night, he took the opportunity to reticule president obama about being concerned -- ridiculed president
obama about being concerned about rising seas. i do not know how the pundits did not comment on that. when they talk about the infrastructure -- the levees did hold back a category one hurricane. but what is going to happen when category two or category three comes rolling in there? i would think mr. romney would take that opportunity -- not once did he express concern for those people who lost their homes in at high water over their. host: john, you will let me -- john, we will let you go. guest: john, one of the concerns was originally before katrina, everyone knew that those levees knew they were only built to a category 3. subsequently, in an area where
the army corps controls the levee system, they have significantly -- which has helped this time around -- the levee control will be the parish organizations have not received the kind of equipment. they are rated for category 1, category two. you heard a lot of information. the levees are designed over time. if levies are overtopped for an extended period of time, then you have the risk of a breach, which is what is happening in mississippi with one of the dams. i am not sure of the pronunciation. they are watching a dam that is upstream from about 5000 people that has been breached. the danger is not over with yet. you are correct with your assessment about the nature of
the levee system. >> there were improvements made to the lot after hurricane katrina. -- to the law after hurricane katrina. one of those was the stafford act. what does that do? guest: it empowers state guidelines and regulations in which emergency management can act on behalf of the president. until the creation of homeland security, the fema director was a direct report to the president, which is probably -- in times of need, when people lives are at risk, you need to have a person who is responsible that acts on behalf of the president of united states. homeland security does a lot of good things. you have four layers of bureaucracy weighing down. the administrator of fema, who
is a very good friend of mine, and the president of the united states selected richard whatever the recommendation is from fema -- selected -- whatever the recommendation is from fema. in the middle of the firefight, you do not have time to talk to a lot of people to get decisions that you absolutely have to do to protect property and save lives. host: congress made changes to the stafford act in 2006. among those changes, was the assistance to individuals with special needs, expanded assistance to disaster victims, housing was added, public assistance to states, assistance to non-profit organizations, hazard mitigation, and administrative changes. what is the most prominent thing of the 2006 it changes we saw
this time around? >> the most important programs are the public-works category and the individual assistance category. those who have been harmed or think they may have been harmed need to call the fema hot line witches when a hundred-621- -- 1-800-621-fema. one of the things the program did expanding the stafford act was to allow people to have assistance even if they have insurance for things not covered by their current private insurance. that is a big expansion of help at a time like this when people are still trying to figure out where do i go? how do i put aside the mental anguish of losing all their possessions? >> from usa today -- the
katrina silver lining, emergency plans were in place before isaac hit. we have mary from memory, louisiana -- meteri , louisiana. how're you doing? caller: we are doing very well. we never lost power. but a lot of my friends lost power for four days. guest: state leadership is intersecting with business and providers. they have worked closely together for the past seven years to ensure their infrastructure is going to continue to operate by itself. it has been a remarkable
process. its hard to believe it was 7 years. but you know, everybody has done a lot better job this time around. the warnings from local folks. >> we pointed out this was a category one storm. the levees survived. what is your sense on the outlook for the 2012 hurricane season? guest: we are halfway through. as everyone knows, we need rain in our country. we have a drought going on that is affecting literally everything we have, particularly agricultural products. we won the grain but we do not want to come in damage that comes with this. unfortunately, hurricane isaac stayed offshore for a very long time. it was moving at around 7 miles per hour. the gulf this time of year is very warm. as it was building a long, it
was growing in power. that is why we had these bands of rain storms. last night, it spawned some heavy tornadoes just cropping up at any moment. host: if noaa and nasa say in their longer-term forecasts, looking at climate change, the oceans are getting warmer, storms could be more intense, etc., does some heavy fema have to change their models of how they react to things and how much money they will need for potential storms? >> there is a disaster assistance fund that is essentially house that the office of management and budget. congress always makes sure there is a disaster and efficient --
assistance fund for fema that is funded properly. they may drawn down with all the disasters, but congress always makes sure there is money for that because we have disasters all over the world. one of the biggest concerns i have,have to change their models of we measure hurra simpson system. sometimes with the storms and its intensity, it may be a category one, as isaac was originally, but the amount of damage after the storm hits does not really fit what a category one talks about, so we need, private entities, nasa, private sector, to get together to figure out whether the system we have had forever is the applicable system as all these
storms continue to intensify as we move forward. host: lawrence, kansas. tom is on the independent line. caller: good morning. first, prayers to all those along the gulf coast. secondly, before i ask a question about that our response to generated crises, i would mention people look into the idea of weather weaponry. it talks about geo-engineer projects being used for weather weaponry. my question has to do with the way that the federal government appears to take advantage of crises or even generate crises in order to about test theirwe g u.s. military domestically to take people's guns from them in some of those quarters.
specifically, the question has to do with september 11. you were the director of fema. fema showed up in lower manhattan the day before september 11 to set up tripods, at two by weapons exercise. he was reporting directly to dick cheney. further evidence has come out -- host: you are suggesting what? caller: that september 11 was a general crisis. host: i'm going to let you go there. guest: absolutely not. it is regrettable that we continue to have these rumors fed by the internet. september 11 was not a created crisis by this government. i'm sorry, tom, but you are wrong. host: republican line. cleveland, ohio. caller: i wanted to ask, what
does this pasthost: i'm going to there. guest: absolutely not. it is regrettable that we continue to have these rumors ew many up tripods, at two by weapons exercise. he was reporting directly to dick cheney. people heed the warnings of local authorities and vacate their premises, moving to another location, in light of the pending storm? how many people stick it out in their homes? how does this affect the planning of local first responders, and/or fema? guest: thank you for your question. powers or expand their powers. it is an excellent question because it does impact the responses and slow down the response if folks remain in their home. there is no way to demand someone to leave their property. however, for their own safety, they should heed the warnings of local officials, authorized officials, every time they hear someone talk about a preparation
to evacuate. the reason for that is two fold. anytime someone with hurricanes suggest, as to staysr property, not only are they putting their own lives in jeopardy and extreme danger, first and foremost. but they are putting the lives of the first responders, coast guard, national guard, local police department, ems officials, everybody at risk. that means somebody has to go out in the middle of the storm, assuming it is safe enough to travel, and rescue those folks. that is the biggest lesson that is the most difficult to get across -- >> see the rest of this conversation at c-span.org. we are going to go live now to fort bliss in el paso, texas, where president obama will be speaking on the anniversary of the meat and of the war in iraq. he will also talk about services for -- mental health services
for members of the military. [applause] thank you so much, everybody. to the general, thank you for the introduction and your leadership, leading our troops in iraq and taking care of our soldiers now that they are at home. and right at the top, let me say that our hearts are obviously with all the folks who are down in louisiana and the gulf coast who are dealing with the aftermath of hurricane isaac. our prayers are with those that have lost loved ones, and i have directed the federal government
to keep doing everything it can to help our partners at the state and local level. as a country, we stand united with our fellow americans in their hour of need. i want to thank general petard and all your great commanders for welcoming here today. i want to give a shout out for the sergeant major of the army, rate chandler. and command sergeant major ronnie kelly. [applause] these guys remind us that are not commission officers are the backbone of our military. [applause] leading the finest in listed force in the world. it is great to be backed at fort bliss. home to the army, air, and missile defense command.
we have guard and reserve your. of course, home to the legendary first armored division, old ironsides. we have a lot of brigades here, including the hiring eagles, iron brigade, bulldog, and ready first. [applause] and i also want to salute lucille petard, alice kelly, all the extraordinary spouses and military family here. give them a round of applause. [applause] i know all of you are grateful for the incredible support you received from your civilian neighbors, so i want to the knowledge two champions of fort bliss. we have congressman sell the
styria's and mayor john cook. also got all the great folks in el paso and new mexico. give them a round of applause. >[applause] now i have come back for a simple reason. two years ago, i was here to mark an historic moment in the life of our nation and military, the end of major combat operations in iraq. it was a chance for me to say on behalf of the american people, to you and all who served there, while, -- welcome home and congratulations on a job well done. in every major phase of that war, you were there. the iron soldiers, because of your speed and strength, the american troops toppled dictator and less than one
month. because of your commitment, you stayed on extended tours, and went back year after year. because of your determination to succeed, you turned back an insurgent, you stood firm against sectarian strife, you helped pull iraq back from the abyss, and you trained iraqis to take the lead. that was the progress that you made possible with your service and courage. and so, two years ago, i was able to come here to mark the end of our combat mission. that night i told the american people at all our troops would be out of iraq by the end of the following year. at the time i know some folks did not believe me, they were skeptical. some thought the and the combat was just word games and semantics, but i meant what i said.
so you kept training those iraqi forces, we remove nearly 150,000 troops, and this past december, under general leadership, the last american troops came home, including the fourth brigade comment here from this. -- , here frombliss. you left iraq with honor, your mission complete, your held held high. after nine years, the war in iraq was over. today, iraq has a chance to forge its own destiny. there are no american troops fighting and dying in iraq. on this anniversary, we honor the memory of all who gave their lives there purel. nearly 145,000 patriots. we salute all who served there.
when i was here two years ago, i told you something else. that we had more work to do, including taking the fight to al qaeda. and there, too, i meant what i said. with allies and partners, we have taken out more top al qaeda terrorists than at any time since 9/11, and thanks to the courage of our-- forces, al qaea is on the road to defeat and bin laden will never again threaten the united states of america. [applause] ago, i told you somethingtwo years agou that we would keep up the fight in afghanistan. i know some of you recently got back. on behalf of a grateful nation, welcome home. some of your buddies are in afghanistan right now, and our
thoughts and prayers are with all the troops from bliss deployed around the world, including afghanistan. the war eagles and the higlanders. i know some of you will be deployed later this year. i have to tell you the truth, this is still a very tough fight. you know this. you carry it in your hearts, the memory of comrades who made the ultimate sacrifice, including six heroes here from bliss who gave their lives on that awful day last month. i just had the opportunity to meet with some of our goldstar families. our message to them was this. your loved ones live on in the soul of our nation. we will honor them always. because of their sacrifice, because of your service, we pushed the taliban back. we are training afghan forces. the transition to have and lead
is under way, and as promised, more than 30,000 of our troops would have come home by next month -- will have come home by next month. just as in iraq, we will end the war responsibly. next year, afghan will take the lead for their own security. in 2014, the transition will be complete. even as this war ends, we will stay vigilant until afghanistan is never again a source for attacks against america. never again. [applause] so we are not just ending these wars, we are doing it in a way that keeps america safe, and makes america stronger. and that includes our military. think about it. four years ago, there were some 180,000 american troops in iraq and afghanistan.
by next month, we will have cut that number by nearly two- thirds. so most of our troops have come home. and as more afghans step up, more of our troops will come home. and what does that mean for you? well, after 10 years of continuous operations, it means fewer deployments, it needs more time for training, more time to improve readiness, more time to prepare for the future. and it needs more time on the home front with your families. your spouses and your kids. make no mistake, ending the war is responsibly makes us safer, and it makes our military even stronger. and ending these wars it is letting us do something else. restore american leadership. if you or anyone would try to say that america is in decline
or that our influence has waned, don't you believe it. here is the truth. our alliances have never been stronger. we are leading on behalf of freedom, including standing with the people of libya that are finally free from muammar gaddafi. around the world there is a new attitude toward america. new confidence in our leadership. when people are asked, which country do you admire most? one nation always comes out on top. the united states of america. [applause] and that is the progress that we have made, thanks to your incredible service. we are winding down a decade of war, we are destroying terrorist networks that attacked us, and we have restored american leadership. today, every american can be proud that the united states is
safer, the united states is stronger, and the united states is more respected in the world. when i was here last, i made you a pledge. i said, as president, i would insist that america serve you and your families as well as you have served us. and there again, i meant what i said part of ending more responsibly is caring for those who fought in and -- them. that is why i wanted to come back on this anniversary to reaffirm our solemn obligation to your families. you see, we may be turning a page on a decade of war, but america's responsibilities to you have only just begun. hey. i hear you. [laughter] here is my pledge to you. in a world of serious threat, i
will never have to take force to defend the united states or our interest. at the same time, i will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary, and when we do, we will give me the equipment and a clear mission and a smart strategy, and the support back home that you need to get the job done. we owe you that. [applause] with the end of the wars, our military will be leaner, but we will keep making historic investment to keep you the absolute best military in the world, bar none.
the united states will always maintain our military superiority. in view we have the best trained, best lead, best equipped military in human history, and as commander in chief, i will keep it that way. when we do, we will give me the equipment and a clear mission and a smart strategy, and the support back home that you need to get the job done. we owe you that. [applause] with the end of the wars, our military will be leaner, but we will keep making historic investment to keep you the absolute best military in the world, bar none. the united states will always maintain our military superiority. in view we have the best trained, best lead, best equipped military in human [applause] by the way, you have been hearing folks out there trying to talk about the budget, trying to scare you. last year, congress pledged to find a plan to reduce the deficit, and they said if they could not agree, there would be big cuts across the board, including defense. understand nobody wants these cuts, and that is why congress threaten them, to force themselves to make the decision. but here is the thing. there is no reason those cuts should happen. folks in congress ought to come together and agree on a responsible plan that reduces the deficit and keep our military strong. that is what needs to happen. that is when you and your families deserve, and that is how we're going to keep america safe and strong and growing our economy at the same time. that is a pledge that we have to make to you. and just as we give you the best
equipment and technology on the battlefield, we need to give you the best support and care when you come home. we just had a round table with some soldiers and their families, talking about how coming home can be its own struggle. especially for our wounded warriors. so we've poured tremendous resources into this effort, unprecedented support for our troops with traumatic brain injury. for our troops and veterans with ptsd. more counselors, clinicians, or care, more treatment. i know you have been a leader on this here at dulles, making it clear that everyone here has a responsibility to help a comrade who is hurting. today, we are taking another step. i signed a new executive order to give our troops, veterans, and our families better access
to mental health care. [applause] we are going to increase the number of folks manning those crisis hot lines, so help is there when you need it most. we are ready to add even more counselors and mental health providers. we are launching effort, unprecedented a new awareness campaign starting tomorrow. and i am directing a new task force to find out what works best, so we are doing everything we can to help those in need and save lives. i know that you join me in saying to everyone who has ever worn the uniform, if you are hurting, it is not a sign of weakness to seek help. it is a sign of strength. we are here to help you stay strong, army strong. that is a commitment i am making to you. [applause] and we are going to keep taking
care of our remarkable military families, too. this is something i care deeply about, but even if i did not, i would have no choice, because michelle would tell me what to do. [laughter] along with michelle and dr. jill biden, they have been doing everything they can to get civilians involved in this process, not just our government. so today, more people all across america are joining forces to give our military families the respect and support that they deserve, and that is especially important right now. this may be a political season and folks may be arguing about all sorts of things, but one thing that we americans are united on is our support for you. only 1% of americans may wear the uniform, but 100% of americans need to be supporting you and your families, 100%.
so this brings me to the final pledge i made here two years ago. when you take off that uniform, we are going to help you fully participate in our economy. every single one of you has defended the american dream for the rest of us, and everyone of you deserves the chance to live the american dream yourselves. and that includes jobs were the of your incredible talents. and by the way, it is not just good for you, it is, and everyof good for the country. after a decade of war, the nation we need we need to be rebuilding in the united states of america. [applause] and all of you have the skills that america needs. so with a million more of you joining civilian life in the years ahead, we are upping our game, at every stage of your careers. we have overhauled the
transition assistance program, creating a reverse to camp as you service, to help you find a job or pursue that degree or start a business. hopefully, this will be one boot camp that you actually like. we will keep helping you and your family pursue your education under the post-9/11 bill. and by the way, we are cracking down on those schools that have been trying to take your money, and then rip you off by not giving you the education you paid for. that needs to stop. we are going to bring an end to that. [applause] we are going to keep hiring our newest veterans in the federal government, and in communities as police officers and firefighters and first responders, and because we passed tax credits, more businesses can hire veterans and wounded warriors. we are making it easier for you to transfer your outstanding
military skills to the credentials you need to get that civilian job. if you have been a medic in theater, you should not have to start with nursing 101, if you decide to go into the medical profession here in the united states. if you were a mechanic on a multimillion-dollar piece of equipment, you should not have to come back and start all over again to work on a car here in the united states. and maybe you have heard, last year, i challenge the private sector to hire or train 100,000 veterans or military spouses. last week, michelle was able to announce that patriotic companies across america have actually exceeded that goal ahead of schedule with 125,000 jobs. [applause] but we still have more work to do.
today, i am again calling on congress to act. they have some work they need to do. pass the veterans jobs corps. so we could put more betts to work protecting and rebuilding america, extend tax credits to businesses that hire our veterans, and i say to every company in america, if you want somebody who knows how to get the job done, if you want somebody who is going to make you proud, just like they made america proud, then hire a vet. hire a vet. [applause] after fighting for america, you should not have to fight for a job in america. [applause] to team bliss, these are america's commitments, to you and all those that surf. because we need to be there for you just like you were there for us. not just this year or next, but
for all the years that come. that is the lesson of a soldier i have the honor to meet last time i was in afghanistan, visiting some of our wounded warriors in the hospital at bagram. sgt chase is 22 years old. this past spring, he was with his team when their vehicle got hit by an ied, the day that i flew in. when i arrived at his hospital room, he and his buddies were all in pretty bad shape. he was certainly in bad shape. his leg was broken, and back was fractured. he was laying there on his bed, he was under a lot of medication. his face was swollen, his eyes were shut. at first, i attitude was i did not want to disturb him. i thought he was sleeping. the doctors said, no, i think he can understand what you are saying even if he cannot acknowledge it.
he would appreciate you being by his side. eileen dim and i told him how proud i was of him and how proud the country was of him and how we would be praying for his recovery. and i was turning to leave and then something happened. there was a wrestling under his blanket. chased never opened his eyes, could not make a sound, but suddenly, you saw the blanket left, and his arm came out, and he shook my hand. a firm, army handshake. i do not think there was a dry eye in that room. a few months later i was visiting our wounded warriors at walter reed and i walked around the corner, and who is there but chase. he had endured multiple surgeries. he was persevered through
physical therapy. but this time, he was on his feet. he was walking again. he had his dead next to him. he is back with his unit. it made me think, that is just one moment in the life of one american soldier. it captures the spirit, the resilience, the tenacity, the discipline, the resolve, the patriotism of all of you. you have served under the dark cloud of war. you have endured great loss. we americans are strong.
we are resilient. we have resolved. now we can see a light of a new day on the horizon. that is because of you. the war in iraq is over. the transition is underway in afghanistan. our troops will keep coming home. we're keeping our military ready for whenever the future holds. we are moving forward stronger and more confident knowing that when faced with great trials, we americans do what we always do. we emerged stronger than before. as we go forward as one nation, if the american people need information -- inspiration, and they need only to look at you. in you, we see the best that our country has to offer. the values that will keep us great for centuries to come.
the belief that all men are created equal, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. it is the sense of duty that says our country and our freedoms are worth fighting for i do not care who gets the credit, but i will do my part and we will get the job done. the trust in one another bad knowing when the chips are down, the person next to you has your back, and you have theirs. coming together, succeeding together as one american team, that is to you are, that is who we are. we are americans. we pledge allegiance to the same flag. the hope, the opportunity, and we stand united in support of our troops and your families.
when we stand together and we work together, we take care of each other and remind ourselves that there is nothing we cannot do. america's greatest days are yet to come. we remain the greatest force of freedom to the world has ever known. god bless you. god bless all of our men and women in uniform and god bless the united states of our merk -- of america. ♪
on the second anniversary of the end of the iraq war. this is where he announced it would be the end of the iraq war. greeting some soldiers there on the army base. talking about assisting veterans and their families, especially those veterans in the iraq and afghanistan morse. the president is going to be going on to louisiana. he will be going on monday. the democratic national convention starting in charlotte, n.c., starting tuesday. this is the time warner cable arena. taking a look at the podium. students were visiting to see what the podium looked like, the fema, americans coming together. -- the theme, americans coming
together. designed to fit within this kind of unique space. it is smaller than the previous setting. people will be on three sides of the speakers as they are surrounded by delegates. it allows the speakers to be surrounded by the delegates. let's take a look for imminent -- for a minute. take a look at the schedule, too. the platform to be unveiled on tuesday. we will year from a number of people. including the first lady, michelle obama, on day two. bill clinton is one of the noted speakers. we will also hear from elizabeth warren. day three, thursday, vice-
president biden and president obama, both speaking on the last day of the convention. about 20 minutes, we will take some of your phone calls. let's see what you think about the road to the white house. both candidates -- make sure you have the hashtag in your tweet. before we go to your calls, we will take a look at paul ryan. he was in virginia earlier this morning. ♪
richmond, virginia. going to win.e i have the distinct honor and pleasure today to introduce to you, not only just a colleague, but it's a very dear friend. i have had the pleasure and honor of knowing paul ryan for over a decade. i have had the experience of knowing him when he worked and when he works and when he works. he can play a little, but he is a hard worker. this guy, we served on the ways and means committee together, this is the committee that is central to trying to get our economy going. paul ryan, since he came to
washington, was dedicated for the right reasons, for the right cause, not just for himself, but for the people he represents to turn this country around and to take america back. we have had the pleasure of getting to know his lovely wife, who is an accomplished partner and they're beautiful family. let's give all of them a hand. of course, we would not be here today if it were not for betty, paul's mom. we love you. i know he is a man of family, faith, and he is a man
dedicated for the right reasons, believing in america am, believing that we can succeed. as mitt romney said last night, we have a ticket. mitt romney, paul ryan, a ticket that is dedicated to help small businesses. dedicated to helping all of you men and women to put people back to work. please join me in giving my good friend a warm virginia welcome, the next vice-president of the united states, paul ryan.
>> thank you. thank you very much. we love you, too, man. how about this guy? man. you not only have a lot of my closest friends in congress as your congressman, you not only have a principle spirited leader, you have the leader of the house of representatives as your congressman, eric cantor. you are very blessed. virginians are blessed. you have this great governor, bob mcdonnell.
you have this great attorney general kids you have this great lieutenant governor. -- you have this great attorney general. he'll have this great lieutenant governor. and you have -- and you are going to get this great senator back, george allen. this is the first rally we are kicking off after tampa. 67 days to go. we wanted to come here to richmond. i bring greetings on behalf of mitt. mitt is in louisiana meeting with victims of the hurricane, bringing attention to those who are in isaac's path. there are people there who need help. -- who need our help. how about last night? did mitt romney not show us the
direction for the country? i do not want to bore you by saying the same thing over again, but it bears repeating. if we stay on the same path, we will get more of the same results. lookit where president obama has taken our economy. 23 million people struggling to find jobs. the poverty rate in an era that is the highest it has been in a generation. -- in america is the highest it has been in a generation. half of all college graduates are unemployed or not working in the field of study for. the president has put us on a path of decline, debt, doubt. here is the good news. we can fix this by electing mitt romney. [applause]
president obama came into office during troubling times. he likes to remind us of that quite a bit. here's the problem. he made things much worse. no one does, the president cannot run on his record. it is a terrible record. what does he have left? he is going to have to distort cut divide, demagogue anything but what we actually did this for years. asking you toe're do. we want to earn your support. we want to deserve victory. we want to show you if we put the right ideas in place by electing the right leaders, we can get this country back on track again. if we can get the american dream again. the president was asked recently, looking back these last four years, the stakes,
dallas or regrets? he said, yes, i have not communicated enough. i need to tell the american people a story. as if that is our problem. he needs to talk more? and we need to be better listeners? ladies and gentlemen, our problem is that we have not heard enough words in the white house -- our problem is we have not had enough leadership and the white house. these are trying times. we are at the proverbial fort in the road. we have a choice of to futures. what you need in a moment like this, when our economy is in doubt, when a dutch bank crisis looms on the horizon, -- debt crisis lanes on the horizon -- looms on the horizon, you need
leadership. that is exactly what mitt romney is. you were getting to know this man like the rest of us know him. you're getting to know a decent man, a faithful man, an honorable man. i man exemplifies leadership. a man of achievement, integrity. take all look at what he did in his private life. by the way, being successful in business is a good thing, not a bad thing. we do not looked at other people's success would envy, we look at it with pride. we want to emulate people's success. this man started small businesses, this man group
businesses. -- a group businesses. this man turned around struggling businesses with an astounding degree of success. i am proud to stand with a man like that. i am proud to stand with the man who knows that if you have a small business, you did build that business. take a look at what this man did when leadership called. he was in massachusetts running businesses, creating jobs, and the olympics was in trouble. the olympics was plagued with a scandal, corruption, wasteful spending. sounds kind of familiar. they asked this man to help takeover. he dropped what he was doing annie moved for three years to utah and he fixed this -- and he moved for three years to utah.
we're proud of that moment. look at the difference and leadership and results between president obama as president and mitt romney as governor of massachusetts. under president obama, the credit rating of the united states of america has been downgraded for the first time in our history. as governor of massachusetts, mitt romney saw the credit rating of the state was upgraded. families in america over the last four years have lost an average of $4,000 in family in come under mitt romney, it went up $5,000. remember when president obama used to talk about, we do not have read states or blue states, we are just the united states.
we will set aside how does things and work together? this is the most partisan president, most partisan atmosphere we have ever dealt with. nothing is getting done because of partisanship. when mitt romney was governor of massachusetts, 87% of legislators in the government of massachusetts for democrats. what did he do? he did not demonize, he did not demagogue. he worked with people. he treated people with respect. he balance the budget without raising taxes. that is leadership. that is focusing on results. the historians say there are four essential qualities that make for a great leader. four essential qualities that history proves are the kinds of people you need to lead these moments principles.
a person with a moral compass, a vision for the country, and a person who has the experience and leadership skills to execute that vision. that is mitt romney in a nutshell. we're not just going to go to you and say, but against the other guy because he is no good. we could do that because the record is no good. we want to do more than that. you deserve more than that. we're offering solutions, specific ideas, here is how you take these principles that built america, liberty, freedom, free enterprise, determination. the government works for us, not the other way around. [applause] it is the virginians who gave us
this doctrine. mitt romney and i have a five. plan for a strong for middle- class come up for more jobs, for higher take-home pay, for more economic growth, prosperity and opportunity. virginia, of all people who ought to understand this, it is right here in virginia. we have a lot of energy in this country. let's use that energy. coal, gas, oil, all the above. there are some me people who are in between jobs. there are so many people who have lost jobs. they need skills, they need to have a good education system so they can get back on their feet. that is incredibly important. we also have to remember that in america, with most of the world's population in other countries, we need to grow more
things and make more things and sell them overseas. we have to have good trade so that people treat us fairly. we wish we had partners in the senate, but we do not. we have got to stop spending money we just do not have. we've got to cut spending. this is mortgaging our children's future. the senate has not passed a budget and three years. it is a disgrace. president obama gave us budgets and no solution to make sure we can guarantee of medicare. to make sure we can guarantee these promises are kept. no solution to guarantee that our children inherit a debt free nation. we will provide the leadership
to guarantee that happens. let's never forget that in virginia, in wisconsin, in all the states across the country, the engine of economic growth were most of our jobs come from our from those men and women to start and run and create small businesses. that is where jobs come from. president obama is guaranteeing, he is promising, that the top tax rate goes above 40% in january. eight out of 10 businesses in america paid their taxes as individuals and they have a huge tax increase coming. overseas, where i come from, it means lake superior, countries like canada just lower their tax
rate on all of their businesses to 15%. how one earth are we going to compete when president obama wants to tax them over 40%? what is worse, he wants to take this money from families, take this money from successful small businesses, and suspended in washington. its borrowing and spending and regulating and dictating and determining winners and losers worked, we would be entering the golden age along with greece. if the copy europe economics, we will get those results. this is more than just that. this is more than recognizing the fine man that mitt romney is. this is more than recognizing that we're on a very dangerous path. this is about determining the
kind of country we're gong to have for a long time. this is about determining the kind of people we will be for a generation. this is that kind of election. it does not matter how old you are or what generation to come from, this is the most important generation in your lifetime. -- the most important election in your lifetime. it really comes down to who are we, what are we all about to? if you had to put it in a nutshell, and virginians know this because a virginian wrote this, america is not just the place, it is an idea. it is the only country founded on an idea. that great a virginian, thomas
jefferson said it better than anyone could have said. our rights, they come from nature and god and not from government. that is it we are. that is the american ideal. that is what this is all about. that is the meaning and definition of the american idea. if we get bad, the rest balls and place. here is of -- if we get that, the rest falls in place. this is the commitment we are making to our fellow citizens. we are going to give you a choice. you will decide what you want this country to be. when we earn and deserve victory, then we have the moral authority and the mandate to make it right.
we will not duck the tough issues and kick the can down the road. we will lead. with partners like this in congress and with new leaders you will send, we will not spend four years blaming other people. we will take responsibility. we will not try to transform this country into something it was never intended to be. this country was created by our founders. we will not replace our founding principles, we will reapply our
founding principles. we can do this. together, we can do this. we can get the country back on the right track. we will bring real leadership back to the white house. we can get this done with your help. we can get this done. thank you very much, everybody. god bless all of you. thank you very much. ♪ >> how about this guy right here, bob mcdonnell? thank you, everybody. >> paul ryan enrichment earlier today with eric cantor. republicans can call -- for democrats -- for independents --
we're talking about the road to the white house. the republican convention just wrapping up last night. we will be bringing you live coverage of the democrats' convention starting tuesday. mitt romney headed straight from florida today to go to louisiana to check out a hurricane damage. president obama will be heading to louisiana on monday. we will get right to your phone calls. vance is on the line from new york city. he is on the democrats' line. >> i just got done watching the paul ryan rally. i am sick to my stomach -- literally. it amazes me that he can stand there and look and the camera and lie to the american people. >> what do you think he is lying about? >> it was eric cantor, paul
ryan, along with john boehner who blocked every single thing the president has put forward. everything. there has been a jobs bill sent to congress last year. they refuse to pass it. they have decided that they are going to do everything in their power to make sure barack obama is a one-term president. " the numbers are at the bottom of your screen. you can also send us a tweet. if you want to let us know what you were thinking. republican line, scottsdale, arizona. >> i think last night was wonderful. what people did not understand in the mormon church, they do
deeds without wanting recognition. they taking food, they watch your kids, they help out in the community. i live in a community with a lot of mormons. i am listening to all of this hate on the democrats. you cannot say anything about president obama corte you are a racist. i am getting tired of that. chris matthews, i think the election committee should look into that. that was nothing but hate the entire night. they called mitt romney and republicans every dirty name they could say. mitt romney, he believes what he is doing. he helps people out of his heart, not like the democrats. they want to be paid for the service day. instead of saying, of votes for
rodney -- romney or vote for president obama, it is getting really old. on msnbc, i think catholics and christian spitzer and start telling them, we will not buy your products. let's let the other people, let's get christians involved in this. >> at the republican convention, some of the speakers from the other night. we are looking at eight tweet, you can see how warmly mitt romney greets people he knows. bill clinton did that to everyone. we saw mitt romney giving his speech last night. on the line from the dallas,
texas, on the republican line. roger? >> i really enjoyed last night. mitt romney and paul ryan, i think. i have been a democrats my whole life, but i am changing. our president has been asked to things and he cannot answer them. his berkshire dividend has not been verified to this day -- birth certificate has not been verified to this day. his social security card is not from the state of hawaii. he really don't even belong in the chair he is holding because he has not been proven to be a citizen. >> florida, henry is on
for democrats. >> i would just like to say that we have to get a better than this. we're supposed to be a country of the land of the free and the braves. the democrats and republicans have to stop going at one another. we should have a better way and a better system of figuring out who we want to vote for. it should not be what this one is doing and how bad that one is. president barack obama is the president and we must respect that. we should go added a better way. this is crazy. all we're doing is getting lied to. we want to hear more positive things. not what this one is not doing
that and i am better than hand. -- him. knowing how to be better people. love and not hate. every four years to eight years when it is time to reelect a new president, all we get is hate speeches and hate crimes. all of them are lying to us. the poor is getting poorer. i work for a good company, but it is the same thing everywhere. the top dogs are not looking at the small dogs. >> we will leave it there. you can check out a lot of our coverage from c-span, the to our convention hub, c-span.org/
campaign2012. the place to go to comment if you want to leave your comments and watched the latest videos. we will head west now, diana's son . she is an independent in seattle, washington. >> i have a brief and short comment. i am kind of overwhelmed. they use the name of god and then lies a fall out of their mouth. these kind of people, if they're going to bring religion an edge, -- in it, the bible has
taught me that these kind of people may draw near to god with their mouth and honor them -- their heart is far from the camera. -- from him. >> next on the line, iowa. >> what i would like to ask, i do not know whether i am the democrats any more or a republican. i am more independent. we do not like our appliances that we've got better made in china. everything we buy, it we want to bite that was made in the usa. >> have you heard the candidate talking about that on the campaign trail? >> not at all. why don't they bring the jobs
back? our parents had a refrigerator that lasted 70 years. now they do not last 10 years, made in china. >> the caller is talking about some of the imports, exports coming at of the u.s. and into the u.s.. we will move on now to north carolina. the candidates are going to be headed, at the democratic candidates. sharon is on the line. >> how are you? >> good. what do you think so far about the campaign? >> i have been a republican all my life. at this point, they are
distorting the facts and they have publicly said they will not deal with fact checkers. i am just a sad -- upset. you have to deal with facts. you've got to deal with facts. >> are you talking about both parties? >> i am talking about both parties. >> did you watch the convention? what did you think? >> i really think he is a wonderful person. but at the same time, i think he has been in charge of a lot of transactions that kept money in his pocket and kept the middle class with nothing. at this point, we look at obama. i have been watching c-span, i
saw the security system that goes around the president. they were having a hard time with obama. i am so upset the republicans give one lie after the other. >> the democratic convention is coming to your state. >> i will be there. but i am not a democrat. i am not a democrat. >> why are you going? >> i want to point out the fact that mitt romney did not show anything except that he is in charge of major money and he will be in charge of major money and we just saw obama being mauled by military people.
>> live coverage on tuesday. we will be hear from first lady michelle obama on the first damon. on the second day, some of the notable speakers are elizabeth warren from massachusetts, former president bill clinton. day three will be both candidates, the vice president joe bidenen and president barack obama. dave is on the line for republicans. caller: yes, i have been watching obama since he has come in, and one thing he hasn't stepped up and done anything about is our soldiers who fought in iraq and afghanistan. they are committing suicide one after another. they are not getting the help they deserve. the only thing that obama has
done was give the navy seals a green light to go in and get bin laden. other than that, he is going on vacation. he doesn't have a proper birth certificate or social security card, drinking beer in the white house. he is doing nothing but running this country in the ground. i don't care who is running against him. host: are you coming into the convention? caller: i have been following romney, and he is a successful good businessman. he has done right and made a lot of money, and they want to dog him. but he is going to show everybody how to make money, get the lower class up to the middle class.
the homeless are committing suicide or killing other people. he hasn't done a thing to help us. host: we take a look at a tweet -- one more call, lucie in washington state on the democrats line. hi, lucie. >> good afternoon. just a comment about the person prior to made a comment that maybe the president is cringing in the white house. there is moonshine made in tennessee and other things. what about the convention? are you going to tune in this week?
caller: i told someone the other day, the first time -- or the last time i voted for president, iwas for john f. kennedy. all those years in between i was dormitory. i am a devout democrat. i hardly can walk, but i am going to run to my polling place to vote again for obama because he has done a great job. host: thanks, lucie in washington. we are going to take a look back at some past democratic convention speeches. last week we look at republican weekends this. weekend it is from hairy -- hear true man's remarks. you can tune in all this weekend. saturday at 9:30, we will have
adlai stevenson, followed by george olympic govern, jamie carter and barack obama. >> c-span's gavel to gavel coverage of the democratic convention starts next week. every minute, every speech, live on c-span, c-span radio and online. featured speakers tuesday night feature the san antonio mayo and first lady michelle obama. next week, elizabeth your warren and former president bill clint, and thursday, vice president jobe -- joe bidenen and president obama. >> we offer opportunity. we demand responsibility. we will build an american community again. the choice we offer is not
conservative or liberal. in many ways it is not even republican or democratic. it's different. it's new and it will work. [cheers and applause] >> tout your own opinion. convention humber at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> three members of the russia punk band pussy rottino were recently sentenced to three years in joel:. police are looking for other members of the band. two members have fled the country. it has sparked worldwide debate on freedom of expression and the state of church and state. the panel for national interests discussed the response of the russian government, the judicial system and the orthodox surn as well as implications for u.s./russia
relations this. is about 90 minutes. >> this is kind of an interesting day to have a discussion of a rather exotic subject. >> why are we talking about that small band? we are talking about it because this case obviously got a lot of public attention. we had the white house, the state department, chancellor
merkel calling the verdict disproportionately harsh and a poor reflection on the russian judicial system. because the russian government has responded with harsh criticism of the western response, calling our response a war of civilizations, saying it is the western governments, not the russian governments that are zarg appropriate human rights conventions and that this incident desmond straits how hostile is the united states and the west in general toward russian. i became convinced we needed to proceed with an event with general voigt had a meeting with some very senior u.s.
officials. when we talked about international sedation, remarkably the pussy rottino trial was mentioned as an illustration of what is wrong in russia and specifically with the putkonen regime. another reason we decided to proceed with this meeting is because i think that we have no idea what rays really happened. that is not even meant as a criticism of the response by the government or the media. a lot of us are confused. we sent an invitation telling you that the incident has started with a band performing in a russian church an anti-- putkonen song. that is what we thought had happened.
the problem is sometimes you cannot believe what you see. so i decided to see for myself. i found a video, a rather poor video, which clearly was produced on somebody's i phone or something like that of what actually has transpired in the church. there was no song. there was no song of whatever kind. the whole incident lasted for
less than a minute. a small group of women, you know how they were dressed, with ski masks on their heads. they went to the altar, which in the russian church is kind of the most sacred area where only the priests are allowed to be present, no women. and then these women began -- you can call it dancing, you can call it jumping. but the only thing i could hear were obscenities, and putin's name was not mentioned at all. then there were people in the church, people who went there who were trying to remove these women. there was no violence. then a couple of these women
clearly began mocking russian prayer, began showing contempt of the way russian orthodox people pray. that is all i could see in this video. i have seen it several times to be sure there was nothing something else. you may say who cares? the group has produced a video with music and a song, and that is what counts. the reason why i think it may be significant is because of the outrage over this incident started right away. immediately after the incident at the church of christ the savior before the second video was produced. it looks like a regional outrage, outrajon the part of the russian church was connected with what happened in
the church itself. not with any subsequent criticism of putin. i can assure you that if you read russian papers and even watch russian government-controlled tv, you will see on a regular basis putin not being just severely criticized, but being accused of being a crook, a thief and et cetera. so it is clear that the subsequent video was bound to affect how they decided to deal with this case, and it perhaps has affected how russian judges have determined the sentence. i for one would be surprised if their later anti-putin angle
did not affect how the russian government dealt with the case. it was also apparent there was more to the case, at least as many russians are concerned. there is more to the case than the way the russian government has decided to respond. it is clear that many russians, and some were genuinely outrageded, and others i have to tell you admired these young women. what was quite remarkable about this trial and the cordero of course this trial has produced in russia, how many people in russia, particularly among liberal intellectuals feel about what they have done. the church is a very conservative institution which is controlled by the russian government or has no legitimacy , and that any revolt against
the russia church is legitimate and should be supported by people of good will. this is an interesting and complex topic. i have two very impressive speakers to discuss this matter. on my right is the director of the institute for democracy in new york. he can give an account of what the institute is and what they represent. institute is of non- governmental organizations. anyone who reads that knows he has an independent mind, is not controlled by anyone. at the same time, my understanding is that the idea of the institute was initiated by the russian government.
when i asked a senior official how should i describe him, i was told he is an independent scholar and a respected advisor to the presidential administration. if andranik is uncomfortable with the description -- >> informally. >> anikolai is another friend. he is an associate professor at the naval college. he is also a senior edit at the magazine that we publish. he is a former, very successful editor of the national interest. his reason for being with us today, is that in addition to being a real student of
history, he wrote an important book, examining church-state relations in the russian empire with emphasis on ideology and other questions. i thought it was important for us to look at this incident, the pussy riot incident, not just from the standpoint of the russian state persecution of this group, but also about what this incident tells us about the general state of the russian society, a society which in my view is divided and quite polarized. on that note, anra -- andranik, your mic is on. >> it is a pleasure to be here. i see a lot of friendly faces.
i have met many of them in other places. i would like to se of my views concerning this event that he mentioned. preliminaryly i would like to make one point, when i looked yesterday on television at the republican convention and how it was covered by msnbc and fox news, i thought i am in a country which is going through civil war or polarization, and this country is much more severe. and comparing to this situation boring place. yesterday the impression and goings on with the election shows how the situation could be polarized and tense.
but this is just my impression watching the congress. now what is going on in russia and how relevant is the coverage of russia's situation in this country and in the west, and what really is going on over there. i don't want to speak about the group, what they did, about the trial and sentence. everything is clear, and i wrote about this in the "national interest." i hope many of you read about that. if not, that was last week, and dmitry already mentioned. i would like to think about this event in a broader context. what does it mean for the powers that be, what does it mean for the position, what is going to be the future development of the political situation?
and then what really is going on now in russia and on what do we have to focus our attention? first, i think that the trial and the sentence showed that power now in russia is very strong and very september 11 confident. they enjoy the overwhelming support of society. the overwhelming part of the society demanded a very strong punishment for the ladies. no compassion, no solidarity with them, except very tight knit groups of people in russian. the majority was very strongly against. second, this event and this case further fragmented the opposition. if there was an attempt to put together an anti-put ridge,
conservatives, reactionary forces, liberals all together, this event divided them further on because a lot of conservative-oriented forces who were not supporters of putin, they said this was disgusting. they are against these kind of actions. they can't support this. and this created further fragmentation among the opposition. the third, what is interesting, as i predicted in my article in the "national interest" last and a catalyst for the emergence of a very serious conservative movement in russia. we have read a lot about the people who want to volunteer to organize their groups to
orthodox church, but this was supported by muslims and other religions, because everybody feels themselves very vulnerable towards these vandals, people who are ready to desecrate places, who don't respect anything concerning religion. this really is a lillibridge service to liberalism, to liberals and to putinism. this is a gift to the putin regime, this kind of disgusting and outrageous thing that happened. and in the west there was also a great lip service to these people and in favorite of the current regime in russia. it is very funny because in all other places, these kind of activities are prosecuted and
punished. the last thing is now in germany when they interrupted the service in cologne, they are expecting a three-year this is the penalty which they are interrupting these kind of procedures. what was the strategy of the opposition, and why is this a serious failure for the opposition? the idea was to create a picture of russia that the president is illegitimate. that the situation is dangerous and unstable for the powers that be, that society is against the powers, that the middle-class is against the regime, and all these kinds of things. if on top of this, there is
going to be a collapse of oil prices, the economy is going down, then in this case there will be the combined forces of liberals, nationalists, social protests, and altogether they can create unbearable situations for powers to be, and putin's regime will be thrown away. but what is in reality the situation in russia? 45% -- always bit of statistics. 45% of the population are totally satisfied about their life and life condition. 68% are satisfied concerning their work and their work conditions. the lowest level of unemployment in all russia's history. i'm not speaking of comparison with eastern europe, western
europe or the united states. they are uncompareable figures. it is about 4% or 5%, the unemployment level. the macroeconomic parameters of the russian economy is the best not only in emerging markets. i don't even want to compare that with europe, eastern europe or western europe. in the first quarter, 4.9% growth, the second more than 4%, and the estimated growth by the end of the year will be about 3.8% to 3.4%, something like that. which means that you know oil
prices, everybody is talking about doomsday, which is just around the corner, everything is collapsing. these kind of predictions have nothing to do with reality according to -- according to very conservative estimations, oil prices will be at the same level or a bit higher. there are no indications that in the middle east, the situation is going to be improved. it is on the table, all options against iran in this country, and in israel. war is developing not only in syria, but it has spilled into lebanon. instability is going to grow. which means all the pop lip particular forecasts that the regime is doomed, that it is illegitimate, no support on behalf of society, it is
absolutely irrelevant to what is really going on in russia at this point. and the last two points i would like to mention before i finish , it is a very huge them, and i would like to touch upon men problems, but two things. the middle-class. the problem is that there is a myth that in russia there is one part of the middle-class which is against putin. it is a myth. the middle-class increased during putin's years, and they successful. they rarely want changes, and government is approaching and reacting to the challenge which comes from this real middle-class. but middle-class is not one middle-class. we have a tiny group who
privatized the right to speak on behalf of the middle-class, and we know them. we know them. they never were middle-class. they just want to speak about it. they were tiny and marginal. they are still tiny and marginal. the real middle-class is in dialogue with the powers that be at this moment. there is a greater government inside which you can find navarni. he is a blogger. he is the hero of western press. in russia nobody knows him, but here i think everybody knows. the first time i met the guy was last year at a meeting in november.
guy. you put him on the panel? >> i don't remember. but all the representatives are in greater government. all nationalists, all speck trumps of our position are represent -- speck trumps of our position -- spectrums of our positions are there. the task of this strategic initiative agency is to help start-ups, innovative projects, and to remove all obstacles in the way of already successful corporations. here, my friend, the editor in chief, and experts has
mentioned many times, there are several hundred very successful russian companies who need removal of some impediments, something in the legislative area, some need loans, some need support from the government in markets. working, and they are in a dialogue with the powers that be. but really, this small tiny group doesn't want to have any dialogue. that was a talking point earlier when she said why doesn't the government want to negotiate these these people? this small group of people don't want any negotiation. they want total surrender on behalf of putin than a his government. but this is absurd. who is going to surrender? if you have 2/3 of the population supporting you. if you have a growth rate that
is higher than any other country, if you enjoy support, if you are very comfortable in every sense, socially, economic and others, it is just unbelievable why this kind of hysteria is created about the situation in russia. that everything is falling apart. there is an apocalyptic vision that everybody tomorrow will fall down, destroyed and all what is real and russia no? residual elements that happened during the last two years of medvedev's kenya. there is a split among the elite groups, and the power groups. it is true, inside the
government, inside the oligarchic groups. this is the most important thing. last, i'm sorry for referring tomorrow article. myself because i do not know of any others right thing about russia, i am sorry, because i have a couple of friends who recently published five or six huge articles, repeating the same argument and the same things having nothing to do with the reality. unfortunately, because i love her, she is a good friend of mine -- what is most important, i would like to focus your attention, they came out with a very good
piece, but not her part, unfortunately. she is a good friend, there is a comparison analysis, and a origin is a justificatory of current chinese regime. they explained this is very oriented, transformative, and all the kinds of things, and my friend -- which is absolutely relevant. china, it is even more relevant for russia, because if in russia there is more or less open society and a competitive
system, in china it is very closed and only small groups are making decisions. who is going to be the next, without any competition, liberty, and other things, and all printed media controlled by foreign capital inside china? this is the only difference. the only thing i would like to say, of course, medvedev started presidential campaign for the second term. this really split the society. i recently published this in a journal. you can read in russian, and on july 98 huge article came out why these kinds of things happen. the original version was published during the campaign in
the national interest. what is to hide this? -- what is behind this? there is a kind of split, and our friend said that it might be the march of the millions, must be headed by or at least medvedev and his entourage, must participate in this march against putin, trying to correct the policy lines. this is his perception. i am finishing. this split -- the split must be overcome. --erwise >> a house divided cannot stand.
>> this everybody knows, and putin, the man who knows very well how politics is done. the problem is that the first signal -- two signals and i will finish here. first, about the potential leadership and about the alternative to put in. putin. the recent anniversary of the georgian or was highlighted by documentary which was shown on the internet. the basic idea of the commentary was president medvedev was absolutely irrelevant to that national crisis, and the former chief of staff said after a couple of kicks from china, he
and the ministry of defence started active operations in order to repeal the georgia and aggression. which means in this country, can he in case of emergency really make the tough decision to go to war to protect the nation? this documentary is the missilization of only one achievement which was to the credit of medvedev was given during all these years straight he was supported by the public only because of his behavior during the russian- georgian war, and now it happens to be that he had no idea, he was absolutely passive --
i promise i will let you to come to your final points. -- i am just mentioned -- the last is the problem of the most important area of russian economy, energy sector. mally, he is still in charge of this sector, and this proves again that thing which i wrote right after the elections, the election of putin, that medvedev is going to be a technical prime minister, and this is a clear indication that even at this level, the split of government, now we are in a
process of overcoming it, and the same will happen in the oligarchic and economic groups. >> we will come to your important points about the russian government, because i do not think it is insufficiently understood outside russia. >> everybody is talking about this peace and this piece -- >> your media is interested in pussy riot. before >> we go to the split and before we will hear from our guests, i will ask you one thing about your article, which was mentioned several times. actually, you could start the article with a powerful and that meant about russian law- enforcement, the russian courts, how this whole pussy riot affair was handled.
do you agree that the case was seriously mishandled by the russian government? >> absolutely. by russian law enforcement agencies. this was the inefficiency of the structures as a result of which they became so well known inside russia and internationally. it is because miss handling the situation -- >> why did they have to be kept in jail for five months? but this that -- what was the law enforcement afraid of? >> it is not a problem of fear. this is an unusual case. russia is slowly step-by-step becoming a normal society. this is something new for us.
what really this is my perception of the situation, why we are now passing different regulatinglaws, things between state and society. we never had these areas and never had rules how they must act, civil society elements, up to what, you know, up to what place you can go, where you have to stand, what is the limit of your activities, what are the limits of state activities? -- it is hard for them to formulate, because we learned in russia either everything or nothing. but this is the problem of
nuances. you have to let society work. up to what point you have to let them be free. until what place you do not have to interfere -- all this is very complicated issue. it's like a country because civil society precede the stake here. that is why we are in the reverse process. you are trying to limit a civil society. we're trying to let them work, but we do not know the limits. they work under the parent of the state is trying to limit it or civilize it, domesticate it. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, and if you could try to do it in no more than 50 minutes. >> i will try. i need to start off by making it
clear that the opinions of all presented here are my own. they do not reflect those of the naval war colleger of the u.s. government. dmitri opened our session by talking about differences between perception and reality and to add to that, perceptions can harden into reality. starting by what actually happened in the cathedral of christ the savior is probably now less important than how it is perceived, and that has become the new reality. that helps us to look at what the impact of this incident, second trial, and fallout will be, but inside russia, but also to look at how it impacts the u.s.-russia relationship as a whole. dmitri asked me to talk about their role of the churchm and the questions of civil society that are associated with it. we have seen something that is not unique to russia.
national churches that 20 years ago were hailed as the preservers pre-communist identity, hailed as the conscience of the nation, there has been a sea change in how segments of society perceive the national church. this is a process going on in poland. it is gone on into romania, hungary, where the large institutional national church, which 20 years was seen as a victim of communism, is increasingly seen by some in society as a new harbinger of authoritarianism that they want to impose another party system, they want to take away individual liberty, they want to impose a social order. we have seen what has happened in poland but dramatic drops in church attendance from 20 years ago, the idea that poland was one of the most catholic nations, and now it is approaching a european standard. people are less religious and
where there is more resistance now to the idea that the church should have more of a say in how society is run and organize street in that regard, what is happening in russia is not unique to eastern europe. what we see that is more unique for russia is this was a test of some of the church's claims to lead civil society in russia. orthodox spokesmen for the last number of years have routinely cited a figure that 74% of the citizens of the russian federation are orthodox christians. the late patriarch was very careful in never be in a position where the loyalty of that 74% was going to be tested. was it really 74%, or was the number: to be lower? if we look at definitions of active church membership, which would be you attended services on a regular basis, maybe not
every sunday, but you have some familiarity with the doctrine and discipline of the church, instead of 74%, we're looking from 2% to 10% of russian society. this makes it the largest civil society actor because even at 2% of the population in terms of the statistics cited in terms of people go every sunday, that is a large number of people. it is not 74%, and it means your ability to claim you speak on behalf of 74% of the society and that you have a right to be the main interlocutor of the civil society is challenged. what we saw with the demonstrations at the church, which they organized in the after my at -- aftermath of the pussy riot, the incident, which they could mobilize people, but they did not mobilize numbers that were equivalent to the 74%
claim. but the danger for the church in this now is that at least the institutional church looks weak, weakened by this, and it looks like it is more dependent on the state than it should be. the patriarch was always very careful and never wanted to appear dependent on the state. he was a proponent of close church-state relations. he was not an american separationist. he was very careful to ensure the church never appeared to be a junior partner to the state. now you have a perception that the state has to prop up the institutional church. we have seen it now with what has happened in some of these incidents, graffiti on cathedrals and crosses being chopped down in parts of russian, which indicate within society there is more of a split. certainly, the orthodox church in russia has a contract of very dedicated activists, but there are also people out there that
are less sanguine about a role of the church and society and the idea that the church could act as a neutral spokesman, and if we think about what the patriarch said in 1993 during the political crisis when he portrayed himself above politics, someone who could negotiate between different factions and russian society, after this incident, my sense and might fear is the church becomes one faction among the many rather than being able to play the role initially conceived of it as standing above politics. where this goes we will have to see, but it definitely marks a shift in the church-state relationship than what you had even in 2007 and in 2008. there is another issue that is tied to this, which is not to be tied to russia, and comes back to the united states as well. that is the question of the role of religion and the role of what
we might find as protection of national symbols, cultural symbols, religious symbols in a democracy, because of the direction on the u.s. side has been interesting. for the last key to the zero presidents -- two president, they have been careful to stress democracy will take denver -- different forms, that the american model is not necessarily applicable to the rest of the world, that democracies can disagree on issues, but we have seen the position in united states to contrast unfavorably in other countries with an american standard. this was an issue and our relationship with germany and france over side elegy. most european countries do not believe scientology qualifies as a religion. the default position of the u.s. government was not to say live and let live, different democracies can have different standards, but was to apply u.s.
standards. where i see unexpected consequences from this case potentially is as you have newt movement in the middle east emerging in egypt, tunisia, as jordan and marco democratize more, the question about whether or not democracy means brought a toleration of behavior as occurs in the united states as might occur in other countries. my colleague 10 years ago wrote an interesting piece on islamic the mushy -- on islamic democracy. the rule of law, retention of government and accountability, but you would define democracy as tolerance of a wide variety of life styles, freedom of individual choice on a variety of issues. you were going to run into conflicts. not only for russia, but also the question of how the u.s. will engage based on what the u.s. response was to this case
and russia, raises interesting questions about the u.s. may or may not be able to navigate the question of islamic democracy in the middle east. second area i would like to touch on briefly, in the exchange between dmitry and andranik, the role of the dish judiciary. and number of people were concerned about how the trial was carried out. they were concerned about the standard of evidence. my colleague has noted if you were to make the case that pussy riot is -- you could make a case that they were guilty of what could be termed of petty hooliganism, tres trespassing, but the higher charge which carries the longer sentence, and other people look at the trial and said they did not feel that what that standard was proven, was the evidence there, how much
of it was twisted, which their pressure to get a sentence and a particular sense? is it because a pussy right itself? not necessarily, but the question is does this week -- reinforce or raised skepticism about the judicial system? my concerns here are going forward is you have a number of cases involving higher-profile cases involving foreign investors in russia where you have similar questions of damage and harm being done, that two- man court has been remanded back to them, bp, its attempt to forge partnerships damaged their interests, you might have concerns about standards of evidence and how the system works. it does not mean foreign investors will stay out, but you will see less investment or more emphasis on finding neutral our
borders rather than using the russian judicial system. i happen to think if there was any chance that the act by not go to congress because of russian claims that the judicial system will handle anything, in the promise of a case cannot this is the straw that breaks the camel's back and the act passes congress now. and the russian government's stance that the judicial system will handle this issue, the upper section that this case has reinforced his there are doubts about the reliability of the russian judicial system. whether warranted or not, perceptions become reality on that issue. my last point, this dmitry noted this, which is there have been reactions and counter reactions. this case was for most of us we never heard of this group
before. maybe we saw the video when it first initiated, and this group has an active as the performance collective, rabble-rousers', how do you choose. they have an asset as well. they had some other performances. they did things in supermarkets. this incident and that cathedral was the one that catapulted them to much greater attention. the fact it has become an issue that governments are raising, that's the the hearts and foreign ministries and heads of state are bringing up, showed that it may have started as a minor issue, but has made it way up to the agenda, but the reaction of cut a main dish -- the reaction of condemnation creates a snowball effect. then the question is, does that impact the relationship where things are moving forward
because it becomes difficult to justify on underside? we have seen this making its way into the presidential campaign, the depiction of russia as a foe or an enemy. as this rhetoric continues, it is harder to preserve the areas where the relationship has moved forward, and again, this may have started as a stunt. it may have started off as a kind of performance artists think, but now is at a point to where the fact we have been having this session comes back to the original points, that the fact of how unexpected -- by this point in time that the antics of an anarchist artist collective would be one of the dominated issued in the u.s.- russian relationship. now the question of moving forward is out do we move forward and not let this
continue to throw the relationship off track? right now with the way the rhetoric is being thrown back and forth, i can see it getting worse before better on the unhappy no, i will conclude. >> the point you made about the russian judicial system, is the key to understanding the western response are. the rush legal system has a different legal interpretation. the people who are so much more understanding of how this case was handled, but when you have a situation when 96% of russian trials, the defendants are found guilty, 96%, when you have a reputation when 99% of all russian judges are former police
officers and prosecutors o'clock and less than 1% former defense attorneys, you have to understand why these girls were put in jail, because the way the system works. they were going to be found guilty, and there is this general mistrust of the russian legal system makes this a said soap important in terms of western image of russia. i will not or ask about the russian church. it was an interesting presentation, not only in terms of what you said, but in terms of what you did not say you referred positively several times to the previous -- it is a much more controversial
leader. he is being accused of be much more conservative, being much more active, and anything that contradicts or defied church dogma, that he is often described as an instrument of the putin government. somebody who moved the russian church from a traditional role to become an instrument of the state. as more people in the middle class, and the liberal intelligentsia,, they increasingly, -- could you talk about the current and what he the place ofgarding the church and the russian society. >> the patriarch was not the
preferred choice of the kremlin. in part he was seen as an independent thinker and he was not going to be as perceptive to state influence. but the patriarch is very much by the social doctrine of the russian church, which was adopted in 2000, which calls for a much more activist role for the church in society, and this goes back to the split in russian church politics, between what were known as the joseph ites, those who said they wanted a close association, to then reform society, in post changed on society and reform it in alignment with what we thought church doctrine calls for. he is much more activist. he is much more of a public presence, and he wants more of
that public role. he would not be dissimilar from a number of leading american evangelicals in their belief that the church should have much more of an active role. the question is whether or not you form an allegiance with a state where the state can use its influence and course of power to move those things for it. that is where your point about the liberal intelligentsia is not that they object to church domga -- some do, who may have an issue if it, that orthodoxy is a new party card that you need to use to demonstrate your loyalty to the new russian state -- is much more of an activist,
but you also have to deal with corruption issues. there has been a lot of return of property. there have been issues with what happens when an institution that has been persecuted and deprived of status is suddenly sharp again with large amounts influence and wealth, and have the -- and how you navate that this is something you can see in poland. >> briefly, i do not agree that
he became an arm of the state, and cutalexi was smarter. i am responding to nik. underpin alexi, a church was weak and subordinated to the state. at that time, one of my friends wrote an order exempting the trade on behalf of church, alcohol, and tobacco. the church became wealthier because it was absolutely -- another problem is of course, kiril was not the most favored
kremlin candidate. he was ambitious and i know him for many years. he wanted to be the partner of the state. that is what the kremlin was afraid he was too independent. that is what it did not want him to be. i think you might be overlooking what i wanted to mention, and this is the most important points, which i wanted to emphasize. this event with pussy riot have unintended consequences. conservative intelligence yeah, conservative middle class, a conservative civil society elements are going to grow and organize themselves, and demanded their influence and politics, demanding their influence in mass media, and they are born to be a nightmare for russian liberal
intelligentsia, which always was marginal, very small, which had a monopoly over everything, media, public places, politics, and it is going to radically change. they did not know that this trouble really will create a very serious consequence. what i am remembering, my talks with kiril and was a crucial in 1990's, we had serious talks about organizing this into a party or mass movement on a permanent basis. it is very easy. this will increase enormously the power of the state, because these kinds of groups will be subordinate to the state. the state could not dream of
this kind of organized support which they can get as a result of what happened. i think that -- they are absolute idiots, they did not understand what they did as a result of this kind of small activity. it is very timely, the quotation from neil armstrong, he said, "one small step for a human being, one huge step for humanity." one small step in a public sphere which triggers enormous events that can have a result of all this. >> thank you. it is very important. before we move to do a general discussion, certainly to the extent of people in the united states, the conversion to
american values, we do not think that will happen so far. we have an impressive group today, government experts, people from think tanks, the media, and the number of people from the russian embassy and a dozen embassies in the region. when you first know each other, but we also have the c-span audience, so before asking your question, please introduce yourself. again, since i would like to get everybody an opportunity because or ask a question, please limit yourself to one question or one comment. who would like to start? >> >my question is for andranik. i found it interesting, your discussion for the outside consequences that the government's actions have. what about the foreign reaction
prepare isn't the russian -- didn't the russian authorities make a mistake in essence by turning the pussy riot members into martyrs and giving them a kind of international fame that they could never have acquired unless the authorities had come down in they did on that? how does the putin government reconcile what it has done with negative publicity that russia has acquired abroad? is it simply in different or does it think it has paid a cost internationally? >> i think this has two answers. the first answer is already given. of course, the law enforcement agencies worked and handle that very poorly. it is very bad. the government has nothing to do with this.
but government at this moment tried to explain what happened and the government considers that western -- this is mainly a western publicizing this event is one-sided, in balance, and is irrelevant. in this sense, the russian government and public can just ignore it. >> other comments or questions? >> i read this to the comment of is the clash of civilizations, sasha, the former consulate on foreign relations to german, a clash of civilizations because russia is in the dark ages, the west is in
enlightened ages, as the the guy never read what is going on in this country during the -- what is the position, what kind of discussion is going on on every issue where beliefs and symbols of this or that religion are involved rate this has nothing to do whether one is in one civilization or another. the themes which are central in western europe, in this country and russia. and the middle east. >> introduce yourself. yes, sir. i want to get to the deeper roots of the church-state will ship and the relationship of the two with society as a whole. if you go back to late
antiquity, you see that a leader of the church and people, and that compact maintained itself, even into ottoman titans with the agreement between -- and set you see this legacy continuing in russia as part of the byzantine commonwealth, and the question i have, because this is an opaque to me at this poor, given remarks, what is the expectation among the -- within the russian east coast today, that someone like putin would have this natural relationship with the church and that he would somehow take unto himself a position of leadership said that the kinds of things you have seen since the end of the soviet union
regarding church and state set a larger cultural expectations? if you could set out how that is being brought out today given these recent events? >> thanks, mike. you have to start with the reality that putin is not just a bad member of the church, but an active member of the church. unlike yeltsin, the famous phrase that the politicians, the ones who would show up in church and stand off with candles not know what is going on. he clearly is religious. he has his own vote views very he is also an independent religious thinker, which was clear in interviews he made, that he is not just simply a passive recipient of waiting for the patriarch to tell him what to believe. he has his own opinions about religion and about the role that
orthodoxy should play and his role in that. part of it -- and andranik mentioned it, the idea that russia forms more than just a church and state, that there is a civilization, and that has implications for the near abroad because the russian federation is one thing, but the sphere can encompass ukraine and belarus and other areas. and all that data, so all these things are there. the have not been well form, we cannot point to it and say there is a clear ideology, but these are streams that are floating through this process. the interesting question for putin is he has been willing to get involved in church affairs trick he was the one who brokered the union between the orthodox church and the exiled russian church, and when you
read testimonies of the exiled bishops, they said the fact that russia was -- the second power was being exercised by believe the orthodox christian was for them the culminating factor and why they signed the act of reunion. the question will be now is whether or not you could have a non-orthodox practicing politician actually become president any time in the future, whether or not as a bill in the u.s. have said, and ets could never be president of the united states, an active atheist in contemporary russia, and as you have described, the conservative civil society is energized moving forward. does this lead to a blending of identity, and we are back to the comment which was i do not think was necessarily stupid -- i did see. >> shallow.
>> it comes back to this question of democracy, promotion, and values, which is, and the germans are just at was critical of the united states as being overly religious as other areas, but the extent to which we define democracy as being secular is now what is being questioned. russia is more minor, and this will be something that hits us with the next couple years when we deal with the middle east about whether or not we believe you can have a fusion of religion and democracy and treat it as a democratic society. nor points about the historical things in the past are percolate again, they have some resonance. i would not agree to the extent of the residents of these ideas. it is clear there is a growing reaction to this event that is culminating organizing a conservative russian civil society. what that percentage will be i do not know. come back, wherebu
this debate between the molecular -- the liberal secular is an edge -- secularism. [unintelligible] >> in the aftermath of the verdict, one of the comments that came out by former finance minister, who noted that the results and the verdict had negative the implications for the foreign investment fund in russia. i was hoping you could respond to that and comment. how was that received in russia? >> greater than greater i think hardly anybody in
russia and noticed his comment. >> center for the national interest. you talked about the trial and the ferment created producing this reaction and catalyzing a formation of conservative groups in russia. and that being an unexpected consequence of the russian government. my question is, isn't necessarily good for the russian government, and if there were a real rebirth of values and
morality in a society where a lot of people are calling the governing party a party of christian thieves already, before this kind of the element? is there a risk that this newly capitalized interest in moral values would actually turn itself against a system of government that a lot of people see as corrupt? >> a very good question. i will try to give you a short answer. first of all, as you know, now the party of crooks is the dowry of medvedev. now the group is creating a
party based on people's popular front. it is going to be, and in this society needs to have clearance, and church possible involvement in society, its values, not a church political role, itt its moral or ol will have its synergetic effect in this process. first and second, the church has chris is trying to develop its mobilization, tools, and capabilities, which could be used or cannot be used by the state, and at least this is another tool that will be ready, and this gives more room for
maneuver for authorities. because having this kind of wild capitalism which we have in russia, it is absolutely wild. some limits in sense of moral limitations, it is not excessive for us trick is exactly what we need. one thing i have not heard mention which i am interested in hearing is the u.s. role in this whole incident we're here to discuss this day. diana johnson, an astute observer, had a piece estivate where she discussed the declining quality of political protest in our society. there are three points i would like to make. first is the role of the national endowment for democracy, and we have seen ties
from their support to some organizations that have relations with its rock group, protest group. you have that. number 2, you have the obvious use of techniques that we have seen where you go outside the law and attempt to provoke a reaction to show how oppressed you are. the third is the role of suzanne in this whole affair. she worked for hillary clinton before her courage she wrote the human rights report on libya that led to the attack, and she is now in charge of amnesty u.s.a., where she has spearheaded this, where for $20 you can send a ski mask to putin in protest. what would you make of the u.s.
role in this book is an overblown? is there something to this? >> it is a huge question, but i want to be very short because, once when i was writing my pieces many years ago on american social life, and i knew all these people, and many others, right-wing social democrats in this country, and i was a permanent leader of commentary and all this kind of publications. i was in favor of all this, people who were in favor of a crusader against the soviet union. to put my answer in a short way, it seems to me that the national endowment for democracy just overlooked that the soviet union and communism is not there. they're still fighting against
russia as though there is a communist party over there, and they want to put their people as the president, prime minister, and the chairman of the constitutional court, which is absurd. these people are the remnants of the cold war, and i think that now they are -- and unfortunately, they are -- >> unfortunately they play and a poor role. >> in this episode, i did not roll, because they get grants from american state budgets to all these marginal organizations, of course they play an important role. many organizations are getting 90%, 80%, and in some cases 100% money from american state budget money, which goes to the national endowment for
democracy, and it is these organizations. everybody knows that. unfortunately, this is the remnant of cold-war mentality. once i was an admirer of the president, because they were fighting against communism. now they are fighting against russia. >> christian science monitor. we have heard about the role of various groups, civil society, conservative organizations, the church. i did not hear anything about the russian youth population. and i would be curious to know if this is any movement, any group can be called as such a youth movement.
nik spoke about comparisons to the middle east, and we know about the important role of the young population as a catalyst for the arabs spring and the movements there. i would be curious, if any sort of youth movement, consciousness, exists, and what role they play. >> one thing i found interesting about the collective is their post-soviet. none of them have memory, or if they do, they were little children of the soviet period. this is a post test soviet phenomena and. these are people who grew up in the 1990's and the 2000's. they're beginning points of reference are different aldrich aggressions. what we're seeing is with these movements, with others is this search for -- one of the things
noticeable in the rush of the the worst of the 1990's, a focus of national ideas, a kind of pragmatism or restoration. the sense of what does it mean is russia'san, what doe place in the war, and you see undercurrents. you see this reflected in the xenophobic attacks. you'd see it with the return to stricter forms of orthodoxy than you had before, people embracing that the. all of this, i do not think there is any one unified youth movement, and you have very strong pro-putin youth movements that have developed, movements that are against him, but there is a search for identity, and is something which i think is to
find this younger post-soviet generation. when you look at the biographies of the three women sentenced, the oldest is 38, 22, and 24. when the berlin wall came down, when yeltsin stood on a tank, these were not formative events for them. their ford of events are put in coming to the presidency, things like that. for them, we often take for granted in these discussions of soviet, and we have these memories going back to gorbachev. gorbachev is something they heard from their parents, and they have no experience of that. whether or not they are on the liberal, conservative, whenever they are, it is a search for what does it mean to be russian in a post-soviet world, where the markers are gone, they're not coming back, and you cannot keep referring to the past. >> one important thing.
>> ok. >> i want to try to put together a couple of important perspectives that we have heard that begins with a comment in the introduction about it was couldn't see the reaction in this country and elsewhere to the handling of the pussy riot. it was a sign of western hostility. what i am hearing is this small event is really catalyzing the fusion of church and state and it relates to this issue. what i am trying to get you to tell me is what does this mean for russia's relations with the west, where elements of the society are muslim, where much
of the nearby abroad that russia has to deal with, is muslim, and it is not just a resurgence of muslim identity, but also these conflicts within the moslem world, shiiasim, soviet, etc. will the turmoil in the russian -- in the moslem world force russian to pull back from both, or out the use see this set of trends affecting russia's with the rest of the world? >> europe is in search for its identity. there's a crisis of european identity. the crisis of multiculturalism. this country has a crisis of identity. the only place where there is a real identity is the islamic world.
the islamic world in this way, does not mean that russia is oriented it's up to what is in the islamic world, but russia is try to keep itself and trying to gain its own identity because if you do not have in europe and in america at some kind of clear- cut identity, you have to develop your own identity. but the way, putin's comment and london with significant in this sense. he said, it is something this kind of thing happened in the caucasus area or in the middle east, we could not even have a chance to come and protect these people because they will be killed by a mob over there, because this is the reaction. by the way, the islamic part of society is very conservative and support of to this kind of thing, because the desecration, sacrilege is absolutely intolerable.
in this sense, and a lot of church believers are milking at the russian orthodoxy -- are looking at the russian orthodoxy. this is not my specialty, but i am interested in this. as a kind of standard bearer of orthodoxyity, because cau is on the rise, and this is vital and cannot resist the extremism of islam. not europe, because europe sclerotic. nobody knows who is who, because no coordination, no co- religion, and gridlock and dysfunction everywhere, we did not have anywhere to look. we have to look at ourselves and try to find out what we are going to do. in this sense, i want to add
one thing, which nik manchin , what happened several years ago in russia, the most successful religious journal which was launched in russia, it might be 15 or 20 years, and do you think who launched this? usually can we were talking about orthodoxy, it is published as -- babushkas, >> this was launched in international relations. people who are speaking many languages and traveled all over the world, they have high level
they are teaching together with my daughter, literature at the same time running it and this is very widely portrait among russian youth, because youth is becoming oriented towards the religion. and now being follower of or though docksy. you are backwards, you are stupid. no, you are intellectual. but this is a conservative intellectual. this is exact -- >> how do that's relate to russia's feelings to the christian world in europe or the united states? >> russia, recent visit was very important to poland. we have problem -- now interesting process is going on
with poland in another level. i was here a couple of months ago. we have a commission of reconciliation of historical events and head of the delegation. and now in church level, there is a kind of reconciliation. and russia church, more wider horizon. much more enlightened and well prepared person. and he wants to make russian church more recognized, more active -- you know, it's trying to overcome this isolation which was traditionally for many, many years. and russian orthodox had
negative impression. and youngsters, internationally oriented, they are becoming moran more recruited. >> just compare two things, priority of russia's integration with europe. in 2012, that is the creation of the union. europe to euraasian. >> there is no europe. >> we are close to conclusion and what i would like to do is ask a question and impose a comment on the very wise observer of russia who is silent , the ambassador. what i would like to ask jim before we allow a question, what
i would like to ask you is a very simple question, does this incident really matter? is this something that will have an everlasting impact? is this whole conversation -- celebrities became involved and it became a scandal during a relativey slow august or does it represent something that we really should worry about in the future? >> i have a question. i was very interested by your observation that this incident fragmented opposition and if you look at the most of the people who are speaking out about it, it's liberal figures. i wanted to ask you if the liberals are -- and you don't see nationalists speaking out.
you don't care much about communists speaking out about it. >> they position themselves as very ardent supporters of russian church and traditions, because we had strange communityists. our communists turned to the national communists and traditionalists. in this case, it fragmented and isolated this marginal liberal groups who are tiny and they became even smaller than they were. again, disproportionately, they are presented in western media. we can do anything with this. i'm doing my best, but i don't know how successful i am. >> one of the most distinguished american diplomats and former
ambassador to russia. >> i guess i would say this recalls any such number of incidents over the last 20 years which is portrayed as a massive turning point, catalyst that has sent us in a given direction. i have come to be reasonably insensitive to that argument. i do think that we are at a point where we are focusing on what differentiates us. the political campaigns in both countries have taken on an anti-theme, anti-american in the russian case before mr. putin's election, anti-russian to some extent in this campaign, to the extent that foreign policy matters at all. and it seems to me that until we get through this period, we are going to have more of this, the question is, can we limit the damage. i think this will pass. i don't think it really makes a major difference, but it adds to
the sort of theme that the russian court system is corrupt, it's nothing but politically motivated. you can't differentiate government and the judicial system. i mean it's part of the same piece. all of these themes are not new. they have been there for a long time. it's an attack, so on and so on. once the american elections are over, we will have a reassessment on all sides. i don't know what will happen on our side. it depends on who's elected obviously. i think on the russian side, i have been impressed with mr. putin for many months and very careful not to close any doors. he is suitbly hardlined in the way he talks, but the fact is, he doesn't close any doors. i don't think this should be blown out of proportion, but i do think it is symbolic about the fact that everybody's default position is to run back
to 1985. the minute something goes wrong, you get back this tit for at that time business, it's comfortable to find -- tit for tat business. it's comfortable to find that. if you are looking what is going on day-to-day between the governments, it hasn't changed. the start treaty is being implemented. the afghanistan project keeps going. if you look at cultural exchange, they had this big meeting. across the spectrum there are a lot of things that continue day-to-day. the real question i think for the americans is what comes after our election. what's the next reset or whatever we're going to call it? and i don't think we know yet and we aren't going to know. for the moment, i wouldn't blow
this out of proportion, but it's a good story. >> jim, thank you very much. this is a very good way to end our conversation. the participants and c-span for covering it. thank you very much. [applause] . [captioning performed by national captioning institute] captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]
>> join us later tonight by remarks by president obama where he marked the second anniversary of his decision to draw down troops in iraq at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. the president getting ready for the democratic national convention next week in charlotte, north carolina which gets under way on tuesday. the featured speaker will be first lady michelle obama. on wednesday, elizabeth warren and former president bill clinton and the democrats wrap things up with speeches from the vice president and president. make c-span.org web exclusive video and create and share video clips and see the latest social media comments all at c-span.org
large and well-informed crowd to today's event. today's event is not for the light-hearted. today's event is a deep dive into perhaps the most important issue facing america and the broader middle east and one of the most important issues facing america and international relations more generally, which is addressing the challenge of the iranian nuclear program. before i begin, however, just a couple of brief announcements. first, today's event is being broadcast live. so please be careful of what you say. it will be caught for pros tert around the world. all questions and comments today are on the record, including from the peanut gallery and please be -- silence your cell phones and helps us with all the technology in the room. i would prefer if you would turn
them off and not put them on silence and wait to be called on talking into microphones and identify your selves. all the appropriate rules for this sort of event. secondly, since we have such a captive audience, i did want to announce that we have another outstanding event next week. the day after labor day, tuesday, september 4, is al qaeda central still relevant? this a week before the anniversary of 9/11, with a fantastic panel of bruce hoffman, marry habeck and matt levitt and will discuss one of the most important issues on the counterterrorism aagenda ave today. go to our web site. we did turn away quite a number of people from the door today
because they did not rsvp. we are getting tough about that. today, i am very pleased that we are marking the publication of a new washington institute study, which is a primer to help you to help government, to help informed experts, to help public opinion understand the details, to understand what is at stake when we talk about more generally the iranian nuclear program. it is this. nuclear iran, a gloss ari of terms. perhaps not the most exciting title in the world, but it masks within it a very, very interesting assessment and understanding of what is really
at stake and what are the issues inside understanding the iranian nuclear program. i'm especially pleased that this publication is a joint publication of the washington institute and the belfer center at harvard university and that reflects the partnership of the two authors of this publication, olli heinonen and simon henderson. olli is a senior fellow and previously served as the deputy director general and head of the department of safeguards at the iaea, the international atomic energy agency. and he was responsible for inspecting nuclear facilities in iran and throughout the world. brings unparalleled experience to the question of understanding the iranian nuclear program. he is joined in this exercise, as i said, by our own simon
henderson. he is a baker fellow at the institute and director of our gulf and energy policy program. he has his own long personal experience, both in iran where he -- from which he reported many moons ago as a foreign correspondent and dealing with nuclear issues also, which he reported on, both on iran, on pakistan and around the world. together, they make a powerful team. this is an excellent stud i don't think. if you haven't already seen it, please download at the institute's web site. do we have publications on the way out? we don't have publications on the way out, because we want you to go to our web site to read it and to take full advantage of it that way. with that, i'm going to turn to simon to make opening remarks
and turn to olli and then to your questions and answers. simon. >> thank you very much. and thank you for coming here on a delightful august day and where you should have been on the beach and indeed i was on the beach yesterday, but came home back here out of call of duty to do this presentation today. why this publication, why me, why olli? the answer is that olli and i share a rather esoteric interest in centrifuges and we go off quiet corners and discuss finer
points of centrifuges and sometimes people come along and try to join in the conversation but we can tweak the centrifuges even further and lose the point of why they're there. but what we decided what we would do would be to try to transfer some of our interests and knowledge in centrifuges to a wider audience and this study is the product of it. and, in fact, there are going to be two products of our collaboration. this is the first one. the second one which we've about to start working on will also be on much the same subject area, but i will leave it undefined at this moment, but for this publication, my name came first. for the next publication, olli
heinonen's name will come first. that is a mute tall agreement and mute tall arrangement. and olli is going to take a deep dive into the iran nuclear question. my job is to set you up in readiness for that. and many of you have -- judging by the faces, already noaa lot about the science and the technology of this issue. and many of you probably know more than i know about it. but my particular experiences that i have done a lot of work on it over the years and i have spent a lot of time trying to explain it in lay men's terms. and for the next five or 10 minutes, i'm going to do -- for those of you who really know this stuff, i hope that my
laymen's terms are interesting and not inaccurate. you are very welcome to borrow my analogies for your own explanations in future audiences. and for those who left school with only an elementary knowledge of science, i will bring you forward so that you might be able to understand a great deal of what olli has said. for the record, i did do science at high school and indeed, i went -- initially went to university to read what i would call metallurgy. i decided after a few weeks that this was not for me and i shifted at that point. thor -- the irony of all this is
i have spent a considerable amount of my time talking to scientists one form of another and trying to think of all the knowledge i should have gained at college, which i didn't. the science is brief and straightforward. and the trick of what any nuclear question about is fission. it is the story of atoms splitting and releasing energy. there are essentially for our purposes here, two forms of fission. one is a controlled fission,
which is when the sort of reaction which takes place in a power reactor, where the energy released is used to generate electricity or generate power. and that is controlled. and there is also uncontrolled fission when there is an explosive chain reaction. a cute way of saying an atomic bomb. and the challenge of this, you can go on the internet and sort of find this diagram all over the place, but chancesr it is 20 times more complicated than this and you wouldn't understand this. but the issue is, you can either
make a nuclear bomb from uranium or make it from plutonium. plutonium, you have to obtain by reprocessing material from the power reactor. that is rather dangerous, but relativey simple chemistry. and it is rather well controlled in that your chances of making a power reactor and producing plutonium without the world noticing is very little. and so that is the attraction of the other way to a bomb, which is enriching uranium. and -- there used to be a time when people would say, but
plutonium bombs are much better. notionly, they are, because you need a smaller amount of plutonium to make a bomb than you do of highly enriched uranium. that smaller amount means you can put it on smaller missile or a smaller bomb and deliver it to its target. but unfortunately, highly enriched uranium will also do the business, and these days, there are missiles and their exarktse to put it -- make these devices to be carried by aircraft and the net effect on the target is very much the same. and this is a did he pick shon of what a -- depicks of what a centrifuge is like. and it essentially uses the
process of spinning to enrich uranium. what you want to do is natural uranium is mainly made up of an isotop of europe 238. the iceo tope you want to use for a power reactor or in high concentration for a nuclear weapon is uranium 235. the challenge here is that uranium 235 is only .7% of any chunk of natural uranium you come across. so the challenge is to grab the uranium 235. in a centrifuge you do that by making the uranium into a gas, uranium hexaflour eyed and
spinning it quickly and the splits off and over a rather lengthy and complicated process you increase the so-called enrichment of uranium 235. and centrifuge is called a vertical spinning rotor. try to think of it in terms of a top-loading washington machine. and although -- washing machine, although it is not as wide or taller. but the analogy is you want it to be on a stable surface, probably on the concrete in the basement of your house, rather than on the first or second or third floor. and you also want to load your washing properly, because if you
just chuck it in there and set the machine going, it is not properly balanced. it will knock against on the side and not work properly. those are two particularly important issues that are transferable to centrifuge enrichment centrifuge -- uranium enrichment centrifuge. >> this is the motif of a. q.
khan institute, which is an enrichment facility. you are familiar with him being the pakistani scientist that if you believe what he says, he said is that he did as he was told by successful military -controlled governments in pakistan and if you believe what the pakistan government says, it is that he was a rogue agent and did it by himself but he supplied having acquired centrifuge technology while working in europe. he also supplied it to china, libya, iran and north korea. this particular emblem and his laboratories, even though he is now in disgrace, are still
bearing his name. and this particular emblem is interesting insofar as it is a math did he pick shon on the century frugse that it since. centrifuges that it spins. there is one particular message that i want to get across by sharing this today, it looks as though it is about to fall over. and indeed, that is the challenge of spinning a centrifuge. and the challenge is to make it opinion perfectly vertically and not to fall over.
>> there are two forms of making an atomic bomb. the gun type, you take a chunk of uranium 235, which is less than the so-called critical mass, and slam it into another chunk of uranium 235, therefore making a critical mass. you fasten neutrons into it at a critical moment and the whole thing goes bang. this is the sort that was dropped on hiroshima and it did go bang and they were so confident that it did go bang, it was not tested before it happened. however, it is a rather crude thing and nuclear weapon designers think it lacks some of physician occasion. -- some physician ti occasion.
those people go for an implosion device. and this is what we fear the iranians are doing. and the analogy here is that you are squeezing a chunk of uranium into a critical mass. you could equally be using plutonium to make a critical mass of plutonium. for technical reasons, plutonium doesn't work in the gun-type device, which was the earlier slide. the challenge of making an implosion device is to squeeze it symmetricically from something probably the size of a grapefruit into the size of an orange. now that is also an interesting way of -- you try squeezing a
grapefruit into the size of an orange and you will find it is a very messy business. it squirts in all directions. and you fail. the challenge of a nuclear weapons designer is to use shaped charges of conventional highly explosive in order to do this without the grapefruit juice squirting in your eye. i will stop my presentation there. olli is now going to get into the real business of the iranian nuclear program. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen and thank you for
coming to this meeting. i don't think i will provide any scientific presentation here, but give you a snapshot where i believe today iranian nuclear program is in two areas. one, where they might be with the uranium enrichment and what are those experiments that is happening. and i have put this thing together using information that the report disclosed in may of this year. use that as the baseline and the report isn't yet out i have used statements of iranian leadership, what they might have and use those numbers and made an estimate of what might be in the iaea report, which is coming in day or two start. and if we go back to may, so you
saw that iran had at the plant, this is the underground. little bit more than six tons uranium since it began its operations. they had 55 one type of centrifuge, but only 52 of them were operating at the time iaea wrote the report. and monthly was about 130 kilograms a month. if we look at what might be there today and take the iran leadership and look of how the centrifuges were distributed in the underground facility, if i take those numbers, i think they probably have increased less
centrifuges. and if we take the performance of those, it will be about 250 kilograms per month. and there will be perhaps 57 cascades operating. you remember, there are two sets of cascades, which were interconnected and this is the way they use 20% and uranium 3.5% uranium in. you get from other end something which is close to 20%. 19.75 would be accurate. but the tail from that system is about 10%. and you feed it to the second set of centrifuges. you run the centrifuges through cascades in dan -- in tandem.
and there was a small difference between the performance between the pilot plant which has a similar set of cascade versus the other. but roughly, those two cascades produced little bit more than 7 kilo grams. and on that day when iaea made the report, two cascades had already been installed but not operating and had another two under construction. and this led me to estimate that maybe what we will find in the iaea report to conclude that there are now four such units of 20% production operating in one plant, which means that the monthly production is now much
higher, about 20 kilos at one plant. which means that the production is picking up and this what we have seen in pilot plant is not very much changed. they run 20% production. they had two more advanced centrifuges cascades under construction, but they have intermittently used for production. we will see probably something similar, not the dramatic change. what does this mean, then, in terms of the numbers? in may, if you put all that iran has produced, 3.5% was 6.9 tons. and 1,200 kilograms was used to
produce 20% enriched uranium. which means even kilo gram of enriched uranium produced, you need 9 or 10 kilograms. and they have produced by last may 145 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium but they have moved about 40 kilos of that to fuel manufacturing plant, which manufactures fuel tore the reactor. iran says this is the justification of enrichment to 20%. what we will see then most likely tomorrow if we put all these numbers together, the inventory will be 7.9 tons, and
they have used 1,700 kilos to produce 20% enriched uranium and 190 kilos of 20% enriched uranium has been produced, but 40 kilos went to fuel manufacturing. so if we look then to the road ahead and just assume they continue with the current number of centrifuges, where we will be at the end of this year, next summer or end of next year by the production of 3.5% enriched uranium. you will see by this diagram that sometime in december, they have about eight tons of you -- u.s. 6 in stock. and if they continue with this speed, you will see end of next year it will be 10.
not a dramatic change in terms of the amount. increased number of centrifuges were 10%, you will see 10% increase in production directly proportional. but where the change comes is the 20% enriched uranium. this is a very different scenario here. now that they have been ramping it up, you will see the application, in may there was 100 kilos or 20% of enriched uranium. by now, it should be as i mentioned about 175 kilos. end of this year is 275. and end of next year, 575. now, if you take this amount and 250 kilograms of 20% enriched
uranium and turn it into high enriched uranium as simon explained, you can get enough 90% enriched uranium for one crude nuclear device, about 20 kilos of highly enriched uranium is needed. and how this boils down by khan is by this scheme. what you do is you have four units here. the first unit, you feed 3.5% uranium and get 3.5% enriched uranium out. the next unit takes from 3.5 to 20% enriched uranium and the third unit from 20 to 60 and then the last unit from 60 to 90. now what iran has there is the first two parts, the production of 3.5 and production of 20. so if they want to go ahead,
they need to reconfigure either to make this -- take the use of centrifuges or actually to build -- separate isolation to do that. most likely if i were them, i would take the latter option because you can optimize all the centrifuges and plus you don't need that many machines. for the latter part, if we make an ideal a. q. khan system, it had a little less than 6,000 centrifuges. most of them are in the beginning because that's where most of it is done. once you have produced 3.5% enriched uranium, actually you have done 75%, which is required. when you produce 20% enriched
uranium, you have do 90% of your effort. this last step takes the 10% of the effort and hence the number of centrifuges is much more. this diagram shows how it flows through, but in reality, it's not. and actually what you do with -- you take the 3.5% enriched uranium out it, put it in a cylinder and take the cylinder and feed it to the next unit and then take it in a small cylinder for 20% enriched uranium, move it to the next unit, feed it, take it to another cylinder and then finally produce u.s. 6 with 90% enrichment. but you still need to go ahead and produce uranium, which is
needed for nuclear weapon. that process still takes several weeks. not something which you do overnight. and let me say a couple of words . you saw that the iaea explained concerns about certain experiments, experiments at the parcin report. you have probably see this chapter in many news media where they do these tests. and what these tests do, they do exactly what simon explained. you test the plates which compress the nuclear weapon when the grapefruit goes to a size of orange or even smaller. the essence there is the timing,
bass otherwise it gets messy. you have to get the implosion coming from all directions, less than one microsecond difference in order to be successful and compress it all together. and what iaea claims, these experiments which might have been done in this chamber are those kinds of experiments which you do to test the simultaneous -- they talk about the hemisphere type of test and they also look -- i don't have all the details, so i can't say exactly what took place. iaea didn't describe in much detail. whether this chamber is big enough to do this. there are people -- nevertheless, the most alarming thing as soon as this became public, things started to happen
at parchin. you have see the report from april which shows that there appears to be some kind of decontamination activity going on. there is water flowing from the building out. there have been soil movements, landscaping, et cetera. one believes that maybe someone has done some sanitation. couple of weeks ago, we saw another thing where tarps. the buildings are covered with this pink tarp. so that one really doesn't see what happens inside. another building built? we don't know yet. the question then comes, can iaea ever find out what was there. is this a mission impossible? well, we have some experience already from iran. concealment has been in place. we had the problems with the
electric once iaea went for the first time there. the second time, the whole place was renovated, painted, nice tiles, very good looking. we had similar things happening in the other plant. this happened 10 years ago, they built a pile-up plant to demonstrate that actually they have no experiments. it's the first enrichment installation in iran. it was not the case and started to work in another area, which is here in the big picture. you see the buildings on the right-hand side top. that was the research center and which was razed and a park was built back with a good
explanation and this you will find from the iaea report in november. the later enrichment installation was ripped off and distributed, but the iaea got the information and found from them. and then the other plant, the underground facility which was built in secrecy. most likely its purpose has been changed from the original and this is the reason why it's been taking some time before the factory was able to operate because they were made to change the installation. so they have been there. how iaea is going to cope? it has quite a few tools. first of all, all the information is not only in parchin. you have a lot of other
information that supports that people who were doing experiments where the equipment was built, all this can be used for this analysis. even if the place is not there any more there, these needs to be explained. environmental sampling will help at least to see the debris that might come from it and the environment that is there. you may recall, we had inspections in syria where everything was leveled down. but the iaea was still able to find uranium parallels in spite of all the sanitation. the systems are extremely sensitive. so what i want to say, it's a difficult task, but all all the eggs are not in the same basket so i think the truth will come
out. thank you. [applause] >> before you come down, let me just open by asking you what is probably on a few people's minds. and that is questions about time tables. so i assume, iaea reports don't go into, where would iran be if it chose to pursue a nuclear weapon. can you give us your estimates about -- if you were running the iranian nuclear weapons program, what the various paths would be for you if you wanted to do something as quickly as possible or you wanted to do something as secretly as possible and i assume there is a tradeoff between the two, what the various time tables would be for achievement of your goals. >> well, i wish i had a good
answer. it's very difficult, because you have actually pointed out a variety of choices here, do you want to do it in public places, which -- or do it some in secret place. and do it with the iaea is present. whatever you are doing, as soon as the nuclear materials starts to move, iaea will be saying that now something strange is happening. if the facility change the configuration in a couple of weeks' time. when we look -- we have also to keep in our minds if someone does it, most likely wants to have a secret installation at least for the last step. one scenario would be that like the iaea know that i have taken the nuclear material away, which
is secret and then you gas through that place by going from 20% enriched uranium to 90%. now if we look at the known, 20%, it will by end of next year, enough for two nuclear weapons. it's a little bit hard to think of someone with only two nuclear weapons, because it has consequences. unique to have enough. then you need to look -- this is nuclear matter, so that's a key for the nuclear weapon. then you need to have design of the weapon. i think the iaea came to the conclusion that iran has a crude design for a nuclear weapon. the understanding is there. manufacturing of that probably doesn't take that long time. then comes the third element
which is delivery of the nuclear weapon. if i read the statements, might be lacking behind. they probably don't have a desire which works the missile. ok, someone may say, well, there are other ways of means of delivering and then we come to a situation like north korea that perhaps has enough nuclear material for half a dozen nuclear weapons, but it doesn't have a delivery. but certainly whoever is on the other side, receiving end, -- i don't think we should let this thing go that far. and then comes the really good question, where is the red line here. is it when one has enough nuclear material to produce a nuclear weapon or when one has a
design completed for that? i would put the bar lower because what we still have are the uncertainties. there are things which we know, there are things which we don't know. we need to think those things which we don't know. >> not before next summer. >> very good. thank you very much. i'm going to turn to your questions now. i can't see everybody given all the lights but right here behind the camera. identify yourself. >> steve annie cook with "nuclear intelligence weekly." i have a question for mr. heinonen. so much emphasis has been placed on enrichment, what is the situation now with the heavy water plant and the research reactor and the possibility that
fuel could be used for future reprocessing and also, is there any evidence of any plutonium production yet? >> well, let me answer in three steps. iran had very simple plutonium separation experiments in the early 1990's, but it appears that the interest went away and were focusing more on uranium enrichment. then where is the heavy water reactor? we see that the building is under construction. iaea reports that some nuclear-related equipment starts to come. but again, there are two parts here. one is the reactor construction. one is the fuel. and if you look at the iaea reports, not so much of the fuel has been produced for that reactor. if i look at that, i have seen
states that the reactor will be operating next year. i don't see from the technical information available this will be very likely. but it's difficult to give an estimate for that. then once it's operating, another year-plus is needed before you have enough plutonium for first nuclear device. you have more than one year. then you need to cool down. you cannot take it straight from the reactor, because it is too much radioactivity. you need another year before you have the plutonium. and meanwhile, you need to build a reprocessing plant so you can do this. this reprocessing plant is not already complicated. the technology is out there. you have seen the north koreans using it to get it from public
domain and build their own. i think iran can do it fairly easy. it is not an overly small installation. then to process spent fuel, that is a major undertaking. they are unique for quite some time even when you take it out from the reactor, you have to wait some time before processing it, sometimes year or two, because it is radioactive and no reprocessing plant can handle it. so that kind of scenario is far away and then it needs much more reprocessing installation. if you look at the size of that installation, that will be clearly visible if anyone starts to build. you need to have walls are one meter thick. very big complex. and if you remember, north
korea, the reprocessing plant, about 100 meter long and it's about 30 meter broad and the height is higher -- about the height of this building. so this would be visible. and i don't think you can do it in much smaller scale if you want to do it. and that needs a little bit more know how as well. >> charlie on my left. >> charles perkins with apac. you talked about -- you brushed over the very end part of the enrichment where it is assumed now they would have the ability to convert the 20% or 90% then if they went that far into a metal. is there evidence that they can do that? i know there's the issue of
machining hemispheres and so on, but is it assumed the ability to convert the gases, u.s.-6 into metal and you talked about the portion of the 20% that has been made into fuel plates and this is relevant in determines of the diplomacy. turning it into a fuel plate making it useful into reconverting bomb use and re-enriching it into 90% to be used in a bomb later on. >> uranium metal production, this is all in public domain. there is no big secret how you turn it into uranium metal. and iran has produced uranium metal. it was part of the later enrichment project at the tehran research center. they produced 100 kilos for that
purpose. the purity needs to be very different and done in a different way. but the the basic know-how is there. that should not be a problem. you will see that the fuel fabrication plant has a small process line that got its design from china. uranium metal alloy. the basic things are there. it should not really be a problem for them. the uranium metal production. then you have what to do with the reactor fuel and whether you can use it again. certainly, you lose material when you turn it to 20% enriched uranium.
you do not irradiate those plates. you take them back, dissolve them, turned it into uranium hexafluoride and you can go ahead. you lose effort and material, but some of it can be recovered. i would not be worried about what is there, because it is a small amount. one needs to hundred 50 kilos for that. if there is enough material sitting in place and you have it the intention to go that way, you can do it. there is an example from the iraqi nuclear program. when saddam pushed the people to rush in 1990. they had a plan to use part of the old enriched fuel from the
research reactor to replenish the best parts. their capability was a little bit restricted. this is more complicated when you take spent fuel and recover height uranium in order to meet the specifications. it is a question of months, not years. on the short term, i would say three months or something like that. >> thank you. >> i have been told, a friend of mine -- >> is the microphone on? speak right into it. >> i have been told that a
friend of mine who met with people in holland said that to make a nuclear bomb, the technology is obsolete. you can make a nuclear bomb but it is very slow. is that correct? >> in a way, it is correct. the performance is made by a separate unit. the design value that peron bank now has is about two or three per year. if you want to produce uranium
for a power plant, you need 150,000 sub-centrifuges. based on this experience, they decided that it was not good enough and went with a german design which is three or four times more powerful. i think that this assessment is good. you will get there. it just takes time. if you are determined, you get what you want. the more machines you have, the shorter is the time. that is why i think this breakout scenario -- if they want to do it, they need to put
their centrifuges in order. >> could you take a moment to explain the impact of cyber attacks on this process? what do we know was achieved and what we know about the iranian ability to achieve it that cyber effort. >> i think the cyber attack was a result of two things. one is that they went to the black market and a lot of the information went out from iranian hands. it was well known the design of those centrifuges. all of the documentation was there. at the same time, they were probably buying equipment which was contaminated. whoever did the attack knew what to do because he had all of the information.
there was a very good report written by it -- i know that she's coming with another article. read that one. i think it is very accurate. i run bank learned about it. i do not think it will be -- iran learned about it. i do not think it will be easy to do again. they realized that something is happening because they reacted with the passive defense organization, the organization with designed the facility. if someone wants to do something, it has to be done very differently. historically, it has been all
around. 1940's, 1950's, the russian program. the chinese were seven touched, the pakistan these were seven touched. -- the chinese were sabotaged, the pakistanis were sabotaged. they lost a lot of centrifuges. the one bottleneck that they have, they are difficult to get. whenever 2000 or 3000 centrifuges are wiped away, it is difficult to replenish. >> if i might just expand a bit on how cyber attacks were used to damage centrifuges.
go back to my top loading washing machine analogy. if you turn off the electricity, it does not like it at all. the particular aspect of a centrifuge is that is a -- is that it spins at an incredibly high speed. the challenge in designing it is to get it from 0 to the high speed. it is a particular challenge because the nature of the design, whatever particular the mentions it is and the material is made out of, to go from high speed -- i am sorry, from zero to a high speed, it is what is called a critical velocity where it wobbles slightly. if it does go through critical velocity, it has to be designed in such a way that it absorbs the strains and stresses of this without bashing against the
side wall. this is done on a p-1 centrifuged. that is what pakistan calls it. by having it in four sections with a flexible steel door, three flexible steel joints in it. it gives it the ability to flex as it gets up to high speed. you have braley all seemed critical velocity at work although you probably have not noticed. in your days as a child, when you had a spinning top and you would get the top spinning and watched it. the critical velocity exists when it increases its speed and decreases its speed. you're spinning top, as it slows
down, you can probably recall, it would occasionally wobble and stabilize again before slowing down a bit more. maybe another while before eventually falling to one side. it is that little wabble which is a critical philosophy. you will have to take it from me that they exist at the increase in speed as well as the decline in speed. going back to the uranium enrichment centrifuge, if you can get into the control mechanism whereby you are playing around with the velocities of the centrifuges, this plays hell with the critical velocities and they run out of control, the centrifuges break, and it can be a rather dangerous experience because these are pieces of metal
potentially moving at very high speeds. that is what the secret of the cyber attacked essentially was. >> thank you. >> commercial enrichment plants are not enriching all the time. but the centrifuges are spending all the time. some centrifuges for one full year. they do not slow them down exactly for the reason that simon said. the speed of this centrifuge, when it spins in that casing, is 330 meters per second. it is the velocity of sound.
there are three forces which are affecting it. it is the same thing like putting a 747 to fly 1 meter above the ground. >> i wanted to ask mr. heinonen two questions. you said something to the fact that the purpose had changed. i wondered what you meant by that. the other question, insofar as it is a case that has been used to test conventional explosives and their use in compression,
that is the kind of residue and evidence that would be looked at if iaea would get in there or is there a use of some nuclear materials as well? >> let me start from the parts. it is used for many purposes and there has to be many other experiments not really to do anything with nuclear. what the iaea tries to find out based on whatever they have is to find out if there are some features on those nuclear experiments with -- which have left traces. if they use uranium, it is an easy thing. you can also use a surrogate material in these experiments
without using nuclear material. nuclear material is difficult to get and have to be handled difficulty -- differently. maybe they have done it by purpose. if you replace uranium with something heavy like tungsten, you do not break the laws. the irony is that if you take the agreement the way it is written, if you do a nuclear explosive test without nuclear material, just to design a nuclear weapon and do the testing without any nuclear material, you are not in non- compliance. certainly, this is against the spirit of it. but the iaea mandate is for the
agreement and they cannot crucify you. while the -- why the iata raises these concerns is there is lots of non-compliance and an access to nuclear material if you do these sorts of must -- the sorts of experiments. maybe there is something else going on that you still do not know were there is a plan to build these materials. that is where the mandate comes from together with the u.n. security council resolution. if you read the iaea report, this may be my speculation, but when this was coming public in september 2009, iaea when they're about one month after the announcement there was no way to be able to get there
earlier. they saw how the facility was on that day. when you read the next report, they tell of modifications to the facility. that is a puzzling thing. when you design a nuclear installation, you design it from the -- from the beginning in such a way that you put things in place. a few weeks later, you remove everything and do excavation on the room to make it a different shape. it is the kind of thing -- maybe the design was for some other purpose than it is today. i think these questions that the iaea is not lasting from iran -- is now asking from iran, the
design and construction started much earlier. the iaea has asked to see those documents related to that. >> right in the middle. >> peter zimmermann. you talk about experiments. not all of the physical and nuclear parameters of uranium are unclassified. not all of the relevant things are available in the physics textbooks. how much of the experimental program that we see in iran seems to be devoted to measuring those characteristics and how much to the brute force of making an implosion, for
example, which is symmetric? i guess i am asking for comparisons between the amount of physics they need to learn and the amount of hydrodynamics they need to learn, engineering. >> first of all, i am not a nuclear weapons designer. the second thing is that actually, i do not think that i want to comment on those technical details, what the iaea knows about those experiments and what it does not know. i do not think it is appropriate because i would break my confidentiality undertakings if i do it. for the record, you cannot read much about what is actually happening. we need to keep in mind a couple of other things. the question is that did iran get its hands on these designs,
there were two sets of designs. this one, which was lifted and is in the u.s. in a vault not far from this place and a more advanced design which was found later in some of the computers of this network. the question is, the design was floating around '93, '94, '95. i do not think they have the answer yet. >> in the back center, please. >> jackson deal of the washington post garrett -- of the washington post. those that are being
manufactured in iran, are they usable? so they do not need to need to import the plates in order to use them? you mentioned that you thought they would need the p-2 in order to complete enrichment. they have announced several times that they are installing the ir-2. what do you think is the status of that? >> thank you. first of all, the fuel is not all very difficult to manufacture. i think iran has the basic knowledge. based on this fuel place, the previous load of fresh fuel came to a run bank. -- to iran.
when you start testing this through vigorous quality assurance to make sure they behave like they are, they do not leak, because anything like that would be devastating in a reactor. you need to make sure that the quality is there. that is why you have seen a fairly slow start for the production. they are now having some tests inside the reactor. once these tests are over, i think it will take one year and then they have to take them out, analyze them to make sure there are no traces in the specific cases. only then can you go to actual production. this will happen sometime next year. by that time, i think that i iran is going to run out of
fuel. whether they are able to produce it in quantities, we do not know. i think that is there. the second question was, can you repeat that? i did not get it entirely. yeah, good. you see the p-2 or ir-2m, as they call it. here is the ir-2m. the one onht-hd side. there are two ir-2's. they have been working several years. during the first year, you will test one single cascade and once
you're happy with that, you make next year a small cascade. on the third year, you have a full cascade, which would mean 164 machines running. after that, something which is called a demonstration plant. maybe 1000. they have been working quite a long time with these ir-2m's. they have not been able to feed uf-6 through this cascade. what is the reason? we can only speculate. one reason might be that they have design problems. they cannot solve all of the design parameters. they might have a lack of raw materials. the centrifuge is very different. it most likely have -- has a
carbon fiber motor inside. this kind of carbon fiber is difficult to get in large quantities and you need to have large quantities to maintain the quality and homogeny of the material. it is more difficult to manufacture than the other ones. once you get it right, it lasts much longer. it may be a combination, that there are some design problems but perhaps the most difficult is to where to get the carbon fiber in big quantities. >> i wanted to follow up on the last question. in your chart about the amount of productions that you say would be in future uranium, you
assume that the same number of centrifuges are being used. why no more centrifuges? why aren't they using more centrifuges? and why not fewer centrifuges? at what point will the centrifuges they have start wearing out? >> if you look -- let's talk about the ir-1. they have been increasing all the time the number of centrifuges. you will see that they have 6000 empty casings. from that perspective, they are not going to stop the production of the ir-1 centrifuges any time soon. the question then becomes, how
much of the raw materials do they have? is there a stock somewhere or are they able to produce these raw materials, particularly high strength aluminum and steel. when they changed the program around 2005 and started to work more indigenously when they saw difficulties coming, one of the things that we said is that -- one of the things that they said was that they want to produce the centrifuges using their own raw materials. we can conclude that the materials which we see there now have been produced in aluminum factories in iran. the question is, are they able to produce this high strength of aluminum or have they bought it
from abroad? this is one of the key questions which we need to know if we want to understand how it proceeds. so far, the tendency has been increasing. the lifexpectancy of those centrifuges is about 10 years. i think we will see the strength. you ask, why not more? i could put any number, but 10% more will be 10% more production. you cannot produce 10 times more. it is physically impossible. the change does not come from the ir-1's. the game changer comes once the are there.ir-4's
this is where we need to understand to focus. >> in the back. >> thank you very much. i have a question from that perspective. you diagrammed an assignment to show that most of the discussion in terms of nuclear devices. could you comment on a scenario on what it would take for iran to developing dirty bombs using plutonium or something. it may not cause the same type of damage, but it would have a contamination and psychological effect writ >> would a state do this sort of thing, that is the first question that we would
ask. they would be more a terrorist organization which would take that route. iran is not really producing plutonium in such quantities that it can use it. it has small amounts for a research reactor, but not the amounts that are needed for this kind of purpose. the risk is there. we need to take it seriously, but i do not think that this is the biggest thing we need to focus on in the case of iran. >> thank you. in the front. >> bob friedman, john hopkins university. is it fair to say that the
previous owner -- when he was in charge of the iaea, he has been replaced by one taking a tougher position. >> that is a fair point. the time has passed. iran has done certain selections to the enrichment. you cannot compare what is there today to what was there in 2003. unless you approve, he had a very high element for the proof and evidence. that is the only thing i can say. you have to look at the time,
2002, 2003. what the iaea tried to do, and i was part of that party, we tried to try this approach of transparency and cooperation writ -- and cooperation. it was a part of the understanding of the process, that it will be handled a certain way. this was their agreement in november 2003. in a way, it tied the hands of the iaea secretary. he was not able to go against the bill of the board of governors. if you go back today, many things would be done, perhaps, differently. >> let me ask you a final question. i asked you to put yourself into the issues of the head of the
iranian nuclear program. i would like to ask you to put yourself in the shoes of the head of some foreign governments who decide that it is important to put a stop to what you're seeing here. what would be the link in the chain that, from your perspective, would be the most attractive and amenable target to significantly delay, let's not throw out hypothetical cases of destroying something like this, but to significantly delay. what would be the most appropriate target that would push the iranians back a substantial period of time. >> i do not think it is -- one very simple thing is not a surgical strike.
so that the people change their mind. people compare what happened in iraq. they did not let go in 1991. saddam gave up his nuclear weapons program. what we need to do is send such a message that they do not proceed the route which they might be proceeding and clarify the issues. it does not need to be a nuclear or military attack. it can be something more on the economical side. the problem that we have is that all of the sanctions are in place. i note that it costs $130. if you put billions of dollars
that iran is losing and producing maybe thousands per year, it does not compare. the economical solution has to be both sides. iran needs to comply with that. there will probably forget this because they are not ready to produce fuel anymore for nuclear reactors. it is like putting a volkswagen beetle to race with a ferrari. >> thank you very much. did you have a final something you wanted to say? >> we were half expecting that the iaea did not cooperate with us on this issue. the latest report on iran would
be published in vienna today and would have leaked by the time we had this lunch. this luncheon was going to be this luncheon anyway. there was a hope and a prayer. when this report does come out, go to this report on our web site. if you cannot understand any of the terms in the iaea report, then look from up here. for those of you who looked when he started talking is thewu''s, that separate work unit. it is here and it is all too obvious what it is when you read it here. thank you. >> congratulations on your studies and thank you for
joining us today. thank you, everyone. bye-bye. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> join us later tonight for remarks by president obama at fort bliss in texas earlier today to mark the second anniversary of the decision to draw down troops in iraq. you can watch that at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> -- 2-gavel coverage of the democratic convention starts next week. every minute, every speech live at c-span, c-span radio, and c- span got bored. speakers include san antonio mayor julian castro and michelle obama. wednesday, elizabeth warren and bill clinton. thursday, joe biden and barack obama.
and use our convention held to share video clips. >> we offer opportunities. we demand responsibility. we will build an american community again. the choice we offer is not conservative or liberal. in many ways, it is not even republican or democratic. it is different, it is new, and it will work. >> count your own opinion and connect with other c-span viewers with a twitter and google hangouts. convention hall at c-span dog or. -- hub at cspan.org. >> we are asking middle and high school seniors to send a message to the president. there will ask the question, what is the most important issue the president will consider? there is a chance to win a grand
prize of $5,000 and a total of $50,000 in prizes available. it is open to students grades 6- 12. for details, go on line. >> on tuesday, u.s. marine corps commandant general james amos spoke at the press club in washington d.c. about the current and future operations of the marine corps. he says it is america's crisis response force. general amos became the 35th commandant in october of 2010. his speech runs about 25 minutes. [gavel] >> good afternoon and welcome to the national press club. my name is theresa werner and i am the 105th president of the national press club. we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists, committed to our professional future for
programming and events such as these while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, please visit our web site at www.press.org. to donate to programs offered to the public through our national institute, please institutepress.org/institute. on behalf of our members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speaker and those of you attending today's event. our head table includes guests of our speaker and working journalists who are club members. if you hear applause in our audience, we note that members of the general public are attending so it is not necessarily indicative of a lack of journalistic integrity. i would also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. our luncheons are also featured on our weekly podcast, available on itunes. you can also follow the action
on twitter using #npclunch. as our guest concludes, we will have a brief q&a and there will be as many questions as time permits. i would ask each of you to stand up briefly as your name is announced. from your right, john sales, aka sergeant shaft of the new york times. viola giner. chip beerman, military secretary to the commandant and guest of our speaker. jim michaels, military writer, usa today. bonnie amis, wife of the speaker. vice chairwoman of the speaker's committee. i will skip our speaker for a moment.
andrius stone, senior national correspondent, the covington post, and organizer of today's event. brigadier-general paul kennedy, director of marine corps public affairs and guest of the speaker. lolita baldorf, national security reporter. john donnelly, senior writer and defense reporter, member of the national defense club board of governors. ken dolecky. thank you all for joining us today. [applause] general general amos became the 35th commandant of the marine corps on october 22, 2010, defeating general james conaway. his appointment made him the first career aviator to lead the marine corps and the first time in 30 years that an assistant
commandant was promoted to the top job. a former fighter pilot, he commanded the third therefore swing during the early days of the iraq war. later, as a commander of the expeditionary force, he took delivery of the first operation ospreys, the sometimes controversial tilt rotary aircraft that has suffered a series of fatal crashes. he has been one of the aircraft biggest boosters, announcing that the fleet would be cleared for operation in japan after an investigation ruled that a crash in morocco was due to pilot error and not mechanical problems. he has been stationed at nato's southern headquarters in naples, italy and the pentagon. on september 11, 2001, his office was destroyed by american airlines flight 77. fortunately, he was in another part of the building when it
hit. secretary of defense robert gates nominated him as commandant in summer of 2010. by choosing an aviator to redefine the role of the seaborne force that has operated as a defacto army, gates showed a willingness to shake up established bureaucracies, seen as an innovative thinker about future combat and charting the course and direction beyond the current war. soon after becoming, doc, he was mired in the culture wars when he became an outspoken opponent of the ending of the don't ask, don't tell policy, prohibiting gays from openly serving in the military. he predicted such a change would become a dangerous distraction that would harm combat effectiveness. less than one year later, the obama administration repealed the policy and he wasted no time implementing the order, telling
marines that the corps will step out smartly and faithfully to implement this law. he called the repeal a non-event and was pleased with how it has gone. in another sign of the times, the most male and macho of the armed services next month will enroll the first benin in the marine corps infantry officer school in quantico, virginia. although they remain barred from most ground combat units. he ordered an online survey of marin's that ends this week, gaging attitude in the core. he said, "i am not one bit afraid of the results on this. i am very bullish on women." in two of the more widely publicized incidents, marines were seen on video urinating on the corpses of caliban fighters. in a separate photo, posing next to a flag that war a symbol
similar to that of the nazis. concerned the incidents brought discredit to the marine corps, he delivered a message that he would not tolerate allowing our standards to erode and to remind the marines that they are called to a higher standard. he is the son of a navy aviator who could not have been too pleased when james was kicked out of first grade in catholic school for misbehaving. however, he recovered and went on to graduate from the navy rotc program at the university of idaho before beginning his military career. now 65, he and his wife have two grown children and six grandchildren. they have been married for more than 40 years and like most military families, they have moved innumerable times. they now live in the longest continually occupied building in washington d.c. thanks to renovations of the historic house, they did not
move in until one year after he took the job. i would like to introduce our speaker, general james amos. [applause] >> after that introduction, i am reminded that my early days in idaho, every spring you would run out and grab all of the young bulls and heifers that were born the year before, gather them all together, and some pretty unseemly things would happen to the old bulls. it would all end up with one humiliating act of branding with a red-hot branding iron and then we would wish them farewell as we watch them out across the prairie. as i look out in this audience and think about my introduction, i feel like the young heifer or young bull that you are wishing good day, you're going to launch
me out into the audience of everyone here. thank you very much. i purposely am going to keep my opening remarks short. there is no shortage of things going on around the world today. some of it i am in the middle of and some of it i am in the fringes of. we have visibility on all of it. i would like to talk to you about a recent visit. we just came back from afghanistan the second week of last month and followed up shortly thereafter going to the pacific to visit marines in the canal for the 70th anniversary of the landing on august 7. australia, where we have marines in line with our new strategy, all the way up to korea and tokyo. i would like to comment on what the marine corps does for our nation. we talk a little bit about the
second land army. that is not why america has the marine corps. i will talk about that in a second. i have been going there for almost four years. my experience on the ground in combat is predominantly in iraq. i have been paying very close attention. the culture is different and the let -- the landscape is different. the war is different. from my early visits four years ago to the last one just last month, i have watched its steadily progressed and turn more favorable and more favorable. i am acutely aware of the green on blue. that was very painful for the united states marine corps. i am aware of the latest headlines that i saw this morning of the afghan citizens that have been murdered by the television. -- the taliban.
all of this is going on. each time i go there, i do not just hang around the marines. i actually hang around the commander of the afghan national security force. i have known him for many years. he is a former fighter for the afghans. he is probably the premier corps commander in all of afghanistan. i am out with him as he travels around and visit his soldiers. while we bring the numbers of marines down in accordance with the president's drawdown of the surge, which i support, by the way, as we bring those down, do not lose sight of the fact we have increased the afghan national security forces. 20,000 just in our zone. it is a little bit like a teeter totters. it is not either or. it is not, look what has happened, there is a vacuum. there is a very capable afghan
national army on the ground in the province. as i visited on this last trip, talked to the commanding officers, we would get in the v- 22 and fly all over the area very safely and efficiently, i might add. we would land -- our goal was to go to every combat outpost where we had marines. we did our best. i came away this time more positive about the change than i have in all of the other times. i note that almost is probably counterintuitive, but the last thing my commander said as we got on the v-22 way up in the northern part, the area very close to where the afghan civilians were murdered by the taliban yesterday. as we got on the airplane, he
pulled me aside and said, this is a marine colonel. i want you to hear from me, we are going to be ok. things are going very well with the afghan national army. their commanders have stepped up. they're young soldiers have stepped up. does not there will not be problems and some tragedies and challenges, but he said, we are doing quite well. i just wanted to pass that to you. there is every reason for optimism. it does not mean there are not going to be issues. it does not mean i will not have to look at the moms and dads of my marines and put my arms around spouses and family members and hold them dearly because of some great tragedy. it does not mean that is not going to happen. if you step back and looked at where this is trending, we have every reason for optimism. certainly down in the helmet province. it is well-led not only by our
commanders, british forces and allies, but almost more importantly by the afghan leadership to include the provincial government. that is the visit there. switch to the pacific if you would for me. bear with me for a minute. the trip began in hawaii and ended up in tokyo and went for many days. i am never staying in one place at the same time, just continuing on, bouncing through the pacific. down in australia to talk with the senior leadership of the military part of the government about the realignment of forces. what does this mean to the marines? we ended up in darwin, in the northwest corner. we went south, where it was 35 degrees, to darwin. it was about 4.5 hours and 88 degrees. yes, we ate some kangaroo and crocodile.
got a little bit of a taste of the culture. more importantly, we were with the 200 marines up in garment trading -- in darwin trading with our -- training with our australian counterparts. once we're step aside with the pace, something around, the 500 marines training with australian counterparts. the pacific, why? first of all, america is a pacific nation. five of our most important mutual defense treaties are in this region of the world. here are some statistics that will help bring everything into focus. the asia-pacific area is home to 61% of the world's population. 15 of the world's 28 mega-cities are in the asia-pacific area.
12 of the top 15 trading partners for the united states are in the asia-pacific. as we think about isaac and the potential for national disasters, more than 70,000 people are killed every single year. not every decade, but every year, by natural disasters in the asia-pacific area. that is a little over $35 billion worth of damage every year. if you think about opportunities for marines and u.s. forces to help our partners in the pacific as they recover from the national disasters that are so prevalent. we are america's expeditionary force. we are a crisis response force. that is what we do. we get to places very quickly. ideally, we do that aboard naval ships. all of this is paid for. the equipment belongs to the marine corps and the ships belong to the navy. we are deployed and ready to respond. secretary panetta said when the
realignment is done with the pacific, we will add 22,000 marines west of the international line. we are very familiar with that. we cut our teeth in world war two starting down in new zealand. as we work our way around that part of the world, it became almost a spiritual experience for the marines who were traveling with me. when you step on the ground and walk across the beach at the canal and realized what landed there, those selfless, great patriots not only from our country but from australia as well. you realize we do have a lot of experience in the pacific. it is a backyard that we are very familiar with. our youngsters are not, but some of us oldsters are. we are not the least bit intimidated by the strategy. we think it makes sense. finally, the point about america's crisis response force.
the issue of a second land army has come up a couple of times. usually, my comments run like this. i make no apologies for being on the ground. we settle in next door to our allies, more specifically the united states army. we have fought their pretty hard -- [laughter] ray, i did not mean it to come out that way. but our partners, we have been shoulder to shoulder for the last nine years. we settled down in the province because we were told to do that. we crossed the border in march of 2003. all of us were there. that went very quickly. then the hard work in iraq began in february of the next year and lasted for a long time. we settled there. it is not what america buys and funds a marine corps, but we did it and we did it pretty damn
well. i make no apologies to anybody. we left 2.5 years later feeling very good about setting the conditions for the latest opportunity for success. afghanistan now. we are exactly in the same boat, only smaller numbers. again, i make no apologies for being on the ground in helmand, shoulder to shoulder with our coalition partners. that is -- that is what has happened in the 237 years of marine corps history. -- 911 force. we used to say that before september 11. that was the bumper sticker for the marine corps in the 1980's. it implies that you can get there, do something rapidly, and
do it tonight. we say we respond to today's crisis with today's force today. not 30 days from now, not four months from now, not 45 days later after i called together a force and we train, we are sitting there with readiness. america needs a force that can do that. america needs a forced where you can put them on a ship and a plane and they can leave tonight. they have their stuff with them. they do not need a chow hall. they do not need to sleep in king kansas. you can sleep in pretty rough conditions. we respond rapidly and have a high state of readiness. some numbers on what you get for the amount of money. we are right at 8% of the total department of defense budget.
that is everything. that includes the blue in support of grain. the aviation we get from the navy. it is 8% of the total department of defense budget. you get a force that sits poised and ready to do exactly what we did in libya when the ships came up and the marines were poised, providing some decision space for our leadership. you not only get a force that can go down rapidly to the philippines to help with the aftereffects of a cyclone that passed through two weeks ago the way we did. you get 11% of the fixed wing aviation in the department of defense. 15% of the maneuver bids for ground forces. 18% of the rotary wing attack 18% of the rotary wing attack