tv American Perspectives CSPAN November 20, 2010 11:00pm-2:00am EST
bill plant. >> thank you, mr. president. nato's commitment to afghanistan extends through 2014, what about the u.s.? it's possible, given the circumstances that there maybe a need for troops and combat action after 2014, is the u.s. committed? if it's your decision, will you keep troops committed in a combat role if necessary? .
to make sure both our country and their country are both safe. the other thing that i am pretty confident we will still be doing after 2014 is maintaining a counter-terrorism capability until we have confidence that al qaeda is no longer operative and is no longer a threat to the american homeland and to american allies and personnel around the world. it is going to be important for us to have platforms to execute those counter-terrorism operations. that is true in iraq as well. obviously, that is even more true when it comes to al qaeda. after having made these extraordinary efforts by so many countries, we do not want to have to suddenly find ourselves in a situation where they waited
us out and we consolidated. my goal is to make sure that by 2014 we have transitioned, afghans or in the lead -- afghans are in the lead. certainly our footprint would have been significantly reduced. beyond that, it is hard to anticipate exactly what is going to be necessary to keep the american people safe as of 2014. i will make that determination when i get there. the last question is from portugal. >> good afternoon, mr. president. thank you for answering my question. in what ways will the recovery of the american economy helped
portugal. thank you very much. >> one of the things that we learned over the last several years as we have dealt with this worldwide economic crisis is that every economy is interlinked. we cannot separate what happens in the united states from what happens in portugal, for what happens in korea, from what happens in thailand, from what happens in south africa or brazil. we are all interconnected now in a global economy. obviously as the world's largest economy, what happens in the united states as a profound effect on europe. the reverse is true.
our general assessment is that the trajectory of u.s. growth was moving at a stronger pace right before the issues of sovereign debt in greece came up in the spring of this year. when that happened, not only did that cause a significant dip in our stock market, but a lot of companies contracted in terms of their investment plans because they were uncertain. they understood that what happens in europe could affect what happens in the united states. the most important thing i can do for europe is the same think that i need to do for the united states and that is to promote growth and increase employment in the united states. we have not grown for five consecutive quarters. we have seen private-sector job growth for 10 consecutive
months, but the pace is too slow. my main task when i get back to the states and over the coming year is to work with republicans and democrats to move that growth process forward and to make sure that we are growing faster and we are putting people back to work. it is a difficult task. hysterically what has happened is that when you have a financial crisis -- restore clique what has happened is that when you had a financial crisis -- historic pally what has happened is that when you have a financial crisis you have to dig out of debt. strong headwinds are created when it comes to growth.
we get taken some important steps already. i want to take more steps to encourage business investment, to help small businesses hire. we think infrastructure development in the united states has the potential of boosting our growth rate to a significant level. we are going to get to do all this, though, and at the same time be mindful of significant public debt. it would be nice if we did not have the inheritance of big deficits and big debt and we could simply pop up the -- we could simply pump up the economy. we need to focus on reducing our debt in the medium and long
term. but i think every european should have a great interest in making sure the united states is growing faster. one thing we talked about at the is that for all of us to grow faster we have to rebalance the world economy. before the crisis, you had a situation where the world's economic engine was u.s. consumers taking out huge debt using credit cards, using home equity loans to finance a lot of imports from other countries and other countries in developing huge surpluses. a lot of money washing around the financial system, all of which contributed to the instability of the system. we will continue to push for countries with big surpluses figuring out how they can expand demand.
countries with significant deficits will have to save more and focus not just on consumption, but on production and exports. the currency issue plays into this. there is going to be an ongoing debate about making sure that surplus countries are not artificially devaluing their currencies in a way that not only inhibits our goals, but world economic growth. in terms of portugal, everybody has been magnificent. i admit that the weather was better today than it was yesterday. everybody assures me that lisbon is supposed to be beautiful this time of year. yesterday was a little wet, but i was endorsed any way. the people of portugal have been unbelievably kind and generous to us. i want to thank the prime minister and the entire
government for the excellent work that they have done. i hope that we will be able to return the favor next year. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> sunday on "newsmakers," the role of the democrats in the 100 well congress. we will look at how the party plans to transition to the minority, and the plant to work with republicans, and what kind of liberal ship -- and what kind of leadership they want to pass. james clyburn will be interviewed by politico. watch sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span.
here is our schedule. next, the national governor's association post a seminar for the incoming governors to advise them and their transition teams. later, the chief judge of the appeals court discusses how the tuon aects security issues in the courts. after that, pete domenici and alice rivlin unveiled their plan for reducing the national debt by $5.90 trillion by the year 2020. documentary's competition is in full swing. make a video on this year's team, "washington, d.c., through my lens." upload your video before the deadline of january 20 for your chance to win $5,000. the competition is open to
middle and high school students in grades six through 12. go on line to the student cam.org. * it is all available to you on television, radio, online, and on social immediate networking sites. find our content any time on c- span's video library. we take c-span on the road with our local content vehicle, bringing our resources to your community. now available in more than 1 million homes. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> now, the national govnor's association post a seminar for the incoming governors to advise them and their transition teams on a variety of issues. we will show you a news conference starting with remarks
from the governor of colorado. he is joined by a incoming governors for the next half hour. >> we are delighted to host this association for the new governors coming up. the chair of the national governor's association will speak in a moment. the incoming chair will make remarks. this is a historic time. there has in memory never been more you governors in the united states than there are this year. this tradition of bringing
governor-elect together with governors who have served, some who are retiring, some who are moving on, and doing all we can to talk about the experiences that we have had. we know in this country we are at a place where it is still a very difficult time. the governors in this country will face enormous challenges and it is important for us to do all that we can as an association to prepare those governors for the kinds of challenges they will face from a policy perspective there are a lot of things that involve the daily life of being a governor. we do it without regard for money or partisan issues. it is our hope that this national governor's association can actually represent a bridge
to help us sort of bridge those places can become a little more expensive during campaigns. we need to come back together as the nation's governors to work on the issues that are important to the people of this country. we have to continue to do that. one of the ways of making that a stronger likelihood is our being with these governors and the governor-elect. we hope you'll take something away from this. it has been a great meeting in that respect. now i get to introduce the chair of the national governor's association. our outgoing chair is senator manchin. she has taken over and done a fantastic job. >> thank you, bill.
on behalf of the association, first and foremost, thank you to you and your wife for hosting the event. candidly and even more importantly, take you for your wonderful service to the great state of colorado. you had been of great service to the country. we thank you for your leadership of the last four years. we have been joined by some of our other governors, some newly elected. if you please introduce yourself. >> i was born in colorado springs. >> there you go. >> welcome back. [laughter] >> we will have governor-in just
a moment. >> i had been chosen by my colleagues to serve as the chair of the national governor's association. our governors or facing an unprecedented economic crisis in their respective states. i can tell you, when we come here, we do not come here as republicans or democrats. we but the elephants and the donkeys aside. we come here as governors of our respective states. i will continue the effort that was begun by my% assessor -- that was begun by my predecessor. to me, our nation is falling behind in regard to our competitiveness. our children, who today are dropping out of high school, or a lost resource to all of us. those who make think it is impossible to get a degree, we
want to open up the doors and say not only can you, we need you to. we need more majors in science, technology, engineering, and math. we need to have the best and brightest as our employees and we beat companies to hire our students to have the experience and education necessary. one of the issues we will be talking about over the course of this year is how do we restore the rightful place of our students in the competition globally to be number one again. that will be what unites us. that will keep us going forward. we also will know that we have budgets to balance. we have health care issues. we have public safety issues. i had been a governor for six years. the role of the governor has changed dramatically in america. six years ago you may he had a national disaster and paid attention to it on the day it happened. today demonere set to stand ready.
in the case -- today we have to stand ready. these governors are called upon to do that which their predecessors did not have to pay much attention to. i cannot be more happy to have these 29 new governor in lex joins the national governor's association. this is the largest class in history. the closest was 1920 when there were 27 new governor-elect. they will give us a new energy and some great new perspective, but they will join some colleagues who really do have the priority of what is right for america. it is a great opportunity to for us to get to know our new colleagues so we can unite around the issues that are important to the people in our respective states and our nation. i am blessed to have a wonderful partner.
he is a great leader of the state. he is going to be a great partner for me in leading the association. i would like to introduce to you, governor david hyneman. >> i want to start by thanking governor richard for hosting us. we cannot be more pleased. we know that they are a tremendous couple. we appreciate their service to the state of colorado. i want to the knowledge that publicly. secondly, i am looking forward to my partnership with the chairwoman. we worked together across partisan lines. we all understand what the job is as governor and, in our respective states, we work with legislators, both republicans, democrats, and independents.
i just want to share with you, governor nixon of misery is a democrat. just two weeks ago, missouri came to nebraska to play football. i invited governor nixon [laughter] he wants to forget about the first quarter. i invited governor nixon to come to nebraska and he came. the citizens of our state were very impressed that he did the zero governors could be walking around the governor's residence in lincoln nebraska, chatting with the residents of nebraska. every time we host a tailgate we have friends from other states. that is how we develop these personal relationships that are so important. we are trying to share that now with the governors-elect.
they should be thinking about budgeting, scheduling, how they will work with their staff, how you can utilize the nga, which is a great resource. they can answer all sorts of questions for you. they give you the research and knowledge you need on any individual issue. what i want to emphasize is that governors or leaders. we balance our budgets every year. we resolve our challenges. we take them head on. we make tough decisions. if you talk to any governor in the country right now, we are focused on jobs, the economy, and education. i cannot agree more with what the chairman said about education. it is one of the most important issues facing our states and our country. i think it is very critical. i think the states can be a model for the federal government. i would hope they can learn from
us that working together does pay off. it is important. that is what the american people what. they want us to work together. yes, we had a competitive races for the governorship, for the presidency of the united states, or the congress. but at the end of the day we are all americans and we should be working together. thank you. [laughter] [applause] >> are there any questions? >> you have alluded to this somewhat, but if you look at popularity ratings for governors they are close to all- time lows a nationwide. what does that like, sort of being -- >> on popular? [laughter] we have a relationship where i can finish his questions.
governors have to make very difficult decisions. we do balance our budgets. we lived to the worst recession since the great depression. there is a lot about the economy that tends to lag. because of that, there are unenviable choices. that can tend to alienate interest groups that is part of serving now in a time of difficulty. one of the things we are doing is talking about that. what the seminars today is about budgeting. part of that will be if you are in a state where you must balance the budget, you'll have to make some difficult decisions. how'd he do that? how do you ensure there are shared sacrifices? part of that is going to be that when you alienate people, they are going to say,governor,
this is not something i amatin favor of." it will come a time when this economy will pickup and it will be better. the governor of wyoming used to say that his popularity went up and down with the amount of rainfall in wyoming. things are did did people in public life of benefit from that. when they are difficult, we experience downfalls in popularity. i think everybody in this life understands that. it is time to govern. you have to govern without regard to the polling or favorability. you just have to do the things that are necessary to move your state along. >> perhaps we could hear from some of the new governors about the shifting policy or the shifting policies.
there has been a major political shift here. >> one of the objectives of the n.g.a. is to take the politics out of our policy discussions. we found we could do that. we were able to find a way to do that when there were more democrats than republicans did it has shifted the other way. there are a lot of things about the political landscape nationally. i do not think it is in the last incumbent on those serving as governor in these times. our association is about bipartisanship. >> i would just make one comment, i do not believe it is
about politics this year. i think it is people ahead of politics. those of us who are campaigning on getting the people of our state ahead of politics is why you are seeing a shift. it is not just governors. it is legislators, senators, congressmen, and even the white house is having a rough few months. it is all about getting the american people ahead of the politics. >> i think the more important number is the 29 new governors, not just republican or democrat governors. this is what does to get things done. they did not elect us to be popular, they elected us to get things done. if we did that, they will be happy. it boils down to jobs, the economy, at our budgets. we appreciate being here to help prepare for creating jobs in
balancing our budgets. >> i would like to hear a couple of different governors respond to this. from the governor's perspective, what are the things that you learned in which she would have that, ahead of time looking back, i wish somebody would have told me this. for the governors-elect, what are you finding more difficult from transitioning to -- more difficult transitioning from campaigning to governing? >> it is important in this transition period -- everything that is coming to your legislator. -- to your legislature.
what you do not what is a surprise in the first 100 days that can derail you. that is one of the things i learned the hard way. other governors? >> one day we talked about yesterday was in the last six years i have had more emergency declarations banned in any time in history from natural disasters. drum while ours, -- from wildfires, up to droughts, to floods. i do not think i was ready for all of that. what it entails any partnership that is called for on the local level and the federal level, the one thing i share with my new colleagues is there are a lot of things that are going to happen you cannot be prepared for. this is one you cannot predict, but you can be prepared for by making sure you appoint the
right people. yet to make sure emergency management is ready to go. you have to make sure the structure is in place. situational awareness is key at that point. that is the lesson that i learned the hard way, if you will. i pass that on to my new colleagues. quite the thing i would share with you, we did not have an authority to go to governor- elect orientation because she was going to a recount. the way i became governor in nebraska, my predecessor was asked to be the secretary of agriculture. on january 20, he got confirmed. on january 21, i took over. he included me on everything. what i would like to share with the governors, know your budget in detail. know your two-year budget in detail, but also be looking at the four-year big picture.
that is one of the most critical things you have to decide as governor, where are you going to put your funding priorities. i think that is absolutely critical. another thing i shared this morning, the yourself. -- be yourself. i do not think we can't forget that. >> first of all, not a 5% of the success -- and 95% of the success being a governor is the people use around yourself with. you may be pressure to appoint one person or another because there may be some kind of symbolic value or otherwise. that may be good -- that may be a good story for a day, but you'll be known by the people you select. you really have to focus on the
quality of the people. the second thing from my perspective is that you cannot get distracted by the base that are meaningless. i think you solve this last election. i just got back from china last sunday. what really struck me is i was there seen the level of economic activity in china and tie 1 and how poorly served we were during these last few months of this campaign by a debate about economic policy that has little to do with what we as a country need to do. i am a democrat. for too many democrats to focus in on excess executive compensation, for too many republicans, the only answer was to get government out of the way entirely. did you look at some of the economic activity that some of the states are achieving, they had figured out a way to partner between governors and the
private sector. one of the things about this organization, although we are democrats and republicans when we come here, that is pretty much irrelevant. for may, when i am is here, it does not matter if we are democrats or republicans. i am just looking for new ideas from others. as the other said, it is being true to yourself, being genuine to the budget, focusing on the things you know in your heart and head really matters, and surrounding yourself with good people. >> when i went to africa a couple of decades ago, they have a saying in zimbabwe, the same thing but different. it is very much the same. the people may be different, but having an opportunity like this where we can learn from our predecessors in a very structured way, even something
as simple as scheduling or how to put together a cabinet, that stopped is the same as it ever has been, adjusted for details. having republicans and democrats working together, trying to make sure all 49 new governors have smooth and effective transitions is a tremendous advantage. it is called monopolies. it is corrupt. in the public sector, there is no law. we have been lucky that the governor of colorado, his team went out to the way to give us all the information and support that we need. that ability is one of the things that sets this country apart. we do have an elective process where we have elections. we are creating each year better transitions where we can hit the ground running.
>> other questions? yes, sir. >> yet the stark political shift. yet low approval ratings. is that going to hinge or propel your ability to deal with the economic crisis? >> we will just deal with that. i do not want to oversimplify here, but my experience as the downturn is that you just have to chart a path forward. you got to do as much as you can to bring stakeholders together and get them to develop a sense about choices that are on the table and how to express that. it can be by budget cuts or reconciliation of budgets. it is just a difficult time. we are on the ground. you are at ground level and you do not have the luxury of doing anything but taking the budget and figuring out how you meet
services and health services and revenues meet. >> the one thing -- i want to reiterate what he said, as we work our way through these tough times, we have to focus on how we get through this year or this biennial budget. we do a terrible disservice to our respective states. we have to look well beyond four years. the decisions we are making today will impact whether we have good economic growth tomorrow. whether we had the educated, skilled work force we need for tomorrow. that is what we, as governors, are talking about here. yes, how we manage the crisis? that is today's problem. we have to look at tomorrow and see how we pull out of this with this nation ready to go. >> can i just add one thing that i want to question that was in your premise that governors have
a low approval ratings? i do not see that in my state. i do not think it is true for all governors. i think our citizens appreciate what we are doing. they like the fact that we are willing to make the tough decisions. the which the federal government would do that. i think i get a lot to states governments -- governors are well respected and they have approval ratings that most elected officials would like to have. >> i will be very candid and very straightforward. i was a mayor. i was elected governor because we made the tough decisions. we have turned the corner. we have dark fiscal house in order. we have built up our rainy day fund. the people of our state said, fine, come do it for the state.
that is our mission. they want us to get our house in order. it is not about this year or next year, but the future of the united states and the future of our states. >> i think my good friend, the governor of missouri, should come up and say a few things. >> p.s. got to be a very good winner over the years. i predict they will continue to dominate the secondary lead they had moved to. [laughter] in football. basketball is another story. i think these new governors will make a difference for people. my only comment will be that this is a job that is two jobs
at the same time. you are ceo of an organization, but you also have to embrace and lead your state. yet to enjoy its great diversity. i think that is the real fun of this job, whether it is governor ritter getting to fish and out here or the governor of maine at a meeting good rain gear. [laughter] that is -- that gives us a bond. that is important for chief executives to deal with whether states are going, not just for us or our state, but the people that are out there writing every day to find better jobs to move forward. hopefully that is something we can import on our new great friends as they join us in this
very small group. it is a huge responsibility to lead. >> this is for any governors to like to answer. because of the environment you are serving in and out typical your decisions are and how unpopular many of them are, is there a recognition generally that a lot people may be one- term governor's? >> if you're thinking about that, you're thinking about all of the wrong things. we pay some significant challenges. but the challenges are those that belong to the people of our states. a governor laid over and ask me a question about the low approval ratings of governors. he said, "frankly, they are lower in congress." if they are lower in congress, they are higher for governors. we recognize we have serious
challenges and we are dealing with them. we are a very focused on a handful of things. it is about putting people back to work, it is about improving schools, and it is about making government more efficient. that is it. he did not have the luxury to focus on other things. my sense is there is a consensus among democrats and republicans alike who are here in colorado springs. it is the same spirit of partnership and cooperation and shared learning did it existed in washington, would be further ahead as a country. >> i have been tried to call those who could not be here today and ended up on a telephone call with governor- elect brown. he faces a shortfall and has already cut billions. i asked him, much like the question you just asked, what is your attitude going into the
next four years? his direct response was, "i will make tough decisions. what is good for california for today and tomorrow, irrespective of the polls and irrespective of four years from now." they do not have the luxury of living or barley or making new money. we have to balance the budget. we have to make the tough decisions. we do so because we love our states, we love our country, and we came to do the best job we could do it respected the polls, a respected but elections. thank you. [applause] quite good job. thank you.
we have not made that leap. >> we will go to a whole series of things. you do not just make two-year decisions. >> when all the new governors are sworn in next january, democrats will have 19 new positions, republicans and 29. one race has yet to be called in minnesota. the decision could still be weeks away. the one independent governor elected this cycle was in of rhode island.
-- was in rhode island. he is succeeding the current governor do is a term limited. mr. chafee served the ocean state as a senator from 1999 until 2007. he switched party affiliation from republican to independent in 2007. >> earmarks account for 0.5 of 1%. i got what they are on-line at the c-span video library. search and watched programs explaining earmarks. >> like all men of great guests, when they give up power, even though they may get it up for principle, they are handcuffed the moment they get
it up. >> edmund morris exam is the finest -- examine the final years of theodore roosevelt's life. that is sunday at 8:00 p.m. on and "q and 8." -- "q&a". >> yesterday, he spoke at the federalist society convention of republican and libertarian attorneys to discuss how the constitution affects national security issues in the court. this is 35 minutes.
>> this memorial lecture series started with ted olson's inaugural lecture. it reminds us of what it means to be an american and how our legal tradition is a critical part of our identity as americans. both ted and barbara understood this connection. we want the lecture series to remind lawyers up it said they foster legal principles, a vast individual freedom, personal responsibility, and the rule of law. we are delighted to have ted olson with us today. his inaugural lecture was followed by kenneth starr,
justice scalia, judge randolph, vice-president cheney, and chief justice roberts. we are, today, very pleased to have the hon. dennis jacobs to all of these lectures. judge jacobs is the chief judge of the u.s. court of appeals for the second circuit. president bush appointed him to the second circuit in 1992 where he has served as chief judge since 2006. his education includes a master's in english literature at the advanced age of 21 from nyu finished everything required except the dissertation before his phd. he spent his entire legal career litigating on commercial matters.
he became a partner in 1980. in addition to be deeply versed in the law, judge jacobs as a superb reputation for fairness and for the quality of his work. he does not stop with the law. not surprisingly, given his literary background, he reads vary widely and has a great love for music. perhaps more surprisingly, i understand he has a large personal knowledge about catastrophes ranging from the titanic to earthquakes. however, the rumor that the democrats after the 2010 election and the republicans after the 2008 election, it is apparently unfounded. [laughter] one other little detail about our speaker, we are grateful for him stepping out envelopes for our meeting we were started
in the mid-'80s. we appreciated his speaking to us a number of times. one other interesting facts i mentioned about judge jacob is when he was nominated, the senate was quite divided. senators were placing tolls on the president's nominees. senator biden was the chair of the judiciary committee. one senator had placed a hold on judge jacobs. for various reasons, he dropped the hold with the plant being had a difference senator placed the whole on judge jacobs. that was a fairly common practice, but something went wrong. the hold was never transferred. as a result, judge jacobs has now been on the bench for the next -- for the last 18 years. [laughter] [applause]
and we are honored to have this just committed to the rule all -- to the rule of law. judge jacobs. [applause] >> thank you for the opportunity to deliver this lecture. barbara olsen spoke to us about compelling matters with directness, candor, and wit. it weighs on me to do justice to this occasion. i am will talk about lawyers at war. more particularly, the professional elite and the bar associations and the military of our own country. i am not the first to notice that among the educated class is in this country, there is a prevailing hostility towards all
institutions that are organized on a military alliance or have similar military values. suspicion of the people in these institutions and professions -- the police, the fbi, even the boy scouts. this is nothing new. i am not parting the curtain. it is part of a wider fashion. whenever many americans consider the military, the worst thing they can bring themselves to imagine is the only truth date no. -- is the only true that they know. seriously because of our power, our influence over the constitution, our weight in policy, and the roles that we have been given and have taken
in american life. with us, there are consequences in features beyond the cultural dide. it becomes a great and consequential problem. what we hold and trust should cause us to examine ourselves by their standards, even if we are not flattered by what we find. so far as i can see, the distinction between the military and the bench and bar is not remarked on in our profession. i started with the premise that this is pervasive in the lead to legal communities and myriad institutions, bar associations, law firms, and their pro bono project, the law schools in all their works, the courts, the judges, jurisprudence itself, what can be called big block -- big law. i will talk about how this came about. this is unbecoming to the legal
profession and distorts our law. it is downright dangerous. ironically -- [applause] because ironically, it weakens rather than titans the control of the military. the isolation of the military can be explained by the existence for -- of the old volunteer force, among baby boomers in the upper reaches of the legal profession, military service has been rare. those in the military in enlisted ranks are assumed to be mentally limited or luckless refugees from backward areas of the country. to be sure, they are not like us. there is a well-grounded impression that the demographics and characteristics of people in the military differ from the
makeup of peopleho form the illegally leaked. secretary of defense robert gates observed at duke university that the propensity to service most pronounced in the south, in the mountain west, and in rural areas and small towns nationwide. the percentage of the north and the northeast, the west coast, and major cities continues to decline. , the military is composed of southern and mountain types. we are unit coastal or by coastal. many of them are rural. we are urbanites. albeit with country houses. the military maintain secrecy, while we profess an interest in openness and disclosure. there is the money. the military does not have our share of women, sociologists,
gays, volvo drivers, english majors like me, persons with handicaps, the elderly, me again, and so on. to be clear, i am an example of the urban league's elite, the little island i live on as manhattan. i drive a european car and i did not serve in the military. i am not here engaged in special pleading. given the differences between our spheres, our encounters would be limited, in any event. in the elite institutions of the bar and legal education, people in the military are actually sequestered or excluded altogether. there seems to be no effort in the law to correct this exclusion. in the law school, separation is policed. law sools welcome to their faculties of law officers --
philosophers, ethicists, political scientists, even crimals. there are few with military experience on the self-selecting lafaculties. this absence is most remarkable among the considerable faculty teaching in the law of war, human rights law, and treaty law. i asked a member of a distinguished law faculty, many of these colleagues had served in the military. after some thought, he said, one, adding after moment that the service was in the israeli army. the banishment of r.o.t.c. from campuses have counterpart in the longstanding ban on military recruiting in the law schools. today, there is a competing moral imperative, the need for federal funding prevent the actual excluon of military recruiters, but i am told some
law schools circulate a cautionary memo telling students to stay away from recruiters. other schools takother measures with the result that military recruers have no visitors to their desks. although official statements may say otherwise, it would seem that in most elite law schools, military service is not credited as public service for purposes of scholarship funding or preferential admission. i would bet that it is easier for law school applicants to claim the credential of public service by having done voter registration in the cemetery than by a stint in the navy. thus, recruitment is prevented in law schools. i know it is an article of faith that there is a principal ground
for hostility and discrimination. many people feel strongly about the policy called "don't ask, don't tell." the alienation i'm talking about predate the clinton-era policy. aversion to the military became a dominant current of liberal and academic during theconomic region during the vietnam war. since then, it has not abated or much developed. young people have been indoctrinated to recoil from all things military and have bee taught to attribute that instinct to the policy on gays. there is unfinished business in this country when it comes to gay rights. opposition to a de "don't ask, don't tell" policy is unresolv, but it has a contextual element. if it is no longer not asked, the will be other reasons. women excluded from combat, homophonic -- homophobic hostility in the ranks,
institutional bias, and so on. prejudice never runs short on its fuel of rationalization. it must be said that the citizens of the republic should be wary and skeptical of the military, as they should watch with caution over all government institutions. even lawyers should be watched. but, distrust of government power by the legal leetss largely suspended when it comes to many centers of government power that are staffe by lawyers. epa ,eeoc, osha, not to mention theourse. as to these institutions, the bar and the judiciary seemed to be deferenal, trusting, and nurturing. when it comes to the military professions, even military boy hearing, the distrust manifested by american legal institutions becomes a fixation, a calling,
and is considered a badge of honor. some of the hostility against the military by the legal elite has to do with the culture of the lawyers themselves. their functional. their financial. they're politically interested. they are pretentious. between lawyers and the military profession, there is a competition for prestige, resources, influence, and authority. it is an uneven competition among our natural bandages. there are all the legislators and all the courts. there are few a external constraints on our exercise of power. internal restraints are deficient as well. as a profession, we are not self-examining. are critical and investigative skills are always directed otherwise. law and competition does not get along well with others. we intend to press our
advantages without apology. we celebrate our dominance as judicial independence and the rule of law. this competition has become intensified by war. lawyers and judges are o the view that someone -- something is of great importance, it can be safely left to us. we lack humility and approaching -- in approaching great matters. we tend to assume that adversarial hearings will render judges on a competent -- omnicompetent. our mindset is that if something is of greatest consequence, such aspeech, thought, expression, race, identity, and sexuality, property, life-and-death, it cannot safely be left to any ultimate influence or insight but hours -- ours.
conflict is one of those great matters. civilian judges have reserved the last word on all consequeial matters. we think it is normal for it to exercise power over the taking and detention of prisoners, interrogation, conscientious objection, surveillance, military tribunals, and so on. there is a structural problem. the legal profession is not vested with responsibility for defense of the nation. it is a positive virtue of our system that judges are not held accountable for our decisions. in matters of defense and intelligence, it is critical that there be scrupulous accountability, the kind that can be located only in the political anch. if critical measures are impeded by lawyers in terms of constitutional questions and a judge rul on them, there are constitutional requirements.
honored as service -- the best graduates of our law schools are impeded from contributing to the military and the insights of distinguished lawyers and judges. in other times, the military has been a place where people out in different advantages in life came together and to know each other and trust each other. it must have made a difference whencitizens of privilege, education, and prospects interacted every day for years. for the privilege went on to read -- to wield influence. i discussed these subjects with my colleague, the judge danny parker, who was a trial judge.
to his observation, it had an impact on sentencing. judges have known shared experience and even camaraderie. people who appeared before them for sentencing. judges could appreciate the strength and the instincts of those who had been without a head start or a good hand in life. the judges had known peopleor their honesty and courage and had encountered them in ranks other than the criminal classes. the harsh sentencing regimes that prevails zero sum of the distinction between military and the rest of us. i said that a war had intensified to fell competition between the legal the lead and the military. i think that that is why the legal elite is reltant to
acknowledge the it advantages that are given to the military and intelligence and military calculation and response. they gain resources, influence, deciding policy and strategy. they havthe indispensable insights and critic experience. they become heroes, however unwillingly. because this elevates influence in government, policy, and constitutional imperatives, th thereby discounts and subordinates our own. this displaces the legal elite from its sole place of prestige in american life. both lawyers and soldiers have indispensable roles and defense ofur constitutional government. the constitution means a certain amount of flexibility and reciprocal accommodation.
some competition is inevitable, the antipathy of the lawyer a leak makes the competition destructive. constitutional values, and due process, civil liberties and civilian control are pressed into service as instruments for preserving our dominance. it is not surprising that this manifest obviously in the ongoing debate over how to classify the threat from terrorism. this is a matter of national defense or a matter of law enforcement. the arguments lime cosines. to my observation, this promotes this alien role of the lawyer test. many lawyers deny that we are at war. peace is a time when soldiers are a contingent asset and
lawyers are sent so the lawyer e. lead has an interest in the ninth ward. -- the lawyer e. leelite. competition and antipathy also met assessed themselves as perot bono activity and defense lawyers ideas on what of the publ good is. the fiasco following the 2000 election, i watched on television and if ere were many lawyers who argued that absentee ballots mail in by those should be discarded later on. maybe the balance relates to property disqualified him. ahoy i would not have except an advocacy role. mahethe lawyers would have scord
was discussed the work of any other groups in this country. i suspect that every last one of them would happily served pro bono, the right for felons to vote in jail. there was something alien of them serving in the military and it worked their idea of the public good. by the same token, many inmates of the facility at one time obey find themselves over represented. the assistant attorney general tells us that 34 of the 50 largest law firms in the country have advocated on behalf of guantanamo detainees. and some family courts, soldiers and sailors are found to be unfit parents because they are being deployed abroad.
the defense of guantanamo detainees has been cast as a courageous act of vindicating e finest addition of our profession, to protect the accused and despised. i hesitate to judge a lawyer that many have had to take. the civil-rights movement created her role models for the movement. it is hardly an act of courage for lawyers to do the most fashionable thing they can do, to do so to the applause of the associations, the law schools, and the media, and to enjoy the advocating on the big controversial issues, not to mention the thrill of rep clients who would kill the lawyers if they could. that is if military officials were not standing by.
[applause] experience is that peoe do not fall all over each other to commit acts of courage. permit me to doubt the outpouring of resources. one of those selfless acts was from a wall street law firm. somethinglse drives this phomenon. the main struggle and the competition between the military and the legal community has to do with civil liberties. lawyers have an interest in exaggerated threats to civil liberties said to be posed by measures designed to protect the nation. consider the civil liberties litigation that arose when the nation's libraries were allowed to show what was checked o by people at the various libraries. it was just an inquiry but allowed them to identify ted
kosinski as the unabomber. his manifesto had been cribbed from books he had taken out. that at the side -- episode excited no anxiety. why should this? i remember that every had a card in the back coverat recorded their every person who are of that book. the idea that this controvsy involves a threat to liberty was overwrought. but, this is of a peace emotionally with other litigation challenging the country under attack, litigation resolving habeas corpus, guantanamo, etc. this allows lawyers to cast themselves in a heroiand dominant role as the real defenders of the constitution in league of course with the journalist to chronicle their
achievements on behalf of the constitutional order. why do lawyers worry? what we lose if the military joins us in preserving the constitutional government? illegals damage and and the military are not exactly engaged in the same project. for lawyers, the constitution is means to other ends. law professors and meno the intricate workings and the mainstreams of the constitution and many of them use their skills is to meddling, the way a good safecracker regards a safe. anything that diminishes the primacy of lawyers vis-à-vis the constitution is something that undermines a claim of entitlement abided the elite bar and the professoriate and the judges to control the constitution.
whatever the legal merits might be, the litigation i'm talking bout. the theater of litigation allows a lawyer cast to set itself up as the true defender of the nation and its people. the more numerous the civil liberties issues, the easier it becomes for litigators, law school clinics, bar committees, and associates to present themselves as the authentic defenders of the constitution in actual opposition to the military and in opposition to law-enforcement and intelligence professions that value military service and internalize military values. competition has sharpened. lawyers cannot just doing the other side. we haveifferent skills sets, tactical imagination, culture,
values, attitudes towards physical risk, we cannot shine or prevail in the other sphere. what is at stake is -- lawyers and the military are in competition foronor. the word has lost currency but the concept has lost none of its potency. the greatest danger for our country is structure. in order to maintain civilian control, we need civilians to understand the military. what they do and who they are. they have a rivalry. how weapons work, which are needed. what they should cost, how to allocate resources. strategy, tactics, intelligence, logistics'. who to put in charge and listen to. when to check the military. when to mobilize. all of these are things that i
don't now. it is not due to watch some powers in the hands of civilian leaders who, like me, are ignorant of military life and culture. it is worse to put in charge civilian leaders who are suspicious opponents of the military, just as such powers should never be in the hands of jingoists or military groupies. it is not necessary or possible that all of our leaders should serve but i think that the skills needed for effective civilian control are required only by the management of responsibilities, the weighing in of insurmountable values and consequential action taken decisively in ambiguous conditions. this is not by a degree in public policy or by general publication, by a fellowship abroad, or an international
tribunal. it cannot be easy to heal the breach between lawyers and the military. whenever cultures merged on common ground, there is adjustment going on and we calibration. there is no way to do this without discomfort. first, it must be embraced as a worthy project. the law schools need to be unsealed. pro bono activity should be credited as much by service to the military as by suing it. [applause] the judge advocate general course should be recognized as integral for the common project of justice. those in the military service should be recognized by us as
appears in the defense of our nstitutional republic. the military calling should be understood to be a profession among professions, ancient, honorable, ethical, expert, and indispensable. thank you for listening. [applause] >> earlier this week, the associated press reported that alaska center lease some accounts the won reelection despite being a white in candidates. that is the first time that has happened in almost 60 years. the senate finally has a complete 100 members for the
next congress. democrats retain control with 51 members, including two independents who say that they will caucus with democrats. one of the new republicans is center a elected jerry quran of kansas. he will be -- senator select jerry moran of kansas. now, the seat is left vacated by sam brownback who won the position as kansas governor. >> earmarked account for less than one-half of 1% of the federal budget and it is part of the agenda for the upcoming 112th congress. searched the library learned the arguments for and against
earmarks. is washington your way. >> like all men of great gifts, when they give up power, even though they may give it up for principle reasons, they begin to hanker for the moment that they give it up. >> in the third volume of his trilogy of theodore roosevelt, edmund morris looks at the final years of theodore roosevelt's life. >> earlier this week, former senate budget committee commissioner and the office director unveiled their plan to reduce the national debt by nearly 5.9 trillion dollars- $5.90 trillion. the plan calls for spending cuts and changes to the tax code including a 6.5% national sales tax and a one year payroll tax holiday to help stimulate the economy. held at the museum here in
washington, this is almost an hour. >> on behalf of my friends, -- senator bob dole and senator howard baker, all like to thank you for joining us. this morning. if we can learn anything from the results of the elections earlier this month, it is that the american people are anxious and frustrated with the state of the economy and with our mounting public debt. our economy and our future as a strong, prosperous nation are threatened by the prospect of soaring deficits and debt in the coming years. debt and deficits that will be driven by the aging of the population, the continuing growth of health care costs, and the reluctance of policymakers
to reduce spending to cut the cost of public programs. we are running the risk of the debt growing far larger than the economy itself, forcing the nation to borrow huge sums of money. this will increase our dependence on foreign leaders and lenders and start our vital defense programs, raise the risk of economic crisis, and weakened our economy and our nation in the long run. we cannot leave this legacy for future generations. we all know that we talked about this problem for long enough. now is the time for action. that is why we are here today. after months of meetings and negotiations, a bipartisan policy center desk -- debt reduction task force is releasing its landmark report to chart a new course to rebuild our economy, to reduce the stabilize our debt, and to take control our destiny. the task force is a bipartisan group of former white house and cabinet officials, when former senate and house members, former governors, mayors, and labor leaders forced this plan
by working together. it placed all options on the table from steep spending cuts and to significant new tax increases and developed a consensus plan that they can now support. of course, the choices they made were not easy and the choices that the president, the congress, and the american people will have to make will not be easy either. reducing the nation's debt and restoring our future will
require sacrifices on everyone's part. but it can be done. as the task force as demonstrated by its work. this plan will not be possible without the leadership of the task force's degette note cochairs, senator pete domenici and alice rivlin. it is my good fortune to work closely with alice in several capacities and pete as a colleague. remember, it was president clinton who worked tirelessly for months with peake and other republicans and democrats to balance the budget for the first time in nearly 30 years at to start us on a path of four straight budget surpluses beginning in 1998. i can think of no better individuals suited to drive this debate forward in the months ahead. with that, i will turn it over to pete. >> well, first let me thank the
senator for sponsoring this effort. we are here because the bipartisan policy center thought this was a big enough problem for them to take on and support and i want to thank jason. the is the president. it was this got going, it did not spare any effort to get it done. first, i want to again thank all of you for being here this morning -- i want to thank -- i want to again thank all of you for being here this morning. the american people and america face a quiet killer that is eating away at the foundations of america. let me repeat -- we confront a quiet killer that is eating away at the foundation of america and that is the growing deficit and the debt that comes with multiple years of deficits. as admiral mike mullen said earlier this year -- and i want everybody to understand that we operated on this basis -- that our national debt is the most serious threat to america's national security.
so for those who ask should the military sacrifice also, the answer is -- everybody must sacrifice and every part of government must share in the sacrifice so that this quiet killer will not eat us alive before we can have a chance to fix what is our doings. our task force recognized two twin problems. one was the lingering, high joblessness and the poor economic growth that comes with it. at the same timethe highest debt this nation has ever run. two realities and two responses. the task force has done deep- rooted and powerful thing in responding to these two realities. parsed, we recommend -- and i want everybody to understand that this has not been recommended publicly as part of the solution to this problem,
but we did it because we solved the problem on how to make sure we did not exacerbate the debt. we propose a one-year tax holiday of the social security payments due from over 140 million american workers, men and women, and their employers. they will keep 6.2% of the payroll each end every payroll check that is issued for one year. if you are interested, that means that our people will have $650 billion to spend or save up in that year. we did that because as the second part of one package we put together a package of debt- reduction programs, which alice will go over with you, and the tax changes and tax increases, the sum total of which permits us to say the economy can begin to grow and, at the same time, a bill will pass that will curtail these expenditures of
our country, reports the tax code, which will be explained to you by one of our most ardent supporters of tax reform -- he will follow on sued to do that. i want everybody to understand that this is a total plan. it does the job. it this was turned to legislation and adopted, this silent killer that is eating away at america's welt -- we are getting poorer day-by-day -- that killer will go and in its place will come worth and prosperity. for the next two or three decades, the debt will be under control. i think that is a tremendous achievement and i am so pleased that this bipartisan group of men and women from all walks of life decided it was big enough
for them to come to meetings from far away and you were many, many days and many evenings to put this package together. in the end, some disagreed with parts of it, but nobody chose to say as a totality, as a whole proposal, nobody chose to say they did know. i think that is the testimonial to the moderate nature of this package. it is not extreme. i want to close by saying it will not be done if there are not as a visit leaders in america to pursue it. our members or leaders. they will pursue it, but we need, beyond that, we need the president of the united states to lead with reference to this
plan. he can look it with this experts and see if he would choose to be a leader openly and publicly in getting this job done. in closing, i want to say that although might co-chairman and i have had issues and problems of the serious nature as we did our jobs during our allies, but nothing that we have ever done comes close to the tsunami that is part of the economic problem that we have. it is an economic disaster awaiting sunday, some time, and not so distant in the future. it must be fixed, or we are letting america go to seed. we will not be a leader in the water if we do not fix this. i only pray that the people will respond without having to see the results of this debt. if they want to wait around and see us fail, see our money debauched, at all the things that will happen if they wait this long, did this will not work. that they want to accept the problem, which is an american
problem, the debt belongs to everybody. it is our destiny to fix it. with that, i am pleased to announce that we are going to have dr. rivlin explain the thing. we had a member who is on a tight schedule. we wanted to speak. if he will come up here, i want to enter do stupe the former governor of the state of oklahoma. -- i want to introduce to you the former governor of the state of oklahoma. i want to say thank you for today and for your great input. i cut you tell america how it is going to work. thank you. [applause] >> as the senator said, this is a consensus document, but that does not mean that we all agree with everything. the long-term retirement and solvency, i had to produce about how this should be put together. there are two statistics that frighten me.
first, by the year 2020, $2 trillion of revenue will have to be used to pay of the debt. by 2025, all the revenues coming to topple saddam will go solely to medicare, medicaid, social security, and the debt. for me as a conservative, what is dramatic in terms of encouraging growth and opportunity? fundamental reform of the tax code. what we propose here is to
reduce the tax rates, not only corporate, but individual tax rates from 39.6% to 27%. 15% and 27% will be the two tax rates. the corporate tax rate will go from 35% to 27%. that should stimulate overseas investment and sales. the others should stimulate individual decisions that have nothing to do with the tax code, but everything to do with what we as individual family members and business owners think is best for our families and businesses. we want to keep mortgage interest deductions and charitable contributions in as a tax credit, eliminating other benefits, deductions, and the like, so we could have two simple rates. people can have the decision for what is best for them. in order to reduce the spending and the debt and get the budget in balance by 2012 and dramatically reduce the debt to 60% of gdp, we propose a national sales tax -- a debt
reduction sales tax of 6.5% for that purpose. i think for growth and opportunity purposes and to get rid of the debt and the deficit, to avoid the long term fiscal insanity of spending more than you earn, spending more than comes in, these are the right things to do. for me as a conservative, i did not win every battle, but much of this is excellent public policy. [applause] >> before we go into more details of the plan, we wanted to introduce the members of this great group.
some of them are here, for which we are very grateful. some came from a great distance. some could not be here, but we appreciate their input as well. we have governor jim blanchard from the great state of michigan and also a former ambassador. he has been very helpful on this. we have sheila burke, prof. and sometime -- and longtime senate staffer made major contributions. we have bob campbell, he brought lots of business experience to the table. we have henry cisneros, a former mayor of san antonio.
he is a very distinguished contributor. we have a former cabinet member in the clinton administration from the commerce department. he has come from a long distance just to be here this morning. we really appreciate that. we have bill hogueland. he voted for both me and pete domenici. he is now with cigna insurance. frank keating, who you have already met. a small business organization that has had major input on the small business side to this report. joe is from the committee for economic development. he also works in the administration of the hill.
mcginnis, donald merrin. edward mcelroy who has been a longtime member -- a longtime leader of the teachers union and had major input. mark marial, the former mayor of new orleans. tony williams, the former mayor of this very city and former colleague of mine. >> let me say so everybody will know, dr. rivlin and i last night we met together to conclude our work, she made the statement that this was the most important activity that she has taken in her long career.
i want to say the same. if it had not been for the people that were introduced, they understood that everything was on the table and they also understood that the future of the country was on the table. each one of them, you can tell, had a lot to do. they wanted to make sure that we provided something very positive that we can grow at the same time, get our debt under control. i want to say that it was a pleasure working with you at to see you react the way you did
when we needed votes and to come to consensus, it is something that says to america it that this can be solved by a bipartisan input if leaders want to and if they decide it is better to save the country than to save their political future. they -- if they want to make that decision, it will be solved. thank-you. >> i want to explain briefly what is in the plan, then we want to take your questions. you can see a short lady all of a podium. i have not fallen off of one of these yet. [laughter] as senator domenici said in introducing this plant, we were really concerned about the
challenges -- accelerating the recovery, which is an absolute necessity, and restraining the explosion of debt, of boarding a debt crisis that could blow up into a worse recession than the one we had before now. we propose a package to attack these twin challenges. the first is a payroll tax holiday for one year, both sides of the payroll tax, employer and employee, which frank spoke about. we think that would have an immediate impact. it would keep money on the paychecks of many wage earners in america. it would be a significant boost to the economy. we also believe that a deficit reduction plan should be phased
in slowly. we have done that so that it doesn't derail the recovery. we are proposing a very drastic tax reform, which frank keating has talk to you about. i am very proud of this. i think it is a very interesting piece of legislation. if it became legislation, it would give us a slightly more progressive tax code than we have now. it is definitely simpler and more pro-growth. we have gotten rid of almost all of the deductions and exclusions, a spicy the exclusion of employer paid health benefits. -- especially the exclusion of employer paid benefits. improving the art income tax credit with eight wage credits and, also, a child credit. we do have a broad-based consumption tax. 6.5% rate, which we think is a moderate rate. we think the tax package as a whole, and it has to be seen as
a whole, would be pro-growth, pro saving and investment, and somewhat less pro-consumption. then on the spending side, we have held discretionary spending for four years at a freeze. that means no more money. there are very important priorities that the government must meet. they have to fit under a hard cap. that means we will have to do last with some of the things said are duplicated or no longer a high priority. a hard freeze for five years of the defense side. we believe we can have a more -- it has to be seen as a whole and it will be pro-growth and pro saving and investment and somewhat less pro consumption. then, on the spending side, we have held discretionaries
spending for four years at a $1 freeze. that means no more money. there are very important priorities that the government must meet with appropriated spending and it has to fit under a hard cap. that means we will have to do less with some of the things that are duplicated or no longer a high priority. similarly, on the defense side, a hard freeze for five years. we believe we can have a more efficient and effective at military if we forced the pentagon to look at its priorities more so than they had been doing and to rethink exactly what america is doing in the world.
on the health care side -- and this is the most important part of the budget for the long run -- we have two parts to our recommendation. in the shorter-run, we reinforced the cost reductions that are in the recently passed health reform bill. we would raise the part b premium on medicare. we would recommend tort reforms that were not recommended in the health reform bill. we think that can help avoid expensive at madison. but our biggest proposal is to transition medicare to a premium-support program
beginning in 2018. we see that as a way of controlling the rising costs of health care, medicare in particular. we would control at at no greater than the growth of the economy. healthcare has been growing faster than that. we think between now and 2018, we can't figure out ways in which it can grow at a more moderate rate. the way we propose to do that is to get medicare recipients a choice. they could stay in traditional medicare, but if the cost of traditional medicare went up faster than the growth of the economy, they will have to pay
for the privilege of being in the traditional program. the other option would be too good to a medicare exchange and it used among managed-care plans that would compete on the exchange. we believe that this competition would likely reduce the growth of cost and improve the quality. it would depend on the exchange be well organized and putting out a lot of information about the cost and the outcome of alternative plans. we have other reforms in the package, civilian and military retirement, agricultural benefits, and, finally, social security. i am going to turn to bill novelli. let me say one other thing, we do have process of reform in the report as well to enforce all of this.
we think those are extremely important. let me turn to bill to talk about social security. >> before you speak, could i just make one comment? i would like to make sure everybody understands -- when we say the american people we want our country to grow and we want people to be put back to work, we have reduced taxes for all of the working people and the employers for one year by putting into effect this holiday. at the same time, we expect a package including that would include a reduction in the debt that are provided in this plan. you cannot do one without the other.
you cannot use the tax cut and not do the other because you were exacerbate the debt. when you take our package, including the new tax that we will put in, you put the two together and you have a dramatic reduction in the debt that helms the american people and, in the meantime, they would receive this tax holiday, which we believe will make the economy take notice and move. the two go together. not one, but both together to promote the restraint and reform so that you get both growth and debt reduction. those are the twins. thank you for letting may impose on your time, bill. you are next. >> good morning, everyone. i am build a valley.
i have worked on issues affecting older americans and their families for years. i am committed to adjusting our fiscal crisis that guarantees adequate retirement security for today's and tamara's older generations. the plan we are putting for today will strengthen says security so that it can pay benefits in a fair and equitable way for the next 75 years and beyond. it will do so while protecting america's most vulnerable seniors. here is what the plan would do. it gradually raises the amount of wages subject to payroll taxes, which is now one under $6,800 over the next 38 years
to reach the 1983 target of covering 9% of all kweichow worse. nets, our plan changes the cost of living adjustments for social security benefits so it more accurately reflects inflation. that is a technical change that would be applied to all programs, including the indexing of the tax brackets. our plan also slightly reduces the growth in benefits for approximately the top 25% of beneficiaries as compared to current law. the plan raises the minimum benefit for a long-term, low- wage earners and to protect the most horrible scene years with a modest benefit increase. also, beginning in 2023, indexes the benefit formula to take into account increases in life expectancy. we have to take into account longevity. it requires decisions security administration to ensure that
early retirees understand that they are choosing to receive a lower monthly benefit when they do retire early. these changes are designed to increase the incentive to work longer while not raising the full retirement or the early retirement age. finally, the plant makes social security universal. it makes it a universal system by covering newly hired state and local government workers beginning in 2020. . .
thank you, bill. >> and we have commissioners and experts here and they were left -- that are sitting on the front row. we have -- if you have a really technical question, we will turn to him. >> do you have any questions? could you talk about your goals in the overall portion? were you aiming for revenue neutral or revenue positive and growth as well? >> we were aiming for revenue positive. that is in the combination of the income tax and the consumption tax.
>> do you need a number? check -- chuck will find this a number. >> we do restraint programs of government more than the revenues in post. in other words, it is more than 5050. -- is more than 50/50. >> much of the revenue increase comes not only from the consumption tax but also from eliminating or changing the form of tax expenditures, which is under both income taxes. >> the secretary is supposed to be the main head of kellogg. he flew in from southern methodist where he attended the dedication of the george bush institute and he called me and said that he had to go there but he would fly back and be present for that is how they have helped
us all along. everybody agrees that they will sacrifice. >> i think we have another question over here. >> alan clark, does your proposed freeze on defense spending include a freeze on operational costs? >> it does not include the operational costs, the war costs, and we expect those to come down. >> is that what you mean by the word operational? >> yes. >> if we take that out, we assume that it will not be what is right now. we will take a good look. >> i am laurie montgomery with "washington post."
you hear about these plans from your party. we cannot let taxes go up this much without cutting spending more. my question is why did she not cut spending more? >> we cut spending a lot. what we want is something that can be voted for not just by democrats, but by republicans, also. if we cut more, then obviously we have something that a lot of people can support. i personally think that the to freeze is that we have would do a very big injustice to programs that are necessary. i want to remind the people that are worried about that as you look at this plan, the cuts in programs exceed the revenue that comes in. that is a pretty good test. we started off thinking that we could do this.
he should see what the cuts look like when you do that. you have to come up with a moderate document. we will not wait for moody to write or promissory note. >> let me come back to the number question. it depends what period you are looking at, the one from 2012 until 2020, the total revenue increases would be $2 trillion and $188 billion. the spending policy cuts would be slightly more than that. if you go out further, the
ratios shift. if you look at a longer period, like 2012 until 2014, we have more spending cuts than revenue increases. these numbers are in your packet. they exclude the debt service savings, which are also huge. >> you might hold that up. everybody that picks up one of our packets, there is a simple graph in there that shows what goes in and what goes out, expenditure -- expenditures and revenues. they are on the table. it explains it better than we can. >> question over here. >> can you just go through a little bit about how the trust funds would be held harmless even with the payroll tax holiday, how that would work? >> yes. it simply, the trust fund would be reimbursed for the lost
revenues from general revenues over a 10-year period. >> so, you could not do what we choose to recommend if you did not have something like our tax package. we have an adequate tax receipt coming in to repay the trust fund for what came out in that year that we gave, what is it, holiday. i have certain -- i have trouble with certain words. "holiday" sticks in my brain. >> he has never had a holiday. he does not know what it is called. >> i ought to forget something else. that is the answer. yes, sir? >> two questions. your two biggest savings in health care is the taxing employee health benefits and the
medicare support. can you talk about what is the political feasibility, what is the likelihood? what is the message? how do you get this through? >> i am glad you brought this up. part of the tax reform, which we regarded as part of the health reform, is gradually phasing out and eliminating the exclusion of employer-paid benefits from in come under the income tax. that has been controversial. certainly, economists and even political folks of the right and left think it is the right thing to do, as long as you don't do it too fast. the idea was recognized in health reform in the form of the cadillac tax. we regard this as a better
version or substitute for the cadillac tax. from the point view of health reform, its effect is to discourage people from having an overly generous help plan that does not -- health plan that does not have sharing. economists think that the effect of that would be to increase wages over time as the expense of benefits. you would have a larger component of your compensation in wages. that gives you more revenues. that is true. i think it does. that gives you more revenue in the social security system and in the regular tax system. >> with regard to your comment about aarp and political
feasibility, a couple of quick questions. i am speaking as a member of this task force and as a citizen. i look forward to sitting down with aarp and my colleagues, and going over every one of these items in detail. my experience with aarp over the years is that older people really understand the importance of their children and their grandchildren having a secure future. the way i see this, i think there is a lot of political feasibility if we can engage the public, if we can help them to understand how really extreme this problem as. i think we can do that. >> let me come back to the second part of your question. i did not say anything about converting medicare to premium support. we believe that that is feasible and that it is a way of controlling the growth of cost,
both because the competition on a medicare exchange would give us more efficient medical care, and because the government could control the rate of increase of the subsidies. the total program, including those who didn't want to go to the exchange, wanted to stay in traditional medicare, would go no faster than gdp plus one. >> i would like to make a point, and we will decide how many more questions, but i want to make a point i failed to do in my opening remarks. we are asked -- i am asked, can this really be done? my answer is twofold. this is a package. you cannot cherry pick. you will end up either creating a debt that we cannot afford, or
you will leave unanswered questions after you finish your work. so, you must do the whole package. i would say there is something brewing over in the government at the united states called the bill to extend the debt. debt limit. the debt limit cries out. the last election seems to indicate that the american people would cry out. it says, if you want to increase the debt limit, why don't you fix the debt? that is an opportunity to take a package, like our package, and submit it. i would submit that the president of the united states, if he does not get a good package out of his people they're recommending, and i am not sure how that will go pt, -- will go, we need to do that anyway. we need only one leader.
we need them to get engaged in this. so, what will happen is that we will put this package together, the taxes, expenditures, reductions, the other parts that are exciting, and say to the president and the american people, if you want to reduce the debt so you can vote for the extension of the debt limit, then let's be serious about a bill like this. >> you have had one. here. >> senator, you talk about this being a moderate plan. isn't it a very radical to suggest a national sales tax, given current political realities? >> i am not sure. i don't think so. what you have to do in our society, free as we are, we have to solve problems in ways that
will work. we have a big problem. it cries out for big solutions. what we have done is we have a sales tax that is as broad-based as we can get. it is as much a consumption tax as it is a sales tax, or more. regardless of the climate, the overriding climate is that america is in trouble. the silent killer is about to get us. we don't know when. it behooves leaders to tell the truth and to provide truthful solutions. we need something like the sales tax for the debt that we propose, or we cannot solve this problem, and we wait back until something really bad happened to this great country. >> i would characterize it as bold, not extreme. >> simple. >> senator, can you talk a bit
about your assumptions on future national growth? what are your assumptions on the growth of the economy? secondly, what is your analysis of the impact of these changes on investor behavior, business confidence, and so on? is it dynamic? do you expect there to be greater confidence, more investment taking place? >> we started as almost all conversations about the future of the budget -- budget start, with the the -- with the generally accepted baseline. it has moderate growth in it. we expect that this package would accelerate growth, both in the near term and in the long run. we think that the tax package is much more pro-growth, pro- investment, and pro-saving, as
well, than the current tax code. but, we cannot prove that. we don't have numbers to go with -- to go with that. >> nobody can. >> nobody does. >> people can say they know how, but they don't know how. somebody get the gentleman. >> just because he has a camera does not mean he cannot ask a question. >> you took on a lot of the tax expenditures. why did you retain the ones that you did? secondly, what is the cost of the mortgage interest deduction converted to a credit? finally, do you detect appetite in congress to follow through with a lot of the reforms you are proposing for tax expenditures? >> why did we protect -- joe is
looking at the numbers -- why did we protect the ones that we did? i think it was for pretty obvious reasons. the home mortgage deduction has been important to home ownership for a long time. it is not constructive in the best way. converting it to a credit, at the 15% level, which is what we do, would be much more beneficial to moderate-income and low-income homeowners, and less at the top. as i read it, we have just been through a time in which we built too many high-and houses. there are many reasons for that. the encouragement of the mortgage interest deduction was part of them. charity we also think is a worthy cause and should be retained. then, our child credit, that is
a longstanding thing in the tax code, important to families with children. we put it into a better form. the earned income tax credit, also, aids people who earn low wages as essentially a supplement to low wages. but, you have to have a file to get it. that is pretty complicated. under our new system, you wouldn't have to file. it would come right out into your paycheck. your employer with -- would know. he pays your wages. it would be a straight credit that would be figured in your paycheck. >> we are getting pretty long
here. i don't know who is in charge. >> have you had any conversations with members of congress about this package yet, specifically mr. boehner and mr. reid? >> i haven't. >> he is not allowed to. >> i will in a little while. sounds crazy, but it happens to be true. >> we have brith many members of congress and their staff. we have shared this plan with the presidential commission, of which i am a member. we have shared our plan. we briefed simpson. they are grateful for the input. they have said so. we have shared the staff work as
well. there is a lot of good stuff here and people ought to see it and benefit from it. >> last question. >> ok. the last question. >> way over here? >> yes. >> i am an attorney and free- lance writer on economic issues. would the commission be open to an earlier start date for this discretionary spending freeze in 2011? if you use 2011, you are freezing the spending increases the last two years. >> well, i think to say we would never be open to anything would be improper. we are open to look at anything. we did what we did because we wanted to make sure that what we were telling the public about this package, first, we have a holiday that we want to take effect so that people and their employers, the working people,
would get this rebate. that will stimulate. regardless of what the people say about the government, nobody did it because they did not have the way to pay for it. we do once we have a package put in. that is how we were able to pay for it. we have to phase in the caps on spending, or we will have an adverse affect. we will have them bumping into each other instead of a time lapse between one and the other. >> let me respond this way. you cannot exactly accelerate earlier than 2011. we are in 2011 already. but, if you look at what the effects of this hard freeze would be over time, it would bring us back to the spending levels in real terms that we had
earlier. this is a very severe cut over several years, may be too severe -- maybe too severe in defense and discretionary spending. it does not allow increases in response to inflation or growth of the population, or any of those things that drive spending up. >> the freeze does not include the war. it does not include the stimulus. >> the stimulus is phasing out. >> thank you, folks. >> thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national
cable satellite corp. 2010] [crowd murmurs] >> sunday on "washington journal," michael shear on what the congress can expect from its newly elected leadership. then, wesley clark talks about progress being made in afghanistan and other u.s. national security issues. after that, former house speaker newt gingrich discusses the incoming republican-led congress, and the similarities between them and the 1994 gop takeover of congress, plus your e-mails and phone calls.
"washington journal" live sunday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> in his weekly address, president obama calls on congress to ratify the u.s.- russia nuclear start treaty. after that, senate republican leader mitch mcconnell gives the gop address about his party's legislative priorities, including job creations and extensions of the bush-era tax cut that expire at the end of the year. >> today i would like to speak to you about an issue that is fundamental to national security, the need for the senate to approve the new start treaty this year. the treaty is rooted in a practice that dates back to ronald reagan. the fda is simple, that the two nations, the united states and russia, have a responsibility to work together to reduce arsenals and to ensure that our national security is protected.
the u.s. has an interest in tracking russia's nuclear arsenal through an effort that puts inspectors on the ground. as president reagan said when he signed the nuclear arms treaty in 1987, trust, but verify. that is precisely what the new treaty does. after nearly a full year of negotiations, we completed an agreement earlier this year that cut by 1/3 the number of long- range nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles that the u.s. and russia can deploy, while ensuring america retains a strong nuclear deterrent and can put inspectors on the ground in russia. the treaty helped us reset our relations with russia. russia has been indispensable to our efforts and unforced strong franc -- strong sanctions on iran to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists. all of this will be put to rest if the senate does not pass the new treaty.
without ratification, the u.s. will have no inspectors on the ground and no ability to verify russian nuclear activities. to those who reject those who would block the treaty are breaking president reagan's rule. they want to trust, but not verify. we put at risk the coalition we have built to put pressure on iraq and the transit routes through russia. without ratification, we risk undoing decades of american leadership on nuclear security, and decades of bipartisanship on this issue. our security and our position in the world are at stake. since the reagan years, every president has pursued a negotiated, verify arms reduction treaty. every time that these treaties have been reviewed by the senate, they have passed with 04 -- over 85 votes. bipartisan support could not be stronger. it has been endorsed by republicans from the reagan administration and both bush administrations, including colin
powell, jim baker, and henry kissinger. it was approved by the senate foreign relations committee with a strong bipartisan vote. over the last several months, questions have been asked about the treaty. we have answered every single one. some have asked whether it will limit missile defense. it will not. some have asked that we modernize our nuclear infrastructure for that with first century. we are doing so and planned to invest at least $85 billion in that effort over the next 10 years, a significant increase from the bush a administration. finally, some make no argument against the treaty. they just ask for more time. remember this. it has already been 11 months since we have inspectors in russia. every day that goes by without ratification as a day that we lose confidence in our understanding of russia's nuclear weapons. if the senate does not act this year, after six months, 18
hearings, and nearly 1000 questions answered, we would have to start over from scratch in january. the choice is clear. a failure to ratify the treaty would be a dangerous gamble with america's national security, setting back our understanding of russia's nuclear weapons, as well as our leadership in the world. that is not what the american people sent us to washington to do. there is enough gridlock and bickering. but there is one issue that should read -- should unite us, it should be our national security. some things are bigger than politics. as republican dick lugar said, every senator has an obligation to stick -- to take a stand, to do his or her duty. the senator is right. the senate passes this treaty, it will not be an achievement for democrats or republicans. it will be a win for america. thanks. >> good morning. i am mitch mcconnell of
kentucky. as americans across the country prepare to celebrate thanksgiving this coming week, we are reminded of the many blessings we enjoy as a nation. we are grateful for the sacrifices of the brave men and women in our armed forces who will not be home next week. they make these blessings possible. we are conscious of the many americans who are struggling with serious heart chips, including the many millions of americans who are struggling to find work. at the moment, about 15 million of our citizens are loong for jobs and cannot find one. the employment rate has remained stubbornly close to 10% for a year and a half. we are experiencing what can only be described as a jobs crisis, a sustained period of chronic unemployment, and two years of policies that have vastly increased the size and scope of government, and added trillions to the debt, and has done little to alleviate the problem.
take the stimulus. here was a bill that was supposed to create millions of jobs and keep unemployment from rising above 8%. yet, since democrats passed it nearly two years ago, more than 3 million people have lost jobs. the economy barely has a pulse. the american people delivered a clear verdict on this and other failed experiments. democratic leaders in washington continue to act as if nothing has changed, including their priorities. the top priority of most americans is to create jobs and get the economy moving. the single best thing we can do in washington to achieve that goal is to prevent a tax hike that is about to hit every taxpayer and hundreds of thousands of small businesses at the stroke of midnight on december 31. that is why i proposed a bill in september that would take care of this giant tax hike, and
prevented from going into effect. unfortunately, democratic leaders have shown little interest in the idea. after adding trillions to the debt on big government policies most americans did not ask for and which we could not afford, democratic leaders say they need more money, which they intend to take from small-business. small businesses create the majority of new jobs. americans do not think we should be raising taxes on anybody, especially in the middle of a recession. instead of giving americans what they want, democratic leaders plan to use the last few days that lawmakers expect to spend in washington this year focusing on everything except preventing this tax hike, which will cost us even more jobs. immigration, a repeal of don't ask, don't tell, a reorganization of the fda, more environmental regulations, democrats put all of these things off until after the election, along with the most basic task of funding the government.
they're focusing on it now. they are showing where their priorities lie. this should be an easy one. the bill that job creators and out of work americans need is to pass is one that ensures taxes will not go up, one that says americans and small-business owners will not get hit with more bad news at the end of the year. it is time congress got its priorities straight. it is time congress focused on job creation. that means preventing tax hikes. it is time to set aside the political votes and government spending that the administration and democratic leaders have put above all other priorities for two years. time is running out, but it is not too late for both parties to work together and prevent this massive tax hike from going into effect. it is not too late to focus on the priorities of the american people, and republicans in congress are eager to work with
anyone, republican or democrat, who is willing to do so. americans spoke loudly and clearly on election day. we owe it to them to show we heard them coming to work together to get this done. thanks for listening. > this year's studentcam contest is in full swing. make a video on this theme, "washington, d.c." the grand prize is worth $5,000. there are $50,000 in total prize -- total prizes. it is open to students in grades 6 through 12. >> next, a closing news conference at the nato summit in lisbon. president karzai, secretary
rasmussen, and ban ki-moon to questions on the time trade rigid timetable for withdrawing troops. this is half an hour. >> let me explain the choreography. first, we will begin with the signature of the president of afghanistan and then we will proceed with our press conference. secretary general, mr. president?
then, we will take questions. >> first of all, let me begin by welcoming president karzai and ban ki-moon to this summit meeting on afghanistan. the past few years, there have been many international meetings on afghanistan. all of them have been important and valuable, but this one is different. because here in lisbon, we have launched the process by which the afghan people will once again become masters in their own house. starting early next year, afghan forces will begin taking the their own house. lead in security operations.
2014. to achieve that goal, we must train and educate afghan soldiers and afghan police. therefore our training mission is crucial. trainers are the ticket to transition. this is truly a new phase in afghanistan's modern development. ten ars ago, afghanistan was torn apart by civil war, under a brutal regime, and hosting the most dangerous international terrorists in the world. today, despite all the
difficulties, al qaeda has no safe haven anywhere in afghanistan. the taliban is under pressure everywhere. and the afghan people are steadily getting freer, healthier, better educated, and better governed. that is what will make afghanistan resistant to terrorism tomorrow along with the afghan security forces we are training to take over security from us. but one thing must be very clear. nato is in this for the long- term. we will not transition until our afghan partners are ready. we will stay, after transition in a supporting role.
and as you just saw, president karzai and i have signed an agreement on a long-term partnership between nato and afghanistan that will endure beyond our combat mission. to put it simply, if the taliban or anyone else aims to wait us out, they can forget it. we will stay as long as it takes to finish our job. but of course, we cannot succeed alone. the military is necessary, but we need a true comprehensi approach. that is a clear lesson of our expeence in afghanistan. that is why i am very pleased that secretary general ban is here. under his leadership, the un has been a true partner for nato. indeed, afghanistan has brought the un and nato closer together than ever in our histories. and we will have much more to do together, to help afghanistan find the peace, security and development its
people deserve. mr. president, may i give you the floor? >> thank you for your posting, secretary general, and to you president ban ki-moon. ladies and gentlemen, we had a very important summit this morning of a nato and afghanistan in which i, on behalf of the afghan people, thank the members of nato for the contributions they have been making to afghanistan for the past nine years, for the sacrifices they have endured, and for the assistance they have provided to afghanistan with the taxpayers' money. i think them for all of that and inform them -- i thank them for all of them and inform the of the progress as we have made in afghanistan over the last years and also the continuing difficulties of the afghan people. i think them for the sacrifice of the men and women of natond in afghanistan and the help that have provided to education
and the well-being of the afghan people that have truly made a great difference to the lives of the afghan people. . . it has truly made a great difference to the lives of the afghan people. i also informed them of the concerns of the afghan people guarding civilian casualties, the tension, with regard to our posture. we also took a lengthy discussion on afghanistan's stand to adopt a policy
gradually to 2014, which was happily confirmed by our nato allies. allies. the world leaders at today's meeting demonstrated a keen awareness of afghanistan and of the realities there in our country. we also spoke about the peace process and the need for the world leaders to back the peace process and i'm glad to report to you now that on all the agendas that were common between us, i found vces of concord and agreement by the world leaders. i once again would express the gratitude of the afghanistan people, and thank you very much for very ably conducting that very important meeting for
afghistan and for pulling it together in a manner that will benefit the afghan people for a better future, for a more secure future, for a future in which afghanistan will be contributing toward security and the economy rather than one that will be a burden on the world's community. i thank you very much for it and also thank you for signing today the enduring partnership with us looked over and approved by the secretary-general of the united nations. thank you very much, gentlemen, very nice. >> thank you, mr. president. >> thank you, it's a great honor and pleasure for me to be standing with president karzai and the secretary-general. i thank you for your leadership over this very important
meeting on afghanistan we have just had a successful meeting culminating in the adoption of this decoration and nato-afghanistan partnership agreement. these important steps forward will all of your conferences in london, in kabul and on the ground in afghanistan. let me stress that the united nations will work closely with the government and people of afghanistan with other partners. we all share the same goal, stability, governance, respect for human rights, and harmonious relationship between afghanistan and her neighbors. there have been obvious difficulties in recent months, but we remain united and committed. we have to define the clear
path for transition. institutions have demonstrated that they can take on increasing leadership and responsibility the uted nations will do its part to support the aspect of this transition. we also recognize that there can be no military solution. afghanistan's stability and well-being depends on a genuine dialogue amongst all our friends revolve the country. the political solution has entered its initial stage. the united nations will support the process. as we move ahead, we must be guided by realities, not schedules. let us remember that afghanistan has been at war for several decades. the united nations has been working in afghanistan
throughout this period helping afghans at every moment of its country history. there are no short cuts to peace. the united nations is committed to supporting the afghans over the longer term. i thank the leaders of nato for their commitment and i pay tribute to all those soldiers and civilians, afghans and international, who have given their lives in this effort. the costs have been high, but the objective, afghanistan at peace, remains necessary and just. i look for a continuing close collaboration wi afghanistan and its partners in the period ahead. thank you very much.
>> a question for all three gentlemen. given the very serious challenges you still face on security, on institution building and on reconstruction, how confident are you that the 2014 deadline can be achieved. thank you very much. >> i'm confident that we can meet the 2014 deadline primarily because we see a rapid growth in the capacity and the quality of the afghan security forces. we started our training mission last year. already now, we have more than 260,000 afghan soldiers and afghan police. the numbers growing and by the end of next year, we have set e goal to have 300,000 afghan soldiers and afghan police and 85% of the afghan soldiers are partneringith the international troopin some major military operations.
more than half of the participating troops are afghans and they do a great job and this is a fact at why i'm confident that we can fulfill this goal and let me takehis opportunity to pay tribute to afghan security forces who do their job in such an excellent manner. >> we are confident that e transition will succeed to the afghan authority, leadership, and honorship because i found today strong commitment by the international community. this strong commitment by the international community will be matched by determination and hard work by the people of afghanistan, the two combined will give us the rests of an effective irreversible and
sustainable transition. >> the position taken by the secretary-general rass musen and secretary karzai, i believe the transition is not about the end of dates. it is about the state of affairs when afghanistan can take their leadership role, can take a more rulership to guarantee their own stability and peace. this will be a greater process and will reqre patience and commitment from the international community. you have the hart, but the strong commitment from world leaders and why transition will take place in military aspects, the international community will have to support an afghan
government in line with their national priorities this is what we have agreed in london and kabul this year. the united nations will be having the afghanovernment to build capacity for the civilian side of the transition. the united nations has been there the last six decades and the united nations will continue to be engaged in working together closely with president karzai and his cabinet and other international partners. thank you. >> my first question is to mr. rasmussen. as nato has said to 2014 to any threat outside of afghanistan and i wonder to know what is your thought about pakistan
interfering with internal affairs. my second is to mr. president. [speaking in foreign language] >> first of all, let me stss that the long term agreement we have signed today is not only a clear signal to the afghan people that we will stay committed beyond the date when our combat mission ends, we will not leave behind a security that will create instability in the region.
very friendly and substantial discussions on all issues that are of relevance to afghanistan and touccess of our joint mission. i was happy to see that there was in the signing of the afghan demands on the issues of the afghan people, this was during the summit of the world and appreciated and interested by the viewers attending the summit. i found an environment in which afghanistan's difficults and afghanistan's conditions, the realities the ground were substantially understood and agreed upon by ourartners. i hope that as we move forward that this will go away and that our movement to the future will be one without the difficulty
th you are encountering. generally i found the environment todayne of satisfaction and of confidence which is a partnership that will bring us success in our universe. >> canyon press over here. president karzai, as you know canada is withdrawing its combat troops from kandahar next year but it will remain militarily in a noncombat training role. i'm wondering what you think of th and what you think of what canada should be doing with its military after 2014. [speaking in french] >> could you reply to that question in french, please? >> sir, canada has been at the refront of assistant t afghanistan from the very beginning. the afghan people are extremely
grateful to the canadian contribution to the help of the afghan peopl canada's decision to continue to assist afghanistan after they have ended their military mission is welcome and i'm sure as it was announced today by prime minister harper that canada will continue to assist afghanistan with the traing of the afghan fors and with the construction and the continuity of canadian assistance. we are very grateful for that. >> [speaking in french] >> lau me to express my -- allow me to express my appreciation for the canadians
to give trainers for our training mission in afghanistan. this training mission is crucial for the transition process and i hope that the canadian decision will serve as an outstanding example for the allies and partners. >> president karzai, i would like to know as the second general said, all afghanistan, all people from afghanistan should be part of the process. i would like to know how is the current situation on the talks with the taliban groups or people from the taliban? >> well, we had a grand afghanistan meeting july this
year which proposed the formation of a high council for peace alongside other recommendations we have moved ahead on those recommendations and the high council for peace, they're now with their membership and leadership. the afghan desire for peace is strong and unanimous in afghanistan and i'm glad to report to you today that this was also recognized during the summit this morning, so there is an afgh unanimity and there is also backing by the international community. >> mr. karzai, secretary-general rasmussen, i'm on this side.
you have mentied, second general, that in october next year, there might be 300,000 security forces that are positive to the situation. what has changed that you are so positive that nato can hand over the responsibility in 2014? what are the positive results at the moment that you can mention that led to this decision you just announc? do you have military offensive in the south at the moment? will all the militaroffenses be completed until 2014? >> as i mentioned, i base my optimism on the fact that we have seen a very encouraging development on the capacity within the afghan security
forces. actually we are ahead of schedule in the buildup of the afghan security forces. and also as regards quality, we see strong improvements. so this is the first reason. secondly, we have sent in more international troops and we also see the positive impact alady now. we see more fighting, actually, in the south of afghanistan in helmond and kandahar. we are attacking the taliban strong holds and we are making progress and we will see steady progress in the coming months and years. so this is the reason why i am optimistic about fulfilling this timetable to start transition at the beginning of next year, complete it by the end of 2014. the road map outlined by
president karzai. having said that, i fully agree with u.n. secretary-general ban ki-moon that this process must be conditioned-based and n calendar-driven. we have to make sure that we do not leave afghanistan prematurely. we have to make sure that the afghan security forces can actually take responsibility before we leave, but based on the facts i have described, i think this is a realistic timetable. and according to that, i don't foresee troops in a combat role beyond 2014 provided, of course, that the security situation allows us to move into a more supportive role. >> president karzai, the
military strategy seems to be to fight and to begin talks at the same time, but you're the afghan commander in chief. you made it ear you don't want to see so much fighting and there clearly isn't a lot of very serious talking going on now. so if you don't like this strategy, what are you going to do about it? >> well, your pulling my legs. we outlined today during the summit a plan for transition towards 2014 whereby afghanistan will be ridding itself with regards to the forces and the capacity available for that. whereby our nato allies will be committing themselves to training and to equipping and providing the necessary tools for that event to happen and
take place on time. why we are moving in that direction, we also are keenly aware of the need for dialogue, of the need for talking to those who are fighting their own country for whatever reason that they have taken guns for. now, this was referred to in particular by the leaders attending this summit and understood generally by the meeting itself. so as i stand before you today, we are moving in the direction of transition to afghan leadership and afghan ownership. we are moving in the direction of conducting peace talks and afghan leadership back and understood and endorsed by the