tv U.S. Senate CSPAN August 14, 2012 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
like a sanskrit word, and, in fact, every sanskrit word means itself and opposite. john robinson famously said of india everything and its opposite is true about india. but every sanskrit word also represents a god and a position in sexual intercourse. so that, in some ways, is what i think about india. [laughter] it is both itself and not itself. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, orr vind. -- arvind, i knew you would deliver a provocative, wide-ranging talk, and i'm sure there are going to be tons of questions that i'm sure you will have answers to.
i'm just reminded after your last few comments about whether the glass is half full or half empty of the way -- [inaudible] who used to be ambassador in pakistan for the united kingdom, high commissioner, once described. he was talking about pakistan. when we were discussing the future of the country, he said it's not a question of whether the glass is half full or half empty, the question -- and he used his engineering background -- he said, the question is whether the glass is too big. >> right. >> and so i'm wonder willing the glass in india is growing too fast to keep up with. >> right. >> one of the points that you mentioned at the beginning was the fact that india has relied on domestic growth model rather than an export-led growth model which is what the international organizations had been
portraying to particularly the developed world for decades. and i'm wonder what do you see as the one or two key elements in that? will there need to be a greater infrastructure investment? will there need to be an opening up to foreign direct investment in the economy? what are the prospects of these? >> so, um, you know, india has shown that, you know, a country can grow rapidly without being a manufacturing, export-led model. i think the big difference between india and these other countries has been, as i've said, that we've used skilled labor, we've not done manufacturing exports as services exports, but by and large it's not been based on foreign direct investment and not been based on a heavy reliance on foreign markets. now, i think that this model is
sustainable. i mean, i think going forward it's not the case that, you know, we necessarily need lots of foreign direct investment and so on. but i think let's take infrastructure, actually, a good example, and take power in particular. now, it bothers me that routinely people say, oh, india's needs are, you know, india needs 500 billion in foreign resources for, in resources for the infrastructure sector and that most of it has to come from abroad. i don't agree with that because, for one thing, china has shown that, you know, all its infrastructure has been in the public sector, and it's not been based on getting foreign savings. china has got foreign direct investment in manufacturing, but the infrastructure sector's basically been domestic. now, the reason i get a littler irritated with that is because, you know, what plays into this conventional washington consensus view that we need more foreign direct investment when, in fact, the problem with infrastructure and especially
power in india is simply a governance problem. i mean, let me make it very, very simple. you know, people don't pay for power in india. that's the bottom line. and if people could be persuaded to pay more, private investment, domestic and foreign, would come rushing in. and at the moment, you know, when foreign direct investment comes in, they need guarantees because people don't pay, and our state boards are badly run. we had the whole enron problem where the whole thing blew up because of all the problems. so i think it's, basically, a domestic governance and a political problem where, you know, the whole -- the notion that every politician of any stripe routinely the first thing he will promise when he gets elected is free or subsidized power. and the conundrum is this, that why is it that people buy this? because the history of this promise of free and subsidized power is a history of no power
and uninterpreted power -- interrupted power. so why does politics not change, and as i said, the opening that i see now is as more and more states, as they start delivering, you know, power with, you know, payment and people then say, well, it's a much better model. and, in fact, one of the really interesting experiments in is farmers have the source of cheap power, more expensive power guaranteed, and i think it looks like more and more farmers will opt for the latter option. so coming back to your question, i don't think it's, you know, globalization and inadequate globalization that's holding back growth, infrastructure. i think it's fundamentally a political and a governance issue. the solutions to which are entirely domestic.
>> arising out of this is a lot of people say that india has an insatiable appetite for energy, and it'll need every ounce of energy that it can get. particularly in the near to medium term. if india is unable to make this shift in governance that you're suggesting, is there a possibility of taking a regional approach, having a very different set of relationships regarding water, power with its neighbors, all around? not just to the west, not just to the north, but to the east as well. >> i think that's, i think that's an excellent point, shuja, because i do think that on energy and power i think apart from whatever india needs to do domestically, you know, just to give you an example, the fact that we have power subsidies in india has meant that the water table, basically, is dropping tremendously. and i do think that a regional
solution both to china's north and india's west, pakistan, china and all countries there, i think one has to have a regional solution. i mean, for two reasons. one, of course, is that, you know, china controls the water table, and increasingly they control the, you know, the water table when water's becoming scarce. so i think that element has to be. and then the other element, of course, is that many of these states, including pakistan, have, you know, a big potential in hydrobased power which i think india should use and substitute for its own coal-based. so both for the climate change problem, for the regional security problem and for the water problem, i think we need a much more regionally-cooperative solution to this problem. >> thank you, arkansas vinld. i'm going to open it up to the audience, and i request you to be patient. i will recognize you as i see you.
and if i miss you, please, be patient with me. please wait for the microphone, identify yourself and then ask your question. we start here, please. >> thank you, tacy schafer from brookings. i wanted, actually, to extend the first question that shuja asked about the appropriate model for india's future economic growth. you suggest that the precocious india model may not be sustainable. i think reading between the lines of your presentation you also suggest that the conventional model where you start with agriculture and then graduate to flip-flops and textiles may not be adequate for a country of india's size, although textile, certain he, has been -- certainly, has been an important sector. are we looking at a time when india is going to need to experiment with different
approaches or, perhaps more fundamentally, follow the logic of what works in a economy where the private sector has already begun doing more and use that to drive india's future development while concentrating on things like governance and education? >> so i think i would separate your question into two parts. one is, you know, this whole private sector versus government-led model of growth, and the other is more the kind of skill-based versus unskill-based model, and they're both extremely very important and very good questions. let me take the latter one first. my view is that india has adopted this unusual precocious model for a number of historical policy choices that nehru made
and so on. would it be desirable to go back and, you know, use our unskilled labor more intensively? i think undoubtedly it would be because i think, you know, that's where, you know, that's where the needs are, employment and so on. is it going to happen? i don't think it's going to happen. because, you know, the pattern of specialization is like a titanic. it's not easy to change that. just to give you an example, routinely now if you go to manufacturers in india, you will find the situation where they're thinking of substituting robots for unskilled labor. and you read several examples of that. so much as i think you're willing to accommodate unskilled labor, i just don't think as a matter of history and persistence that's going to happen. the sad, unfortunate and unsaid tragedy of that is we're going to persist with this skill-based
model of development, and hopefully, india's skill level will catch up. but the consequences that a number of one or two cohorts of unskilled labor will not benefit from the opportunities of growth. that's just a sad, inevitable corollary of this pattern of development. so my plea would, therefore, be of course we should improve our labor laws to encourage hiring of unskilled labor, but, you know, given a choice i would focus much more on getting skills up in relation to the economy, improving our system of higher education because that's where the demand is going to be going forward. so that's on the economic aspect of this. on the other private sector versus market based model, government-based model here's my, you know, slightly controversial take on this. i think people forget that, you
know, growth requires a healthy public sector which performs all these basic functions and a dynamic private sector. india has achieved or is in the process of achieving the latter, and the prospect is very dynamic. the problem is that the public sector is a drag on india. the reason i feel pessimistic is because i feel that in the long run history and -- the history of economic development teaches us that it's much easier to create a private sector than it is to create and maintain an efficient public sector that delivers basic, the basics of maintaining law and order, the basics of maintaining property rights, the basics of stabilizing the economy and the basics of legitimizing the economy via, you know, transfers, etc., etc. these are all very demanding attributes but very important attributes. western europe and the united states took a long time, but they achieved that, and that is in some ways the basis of
prosperity. i often say that, you know, as much entrepreneurship in mumbai as there is in california. that's not the problem. if you read the book on the mumbai slums, there is no dearth of markets. there's markets for flesh, for, you know, waste, you name it. but we don't want to live in the mumbai slum because, you know, the basic infrastructure that governments provide, you know, law and order, etc., is miss anything mumbai. so that, and i think that is eroding in india, and it's much more difficult to reverse. so that's where we stand. the private sector will do very well in india. i have no problems with the private sector at all. as it will do well in any part of the world. but it's that basic, you know, provisioning essentials that the public sector has to provide that i think is much more a sense of worry in india going forward. >> interesting, in my visits to both india and pakistan when i talk to entrepreneurs, the one thing that they say in both
countries is that whatever they've achieved, they've achieved in spite of government, not because of government. they want the government to step out of the way. >> right. but, shuja, you know, i think that -- you see, i -- to be, to be totally candid, i find it a little bit, you know, self-serving, what they say, because they rely a lot on what the government does and does not provide. the government does not provide social stability, for example, or law and order. these guys are not going to invest. so i think that's exactly the kind of discourse and conversation that i think bothers me about what's happening in much of the region. that you say, oh, government's the problem. yeah, sure, government's a problem, of course it's been a problem, and in the past government has been overbearing and overintrusive, but the response is not that government should get out of the way, but as tacy was implying, do a few things and do them really, really well. in india, that's not happening.
the backlog of cases in the state courts are 30 years. >> thank you. we have a question here. >> thank you. on this issue of governance, which i agree is the key issue in india today and tomorrow -- >> could you identify yourself for the audience, please? >> oh, i beg your pardon. american university. wouldn't you say that the discourse within india today is, in fact, focusing on these things? that there are a lot of people -- i can name them, they're friends of mine -- who are, who are recalling the provisions of the constitution, who are recalling what was achieved by government in the 1950s in the face of enormous tragedies and challenges? and so as you pointed out in your talk, the demand for good
governance is growing. and i agree with you that the whole discourse on private versus public, i mean, one only has to go back to -- [inaudible] >> so, see, that's why i think, you know, i'd say there is a race between rot and regeneration. i think the rot one can see. i think the regeneration is partly because of what you said that, you know, the demand for -- governance is a superior good. the demand for governance increases as people become richer and demand more. i think the other reason, other reason for being hopeful about regeneration is that, you know, the fact that india is so open and transparent and you have really vibrant both civil society interests that at least the most be egregious problems that all these things come to light, but nothing's ever done about them, you know? enforcement never happens in
india. so i think there is a lot going on. and as i said, you know, as more and more good governance gets rewarded -- so that's, i think, the the regeneration part. but as i said, both are happening in india. >> thank you. i'm sorry, i missed the lady at the back. i'll get to all the others that i recognize, not to worry. >> polly nayak, independent consultant. i wanted to ask two questions. one is, to what extent do you think the export of investment by the high-end indian companies is a function of push rather than pull? obviously, they calculate their relative opportunities in economic terms, but to what extent is there a governance issue here? it makes more sense for them, it's more secure and predictable in other venues. so that's been going on since the '70s -- >> right. >> -- some of india's best corporations. the second part of my question which relates to governance is
what role do you see for popular anticorruption movements in, um, the transformation or, we hope, future transformation of governance in india? >> um, again, both excellent questions. on the export of fdi, it's true that, you know, and this is something that's actually happening now in china where, you know, because of uncertainty about the domestic regime, the notion that, you know, capitalist fleeing as kind of insurance and push, i think it's only partly true for india because the period over which this actually surged, this phenomenon, was the period in which india was growing rapidly, and foreign capital came flooding into india. so i think what this export of fdi -- until recently. i think now it's changing because of all the uncertainty
in india, but until very recently, over a ten-year period, most of it was because, you know, indian entrepreneurs and indian management showed that they were capable of running world class companies, not just domestically, but internationally. so i would say that the push factor has been relatively muted until recently. and, therefore -- on the popular anticorruption movements, see, i am not an expert on this, and this is certainly above my pay grade. but i think the pattern is that i think what -- i mean, the fact that there's so much mobilization and consciousness raising i think is unambiguously good. the point is, how does it get channeled subsequently? and that's always been a problem, even with the latest, you know, the hazare movement, you know, the whole thing, the fact that, you know, we don't actually see a concrete manifestation of that is a bit
discouraging. and, you know, the pant -- fact we've started a political party, people are not sure that's the way forward. i often say in india you get episodic accountability. and these movements, you know, give you this episodic bouts of accountability. but, you know, i wish it would get translated more into, you know, basic structures and institutions changing in a way that we get more ongoing accountability. >> thank you. question here. >> good morning, my name is walter jurassic, i am member of atlantic council. i wish i could have more time with you to discuss. the question for you is -- question and comment -- global village and corporate control. and then you mentioned many times of segregation between skills and unskilled work force.
why we have to concentrate on that? because i do not believe it. every individual have some kind of skills. so we should go through the transition from unskilled work force to skilled work force. not everybody is going to go to college, obviously, but maybe on the road they would have an interest to go to college. and other comment and question for you, why we cannot create stronger private/public partnerships in those country, including india, which is very critical? thank you. >> you know, i mean, i don't wish, mean to, you know, in some way say that, you know, make a kind of judgment about, you know, skilled is good and unskilled is bad. i just think that the way the modern economy functions and the way that india's ship of
economic state has traveled, you know, the demand in the economy is for skills, not that much for unskilled people. so the question is, how do you address that? i mean, it's just a practical question. one way is to do what china did which is to actually, you know, the pattern, you know, demands more unskilled labor which is actually, you know, what the country has in abundance. in india's case, that's not been the case. i was trying to say earlier that the choices -- do you make the ship of state move, turn around and move toward unskilled specialization, or do you upgrade skills? i think in india's case, one would have to upgrade skills. but it can't be done easily, and the same governance problems we have in the infrastructure sector we have in the higher education sector. so skill upgrading in higher education is not easy to do either. you know, on public/private
partnerships, um, it's become one of these terms that, you know, or things that, you know, it's become a fad, you know? i don't really know what it means. what does public/private partnership mean? every thing, every damn thing is a public/private partnership. you know, and in the indian case essentially what it's become, especially in the infrastructure sector, is basically the government saying, look, we'll give you land, and we'll look after the land problems that we have, and, you know, the rest is yours. now, if that's a way of going forward, i'm all for it. but certainly in the indian case it's not been that successful because the whole allocation of land has become such a source of corruption that sometimes you wonder, you know, whether this is desirable in the first place or not. so i'm all for ppp or whatever that means, i just don't know what it means. [laughter] >> in many ways this is the government wanting to continue the rent seeking --
>> exactly, yeah. >> keeping its hand on the tiller and in the till. >> exactly. >> so maybe that's the way the describe it. the gentleman in the striped shirt. i'll come to all the others also. >> morning. i'd like to draw -- >> if you could identify yourself, please. >> yes. my name is munir sheikh, i'm ex-executive director of electricity -- [inaudible] in pakistan. i'd like to draw your attention to the electricity sector. blackout is on everybody's mind. um, was it an accident, was it expected to happen? um, in the region and knowing about electricity problems in india, i knew for a long time that integrity of the electricity grid was an issue. there were large frequency oscillations from getting the power from to the west, and, um, it was alarming. and so where do you if you were
to -- there was a need for infrastructure development to support the high voltage network, and it didn't happen. where do you, um, assign the blame or where do you think the problem occurred? looking back at the california power crisis and new york power crisis, we find out that it could have been easily fixed, and there were some problems, we just never paid attention to it. so could you, please, comment on the blackout in india? >> firstly, you know, i'm not an expert on, you know, the technical aspects of the power grid in india, so what, i mean, i don't have much to say by way of -- i only know as much as you know in terms of the proximate causes for this problem. which seem to be that, you know, some states overdrew because of the drought and because of the fact that the water table had come down, the monsoons had kind of partially failed this year, so the demand for power had gone up, and the supply of power had come down. and clearly what had happened
was, you know, the governance problem comes back here in the sense that, you know, technically there are limits on how much each state can draw on the grid. but clearly those were flouted probably in connivance with public officials. and then that must have set off the trigger. so i don't, you know, apart from -- that's all i know, and, you know, i don't know very much more about power in india. to me, the much bigger problem, as actually shuja was saying while we were talking, the amazing thing was it got fixed so quickly compared to the problem that we saw -- well, i didn't have power for fife to six days -- five to six days. the real issue is the chronic undersupply and governance, and i think that is the bigger problem of power in many india. >> thank you. gentleman in the white shirt over there. >> yes, i am a doctor with the
pakistan american league. the answer was very simple to the power shutdown, you just say it was a controversy, and it should be much easier for you. [laughter] anyway, you mentioned so many things that were very enlightening for me. how far successfully india is managing its population. because the pressure, population pressure on the infrastructure can become very burdensome. and it gives tremendous difficulty to a nation to take off. and the other thing is what is the number of people -- [inaudible] in india who are below poverty line? and the face's security is nothing but a reflection of your economic strength. and the defense budget of india
if a policy of revolution -- [inaudible] adopted in india and reflects a softer image, won't it be very helpful in diverting many resources to improve the quality of life, living conditions and future of their future generations? thank you. >> um, let me take these in order. population pressures, you see, you know, the world over there's been a big shift in the conversation on population, right? that in the '60s and '70s we spoke about, you know, population being a problem. and then, you know, and then you had family planning, birth control, all these things. and then suddenly, you know, with the east asian miracle and thereafter the whole question became, you know, can a certain structure of population actually be a source of dynamism? so the focus was shifted from the level of population to the structure of population, and
that's the fence in which now, you know, people are saying that india has a demographic dividend ahead of it because it has a young and growing labor force which, you know, will save more, which will, you know, keep india competitive, and that's what happened in east asia, that's what happened in china and now next happen to -- and conversely aging is a burden, you know, even though you may have a smaller population. but if it's an old population, it's actually a problem, and that's what looms ahead for china. ..
>> the other thing not recognize about india, is india is actually very, very different demographically within india. southern states are now, in fact, heading towards aging. you know, much of the demographic growing will be the most popular part of india to increase in the young population and the others age soon. india's a very interesting mix or even in terms of demography. poverty, i mean, two things i say, you know, india's poverty has come down a lot. you know, it's a very controversial subject, the numbers. something like the current estimate is something like 20%-25% of india is under the
poverty line which used to be 50% in 1983. it's a substantial reduction, but it is not as big a reduction given how much india's grown and giving comparable experience in china. india has since lagged behind, and the experience of the 1990s and 2000s has been not as good as the experience of the 1980s when the poverty came down more because of the agricultural base. on the development question, i i mean, i think in an ideal world, if all countries could convert shares, everybody is better off, but we don't live in that world. what's the exterm environment, biggest security issues in the
region, and also, can you do this yiewn unilaterally or, you, whether you have to do this in concert with other countries. i would certainly be, you know, of course, forgotten the profitable india to be controversial is that, you know, in india, the big strategic thinking is on the defense side about the threat posed by china with the need to keep up with that. i don't expect india defense spending to decline over the next few years. quite apart from the india-pakistan issue with its own history and baggage. the question is whether china increase's its defense budget to rival the united states, and then there's going to be collateral effects on india, and india tries to match china. i'm not on the -- optimistic, much as i hope that's the way countries go, i don't think india's going in that direction. >> thank you.
>> i'm robert from the treasury. i believe government is important, but it's a decades' long process and growth and development as it is input. we're all in the policy business, and i wonder if you could talk a little bit about what importance the emphasis of policy change has in spurring and retarding growth in india, and if policy episodes are important, what are the scopes for policies that could lead to sustained growth over a reasonable period of time? >> you know, since you're from the treasury, you know, let me be provocative. it's that, you know, it's said that, you know, when, you know, u.s., you know -- aifn, for example, the imf, world bank. united states, they go to
developing countries and say, "change policies, it's important." i call that the nike approach, just do it. when you talk about reforms in the u.s., you have to understand it's a complicated economy here, congress is this and that, all those issues there is, but in a country like india, you know, those are absolutely an equally true. while i do, a complete believer in the need for policy reform, i think just as you said, governance is indulgence, and so is policy reform, and i think the way it happens is democratic politics has to make reform popular and positive, and i think, you know, to some extent it's happening, in some parts of india, and others not happening. i take the view that, you know,
just as govern nans, i think politics has to put a different degree of maneuver or degree of maneuver for leaders in india to kind of unilaterally and from top-down institute policy reform is not as great as, you know, outsiders might think, and that's, i think, the understanding that people have to have about a country like india or even now like china. you know, much more top-down, centralized making. even china's now subject to increasingly, you know, to public opinion and so on, and so i think it's really is a complicated business, policy reform, or at least, it's as complicated in india as it is in the united states. >> [inaudible] >> okay. yeah. >> there's countries where growth accelerates and there are countries which growth slows substantially. i'll say it seems to be associated with episodes of
policy change, and the real question for all of us in this business is how do you get there? >> yeah. >> i mean, how do you get to a period where you raise the growth rates, development rate, and sustain it over time? what are the levers? it may be that policies indodge nows, but if it is, it dispairs one's ability to change things. >> i mean, again, it's said, there's no doubt in my pipped policy reforms are associated with growth. that's unobjectionable. how many levers do you have to pull? you can either dispair because of, you know, what is happening, which is, you know, and there's a reason for dispair, or you could say that -- as i was trying to say, you know, as more and more states in india, more and more state-level leaders
start getting re-elected because of better delivering, that's positive and source for change. the dmon -- the demonstration effects from that and india a common market where capital can move. that's the source of optimism in india, not this, you know, washington consensus nike just reform do it, you know, change this and that, you know, which i -- i am less empathetic to. >> i think you're pointing next to political science and economics. >> exactly, yeah. >> gentleman behind mr. shay. >> from india america today. i came to listen to you and -- because i, you know, you do point out some very thought provoking things, and actually, my questions are based on what
he said. he said notion of hustlers. i found it quite degrading because what is in india is thriving on today, and that same thing would have been called here, innovation, and then somebody would have invented it, and it's just a way of looking at it. is jubar not a form of regeneration? the second thing that got my attention was you, in a way, down played and ridiculed the rule of when he floated a political party. is india not a democracy unlike some of its neighbors, and india cannot accept a man in the street making a proposing law, so the nan has to -- man has to get into the political system. >> so on the point about, you know, you don't like the use of the term "hustler," and, again,
i was using it in a descriptive sense. after all, many, many people who use the same term to characterize, you know, the history of the united states from after the civil war to, you know, the nation of hustlers with the both positive and negative side. the thing to remember is that, you know, it is a response in a second best word. that's the way you look at it, you know, that ideally, they should not have reason to overcome all of the obstacles of placed by government or the environment, but given those obstacles exist, you know, people give enough to overcome them, and so, you know, i don't mean it in a degrading sense at all, but i think hustling is, you know, a good thing, i mean, whatever, even some dimensions
or other aspects to it, and i didn't mean to downgrade it at all. i think it's, you know, the nice thing about india people want to form political parties, you know, all the power to them. my only answer was, you know, in trying to respond to whether i think it's going to be effective, that's my comment. you know, as i said, you know, great we have this, but will end sodic shedding of the spotlight on these problems be useful? yes, but it becomes sustainably useful when it's translated in structures and institutions. by the way, and all that i've said, i, you know, place all hopes in democratic politics in india because that's the only imam in town -- game in town whether it's policy reform or corruption. >> thank you. the gentleman who has his hands raised. thank you. >> thanks. thank you for a very
entertaining and meaningful presentation. on the topic -- >> could you identify yourself? >> sure. alex from asian development office in washington. on the point of political reform that bob was raising, my experience in asia's been you see it happening more under two circumstances so in light and leadership in a time when opportunities arise because you have growth and therefore you can make changes because everybody's benefiting, or times of crisis where you need a response because the circumstances are such that you need to do thing. those are perhaps, and i don't know to which extent they apply to india. two questions for you. one on the low labor skill. you seem to be pessimistic about the extent when india reaps graphic dividend, but at the same time, it's based on domestic demand and domestic demand increases manufacturing and services.
this would seem to be scope for the lower level of skills to be employed in satisfies domestic demand. the question is to what extent do you see that possible, and to what extent given the different demographics in states can migration increase or supply or attract people who don't move that much and, therefore, that doesn't really happen? the second question on international dimension. you mentioned reconfiguration and the integration of electricity grade. at abb, we support integration, and in some areas, say, central asia, we've seen success beginning to development, but i have to admit south asia is a region with slower progress and difficulty, and i would appreciate your views on whether that is also your assessment, and if so, what makes this south
asia region difficult as an area for recop figuration, thanks. >> i just want to see a turn set of circumstances when policy reforms happen. one is crisis, two is in lightened leadership, and third is the growth. as i said, for example, growth takes off the demand and education increases, private schools come, and that dynamic as well. you know, on this low skill domestic demand migration, you know, one of the things i've been struck by in the comparative between india and china is i've always thought of india as a place because, you know, because, you know -- you know, in some of my, you know -- i was presenting something in london last year where, you know, leaders were in the add yeps, and --
audience, and i was telling them that i think the fact that one of the under appreciated legacies of the old economics was the fact once you establish the idea of india, right, a political entity with a national identity, what the one economic benefit of that is that migration becomes a much more politically sustainable, you know, proposition. people don't realize that, you know, there's this politician in russia who is appty-muse lick, and he began -- anti-muse lick, but he began his life muslim, and when they used to migrate, it was a problem, but i think the idea of india is published, i think that's less of a problem now, and therefore, migration, as a basis for sustaining the growth model in
india, i think it is part of my, you know -- think, because as i said, one of the ways in which good expermeds travel or get copied is when, you know, people move, and, you know, we saw that in agricultural, but now it's happening more and more. what surprises me is how little migration we've had in india compared to china. i mean, china's been, you know, a churning factory in terms of migration, and that's, i think, one of the under recognized aspects of china, but i think a part of that, by explanation, is that in china because growth rates were so rapid, the prospects of such increases and standards of living became what are big costs to moving. in india, that's happened recently. when you grow at 4% or 5%, the attraction of moving is not as great, but when you grow at 9%, the increase in standards of living you expect to gain offset
the cost of moving. it's slow to happen in india, but it's happening. on the studies that it's less regional integrated than other parts of the world -- there's two reasons. east asia intreg grated because of growing rapidly. when you do that and trade with each other, there's economics. that's policy intreg gracious in east asia as well, and it's a fact of rapid growth, trade-based growth, and a lot in the region where you have integration. supported by some policy measures and so on happening now slowly, so, i mean, in south asia, you don't have the rapid growth and, you know, external demands, and the second thing is the pakistan thing. unless that's resolved, south asia does not proceed. simple as that. unless there's ways to crack the i india-pakistan situation one way
or the other, that's going to be a problem. >> thank you. two questions here. >> sam dillon, cnc press. what challenges does climate change pose to the indian economy, and how do you see india responding? >> so, i mean, climate change is a serious long term challenge for india because i think the whole water situation in india is -- it's a vital resource, going to be a scarce resource, especially with china controlling the glacier. now, how is india responding? i think india's not responding well. you know? there's a number of things.
waistful water use, fuel subsidies meaning we use more diesel to generate power opposed to hydro and other things meaning environmental pollution. the black carbon phenomena which it's not the co 2-rbgs, but complications causing warming. india's not responding well, and the standard explanation or excuse would be that we're a poor country, we need energy, can't do all these things in development which is partly true because there's things done that don't need to be done, but, you know, my next book is on climate change. my colleague has a book on climate change and a model of cooperation with developing countries, and i think what is a glimmer of hope in india is exactly the recognition that, you know, there's a china issue with water, and, you know, three
years ago, a river just changed course in such a dramatic fashion that it brought home at least to policymakers the fact that climate change has absolutely catastrophic domestic consequences, and so the awareness that india needs to be more on climate change and warming, that's gaining more traction in india. far from being translatedded into action, and i think that's the next step. >> thank you. if you could keep is short, please, because we're about to run out of time. i want to be sure we get everyone in. >> stacy manning with the exchange coup sill, a public-private relationship. >> all the power to you. [laughter] >> we've seen a lack of liberalization or stagnant liberalization in certain markets, especially as a legal
market, and i wonder can you give us thoughts on the potential it has for future growth in india? is that a drag? a long term drag? do you see progress on that front? >> it's a question that, you know, yes, it is a drag, but is the first part of your question more related to the fact that india has close relationship with foreign individuals coming into india? >> yes. >> that's the question. they are protectionist on that, and recently, there was a big supreme court case on that; right? >> right. >> you know about that better than i do, and i think thats tht is a problem. india's close, but i feel there's a little bit more optimistic on that because, you know, in all of these things when a country recognizes that, you know, it has an interest in importing its own labor, that changes the dynamic.
the more india realizes it will also have to, you know, ship people abroad, therefore, regimes matter for, you know, india's export of skilled labor, the more the pressure on india will be to open up, and i think also that, you know, a lot of this protectionism comes from the fact we have a bar council, accountants, you know, all standard invested interests, but the demand for skills strips supply. at some point, that's another change. >> thank you. first, let me congratulate you on the way you talked on the nuance presentation of india. >> identify yourself. >> sorry, an indian journalist. all the questions and also what you've said, and, in fact, the debate in india is coming back to the whole governance issue,
to get the prices right for an old term, do you need the politics to be right? the question is how? i was wondering if you could speak on whether india's fiscal administrative structure is outdated, that there is still -- there's -- it's still too centralized. i mean, do we need something like the finance commission, for instance? should we let states, like in this country, raise their own income taxes and make the central pool smaller? the central governance's rule is manageable. >> that's a great question. see, it's a great question, a great topic because -- let me, you know, i think it's a wonderful question because this is what i say about india. the advantage of having established the idea of india is
that then you can let states go; right? because the basic frame work is not threatened. in my model of, you know, states based growth, you know, the whole states doing reform, experimentation rewarded, that is exactly what you said urges that you need a much more federal economic tax structure, so i see india eventually as a model of cooperative federalism, where, you know, the basis for dinism is actually decentralization and see, the very interesting contrast with europe. in europe, everything is centralizing to overcome the crisis, and in india, it's the opposite, and in some ways, india today is like the united states was 70 years ago that basically you have the energies being unleashed, you know, in a
decentralized fashion, but never -- of course, in the u.s. you needed the civil war to establish the idea of the united states as a viable, political entity that would not be threatened, and in india, we have that. that's the legacy. the idea of india is not taken for granted. unleash decentralizing forces meaning that fiscal federalism has to be much more, you know, decentralized, and that's a, you know, a necessary comrade of where india has to go in terms of economics and politics. >> the bottom line? let's hear from you. is the option going to be to muddle through to kind of let growth rate go to 5% or 6% a year? how does that affect the battle against the population, or is the battle making bold changes
in policy, infrastructure, education, ect. so that you can then go back up and challenge china for economic dominance? >> sure. i think nothing bold is going to happen in india. no big bang reform, no bold reform, and out of most countries, it's trial and error, muddle through, but, you know, but trial and muddle through where if, you know, we get towards decentralized form of, you know, decision making and e peermtation, i think on balance one can hope for, you know, there's always going to be problems and crisis and always difficulty, but i think india's still, you know, the advantage is people forget if you are so far from the frontier, there's scope for dinism, and i think that basic dinism that india will exploit for the next 20-30 years. always, you know, end up with
wendy, you know, the everything is opposite is true in india. >> great way to end it. thank you again, arvind, for a wonderful talk. [applause] i want to thank my colleagues who help put this together and make it run so smoothly, and thank the audience for being an important part of this conversation. thank you. [inaudible conversations]
>> tonight, 10 # million of our fellow americans are out of work. temperatures of millions more work harder for lower pay, the incumbent president says unemployment always goes up a little before recovery begins, but unemployment animal has to go up by one more person before a real recovery can begin. >> c-span aired every minute of every major party convention
since 1984. this year, watch the republican and democratic national conventions live on c-span, monday, august 27th. >> earlier this year, alec baldwin visited washington to call on congress to fund art programs. republicans proposed zeroing out federal arts funding. while in the nation's capitol, the actor and activist spoke and took questions at the national press club. [inaudible conversations]
good afternoon, and welcome to the national press club. i'm teresa warner, the 105th president of the national press club. we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists, committed to our profession's future through programming and fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, please visit our website at www.press.org. to donate to the programs offered to the public through our national press club journalism institute, visit www.press.org/institute. on behalf of the members worldwide, i'd like to welcome the speaker and those of you attending today's event. our head table includes guests of the speaker as well as working journalists who are club members. if you hear applause from our audience, we know members of the general public are attending so it is not necessarily a lack of
journalist tick objectivity. [laughter] i want to welcome the c-span audience and public radio audiences. our luncheons are featured on member produced weekly podcasts from the national press club available on itunes. follow action on twitter using hash tag npc lunch. after our guest speesh concludes, there's a question and answer segment and i'll ask as many questions as time permits. it's time to introduce our guest, and i ask you to stand up briefly as you are announced. from your right, kate michael, k-street kate, associated press. todd, vanity fair. mary miliken, rioters. monica hopkins, nora halburn, americans for the arts. alison fitzgerald, freelance journal and speaker committee
chair. skipping the speaker. robert cardin. nina, american for the arts. mark wino. nikki. pam stevens, msnbc. [applause] our guest is an award winning actor, producer, director, and author. he's starred on the big screen, on television, and on broadway. alec baldwin won two emmy awards and number of screen actor guild awards for playing jack on "30 rock," and hosted "saturday night live," a record 16 times, and well-known frequent flier an
american airline fan. [laughter] innative of long island, he began the career in soap oprahs in the early 1980s before moving to broadway and films. films include the hunt for red object, aviator, pearl harbor, and it's complicated. he's a member of american for the arts, 5th annual nancy hanks lecturer on arts and public policy. he's in washington this week working with the committee. he's also a born member of the people for american way and strong supporter of the animal rights' group, pita. he lives in new york city, has one daughter, and recently is engaged. he can now add national press club luncheon speaker to the weighty list of accomplishments. [laughter] he's a well-known political activist. perhaps that comes from spending some of the college years right here at george washington
university. mr. baldwane is mentioned for a candidate for public office. this could be the right place to make that announcement. [laughter] mr. baldwin? [applause] >> thank you very much to you and to everyone at the national press club and all of you for having me as your guest, and also to thank bob lynch and nina and everyone on the staff for american for the arts because i am here as their guest for the arts advocacy day work done on capitol hill, kvy tonight is the lecture, the nancy hanks lecture, and the dinner to follow. i -- before, actually, let's talk about american airlines and words with friends.. [laughter] i know that's what you want to talk about. it's not lost on me that while i
was being add mopished for using my phone while at the gate, i think some dear friend of my, some colleague of yours from fox news, who i am deeply admiring mentioned i was using my phone while on the runway about to take off and they had to taxi back, which is not true. while i was in the plane, and we parked at the gate, i was using the phone, and then i was asked to leave the plane. i wanted to tell you this. it was an amazing moment because it seemed like a scene from a really smart movie, like a michael man movie expecting smart writing and great acting, and not like a crazy, you know, hyped up tv show. it was a really wonderful moment where there were -- i said -- i registered a loud complaint about the woman who i thought singled me out, and then a very young asian-american woman, actually this breathtakingly
beautiful woman and very serene, and she says, mr. baldwin, would you gather your things and come with me please? [laughter] i just had a narcotic effect on me. i was like -- she spoke so quietly and calmly, and they threw me off the plane. [laughter] mr. baldwin, kindly collect your things, please, and come with me. as all of this is happening, there were probably seven to eight people with their cell phones out tweeting about it at the time it was happening. [laughter] i want to thank all the people out there on twitter who happened to make note of the fact that there were a lot of people in the first class cabin of the plane on twitter at that very moment i was kicked off for using my phone. they were tweeting about it. not my, you know, not my day. bad luck for me that day, but that's okay. the -- i'm here as a guest of americans for the arts, and, you
know, i've been coming here since 1990. the origin of this work for me was with the creative coalition formed by michael fukes, former head of hbo. he wanted to bring together a bunch of entertainment professionals, writers, directers, and actors to kind of focus work and their advocacy on public policy. comped for them, office space, hbo is still there, but i don't think tcc is anymore, and fukes gave them office space and a budget, a modest budget of staff persons from hbo. he started them, and they raised money, and the name of the game back then was rush to learn more how to effectively advocate for our issue whether it's an albany
or here in washington. ron silver, sad looking at the photograph, and nina can confirm this, there's a photograph of us together, and chris, michael, and ron silver, half the people in the photograph are gone, passed away. very tragically. sill -- silver was a great mentor for me in the advocacy world. he talked to me on a train very, very effectively about cover and they say this, you say this, anticipate the answers, and he's facts and answers to stanuate what we want to do. the issues were gun control, reproductive rights, the environment, federal funding for the arts, and so forth. i'd come down her intermittedly since then to speak to members
of congress, both republican and democratic, who work to gain federal funding for the arts, and not admonish, that's something i would have done five to ten years ago, or shame, if you will, but it's more to encourage to cogoal opponents who don't think there's a role for public funding in the arts. i don't mean in terms of individual grants. it's out of the individual grant business as a result of some of the controversies in the past. when i first started doing this kind of work, it was the days of karen findly, and maple, and a lot of people jumping up and down and screaming during the early clinton years, and we wound up getting an appropriate in 1994, i guess, when gingrich and that crowd took over, and
liz robins helped us to term what they called "the corn for porn swap." [laughter] a deal made with conservative republicans in the house to get some kind of an agricultural subsidy which now allowed them to back off and support federal funding of the arts at a certain price, and that back room deal between the nea and the aggravated assault rail subsidy was known as the "corn for porn swap." [laughter] since then, a tremendous amount changed on a variety of levels. the government is out of the individual grant business, the amount of money dropped for awhile, but came back up, but i think the numbers are problematic as far as i'm concerned. you have appropriation for the nea now at $147 million.
the appropriation when i first started coming here, the stats available online were for 1992, $175 million. the internet, which never ceases to amaze me, took me quickly to a site to do -- of the index to adjust for inflation, so i programmed in $175 million which today would be $238 million. if $175 million in 1992 would be $248 million today and we're at $147 million, we're $90 million less. we are $90 million to $100 million less for the arts in a country that's grown to 320 million people roughly, the ones we bother counting in this country these days.
the -- i'm someone set on the record that i think the arts are beyond essential. everywhere i go, i got back from rome, and everywhere i see that die cot -- dichotomy, that strange dissonance between european economies. go to greece, of course, and the italians are uncomfortable about the economy right now, and you go there, and you see we have what they don't have. the american economy is a strong economy when we balance debts and pay our bills. the american economy is still a great economy. it's still a strong economy. when we falter is because we don't get it right in terms of balancing the budgets and our priorities. that's a different conversation. when you go to italy, and they have a weak economy, but they have an artistic heritage that puts us to shame. you go to paris, you go to london, and even in new york, and this city as well, and
tonight, when i give remarks, i'll talk about the heritage of this country embodied in this city like in other city in the country. i included in the remarks i say that nothing, nothing makes you love this country more. it chokes me up actually. nothing makes you love the country more when you come to washington. that has nothing to do with the rhetoric of the people on the hill today, none of them, republican or democratic. the rhetoric of political leadership in the country is irrelevant in terms of creating real love for the country, but it creates disgust, destain, disappointment, and heart break. walk around washington, d.c., the great, great architecture, heritage of our country, of our country is embodied in this town, in this town, this great, great city where i went to college for three years. my comments tonight, i say that, it's funny i live in new york, you know, and years ago, i lived
in washington, and i went to washington, and here's i'm in washington, took a course on politics and culture and learned the line about efficiency and northern hospitality. [laughter] jfk's great quote about washington. i remember, you know, i lived in the old dc, 1976 i came here back when they burned the shaw of iran in the park. they were burning the shaw of iran. now if you lit a match in the park, you're shot by seven snipers in front of the white house. they shut down pennsylvania avenue since i was here. i remember it was odd to be in union station. i remember going to school here, you'd -- i didn't have the money to fly, and there was not convenience, and they used to have a train. the last train from union station to penn station was 9:30, and it was a local. stopped in delaware, new jersey,
and you swear to god it stopped in st. louis. this damn train was the slowest damn train you've ever been on in your entire lifetime. [laughter] it was like $18, $36 round trip on the train, and you left union station, sometimes i got a ride there, and if i missed the train, i was dead. i got there early, and you sat in union station, the great, great union station in washington, d.c., and then go on to new york, sophisticated, glamorous, wealthy new york, and go to the god-forsaken sink hole, penn station -- [laughter] you went from the great train stations in the country to thee worst station in this country. [laughter] to the worst. thee worst. it was erected on the ground and was once a great train station, but the old mead -- mckip --
>> [inaudible] >> thank you. the old penn station torn down, controversy around the world from all corners of the world which gives birth to the historical preservation law in new york. you're in new york. there's a lot of great architecture in new york, not like washington, but a lot of great architecture and art, and a lot of art in public spaces and architecture behind a door you have to pay to access. you know, great art in london, spain, all over europe, rome is singular to me. it's hard to leave because the city itself is a work of art. you're inside a work of art that is the expansive of the entire city, and, you know, i think in this country, when you are over there, you see they have -- i only have glib words about this, but they have the art thing
down. they spend a lot of money over there, and they give a lot of tourists there and our tourists because they preserve the heritage and make art count and raised their children to believe art counts. it's part of their heritage. to come here and have what they don't have, we have the potential and a great humming, hissing, steaming 12-cylinder economy here, and we don't get the art thing right all the time. we send the
>> wrap your brain around $320 # million, double what the appropriate is now. i want to finish because i could go on and on and on. i want to finish by saying we have heros, friends, comrades, whatever you call them in the house and senate, republican and democratic in terms of our never ending journey in keeping america focused on arts and arts education, i want to take a moment to thank louise slaughter, democrat from new york, and congressman norm dicks, a democrat from washington. both stall worts in the democratic side of the house for the arts. on the republican side, equally, and i was here when kevin spacey was the speaker, and i came to testify with kevin before the congress, and the testimony was
canceled. we didn't wind up doing that, but representative richard hannah, a good friend to the arts and our movement. the republican from the utica area of new york. representative chris gibson, also from central new york in the saratoga springs area. these are -- those are two what we could freshman moderates -- sorry, did i have -- yes, hannah from utica and gibson from saratoga springs, those are two moderate freshmens with us. the two stall warts are republicans in the house, mike simpson who i met with last year from the boise area of iowa, and representative aaron shock from the peoria, illinois area.
both have been long time friends of ours. people who are not, as we say in new york, in our movement here are the republican study group, which the republican study group, which, i think you mentioned to me, nina, who was the founder? >> [inaudible] >> phil crane, former member of the republican study group, wanting all funding zeroed out, and tim walhberg, republican from michigan, were hoping to have a game of words with friends going with tim. [laughter] i'd like to pitch that. have a beach out there with him and get him on our side. on the senate side, we have senator tom udall from new mexico who is good with us on the issue, a first term senator,
but spearheading efforts to recruit others to support increases for the nea, and tom harkin who was chairman of the health committee on health education, labor, and pensions, has been placing a spotlight in the decline in art education programs in grades k-12. the republicans we have that our heros, friends, tom cockrin, from mississippi, he's great, and susan collins from maine, a long time supporter for public funding of the arts, and tom coburn was one to mention today as being not as wonderful as we'd like him to be on the issue of the arts, and i wanted to mention that we have a couple of -- is this the one right here? we have a list here -- oklahoma,
yeah, in the state of oklahoma, we've got, you know, in march of 2001, the oklahoma visual arts coalition received a grant of $15,000. in march 2001, and in may 2001, the lyric theater of oklahoma city, all five grantees in oklahoma city, by the way, -- >> [inaudible] >> 2011 rather. oklahoma visual arts coalition was march of 2011, and in may, it was lyric theater with $45,000. the oklahoma council of the arts, an umbrella organization in that community, in june of 2011, got $773,000 from the national endowment for the arts in oklahoma. in july of 2011, the oklahoma visual arts, again, got $25,000, and then the oklahoma historical society in july got $20,000.
i just want to mention that we always find it not enjoyable but necessary to point out to folks there's constituents of theirs in their congressional districts or statewide in the senate who the nea is bringing some wonderful, wonderful arts-related programming and events, shows, what have you, and educational opportunities for young people there under the embodied brel la for the national endowment for the arts. i want to finish by saying that i -- in my own life, my path with art, i mean, sometimes people think when you do what i do for a living, you lived in the art lounge. [laughter] you know, you're in the art tent. you know, you're behind the velvet rope with the art people. that's not necessarily true. i work in a business where the longer i'm in the business, the
purely artistic aspects of the business intrigue me more than the glitz and glamour and purview of the stars and actors. design, directing, cinemaing, editing, music, everything in play with film making are interesting to me now and draw my attention now than they used to, but the artistic experience in my life comes to me the same way it comes to you. i go out my door, and i try to identify some experience artistically that's attractive to me, and then i got to buy a ticket for it, and i can afford to buy it ticket for it. i can go see whatever i want, whenever i want. i've been blessed that way, but a lot of people can't, and i've been working my foundation that i set up a few years ago to
funnel, you know, some tributaries of my own income to the arts and funding. right now, i made an agreement with capital one bank, had a relationship, becoming a spoking person for the bank at the time of the banking collapse. [laughter] at the genesis moment of the occupy wall street movement was not a goal of mine in my career. [laughter] i want to assure you of that. [laughter] however, capital one came to me along with other bankers, and we were talking about on-camera promotional opportunities which i decided to avail myself of for two reasons. one, i thought now's the time. when i'm off tv, i'll be off tv for awhile, but while i'm on tv for a week, and sipped cation, it was -- syndication, it was clearer audiences are sick of me now so they can't get sicker of me.
i could be wrong about that, by the way, but can't get sicker of me than i am now. i thought i'd do the campaign for them and funneled all proceeds from them to the arts funding. the foundation earned a specific amount of money with a two-tiered project with them for 18 months and gave that money to arts organizations, and i'm doing another round with them now. [applause] no, no, i only -- [applause] i only mention that because it might not have been the smartest move in my life to do a commercial with a bank, but they are great partners shaping the commercials and they've been very -- just been wonderful, wonderful partners for me to publicize and promote the fact we give the money to arts related organizations, and i say this because what i've discovered as i got older because i am older now. i turned 54, and as i get older, there's a thing that i did that satisfied, and there's a thing that i did with my life and coming into focus are not a lot of them, but three or four other
things i could have done that i would have been happy doing that i'm not at all doing now. i got a drat opportunity to be the on air announcer for the philharmonic in new york, did that for three seasons, and my relationship with them led me to a place -- when you're with them, you are in the art lounge. [laughter] when you are with these people, who are like allen gilbert, and in a room with maestros there and they call him charlie, you know, you're in with a heavy crowd. [laughter] when i'm around these people in the art world and in the performing art world, the classically trained music group of opera and so forth, it's been so thrilling for me. i mean, god, you just don't know how amazing it is to me. this is the thing i'll close with. what it's also opened a vista for me is in arts add
administration. retiring as the executive director, he and his wife, carmen, are dear friends of mine, leaving after 12 years after writing the new york philharmonic, and daniel is taking over for him. he came from australia, lovely guy. i realized to raise the money, the staff of the philharmonic, you know, when that group of men and women go on the stage and perform music, and that building lifts off the ground for that hour and a half or two hours, you feel like life is really worth living when the people play this beautiful music. the tens and thousands, hundreds of thousands of hours those people put into mastering those instruments and studying the repertory, and they give you a beautiful, beautiful art form, and there's a lot of people in the other part of the building who have to make that happen. they have to raise the money, promote and sell tickets,
coordinate schedules. arts administration i want to see more programs funded by federal administration by arts administration. what is it? like 1% of everybody that picks up a violin gets a seat in the esteemed orchestra. 99% teach or play something that's not the -- for the boston or cleveland or the big five if you will or the san fransisco or for utah or dallas or all the other greats, that they don't get there. for many people, just as i have realized, there's ancillary jobs, there are other parts of my own field that i might have worked in and been just as happen. i see that now at my age. that's true in the classical music world as well, as one example, that there are other things i could have done. there's times i sit there at the fill hair moppic and i want to trade places with them a year
any day knowing what they know, doing what they do and exist how they do with great, great artists. it's thrilling. i think that pretty much captures what my mission today is. my mission is to try to remind people that art is many, many things. we have our own opinions about what art is, what we define as art, and the one i hope we all can agree on or maybe one day i can convince us all to agree on is art is essential for us to continue to be a great country. we have to make art essential in our own lives and in the lives of our children. thank you. [applause] ..
exit interview with is the job like? working for you was more like working for a congressman actor. film openings it's like going into raising money people in the arts and organizations. the national dance institute, this museum, this gallery, this poetry reading it's across the board. and i think that about all of them in the theater and not for profit was up to become roundabout. all the institutions are struggling very hard. when times are strong or do they want to do? what is an institution want to do when everything starts? they want the money for their research. they want another 50 million in the reserve because they are going to get into that in a rainy day and i guess the people in my life i will cross the line
to include literature and the loudest seemed the most despondent, the most genuinely despondent and publishing because books are just going online and books are -- the whole book world seems to be melting down. >> do you think lawmakers will be more generous funding the arts not are some projects or how organizations? >> i don't know. i think that they got rid of the individual grants and that is a mistake. it spoke to freedom of expression. as i said before, they set up a mechanism for a while if you were given the grand and it was proven to be obscene, if you were taken to court and you were in a local todestruction and municipality and laws were violated you have to pay moneys
and that struck me as odd i don't want the government to fund but number one, the number of things to our proven to be obscene or funded by the had proven and obscenity law and where that was implied was a minuscule amount this idea that the government wants to fund certain aspects of the government wants to fund but preemptively hamstring that they want to say to the artist we are going to give you money to do a project. but make sure when you do this project were you getting a general idea of if you do anything of the scene you have to give the money back, and i said are we going to do that in all aspects of the government? our opponents when to go to the justice department? you're going to do this prosecution. and if you don't get a
conviction you're going to give us your salary back for those hours. we can get in seen with this whole kind of preemptive safeguarding. this is freedom of expression and what's happened coming and i don't like this were a cultural war but in these many years what we have done is allow people to cave on the issue of freedom of expression in the arts and allow people to get so intimidated about freedom of expression what it means and what it can lead to that we've had a lot of people defending that concept. >> how do you defend the need for funding jobs and education as well as local aid? >> welcome theresa, i am so glad you brought that up because as most people who were advocates and have known for many years it is a stimulus for economic development in areas where that money flows whether you are in a place that is as well-heeled as
manhattan you have to inc's and people who are giving millions upon millions to the lincoln center's of the world and the metropolitan museum of art and all kind of art, performing arts and visual arts institutions that is enormous, those institutions get money as well. they qualify for federal money because tourists are coming to those spending money and parking and restaurants and hotels. art spending stimulates economic activity. i went down at the request of the performing arts center in dallas, the dallas performing arts center they asked me to come down and do a conversation with programs that went down about a month or two ago and i was down there and they were telling me how if i understood the woman correctly some board member backstage said to me that they had feared i don't mean to
be keen about this american airlines back to them for a moment they're headquartered in chicago people in dallas believe the 20 of the ones down there because they didn't have a concentrated arts center a distinctive monolithic are centered. the show me the plans where the wind spirit is and the opera house and the performing arts school. they told me they are going to close down a for some eight plaine freeway they have and read it up and billy garden and unified the structure into the lincoln center billions, billions of dollars being spent over the next couple of decades,
and certainly they have the money down there. but it was interesting to me how the art business, federal funding for the arts is a proven trigger for a lot of economic activity in the area where the funds are sent. >> has a letter to enjoy life and has the personal interaction of fans have a real value? is the woman i interviewed for newsweek. >> what is your name again? >> sandra from "newsweek." i spoke to her and i think i was a little rough with her today. [laughter] because she was asking me the same question and i said the great thing is that it enables me to bypass people like you.
[laughter] i can speak to my friends directly and instantaneously granted 140 characters come granted primary issue i'm not a good writer but fritter is a work in progress. but i do like being able to communicate on a limited number of fields with your fans. you may use twitter to hug your colleagues and fellows in a certain area and to kick and elbow your opponents politically or what have you. it's pretty childish and i am guilty of that, too. but it's something i'm evil thing because you do get to speak to people directly and bypass all of the others. [laughter] >> since i have you a few more minutes in going to ask a few more questions. use it if every entertainment show went off the air what difference would make every show, sitcoms for that matter
media and the u.s. is dole. what would you like to see on tv? >> less a4a i would like to see on tv because it doesn't matter if and what we are going to start seeing is a pure paper packaging of television. we will start to see all of it. a lot of people are saying i'm paying for a cable package that i don't want. you're making me pay $69, $89, $129 a month to have tripled package bundle of my internet streaming in my phone and cable. i suppose if you have more economic resources you don't read the bill as carefully as you might. for other people that do they read that bill a little bit more carefully and more and more are saying what am i paying for? i'm paying for the federal - one, 500 channels and there's nothing on. it's not that there is nothing on it is just what you want, so i think we are getting much
closer now to the age of the a la carte television viewing where you are going to go to a site where it is an tv style because you are going to select the menu of what channels you want and you are going to be charged a la carte free each of those things and there will profoundly change the television business. >> you were upset with the today show for camping outside your door. would you have given an interview if they had called? >> well i think that's something that has changed in my lifetime. i would watch morning programming before it became a radio person in the morning and npr and so forth and i would watch morning programming and good morning america and cbs. one time i remember towards the end of her tenure i think it was a special halloween episode of
the today show. katie couric came down and she was dressed in a marilyn monroe get up, kind of faith revealing dress and a blonde wig and she and the staff of the show did a musical rendition of diamonds are a girl's best friend and came in the staircase with jules and matt was holding her hand and she was lip-synching girls are in the because the six diamonds are a girl's best friend. that is i turned off and never watched it. it was over. i just didn't need to see people doing lip-synching diamonds are a girl's best friend at 7:30 in the morning. but so, i think those shows struggle in that way of having to battle with each other for the audience. and then from my standpoint, and i don't want to belabor this,
that obsession, that interest in the personal lives of people in my business is to a degree i think strange. when you are on the inside of that it is this kind of odd. if it is ill or someone is getting married or more kind of benchmarks in their life, but what i realized and i will finish with this what happened in this business is that many years ago and forgive me if i've already said this many years ago you had the luella parsons and people that were trying to get scoops on the stars come and they wanted to know who was having an affair and who was pregnant and had an abortion and who is sick and dying and who is gay and a closet homosexual and the studio had an obligation and a vested interest in managing the flow of that information controlling the flow of
information and they did so largely the effectively until a guidebook and said we're weakening ourselves protecting these idiots. thwacks the level of the studio has and so they sat there and said why don't we go the other way and make some money off of this so when i go to work in a movie studio and a major company, go to work in a movie studio and shoot a film and down the hall is a television program owned by the same company trying to cut my throat on tv. that is a very new world we live in these last 20 years in the entertainment programs. i signed a contract with the studio and i have to go to work and on that contract we have a writer that is a very lengthy writer of all the press we are due to obligate the film and it's a contractual requirement and side stepping some of these people better just want to, you know, to trippi or trippi
yourself more likely and ma que. it's mockery we live in the world of mockery now and reality shows and people wanting to laugh at other people and there's a kind of roman circus of the holding but i think that in the case of the today show i just expected more from that. >> you don't think something that required legal action is newsworthy? >> i think it's newsworthy the problem is in my particular case with that story which all of the facts will be lead there soon. she's going to go to court in may. there were two men i spoke to. could you maybe not talk about this in the press because it was an ongoing case in the trial and i said okay. then i kept my comments to a minimum and when i say to you
they are going to have this case before a judge, and i had been fortunate enough, and i will say that i have a -- i don't know how to describe it, i have a tsunami if you will love e-mails and telephone messages and things from this individual that was the friend of a friend of mine, that from someone else and met with this person at the request of my friend. meet this person to discuss and i met this person, and two years since that meeting something else involved and so i have a complete a deluge of evidenciary material that discusses what i've put up with, and you can see in this line as it goes it takes hair raising terms. >> are you leaving a 30 rock?
>> it's funny note in the sense that we all signed for six years and i did sign a contract extension for a seventh season because right as i was sick of it for everyone who did the show we all had the feeling that we were onto something it seems and seasons to three and four were great and we got these prizes and awards and the ratings have never been great but hour online menus keep us there and is a very strong for us off to the cut. millions of people watch the show in suing seven days after the show online. we are the beneficiaries of that technology. but, let me get to season five, and season five didn't feel good. it felt pretty crabby after season five liquigas and out of gas and we came during a seventh season i guess because of their syndication and so forth i said hello.
put us out of our misery because i can't do this at the end of the day. the lagat trustees and five and the writing as is often the case with great writers without an ounce of politeness or kindness they're the greatest sitcom writers on television a lot of centcom programming is more acute than funny. there is a whole network that will remain nameless for the monolithic sitcom is one that boy joke after another which works, it's popular. they are printing money over there but the writers are the smartest best comedy writers on television bar none in the last seven years and so of course they took this and came back in the season six and everybody loved the riding.
they're in a predicament and the need to probably scrape all of the paint off the building and start all over again because they got their pride. the family and the comcast people who've taken over like anybody else in the media their competitive and they don't want nbc to stay in this predicament. i will just finish this by saying that i mentioned this to someone else working for nbc was not insignificant in my decision. i did not know her that well before the show began. i met her on saturday night live who had little to do with her because she was a head writer and you didn't interact one-on-one that way. and lauren was the person that ring the doorbell for me to come and dohe television series and that got that going to the decision was also a part of a silver lining was to work for nbc which i think is the greatest of the networks in the long term we have to look at the stocks of the company and some of the other networks have had great legacies' with news and sports and one hour drama and
none that compares with nbc. nbc is the greatest network of the olympics coverage. their heritage and news was equal with their legacy because equal to cbs and their comedy lineup was king for a long time with friends and seinfeld but it hit this tough place now and i think everybody that works there we would like to see them get out of it. we would like to see nbc get out of the predicament that they are in. unfortunately to do so it means they will probably have to cancel most of the show they have on the air now. >> do you still fly american airlines? [laughter] >> next question. [laughter] >> i will look for the tweet on that one. he restored and the george washington recovered to the car university and an for president. what did you learn from that
experience? >> lost, so i learned when you draw the posters, draw a neatly. draw the graphic design is a key component of the electoral politics why was in school and i went to school here and was an intern on the hill for jerry who was the congressman back then for the third congressional district on long island and i didn't get to see him that much because the in terms that were there worked eight hours, 12 hours a week may be and we would go in there and most of these guys for all the interns i worked with for all just mythical alcoholics and training. every day they would have little parties and all of the houses and office buildings and i came in and i was like gomer pyle. what are you doing? we are done with work now. we liked the envelopes and sort of the files.
what are you going to do after work? to have a list of all of the national association of corporate champers. [laughter] the national association of q-tip weaver's and then all these organizations meeting and these guys i worked with the new this guinea in terms of food and booze. remember the of lobster. well i guess we best say howdy to the people. he was the only one that was party. we did a bit of that but also i had a guy say to me you want to work on a project over than opening constituent now before the internet obviously and he said to me i have a project for
you. no greater love the organization that offers vietnam returning vietnam veterans if you remember thank you. jerry was the guy that worked for him we are going to put you in charge. they won each of the 435 members of congress to select the most well we acclimated vietnam veteran. we are going to take submissions and call pastors and priests and stuff and call all of these committee leaders and contact them and ask them for submissions sali gough and i do this project a couple weeks and i've got my report for you and he was a young staffer and says we have a meeting with the congress. i think i met him and said hello twice. he was never they're paying attention to me. i was looking envelopes in a room. congressman, do you know mr. l. baldwin. yes, sir. he says what do you come up with?
i said ron kovacic who was the subject of corn on the fourth of july. who's antiwar film and this is a working-class long island and there's a long pause and he says are you out of your mind and shuts down my whole program. you are off the case now we will get someone else to take care of this. but i left washington, worked at the fcc and a law firm and all this other stuff. but i was given the opportunity to audition and i got into the acting program and to be honest that is what i will wind up doing. >> is it true when you turned 40 stopped wearing jeans and if this had been held after 6:00 would you have for a tuxedo? [laughter] >> i might have to read i don't see anything wrong with that.
someone asked me earlier did you become more like a character? yes when you to show that is one thing when you do a show you are in washington and nine in new york. i used to spend a lot more time in l.a. witches and a tight crowd has a rule and proudly so, but i play a guy that is in the suit and tie every day and it does wear off on you and i get a little bit of this first and whole attitude. [laughter] those of you that remember that reference. this was my roommates in college. i do have a little bit -- you can't wear that. you can't wear brown shoes with a gray suit. what are you thinking? so that is the hon frigidity of my character that has worn off on me. but, the other question was about genes. no, i don't wear jeans. and i don't want to say why i don't wear jeans because that
would be to offend all of the men at that do when you are over 40. [laughter] >> what person in history would you most like to portray? >> what i most like to portray? that is a great question. i don't know if i want to portray him because i don't think about that way. i would like to see him portrayed in some way and i don't know how you can dramatize. sometimes these things are the purview of literature for reason and they don't really make a great films. but as we live in the world we live in today and we live in the world that i think increasingly shaped i don't want to save recklessly, but i should say the word is mine struggling, you are all writers. help me out. a world that is being shaped kind of surreptitiously if you will by the current supreme
court. i would like to see something the would bring to a new generation of people a biography in the life of william douglas. spec do you plan to run for public office? >> i have a very important announcement i would like to make to all of you today. i'm glad you are all here. [laughter] >> today it is with great humility and a sense of pride and a great love of my country i announced i'm running for the east library historical society treasurer's position. [laughter] and i would hope all of you will read literature. i will have a table with some literature outside. thank you. >> we are almost out of time but before i ask the last question i would like to remind you of upcoming luncheon speakers to be on april 24th we have secretary kenneth cells are then just put that interior.
may 4th, mike, general manager of the washington national. and mankind, billie jean king the tennis legend. next i would like to present the guest with the traditional coffee mug. [applause] my last question for you what is in your wallet? [laughter] when i did make the deal with capital one the insistence obviously that i had to carry a couple one credit card and destroyed by other credit cards. i had to be a customer site to have capital and credit cards and the other thing i would say is my daughter when she was a little child she made for me -- she made us both licensed veterinarians in the state of california. [laughter] so i have drawn up with her by hand when she was 5-years-old my license as a veterinarian and the state of california >> do you practice? >> yes. [laughter]
call about a round of applause for the speaker today? [applause] thank you for coming. i'd also like to think the national press club staff including its journalism institute and broadcast center for organizing today's event. finally come here is a reminder that you can find more information about the national press club on the web site. also, if you would like to get a copy of today's program, please check out our website at
this week on q&a, a retired marine master sergeant and producer director which will speed discuss semper fi always faithful. >> rachel libert why did you get involved in a documentary called semper fi? >> guest: the start of the film actually began with our lead subject sister. i was researching a completely different topics and met a woman that worked with our public health organization as the communications director and move forward but before we sort of left the project to let us know her brother was involved in a fight exposing a water contamination at marine corps koppel coming at my director tony and i were a bit skeptical, but we agreed to meet her which
turned out to be jery esnminger coming and we were immediately taken with the subject and i would say to reasons. number one, we saw the evidence jerry had amassed and we were shocked and saw that there was something to the story and then the second thing was we were to get them. we felt that he was very powerful and charismatic to recover through which he tells a very important and five russell story. c-span: where were you located? >> guest: new york. c-span: with your deduce for? >> guest: 2007. c-span: how long did it take? >> guest: a little over four years and i don't know that we knew that going into that, and i think that we set these projects and you don't necessarily know where they are going and it's certainly the documentary that you believe in the essence of something and you sort of just have to go where your life takes the story, and it could take two
years, ten years, we didn't have the sense of how long that journey would be. estimate you are allowing us to show the documentary, so let's watch the quick beginning and then we will come backed to the estimate i was fixing a plate of food in the kitchen getting ready for the evening news. >> reporter said. estimates been linked with scientific a literature. >> my first thought is this is what happened. i dropped my plate right there. it's like god was saying to me here is a glimmer of hope that you'll find your answer. >> what are you talking about their? >> guest: when any family ever
has parents have a child that's diagnosed with a long-term catastrophic illness without exception because i've talked to so many other families when jamie was set the first game after you have a chance to sit down after the shock of the diagnosis is that question why. always no exception. and i looked into her mother's family history, my family history, no other child had ever been diagnosed with cancer. >> what year was it she got cancer and when did she die? >> guest: she was diagnosed in 1983 and she died in 1985 and that revelation on the news didn't happen until 19973 years after i had retired out of the
marine corps. and all of those years i have had that question. and when i heard that, i was walking into the living room with a plate of spaghetti and the reporter on the tv set with a set on that clip. c-span: go back to when she got cancer. what kind was it? >> guest: acute leukemia. c-span: where did you live at the time? >> guest: jacksonville north carolina. we approached a home in town. c-span: use bet how many years in the marine corps? >> guest: 24 and a half. c-span: what was your rank? >> guest: master sergeant. >> host: c-span: what was your specialty? >> guest: i was a drill instructor. c-span: where did you meet your wife? >> guest: okinawa. c-span: images do you have?
>> guest: three come three girls. c-span: how old are they today? >> guest: terrie is 37, jessica is 31. c-span: you have one other? you have three girls were for? >> guest: i have four, another daughter, veronica. c-span: that's what i was getting at. you've met jerry's sister and then you met jerry. what were your hurdles to get the documentary going? >> guest: financing and raising money as part of the largest hurdles cobbling together the financing especially when these things are unpredictable and they drag out for so long. it's sort of given. beyond that, i would say specific to the film was probably where the story was going. when we first started we were not sure how much he could
achieve. he can serve as disillusioned and had to fight against this organization has the inherent story and his personal struggle was the hook for us. it's very unresolved and how much traction could one guy get in fighting such a huge opponent on the part of defense. so there is a big future we know we have a great subject on the film we started to see him get traction and make great allies in capitol hill and things started to happen and we had the sense you are going to be people to seize a motion. this will be a story about one man persevering, one man actually accomplishing something
in his determination and what we could structure a silver around. c-span: after you heard that report and 97, what were you looking for? what was done to the water in jacksonville or completion. at camp lejeune and the navy environmental health center which is out of norfolk and we start looking into other issues where contamination had taken place and other studies had been done and that led me to this guy had done the final investigation in massachusetts.
the military that i contacted played this down extremely and told me they don't know what you're talking about. these were very minute trace amounts of these chemicals. you shouldn't have any fear or reason to believe that this is what caused your daughter's illness. if that is the case where they talking about doing a childhood leukemia studied. that is what they called it initially. and then as time went on and years went by, i sit in the film i have all the faith and confidence in the world and the marine corps and served in the quarter of a center in my life would do what was right by its people started to realize not only were they doing what was right by their people, they were
doing everything they could possibly to do what was wrong there were obvious getting facts, they were omitting facts, they told many half truths and then told lies. c-span: here is more from the documentary of your speech. >> tom and i worked for six years without ever even knowing what the truth was until the marine corporation posted a bunch of documents by mistake. this has been the holy grail that i was on a dial-up computer and i stayed up for weeks on end i started reading these things about these questions the
captured the entire thing before c-span: how did that get their? >> guest: it was from what i understand the national science foundation directed to the marine corps to post documents at a library and on their web site because it had the nsf at the end. and it was a typical what i call a typical military maneuver when they didn't they didn't get it very well. they thought that they had to flow ranked guy is scanning all the documents into computer and they posted the whole thing. they had their internal e-mails, they have stuff that they had
names, addresses, it was a violation of the act. number two, there were some really damning documents in their, for them and i was in virginia when tom called me and told me they posted this library documents and i said well. i started looking at this stuff and it's like tom said in the film, my god, this is the holy grail. c-span: where were you born? >> guest: it was born in chambersburg and i grew up about of hershey pennsylvania. c-span: where dealers now? >> guest: for carolina. c-span: you live near jacksonville? >> guest: and 70 miles of radiant of completion. c-span: did you go out to where
he is located? >> guest: i did. c-span: cow much of the interview did you do? >> guest: i was involved in all of the filming with him. c-span: where is it and where did you find in him? >> guest: he lives in idaho which is a small town but it's a college town we went in the midst of winter and it's a very cold and snow and it felt very remote. i found him interesting because he was an officer and marine and equally disillusioned. he had lost a son and his wife had also passed away off serious fighting alongside jerry and i was intrigued by this man who won the one hand he handwrites
everything but he is digging out all this information. jerry on his website what he didn't mention is they thought they were downloading these massive hundreds of thousands of files they dial up connection. it took them weeks to get all these documents up the portal get tom did a lot of the riding to get additional documents so they would get these initial document and lead them to another document and tom handle wrote over 1200 documents because he doesn't like to type. c-span: what is a foia document? >> guest: freedom of information act request. c-span: company of those did you make? >> guest: tom ruda a4a thousand. c-span: actual requests? >> guest: hand written. c-span: what kind of success did he have? >> guest: he had really good success because tom was also calling different officials in the marine corps and because he was a retired officer he
developed a relationship with one of the former chiefs of staff down there at the base, and this is really funny because this man%,, ansi of all these documents coming and we were out there at his house and he says yeah, he sent me a bunch of stuff, hard copy stuff, and he said he sent me these things and they were in a pigeonhole and his desk. i said my god. have you looked at these? she said no i got there and they've been up there ever since. >> guest: lord so i took the things and looked at them and there was in 2000. there were documents we had never seen. c-span: about?
>> guest: regulations. that the navy had created for drinking water standards on the naval installations. c-span: when did they create the regulation? before your daughter by? >> guest: absolutely these were started back in 1963 and the navy had a very strict standards for drinking water on the naval installations all the way back to 1963. c-span: do you live near cancellation today? >> guest: no because for the most part of this located when the trend of these communities and the ocean. succumb contamination naturally removes the largest body of water which would be the ocean. c-span: do you have anything in that area like you do back then? >> guest: the clan the contamination up. >> guest: but still exists under the ground and they're supposed to be free mediating at
, but unfortunately the technology does not exist at this time to clean up an underground source of contamination and pollution. c-span: >> guest: i would ask you right now to defend the to come to describe all that. i want to go back to the video from the documentary which is how long? >> guest: 76 minutes. c-span: was that a conscious decision to do only that long? >> guest: it was. we wanted to keep it manageable. there's a lot of information but we wanted to find the right balance between the personal story and all of the technical information and result 76 minutes was a good life for the film.
c-span: fillmore tape? how many hours of tape you? >> guest: over 400 hours down to the 76 minutes. c-span: here is little more from your documentary. >> i am appearing here today as one spokesperson for the hundreds of thousands of marines, sailors, their families and civilian employees who are unknowingly exposed to her and as levels of toxins through their drinking water at camp lejeune north carolina. >> if you had been on the basis for had known about the contamination would you have felt comfortable drinking that water? i think i personally would have been using different water. >> spry i'm told that officials waited for years before they
identified the contaminated wells and then closed them down in 1985. who was in charge the net completion? >> all of the officials. as the middle of the officials would have been in charge just like they are today. >> people are exposed. >> and they didn't do it? >> i wouldn't say that the marine corps didn't do anything at that time as soon as they found they were contaminated they shut them down. >> why have they not notified them that they may have been exposed to pc? shouldn't they know that they have been exposed? >> yes, sir. why don't you do it? >> the would be very difficult and laborious task. we can try but i could never commit to finding 100% of people who may have been exposed to it would be very difficult. >> you can't tell me they don't know who was there from 65 to 2007. i just can't believe that you can't do that.
>> were you in the room? >> absolutely. >> what was your reaction and the woman that shook her head once and also i believe because her will in the day to name as the need of it is now deceased. explain who they were. >> guest: the woman that shook her head initially introduced us to the story. the woman that shook her name also followed in the film. when we met her, she was healthy but shortly thereafter, she was diagnosed with cancer that honestly had metastasized so much in her body that they don't even could think they could say what organist burton and in addition to following cherry and tom and the others we also followed as she fought to stay alive house last to get this issue out. she didn't make get and neither
had ever experienced that and it was hard but she felt her story should be in the film and even though there were times that she wasn't feeling so great when we were trying to film her because of chemotherapy and what not she really rallied through. >> was the purpose of the hearing? >> the purpose was specifically about camp lejeune and the contaminated water. the hearing was titled poison patriots. >> your daughter died in 1985. is that the first time you ever testified in 2007? >> guest: i testified the first time in april of 2004. "the washington post" had done an article in january of 2004 about camp lejeune and
contaminated water and there was titled tainted water in the land of semper fi. congressman john dingell from michigan who was the ranking member at that time of the energy and commerce committee his staff so that article in the newspaper, and they had a hearing coming at where the dod was attempting to get more immunity from environmental regulations and mr. dingell was rather angry about that and it looked like his counterpart, the chairman was joe barton at the time, looked like they were going to give the dod these immunities. so, mr. dingell forced into the hearing and they asked me to come and testify about camp lejeune and what happened and there was the first time i testified in 2004.
mr. stupak, who is no longer in congress was on that committee and saw my testimony and he said if they ever won control of congress back and he became the chairman of the subcommittee in the energy commerce committee, he vowed that he would hold a hearing about completion and that is what happened. c-span: what did you offer as an opportunity? i want to ask more about the general and his colleague. what did you offer to the marine corps when you made this documentary? >> guest: we requested an interview multiple times, and they declined. we also asked to film on the dais, and they did allow that. they spent a day with us to accompany us and get footage to bring that out alive but it was important to us that the
prospective be represented in some way. so we are fortunate that they were brought before congress and in front of other news outlets so we were able to pull statements that they made in those public forums and incorporate those in the songs since we were not able to get a one-on-one. c-span: uzi in the documentary that tickled difficult told the, out of the marine corps, something about all this. where was that and were you still in the service? >> guest: no, no, and when i settled, lot of the marine corps, i've had to tell him for a person referred party through that third party had to really that message to him and they've never provided me an opportunity to sit down and talk to the leadership. c-span: one of the things i kept watching is why would the people who live in completion who are subject to the same kind of
water that your family was exposed to, why would they want to automatically say that there is no toxins in this water and their subject to an airplane pilot that wants to make sure his plane is safe before he takes off. >> guest: most of the people involved in this today were not there back then. some are. some more. but the ones that were there bacchic the time the contamination was taking place are not very high ranked so they are protecting the institution. c-span: what does that mean how do you protect an institution if you are not protecting our people? >> guest: one thing that has happened recently got nationwide coverage was what happened at penn state university with child sex abuse.
those officials and leaders chose to protect the institution the university, the football program over the protection of the kids this man was abusing. the same thing is going on with the marine corps. they are protecting the institution over the health and safety of the people who served them. c-span: we are going to show a clip of a man and his wife. who are they and why did you include them? >> guest: he is amanda lives in tallahassee florida who found this attrition at camp lejeune naturally when he saw jerry testifying in the cnn coverage. he was born at camp lejeune and when he was 40-years-old she came down with a rare type of male breast cancer and i say
this because he didn't have the genetic marker for it which is usually typical. male breast cancer is rare in general and even more when you don't have these genetic defects that usually are precursors for it. he was struggling with his illness when he heard about the water contamination through his testimony. and immediately called him, wanted more information and as soon as he was healthy enough, he can very involved in the fight and now is probably about six months to a year into the filming and so we were really able to see somebody get immersed into the situation. he was already fall into it. so it was interesting to sort of see him kind of begin a process that we were not able to see. >> let's watch a little bit and then i will ask you some more. >> he was diagnosed with male breast cancer. mike is on the hunt for the
truth. >> there's a part of me that says be quiet, sit down. just tell the people you need to tell locally and let's not make a big scene. but -- >> i'm the opposite of that. >> our biggest weakness is the fact that we are not concentrated at camp lejeune. it's a come on you can drive down the street and see little susie's house and that's where she died and johnnie over there got cancer you can't do that at camp lejeune. the people that were there were only there for a couple of years and they died. >> but, as the word of this gets out that weakness because our strength because we are in every town across america. we are in every town, every city and every state and everyone of us as a congressman and senator.
c-span: did mike ever serve? >> guest: he was in the uneasy a short period of time coming and he got discharged because he had a medical problem. he had severe rashes that couldn't clear up. c-span: but he was born at camp lejeune why? >> guest: his father was a naval academy graduate and his dad chose the marine option and his dad was a marine corps officer. c-span: another figure and we don't have it in a clip that comes out of this is that 70 men had breast cancer. related to what, camp lejeune? 70 different men. >> guest: it's now 78 that he has found. the only thing that all of them had in common was completion.
c-span: what was the marine corps reaction to that? >> guest: denial. i mean, anybody and everybody that asks the marine corps in the questions about this, they are denying it. denial, denial. c-span: have the ever accepted blame for any of this? >> guest: as far as i know, no, they haven't. in the time that we have been filming, they have changed the message slightly i would say, wouldn't you say. they were fascinated me be. but certainly no. at the other thing i want to mention about mike that i found amazing is here's this man that got diagnosed with a rare breast cancer and started thinking their must be more out there so he started contacting and finding this 78 figure that jury is speaking of, a lot of those men wouldn't even know about and
>> my daughter. where islam? >> at home. >> host: are you divorced? >> guest: yes. their mother was japanese. with the language barrier in reality anybody that was us civilian the only reason i a attribute our success we were career marines. we knew the system. and how to go to -- who to go to. >> cspan: what to were the rules?
>> there were not rolls but i don't know if he knew what he was getting into. if he anticipated we will lead campout to fill the events. you had done some media but it would be one day for a couple of hours. over time trust was built. i would assume that happens because gerry phelps we could handle that material with the respect it deserves >> guest: absolutely. i had no say on anything.
there were very careful not to allow us to see the footage. i am understand now. i kept nagging at them. they explained after the fact if they see themselves on film they start to become actors. you can see that like gold rush or the deadliest catch. then they change. >>c-span: how many people were there? >> myself. co-director and a sound%.
if we thought we needed logistical control but it would is usually the three of us. we would attempt to do sound. [laughter] with a sensitive situation. >>c-span: you said at the end of the film the park foundation, sundance institute and mary? >> they all gave us grants. some of the foundation's providing grants. merry battle is a small
foundation from north carolina. the park foundation is large that has interest of north carolina. sundance supports documentary's. >>c-span: depending on which side that it is baloney. there is no proof. did anybody support this because of the politics? >> i don't think so. said this was an important environmental message or messenger. people constantly tried to preach beyond acquire.
one thain that is appealing you don't expect the message to come through a career military. maybe those would not be attuned to the effects of toxins. there was an appeal from that perspective. >>c-span: how far did you go with somebody with the rank? >> for many, many years with the marine corps. i had united states senators personally the commandant
face-to-face i could show them and counter. they don't want to do that. i have been very, very cautious to speak truth. everybody else that gets involved in this situation, don't speculate. talking to the media, congress, and don't speculate. if you don't have the vyyo, keep your mouth shut. back in 2007 tom was in his 80s. mike was a godsend.
a degree in history and investigative skills as the insurance adjuster could not raise his family on teachers' pay so got a job. >>c-span: talk about pce let's watch. >> would you be interested to speak about the field report? this will explode. >> jacksonville north carolina, . >> the very stunning admission. >> cancer from the water they use to every day. >> now campuses june may be
the worst sample of water contamination they have ever seen. >> we were dumping toxic chemicals. >> we have to get to the bottom meaning congress. >> i mean that. [laughter] >>c-span: dan rather a former marine? >> yes. >>c-span: if you listen to the words they said scientists say but the military leaders officers want to talk about this? >> i don't understand entirely why but i think
they hope to it would go away from the beginning. that the film will not get attention in order jerry would give up that each coalition or effort to get more attention to keep it alive. >>c-span: are they worried it will cost millions of dollars? >> is not just camp le jeune, 130 the worst of the worst then thousands more that have varying levels of contamination. with the overall problem they hope it goes away.
>>c-span: going back to money, the reverse that all tom once is monday? >> [laughter] -- money any time i ever interview i never raise the issue. money is second or third. it will not bring janie back. >>c-span: obviously your daughter but is there a whole family getting cancer? >> somebody in the film mary freshwater describes losing her infant sons. she holds up a blue jumper
>>c-span: is there a nickname? [laughter] >> people make it harder than it is ago if you spell it out to it is very easy. >> i am the father of janie ensminger, and then nine year-old girl that i a can only survive this conduct and department of defense, would find themselves in a court room long ago. it is my hope we we can find closure and justice. may god bless janney janney -- janie and you for
bestowing this honor. ♪ >>c-span: i have a jar 1742 the act introduced and s277. what has happened? >> hr1742 said janie ensminger act it involves the veterans of ministrations was turned over to the house committee representative jeff miller from florida has been sitting on its. would not allow the
committee to consider it. weeks ago 3:45 p.m. on a friday before a week's recess of congress, he put out a letter to general shinseki asking to award in the benefits sightseeing the $3 billion overage of the fy 2012 budget i immediately called an ally that deals with the veterans committee. what is the $3 billion overage you have been looking for that over a year. >> he said that has been allocated to caregivers and
va facilities and homeless veterans. it is gone. i said why is he retains this letter to shinseki? it is the bait-and-switch because the film was coming out to the following week and trying to take the monkey off his back. >>c-span: how close have you paid to the politics? >> quietude bit. the first question is what can we do? we have built in the take action website people can
get the support handing out leaflets and fliers to contact senators and representatives for support of legislation. there is the desire to do something. we feel we need to help channel that energy to help. >>c-span: senator bert and senator hagan and senator grassley is the only republican. >> no, no, no. senator byrd. >>c-span: how many are republicans? >> and handful.
maybe co-sponsors maybe seven. >>c-span: it is not partisan? but it is from your perspective? >> yes. senator burr introduced the bill. it should be non-partisan. the most abused phrase is thank-you for your service. but don't ask me for anything? do something. i don't know how many people want to wrap themselves in
the flag and give speeches with the choir singing "america the beautiful." but when they leave the cameras and bright lights they do the opposite. >>c-span: how much exposure have you had on the film and what about the oscars? >> it launched at the tribeca film festival. almost one year-ago april. then we screened all over the country and capitol hill last june right before the senate to vote of s277. then we made the oscars short list the top 15 films.
we did not make the final five but it was a big push. then the shortened version aired on msnbc it time down nicely. it settles down then and do hit of attention. it is great. >>c-span: a ballpark, duchess cost? >> not really. it was deferred or in kind. much less than a feature film. >>c-span: more or less than 1 million? >> less than 1 million. >>c-span: did you get picked? >> -- paid? >> i do not expect any money.
what they we're doing with this film to four word and advance the issue is priceless. our founding fathers knew what they were talking about with freedom of the press. >>c-span: when did you retire? >> 1994. i have done environmental work for a while, farming, i got so involved with this this, it is a full-time job with no pay. >>c-span: your sense of the political system now? >> what ms. it is so polarized.
there has been a sense of divide and conquer they take items that are divisive instead of the politicians bringing citizens together for solutions, they find a wedge issue to divide us and has now spread from capitol hill to the public. your filler flap -- fearful of values support for the retaliation. >>c-span: what is your opinion? >> it was i opening.
a don't consider myself leave but i thought regulatory agencies were doing their job known chris -- known carcinogens would not be in the water but this system is flawed. that was difficult to except. i did not think the government was perfect but it was a big revelation. >>c-span: what is your claim? your daughter died at age nine. >> she was sick two years and had acute lymphoma. >>c-span: the men that got breast cancer at le jeune and what is your proof. >> there was a survey of the uterus population 12,600 of
the estimated 16,500 births that took place between 1968 and 1985, the child of the kenya rate of that population and is two or three times higher. >>c-span: it is what organization. >> part of the cdc. part of department of health and human services. >>c-span: did they pass this on to the marine corps? >> they are very involved independent on the marine corps for information. >> the department of defense entities controlled with
their sights and currently dictate dictate to atsdr what they can use in their reports. >>c-span: where do they see the report? >> it is on itunes and amazon and netflix. the hard dvd will be available later. it is streaming now. >>c-span: how long will you keep doing this? >> that the marine corps will live up to the amado always faithful or taxman the shovel -- shoulder with a shovel. >>c-span: mr. ensminger from