tv Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 11, 2012 1:00am-6:00am EDT
-- we cannot and the risks to our people overseas. -- end the risk to our people overseas. we must go into harm's way. we attempt to mitigate that level of threat and, if we cannot mitigate the level of threat, we will withdraw threatl withdraw. >> the ambassador, our embassy was bombed twice. i guess, what does it take -- again, this is not congress. these are the professionals in the field that say we need more security personnel in libya. ok, well, maybe all over. libya, the whole country, and you guys say no. you allude to that they consider experienced professionals in washington. 234 incidences in the country.
violent attacks on our embassy. what does it take? >> it is what i said, mr. jordan. there was not any actionable intelligence. as the director of national intelligence had said. >> are these guys professionals? these guys said they needed more help. >> if i could finish my statement, sir. >> all right, and then i want to go to these guys. >> there was no actionable intelligence available that indicated there was a plan or any indication of a massive attack of the nature and lethality. >> they were not good enough? >> there was a single rocket propelled grenade fired at the red cross. there was an attack on the british compound. we analyzed those things.
i should also note, for example, the french and italians and the united nations lifted that same threats -- >> mr. nordstrom, do you think there were ever going to give you what you wanted? what would warrant them saying, these guys know what they're talking about? we are going to me to the request. -- to meet that request. >> thank you for asking that question. i had that conversation when i came back on leave for training in february. i was told by the regional director that there had only been one incident involving an american where he was struck by celebratory fire. the take away from that, for me and my staff, it was abundantly clear, we would not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident.
the question that we would ask, again, how often does the eyes-- thin does the ice have to get it before someone falls through? connell, you can answer also. -- colonel, you can answer also. >> not only do we have an individual struck by a bullet, but we also had individual members who had a shooting incident before returning to our duties. it was an attempted carjacking and there were shots fired going both ways. >> lieutenant-colonel were you pulling your hair out? were you just flabbergasted? what can we do? what can we say? what else can we do? it was that your sense an attitude when you got the answers from washington?
>> we were fighting. we could not even keep what we had. >> he contacted me when i asked for 12 agents. his response to that was, you are asking for the sun, moon, stars. my response to him, at the know what makes this the most frustrating? about this assignmentnot the hardships, not the gun fire, it is dealing and fighting against the people, programs and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me. for me, the taliban is on the inside of the building. >> i want to thank our witnesses. thank you very much, gentlemen. >> i want to thank all of our witnesses. in the case of lt. colonel wood
and mr. nordstrom, is this the result proceed or actual of your testimony here today, you are approached or anything happens in your professional lives with the united states government that you have any questions about, please come to this committee. we take the work of whistle- blowers and people who give testimony very seriously. you have been critical to bring out things which would not have -- which would not have come out to. i will close with two comments. that i took away from today. he did not produce security at -- you do not reduce security at the -- the same time as you are increasing hazardous duty pay. it does not make sense. i have not heard that question asked and answered. i only heard that it occurred. i think the state department to take away from today and understanding that that sends a message that says, we will pay you for the risk. we will not pay to have you made safer.
that is the impression that anyone would get if you reduce the staffing below recommendations or request an increase the pay. i do not think the men and women who service overseas want. i know the compensation for hardship is important, but safety comes first. i have the marine fellow who works for me. on this side there. the united states military generously it delivers people for other branches before their names and return, those individuals come away understanding and more able to do a variety of jobs. your time, working with the state department is invaluable as you continue your career. whether you were talking to your national guard commanders or others, we do appreciate the fact that our men and women have varied careers and which they can assist others with assets that would not be available and take that back to
their units. i want to thank you for your service and use you as a conduit for so many men and women who have added to what otherwise would not be there in the way of security and protection. with that, we stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> see the vice-presidential debate tomorrow night live on c- span, c-span's radio, and online at c-span.org. watch and engage. coming up on c-span, tonight's massachusetts senate debate between scott brown and the democratic challenger, elizabeth warren. that is followed by the arizona senate debates with 300 candidates. on tomorrow morning's washington journal, a professor discusses
the impact of vice presidential debates on past elections. then a look at two house races. the executive director of the national republican congressional committee, and the executive director of the democratic campaign committee. "washington journal" live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> next, senator scott brown and elizabeth warren meet in a televised debate. in 2010, senator brownback defeated another in a special election to replace the late senator ted kennedy. this hourlong debate is courtesy of a television station in springfield. >> good evening. welcome to symphony hall for a debate between scott brown and elizabeth warren.
i am honored to be the moderator tonight. we have rules this evening. our audience of more than 2600 guests have agreed to be silent. no interruptions or applause. each candidate has a minute and 30 seconds to answer each question, and 30 seconds for rebuttal. later, each candidate gets one minute for a closing statement. a coin toss has determined the speaker order. we have received more than 200. every question is based on an idea from the public. elizabeth warren won the first coin toss. just last week, we saw the national unemployment numbers fall below 8%. millions of americans are still looking for jobs.
things are especially difficult for minority cities. what will it take and what will you do if elected to support job growth? >> thank you very much. thank you for everyone for being so hospitable. i am glad to be here, and i am glad you started with jobs. we have nearly 200,000 people unemployed in massachusetts. there are higher unemployment rates here in springfield. it is a serious problem. i look at this as a short-term and long-term problem. short-term, they should put people back to work. i was surprised when senator brown of voted against a three in a row that would have supported 22,000 jobs here in
the commonwealth of massachusetts, would have prevented layouts, and police officers, it would have put construction workers back to work. why? it would have been an increase in taxes, not for most people, but for those who make a million dollars or more. making the investments in education, making the investments in research, and we make those investments together and build a future. that is what it will take over the long run to build a stronger future here in western massachusetts, all across the commonwealth, and all across the country. >> thank you. mr. brown? >> thank you. before i start, i want to thank the mayor for your endorsement
and support. thank you both for coming. economy. the whole race is about that. we held one of our first jobs fares here because we want to connect people with jobs. when you put a title on a bill in washington that says jobs bill, you have to read the bill. those bills in particular were rejected in a bipartisan manner, and that means democrats and republicans recognize that by taking for under $50 billion in taxes out of the private sector and giving it to washington to increase government spending, that is not the answer. the best answer is to come and put the money in the communities. i went down there today and he did not say, thank you for coming. please take this money and bring it back to washington. he said, go back to washington and tell them they need a reality check. we are tired of the overspending
and the taxing and taking more money out of the economy. there are real challenges here. i used to live here. i worked and i lived over there. i understand. many businesses are hurting right now. regulatory tax uncertainty is the biggest challenge they have. >> tomorrow will be the one-year anniversary of senator brown's first vote against 22,000 jobs here in massachusetts. i hope everybody who knows someone who is unemployed, every business who would like to see those paychecks to spend in their shops, will remember that. that is how we jump-start the economy. we get work that needs to be done, and we put people back to work. the bill would have cost millionaires, those making $1 million or more, pay more. he stood with the millionaires and not those out of work. >> you have 35 seconds. >> it is the anniversary of the
protecting people's pocketbooks and wallets. i'm making sure $450 billion did not go out of the private sector in into washington so they could spend it. bottom line, you need to create the regulatory tax certainty. when i am fighting for military jobs and trying to create the ability for them to stay in business, i am very proud my third vote was a bipartisan jobs bill. we need to do it better. >> next question goes to mr. brown. depending on what happens on election day, it is entirely possible the numbers will be set up in such a way in january that both houses are set up by the republican party. it seems to me in the repeal of obamacare. it is further escalating costs and hospitals and physicians. it is a problem of fraud, but
hard to catch and investigate. what do we do about the continuing health-care cost problem. would you support a replacement of fee-for-service to help try to reduce the rising costs? >> health care is something that affects every person in every business in massachusetts. i was proud to work on our health care bill that actually insures 98% of our people. we did it without raising taxes and we did it without the one-
size-fits-all. the federal bill, which my opponent supports and i do not, raises taxes. the folks that have the so- called cadillac tax plans, the teachers, they will be taxed tens of thousands of dollars. i believe everybody should have health care. that is why i supported what we did here in massachusetts. i think other states should be incentivized. to think the federal government will tell massachusetts where we have the best doctors in the world, that is unacceptable. the codes changed regularly. there really is no certainty and stability. it is something we need to continue to work on. >> 90 seconds. >> you are right about the
control of the senate. scott brown has made it clear his first job will be to repeal the affordable care act. i do not think that is where the american people want to be, a hand -- to become a and -- to be, and i do not think that is good for us. he raises the same old argument that there will be more than $700 billion taken out of medicare. that is the same playbook mitt romney used a week ago tonight. 11,000 here in massachusetts are getting help paying for their
prescription medications. a big part of it is to help bring down health-care costs. also, investment in a lot of research. how to get better outcomes at lower costs. this will be a big driver for the economy here in massachusetts and ultimately for country. >> you have 30 seconds. >> thank you. the bottom line is any of the the crowd, you need to pay attention. it is two quarters of a trillion dollars that my opponent is supporting and i do not. to think you can cut that amount money and not have it affect your care and coverage is wrong.
will dumb down what we did here in massachusetts, that is not something i can support. we have an opportunity in massachusetts. this is a jobs-crushing bill. you have 18 new taxes coming in. three-quarters of $1 trillion. i cannot support it. >> 7 extra seconds. you can take up to 37. >> senator brown will double down on a number that simply is not true. aarp has made it clear that the changes the affordable care act as for medicare strengthens medicare and does not cutsenator brown wants to talk about taxes. keep in mind there is only $1 trillion in tax cuts in the affordable care act. it comes to people who are purchasing health insurance and the small businesses that are providing health insurance. it is good for us. >> college debt for the students and families.
we know it tops $1 trillion. higher education is the largest industry in massachusetts. the number means a lot to us. what would you do and what more can and should washington do if anything to address the soaring face. >> i went to public schools and a commuter college. i ended up as a professor. i got to do that because of the opportunities afforded me by a good education that americanow we live in a world where there is far too little investment, and is typically in higher edation. there are four great community colleges in this area. we need to be making the investments in the community colleges. for a couple of reasons. partly because it is a good, affordable way for kids to get an education. partly because it helps us build a future. persistent technology here in western massachusetts, this is a
real opportunity for the future. only if there is a well- educated work force. that starts and home school, on into community colleges, and on into universities. i want to say this is about priorities. that is how i see it. there will not be a single, magic bullet. what the priorities. students will have to pick up more of the costs of student loans. twice, senator brown voted to let students rates double. why? it would have forced to pay for it closing a loophole used by millionaires. it is called the newt gingrich loophole. what are your priorities? protecting loopholes for millionaires or college education? >> great question. the cost of education is out of sight. we need to have an educated student population. my youngest daughter graduated.
i understand. what those payments certainly are. one of the largest driving forces behind the high cost of education is administrative costs. professor war makes about $350 thousand to teach a course. -- professor warren makes about $350,000 to teach one course. she got a zero interest loan and gets perks. it is interesting. kids are forced to go out and borrow money at a high interest rate. then harvard goes and gets a zero interest loan to the professors. that is one of the driving forces behind the high costs of education. that, energy, health care. if you are paying for health care for students, it has gone up as a result of obamacare to about $1,500. we have done a lot with providing benefits for our students.
we need to continue to do that. there she goes again with regard to talking about studenti voted against it because i did not want to see small business owners pay $60 billion to pay -- $6 billion to pay for low interest rates. we stopped it and we worked and rolled up our sleeves and did it without taxing people and using any additional federal funds. >> time, sir. >> i went to a commuter college. -- community college. i paid $50 a semester for tuition. i am proud to have made it to where i have made it in my profession. let's be clear. i paid $50 a semester because america was investing in public colleges and universities at the time. that is what we need to do. [applause] senator brown, the question about voting is, what side are you on? i want to go with our kids.
>> that is time. mr. brown? >> we actually passed that bill to keep student interest rates low. we did it by working together in a truly bipartisan way to get it done. she says millionaires and billionaires. no, it is the ordinary student interest rates low. we did it together. we tweet some federal programs. -- wewtw -- we tweaked some federal programs. we found the money. both sides to get that done. >> i will remind the audience, it only takes time away from your candidates when you applaud. please do not. let's stay with education. communities are stretching and struggling to pay for local
schools. many costs are based on awhat should the role of the federal government be in local education? >> i work very hard to provide the tools and resources to our community to get funding for new schools and i am proud of that. very supportive of the new issues that are been initiated. we are doing a lot and i never voted for a mandate. it is one of the things that is killing communities like springfield and everybody in western massachusetts and throughout our great state. it is the high cost of education that is driving the train. just go back because i have time, student interest rates, the bottom line is that you cannot rewrite my record. we made sure we did without raising taxes. constant criticisms on the fact that i do not want to raise taxes on many americans.
we did it without raising taxes by tweaking federal programs. and finding a way to do it better. when it comes to jobs and jobs creation, i worked very hard as a state senator and continue to work with the community college. we found at a community college that you have opportunities where businesses in the area are working directly with the university to develop a work force you can actually have for that particular business. that is something i have supported and will continue to support. and reliford to the opportunity. -- and i look forward to the opportunity. >> thank you. 90 seconds. >> you were asking about what we would do for the younger kids and education. it is a wonderful question. i am proud to be from massachusetts. we have made investments in education and our kids have done well. they have not done as well if we think they can if we do better. the way i see this is that
massachusetts, the local cities and towns, should come up with their own ideas, but they need a good federal partner in washington. i will give you one example of what a good federal partner can do. a good federal partner can put money into stem and mathematics. science, technology, economics, -- engineering, and mathematics. to help make sure we have more teachers and schools, make sure they have the opportunities to get the grounding they need to go on to community college, get better training, and be part of the well-educated work force. moving down to younger kids, i want to make clear that every dollar we invest is something that pays off many times over that child's lifetime. it is an investment we should be making. we need to invest in our children. that is our moral responsibility and it is good
economics. >> mr. brown, 30 seconds. >> we agree. important. growing up from here, i have been working very hard as a state representative and state senator to try to find ways we can do it all and provide good value for our dollar, accountability for our students and teachers, having parental involvement, and trying to find ways to stretch the dollars we paid to state and federal government. there is a lot more to do. we will hopefully continue the work. >> that is time. >> i am sorry. >> ms. moran, -- warren, you have 30 seconds. >> i am glad senator brown agrees. i want to make clear that if the republicans take over control of the united states senate, they have made it clear
that in order to pay for the tax cuts for the richest americans, they will make cuts elsewhere. table? more than half a trillion basic infrastructure, and research. to have a good, federal partner in washington, we have to make funding education a priority. >> this question goes to elizabeth warren. dealing with cutting spending, which we will have to do, can you tell us where you would look first and last? can you identify two federal programs that can be cut, and two he would work hard to -- and two of them are sacrosanct to you and that you would work hard to protect? >> you are exactly right. we will have to take a balanced approach. i would be clear in terms of cutting the agricultural subsidy programs. it is time to cut in our military budget. we are winding out of one war. we have ended another one. we can realign our priorities.
on the other hand, i want to make clear i will not go to washington to cut medicare or social security benefits. [applause] when we talk about a balanced approach, we need to be talking about spending cuts and we need to be talking about increasing revenues. it takes both to close the deficit. we both submitted our economic proposals to the boston globe. they were sent out four independent economic analysis. found is that i was 67% more effective at cutting the deficit then senator brown. why? because i am willing to make cuts. i am willing to make substantial cuts. i support substantial cuts. i also believe we have to raise revenues. that is what it will take to get serious about our deficit. i truly believe on this one, this is about our children and
grandchildren. we cannot leave it to our debts. >> that is time. mr. brown? >> great question. we are in the $16 trillion national debt. we are in another trillion dollar deficit. you cannot keep borrowing to pay our bills. when we are talking about cutting military spending, we have party cut in half a trillion dollars. that affects many people in this room and people watching. i have been battling as a member of the arms services committee to try to find the resources to protect our men and women who are serving. we have sequestration coming up. we are trying to work in a bipartisan effort to step back from that. i cut $2 trillion as a result of obamacare. it is not good for massachusetts. crushes businesses. i would sell unused property. we do not need it. i would do a top to bottom review of every program.
if there is anybody listening who thinks my opponent is a tax cutter, let me get rid of that myth. i never voted for a taxi would not be raising taxes on any american. we need to have a balanced budget amendment. it is something we need. we do it in the state, homes, businesses. that is a big difference. the first thing, every single time, is to raise taxes. the national federation of independent businesses said many people in this room would be affected by the cuts in her plan. i would not be putting the businesses of individuals and their lives in jeopardy. >> senator brown says he will cut health care. keep in mind, that is scored as it is going to increase our debt and not decrease it. he cites a study, the same thing out of governor romney's strategy. he was wrong then and he is
wrong now. it does not analyze anything i did. it does not use the president's. keep in mind to this group is. can i finish? >> 10 more seconds. >> this group endorses senator brown and other republicans and refers to ted kennedy as public enemy number one. that is who they are. >> that is 15. but 45 seconds. >> if anybody thinks the national health care bill is not going to be back for massachusetts, they do not understand the bills. they have not read the bills. it dramatically increases 18 new taxes. medical device companies in massachusetts will be first. our seniors would medicare will be hammered in the coverages and care they get in hospitals. when you look at the chamber of commerce, is the premier independent group.
700,000 jobs. she says the numbers were made up here they are not made up. with all due respect, those numbers are not made of. it was said her involvement in this race is catastrophically anti-business. we cannot continue to focus on raising taxes. >> thank you both very much. in both the presidential and did your campaigns, i have heard the words "middle class" used a lot. what do you mean? income levels, values? >> i do not think it is values. it is in comes. -- incomes. i have worked hard to get property valuations and get could trash, please, and fire contracts. we all pay.
i think about hard-working men and women who have one, two, or a third job. sometimes kids contribute. the number of areas in which state you are at. the bottom line is is all about whose side you're on. we know professor warren has said she is fighting for you and the middle class. she is fighting in fact for the large corporations, travels insurance, giving almost a quarter of a million dollars, fighting to deny people benefits for asbestos settlements. fighting to protect large corporations over the union workers who are going to get their health care. also, dodd chemical, working to make sure there is limited liability for women with faulty breast implants. it is about whose side you're on. it is about fighting for the middle class. i want to continue as i have
before. one thing we cannot be doing right now in the middle of this recession is by taking more money out of people's are working pocketbooks and wallets government. [applause] >> i am losing control. let's face it. america's middle class has been getting hammered. them. they work for those who can hire and an army of lobbyists and lawyers. that is why i am in this race. what is america's middle-class tax the people who work hard and play by the rules, and invest in the future. have a better chance than they did and their grandkids are going to have a better chance than that. that is what i see as the two different missions in this race overall. the race in massachusetts and the race nationally.
cut taxes for those at the top and let the chips fall where they may for everybody else. i think we can do better for that. we can do better than that for america's middle-class and working families, and america's poor families who want those opportunities. i believe everybody pays a fair scared. that means the millionaires. that means the billionaires. that means the big oil companies. [applause] then we make those investments in the future. we invest in education, infrastructure, we invest in ourselves and our kids. that is why those of the issues i want to talk about in this race. senator brown does not want to talk about his voting record. he just wants to launch attacks. thank you. >> it is about whose side you were on. getting hammered, i suggest you put down the hammer. it is your regulations and your policies that will be hurting.
audience: boo! >> we will give you a couple extra seconds. middle-class families and every class of family in the united states. you have massachusetts lobbyists working for you. in terms of an army of lawyers, you are one of them. you went out and got paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight against -- >> that is time. 40 seconds. >> i am glad you raised the question of regulations. i went to washington to fight to make sure people cannot get cheated on mortgages, credit cards, and state loans. that agency, just out there a year on its own, and it has already returned nearly half a billion dollars to consumers who
have gotten cheated. i think that is the way the system ought to work. that. >> i will give you each 15 seconds. >> i commend you for your work on that. i voted for it. was not the deciding vote. audience: boo! [applause] >> i actually made it better. we put in a provision to protect our men and women's measures. i commend you for that. it into effect. >> it came out in the boston globe he was out working in secret to weaken the regulations so the biggest financial institutions on wall street would not have to deal with such difficult regulations.
i think this is one more case of senator brown making it clear where he stands. he has taken more than $2 million in contributions, and he really delivers for wall street. >> i owe you five seconds, senator. >> i would like to start right now. >> i am finding it. >> i will fight for massachusetts jobs. the company she is referring to that i was fighting for, i was proud to do it. >> perfect. back on time. i will give everybody who is watching the time about two seconds to take a breather. let's go. ms. warren, first to you. where would you stand if the idea of eliminating the mortgage increased tax deduction were put forward as part of a tax reform or deficit reduction? >> i would not support ending middle-class families.
they have been hammered enough and they just cannot take it. no. >> reset. you are fine? ok. >> i am sorry. >> you have a minute. >> you are asking the right question. where are we going to raise revenues? what senator brown has done is take the pledge, making sure he by $1, on millionaires, billionaires, big oil. that exactly is what he has voted for. asking billionaires to pay theirthe industry where the big five made $137 billion in profits last year, senator brown said keep those subsidies flowing to the oil companies.
for me, what this is all about is we have to find the right balance in the system. we have to go to a sensible place. when the question comes of the aspiring tax credits, so taxes could go up for 98% of the families here in massachusetts, and 97% of small businesses, senator brown said he voted against that, would let taxes go up, unless there were bigger breaks for the top 2%. this is about whose side you stand on. >> 90 seconds. to you, senator. >> i am glad i am agreed with. we should not raise taxes on anybody in the middle of a recession. i will not be raising taxes on any one in massachusetts or anyone in the united states. we are in a fiscal and financial emergency right now. we do not need to do every single time, say take, take, take more and more.
we have our own buffett rule in massachusetts. we have an opportunity for people who want to pay more. they can. professor warren chose not to check that box and make that contribution. it is ok to take everybody else's money, but before we do that, we need to practice what we preach. when you talk about oil and our energy producers, i am not sure anybody has been to the pump. it is about $4 a gallon. if you think by eliminating deductions or raising taxes on our energy producers in the middle of the winter, they will pass those tax increases off to you. you will be paying more as you fill up your car, your oil tanks, and we need to have a comprehensive reform. we need to do a review of our tax code. we need to work it out together. we cannot be pitting people
against each other. bipartisan manner. i have done it. i will continue to do it. i am proud. >> 30 seconds. ms. wawrren? -- warren? >> i think i heard senator brown say that instead of working for the people of massachusetts, he grover norquist to make sure no tax still occurs that costs millionaires or billionaireswhat he has said he will do is let more than $2 trillion of tax cuts expire for 90% of families in massachusetts. on billionaires. >> the 2% of the people out there creating jobs. those job creators.
it makes a great sound bite. but those aspiring tax cuts will only fund the government for 10 or 15 days. we need a comprehensive approach on this. the only way this can get done is to do it together. >> very good. how do you feel you differ from your opponent in the area of women's rights and women's issues? specifically, paycheck fairness act, states that have moved and tried to require special preliminaries procedures for women who need to be seeking medical procedures. >> good question. i live in a house full of women. two of them are right there. they have been fighting since i have been fighting since i was 6 years old to protect women's rights. my mom, when she was getting abused by an abusive husband and stepfather. she was battling to keep us safe.
we are both pro-choice. we are both supportive of roe vs. wade. i believe in women getting the same pay and benefits. as you have heard, when you refer to paycheck fairness, right idea but the wrong bill. when it comes to women's rights, i am pro-choice. i am a co-sponsor of the violence against women act because i have lived through that. it is important to protect women, especially when they are being abused. make sure they can get the care and coverage is they need. when it comes to protecting women's rights, i am happy to continue to fight, as i have done in the past. you can cherry pick votes and try to distort things.
the bottom line is i am very happy with what i have done. >> that is time. 90 seconds. >> i have no doubt that senator brown is a good husband and a good father to his daughters. this is an issue that affects all of our daughters and their granddaughters. what matters here is how senatorhe has gone to washington and he has had good votes. he has had exactly one chance to vo for equal pay for equal work, and he voted no. he had exactly one chance to vote for insurance coverage for birth control and other preventive services for women. he voted no. he had one chance to vote for a pro-choice woman from massachusetts to the united
states supreme court, and he voted no. those are bad votes for women. the women of massachusetts need a senator they can count on, not some of the time, but all of the time. [applause] i want to go to washington to be there for all of our daughters and granddaughters. this one really matters. there is a lot at stake. >> you have another 20 seconds. if you wish. >> i think that says it all. i am a mother of a daughter and a grandmother of granddaughters. this is about their future. i want to be blunt. we should not be fighting about equal pay for equal work and access for birth control in 2012. [applause] these issues were resolved years ago, until the republicans brought them back. >> that is time. mr. brown, another 30 seconds. >> we are both pro-choice. we are both working very hard.
i think we would agree on that fact. i will not be pitting catholics against their church and their faith. we did it in massachusetts. i will fight to make sure any legislation that comes up is not going to be basically prohibiting people to practice their faith. we did it in massachusetts. we already have the ability to do both. we actually provide care and coverages women deserve, and we provide the ability for people in churches and hospitals to practice their faith. we did it. >> time. >> i am sorry. >> i apologize for any confusion. you will have 40 seconds. so that we keep it even. >> i just want to be clear. this is how the senator votes. he comes up with a lot of excuses. the reality is, he had one chance to vote for equal pay for equal work any voted against it. he had one chance to vote for insurance coverage on birth control and he voted against it. he had one chance to vote for a pro-choice woman to the united
states supreme court, and he voted against her. these votes matter. roe vs. wade may hang in the balance. access to birth control and equal pay for equal work, women are entitled to these. this is not right. >> i did not have a chance to respond. i hope she proves me wrong. she did not have a traditional court experience as a prerequisite. number two, "the boston herald, ""the boston globe" and united chamber of commerce said the right idea, the wrong bill. you need to read the bill. to give people an early christmas to allow them to hurt small businesses, i will not do it. >> it is like it was with the millionaires, billionaires, and oil companies. he has a lot of excuses for standing on the other side. when it came down to it in critical votes, he was not there for women.
massachusetts women deserve a senator they can count on all the time. [applause] >> that this time. thank you. mitt romney now wants a larger role for the united states in syria. he would like to see as helping and working with others to supply rebels with arms. what should we do about syria and what american involvement and intervention would you support to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon. >> what he is a link to his own people is terrible. it has to stop. he has to go. in iran, what is critical is they are not permitted to develop nuclear weapons. they are a danger to the region, our ally israel, and they are a danger to the entire world. with a nuclear iran, we not only have the risks of more terrorists getting access to nuclear weapons, more people in the region one nuclear weapons,
it is destabilizing to the world. it means the whole world has an interest in making sure that they do not develop nuclear weapons. that is why i support the approach that has been used by president obama. that is he takes nothing off the table when he goes in. but he comes in and tries to work with other countries in order to bring pressure, in order, in this case, to put economic sanctions in place. in the case of syria, to provide support that we think is appropriate. i think the president is doing the right thing. he is cautious, he is measured, but he is firm. that is what we need when dealing with that part of the world. i just want to say i am really glad to support president obama as commander in chief, and i do
not want to see mitt romney in that job. >> that is time. >> i said on the armed services -- i sit on the armed services [applause] homeland, and veterans. i want to make sure our soldiers have the tools and resources to do their jobs and do them well and come home. if they are not well, we need to get them in the veterans administration. elizabeth warren wants to cut. we cannot allow iran to have -- we cannot afford to cut another half of $1 trillion. we cannot allow this. i have been working to make an effort to destabilize the currency of the central bank in iran. the sanctions we have done are good but we need to have the president implement them. when it comes to syria, assad does need to go. we need to work with moderates in opposition and provide them with military hardware and support financially so they can do battle.
the citizens there, they are being slaughtered by the thousands. when it comes to libya, i thought what happened there is unacceptable. i thought the handling of it was unacceptable. we need to have a full and immediate investigation to make sure we find out what happened. more importantly, iran, my opponents said earlier we need a nuanced approach. there is no such thing. there is only one person who will stand with israel. >> another 30 seconds. >> i have three older brothers, all of whom served in the military. my oldest brother was career military. 288 combat missions he served in vietnam. i have some sense of not only how tough and capable they are. that is why i believe the best we can do for our military is be very careful and thoughtful about when we ask them to go to war. we need to have clear
objectives. we need to know what our plan is and how we plan to get out. >> you can take up to 40. >> we have the greatest fighting force in the history of the world. our men and women who have served have done a remarkable job. i saw what the soldiers were doing. when duty calls, they are there. i am very proud of that. them with the tools and resources. when they are dealing with what is happening over there, it is troubling. we need to make sure we can work with leaders over there who will give our embassy personnel the right information. i am not sure that was done in libya. >> another question. thank you very much. we will go first to mr. brown. brac, the base realignment and closure process, could call for
cuts for many defense related programs in massachusetts. if that happens, where would you stand for cuts to trim the deficit, or to prefer pentagon spending and jobs provided for the economy in massachusetts? >> great question. i am still serving in the national guard. i have been there in that capacity. and as a senator, making sure we to what is going on. the jobs are critical. we have a strong defense industry in massachusetts. we need to make sure we can protect them, as well. it will be a challenge. i worked on the first base closure when i was a state senator. i have been fighting and working now, meeting with the personnel. also, at the air force base. to make sure we provide them. as a ranking member of armed services and having the ability
to meet with these people and get the information and battle in a consistent basis for them, i am looking forward to that opportunity. as you know, especially, they have a mission where their proficiency is so much better than the active forces, and to think we will put that in jeopardy because a political agenda, i will not do it. we both want to support our military. i would argue that based on my experience, i have the ability to do better. that is not the only challenge when you are talking about stretching the almighty dollars. we earn a financial emergency. we need to take an approach where we can put everything on the table, looking at the top to bottom review. trying to make sure we can do the best with what we have. >> 90 seconds. >> here is the problem. we both want to protect the
military. we have a big deficit. when senator brown and other republicans take the grover norquist pledge, and they say they will not raise money for millionaires and billionaires, they will not close the oil subsidies, what they are saying is they are just not serious about cutting the deficit, bringing the budget back into across-the-board cuts. those cuts for the military is the worst possible way we could go. it is bad for the country. massachusetts. here is why. it keeps lopping off 10%, 15%. we need to use this opportunity to think about the military we need going forward in the 21st century. here is what i am prepared to do. i am prepared to get out there and fight, to talk about what the c5 galaxy means. giant planes and take big groups disaster relief all run
the world. that is why there should not be a penny of cuts there. the cuts need to be in the cuts need to be in places like the standing army. we do not need the same size standing army as we did when we were fighting two wars. what we need to do is we need to get serious. put it on the table, including revenues. that is how we get serious. that is how we protect our military. >> that is time. another 30 seconds. >> great sound bites, but when you are talking about a military personnel, i have been doing it for 2.5 years. working with all of our military bases. i have visited there. i know what the missions are. it would be devastating to lose those services in massachusetts. you said you want to cut more military money. you cannot have it both ways. you cannot cut military and protect the c5's. cannot do both. to think we will do it in any other way by taxing and spending against our job creators, it will not happen.
>> 37 seconds. >> senator brown just ran on this. as long as we do not bring the budget into balance, there will be across the board cuts. that is what will hurt us in massachusetts. that is what will hurt us in our military bases and the investments we make in research and development. we need to get more revenue on the table and get serious about reshaping our military budget. it is no longer about a big standing army. it is about making the investments that we need in the future. cyber security, research and development, and the c5. >> that is all the time we have. we have no time for questions. closing statements. a coin toss determined mr. brown will be first. one minute and 30 seconds. >> thank you. thank you for the folks who are watching. thank you for your support and endorsement, mayor.
i want to say, aside from my marriage of 26 years and the birth of my kids come up being at your senator is the greatest honor i could ever have. there are many challenges here. after the tornado, i was here. i am continuing to work with the mayor and his team to get reimbursements to fight to make sure we can get springfield and the surrounding areas back on their feet. as somebody who has been working very hard in a truly bipartisan manner to get things done, i am trying to work together to get things done. this is a time where i need your vote. i am asking for your support. this is a critical election. let me further say that when we are talking about taxes and jobs and spending, the first thing
out of anybody's mouth who is running in this race, professor warren in particular, is that we need to raise taxes. we need to take your hard-earned money and give it to washington. we cannot. we need to work together in a bipartisan manner. i have been doing it. she referenced somebody the other day who she would work with. he goes 80% with his party. i am at 54%. i cannot do this alone. i would appreciate your vote. thank you. [applause] >> please, we are very short on time. one minute and 30 seconds. >> this afternoon, i was driving in the car with bruce. we were driving along the same road and same car became this summer when we drove out to the peak with our granddaughters. we climbed on all sorts of things and drove fast on the mountain. it was a reminder to me of what
this race is about. for me, this is about our children and about our grandchildren. there are two very different visions of how we build a future for them. senator brown and the republicans believe we do that by cutting taxes for those at the very top and then we let everybody else pick up the pieces. i believe we can do better than that. we must do better than that. i believe everybody pays a fair share. even millionaires, billionaires, and even big oil companies. when everybody pays a fair share, we can all make the investments in the future. we have to invest in education for our children. our public universities, public schools, we have to make those investments to have an educated workforce and a real future. we have to make the investments in infrastructure. we see it in western massachusetts. those investments are what is going to create our future. we have to invest in research.
that is what it is about for me. i am asking for your vote so that together we can build a real future for all of our children and grandchildren. [applause] >> thank you very much. please. i have about 15 seconds to say thank you for the springfield public forum, all of the members for making this possible, a great big thanks to a senator scott brown and to elizabeth warren for coming and spending time with us. it does not matter what you did tonight if you do not get out and vote november 6. thank you for watching. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
carmona. then a house hearing on the benghazi attack. >> the c-span 2012 campaign debate hub website provides an affirmation about the debates and it it is the only place he will see behind the coverage live sites and sounds behind each debate. it has questions available as a separate clip. watching your create the clips as well and watch streaming twets at the c-span campaign 2012 debate hub. next, jeff flake faces richard carmona in the debate for the seat of retiring jon kyl.
the political report rates this race a tossup. it is courtesy of arizona pbs. >> it is the first debate between candidates for the seat vacated by jon kyl. this is an open exchange of ideas, an opportunity for give- and-take between candidates for one of the state's most important offices. as such, interactions are allowed, provided that all sides get a fair shake and we will do our best to see that that happens. they are in a alphabetical order, democrat dr. richard carmona, the former u.s. surgeon general. congressman jeff flake. and libertarian mark victor. each candidate will have an opportunity for an opening statement. the honor goes to richard
carmona. >> thanks, ted. i am happy to be with you and my colleagues. this is an opportunity -- the fact of the matter is is that over a year ago when my colleagues first approached me, the cops, the firemen and ems personnel, and said there is an open seat, you should run. the first thing i said, is i will run as far away from washington as i can. i have been there. i was not sure i wanted to go back to the dysfunction. the more i thought about it, i realized that we need leadership there. this gridlock has hurt our nation. we have a fiscal cliff. congress has stalled. i have been very fortunate in my life. my mom only wanted one of her kids to graduate from high school. i have been able because of a
great country to get an education and go to medical school, to be a police officer and a professor. that is because we have a country that is full of opportunity. >> your time's up. dr. carmona, we turn to mark victor. ini'm a person who believes freedom. i believe in individual rights and individual responsibility. that is why we are a superpower because we have had more freedom relative to other countries. i am not a politician. i say what i think. i do not sugarcoat things. i cannot change my views based on the audience i am in front of. i keep my promises. i am a man of principle. i started my first business at age 17. i am an honorably discharged united states marine. i served in desert storm. i am a criminal defense attorney for 19 years. i started off my law firm in
2007 and i employ 11 full-time people at my firm. i know what it is like to run a small business. we have strayed far from the principles of limited government. our government taxes and spends out of control and our civil liberties are constantly under attack. we can fix it, but we need to get government back into its cage. >> our final opening statement is from jeff flake. >> good to be here. two days ago, cheryl and i received a wonderful phone call from my son ryan and forming as we are grandparents. aidan was born into a wonderful family, but he was born into $50,000 of debt. his share of the federal debt we all hold. that is why the stakes in this election are so high. we have to have somebody who understands fiscal discipline. that has been my record in the house of representatives, where i fought my own leadership on issues like earmarks. they punish me for it, but i
kept at it and we do not have earmarks any more. that is the kind of attitude i will take to the united states senate. my opponent have a great résume. but a great resume is not a plan. he has been running for a year now and we do not know where he stands on the major issues of the day. we have a choice in this election. we can elect somebody who does not have a plan, will be an echo of the obama administration. or somebody who will continue to be an independent voice for arizona. i would appreciate your vote. >> thank you for your opening statements. let's fine tune things a little bit here. why you and not him? >> happy to have the opportunity. no, my life has been one that has been best exemplified by the infrastructure of opportunity that this nation has. i am a high-school dropout from an immigrant family. i have prospered because of this great infrastructure of opportunity in our nation.
i have been able to serve my country as a physician, a police officer, as a professor, as a teacher. and doing all of those things has allowed me to appreciate how great this nation is. what i want to do is make sure we can preserve this infrastructure of opportunity so every kid can get that american dream. >> what you and not him? >> that is exactly it. that opportunity will not exist unless we get a hold of this $16 trillion debt. that is why we have to have somebody who has a record, who is willing to stand up for that record. that has been my record in the house and that is the record i will take to the senate. it is the same reason, but i see that opportunity slipping away unless we can get this under control. >> why you instead of these two gentlemen? >> the problem here is the republicans and the democrats. the two parties got us into this situation to begin with.
we have had republicans in office, republicans controlling the presidency, we get more government. we have democrats, democrats controlling the congress and the presidency, we get more government. the republicans and democrats are not the solution. they are the problem. they caused the problem. we need a new plan which is an old plan. we need to get back to what our country is about which is freedom, individual rights, free market, limited government. >> let's get into jobs and how the best way to create jobs in arizona, the best way to create jobs in this country. how'd you do that when so few people have jobs and the money to infuse into the economy? >> there are a lot of opportunities at this time. our state is suffering right now. when we look at arizona and the unemployment rate, the housing prices, the fiscal cliff, it's extraordinary. amid all of that, there is opportunity for us to grow. we have to look at this in short-term and long-term. what is it that we can do to
bring jobs right now? what we have to do it is provide incentives to be able to get small business started again. we have to be able to look it infrastructure needs. one of the challenges as i have travelled around the state and i have gone to the old williams air force base. i have gone to the other air force base. i hear from the businessmen, we need infrastructure. what they tell me is, congressman flake is not available because he believes these things are bad. i think we ought to be doing is working with business to create infrastructure to make arizona the most attractive place to live and people will come with their ideas and business will grow. even the mayor of mesa, who is a republic has said to me, we cannot depend on congressman flake. i will be there to provide that help to build infrastructure. >> respond, please. >> i will give him this. he is a quick study. is only been a democrat a year now. the source of jobs in this country is the federal
government and not businesses. this notion that we have to have the federal government to provide incentives for business, what we really need is sure the on taxes and then to get a moratorium on these burdensome regulations that are strangling business in this state. the notion that all we need to do is pick winners and losers like the obama administration has been doing, that is the wrong prescription for arizona. >> is there no place for incentives? >> the best incentives is to allow individuals and businesses to keep their own money and to let the market allocate capital. does it so much better than government does. as governor romney said very effectively the other day, president obama is trying to pick winners and losers. the problem is he is just picking losers. . >> the characterization that the congressman has mentioned
is incorrect. what i am saying and i agree with them -- there are many things we agree on. the fact is is that we need an infrastructure to be able to build our businesses. so when we look at what actually is needed, we need innovators to come here. why would i come here? because there is infrastructure. again, if you look at some of the incubators we have created already, they are dying to be able to have help. congress and flake has pursued this earmarked ideology for a long time. in 12 years we are still struggling. our businessmen tell me that we need help. when you are a senator, you need to work with us. >> just a second. >> he has to respond regarding the year mark situation. you are known for fighting earmarks. >> we do not have the earmarks right now. that is a wonderful thing. businesses in cities and others can compete for federal grants
on a merit-based basis rather than by political patron is. that was a terrible system we had, and it is a good riddance. i am proud of the road i played the role i played. the last thing we need is to go back to the earmark era where politicians in the house and senate are picking winners and losers. that is not what we need. what we need is for the federal government to establish and create an environment where the private sector can flourish. >> talking about earmarks is exactly the kind of craziness we do not need any more. earmarked -- $16 trillion debt. earmarked account for 1/2 of 1% of the federal budget. we are better off, but talking about that is like talking about a drop of water in the ocean. the government does not create jobs. the private sector creates jobs. if you one example, take a look
at texas. the people in texas are close to the people in arizona. why and there -- is their economy doing so fantastic? they are consistently ranked as one of the top state friendly to business. what does that mean? they mean lower taxes, low regulation. and not worry about government trading infrastructure. all the government has to do is get out of the way and let the free market to its thing. >> you have been criticized for not bringing home the bacon, not doing enough to get federal money into arizona. how do you respond? >> most of the earmarks, in the transportation bill. that had 6300 earmarks, including the bridge to nowhere. arizona has been short of for a long time in our transportation largely because of the earmarks, because delegations from donor states will say, we will take a lower formal amount in exchange for a few goodies -- earmarks. that has meant that arizona has only got 90 cents on the dollar rather than $1 for $1. now we're marks are gone and the next authorization bill, arizona will get 95 cents on the dollar.
that will mean hundreds of millions of dollars more for the state and a flexible manner. arizona is far better off. >> let's look at this. the fact of the matter is that all the remarks are not poor. there are necessities the federal government can provide. the congressman has been in congress for 12 years. he has had this ideological streak. it accounts for less than 1% of the budget. it is almost insignificant. his colleagues have figured out other ways to circumvent this. what we are talking about a smart investment in our communities. a republican mayor would reach out to me and say we need your help because congressman flake is unwilling to work with us. this is about infrastructure, this is about the federal government investing in a community and the return on investment will be huge when science and technology and engineering is in the incubators that we have here. >> hold on. >> there is this philosophy
again that all jobs have to be treated by the federal government. that is why dr. carmona is comfortable party in comfortable priority, because that is the attitude of the obama administration -- that is why dr. carmona is comfortable in the democratic party. >> the fact of the matter is, i am not here to defend the obama administration. i have been an independent my entire life. i understand what businessmen are telling me. we need help. we are willing to invest, but we need roads, sanitation, clean water. that is beyond the scope of small business. infrastructure will help entrepreneur is to take risks, to hire people, we will get schools and get economic growth. >> i wonder what the founders of our country would think about this very discussion. i wonder what they would think of the federal government taxing people in arizona and then having our representatives to go to washington and bad for our money back so we can have a road and schools.
is on american. we need to stand up and take a principled stand -- it is unamerican. we need to decide how we spend our money. how about the people who made the money decide how to spend the money for a change? >> dr. carmona misunderstands how federal funding works. he says that earmarks make up less than 1% of funding but acts the way that the only way arizona gets funding is through a earmarked. that is not the case. earmarks influence a lot more than that. it is good riddance to get rid of that. now businesses and municipalities and others can compete for grants where there are federal programs on a merit basis. that is better than political patronage. >> i want to work on to the idea of tax cuts for those making $250,000 or more. what to do with the bush era tax cuts?
>> we have to extend them because we have to protect the poor and middle-class. so the fact is they need to be extended. i would be in favor of protecting the middle class and the poor. i have no problem with somebody like myself paying a little bit more tax now but in order to cut the deal in order to deliver and protect the poor and middle class, i am ok with going to a full extension of the bush tax cuts with a proviso that my colleagues would agree that we stop kicking the can down the road because congress has failed to deliver on tax reform. this shows us that we are in trouble by continuing to kick the can down the road. >> a deal? >> we need to extend the tax cuts. now is not the time to raise taxes. people say this just for people making $250,000 or more. a lot of businesses, our best corporations -- if you tax them more, these are jobs that are not created.
dr. carmona seems to have a position on every side of this issue depending on the audience. i have read of several positions he has taken on this issue. >> how do you respond? >> congressman flake is trying to characterize me as something i am not. i have been an independent all my life. i chose the democratic party because when i looked at the republican party and what congressman flake was doing voting against a veteran benefits, against the combat bonus, when i looked at whether the republican party was denying women access to health care and what they're were doing to seniors and putting them at risk, i could not line up with the republican party because it is not the republicans that were fiscally conservative that i used to know. it is not a perfect fit. but i am being is characterized because he is running from his record. >> one thing i can agree with is
that the republican party today has nothing to do with the republicans that used to talk about small government. i know barry goldwater, had he been there, i'm sure if he asked mr. flake about his vote for the patriot act, i will bet he will roll in his grave. the bush era tax cuts do not do enough. we need to abolish tax cuts -- taxes entirely. barack obama said he did not want to raise taxes on the middle class because the middle class buys cars. so did the rich. the rich spend money, too. the rich are part of the crowd that invest money to create jobs. that is what we need to be doing in america -- cutting everybody's taxes as far as possible. >> we got you. congressman, would you ok $3 in spending cuts for every $1 and revenue?
>> you will never get that bargain. i believe there are some republicans who say you go -- if you lower the top tax rate, that you cannot produce any new revenue for government. i do not believe that. i say if we generate new revenue, then pay down the debt faster, by down the rate further. so i am not one who says he cannot generate any new revenue. there was a question a while ago about and ethanol subsidy that i have been trying to get rid of for years. we finally did. that is about $6 billion. some republicans said if you get rid of that -- it's price revenue neutral. get rid of a bad subsidy. >> to be clear, if it means getting rid of $3 in spending cuts, you have to raise revenue by $1. you are against that? >> you will never see it. every time we get a plan, we do not see the cuts. >> the congressman, what he is
accusing me of, not answering the question -- he is not answering the question. >> i am saying i would not oppose. >> the idea that lower taxes equals growth means more revenue to the government. supply side, laugher curve, what ever you want to call it. valid? >> markets are much more complex than that. i am in agreement mark and with the congressmen that we have to do everything we can to lower tax rates. we have dug ourselves into a hole because of the fiscal irresponsibility of congress. our gdp is exceeded by our debt. the fact is we have to do something about it. so we do not want to raise taxes now because that will push us further into recession but we need to start generating income. economic growth and we have to cut spending. that is what the congressman has said. i'm sure mark feels the same way. >> i would never, ever support raising anybody's taxes. >> for no reason?
>> there is absolutely nothing that anybody could say to me that would justify me lining up to say i would invoke the power of government to take money away from my neighbor. people have the right to the money they earn. we are going off a financial cliff. if we do not do everything it immediately, the republicans and democrats together have taken this country to the brink of financial collapse. we need to cut government by 50% just to get started. >> i have got to keep it moving. what was learned by the great recession? >> well, that you have to have an environment conducive to economic growth and we did not have that. we did not have a situation where private sector could move ahead. the private sector seeks certainty. you have to have certainty on
taxes and right now we have certainty on regulations coming up. and we have a lot of that in the great recession as well. if you read "the forgotten man," it is a great tale of why some of the common knowledge about the great recession and how we got out of it had does not square with the facts. >> said those who say supply- side economics that we had during the bush term, and we've seen that for 30-odd years, that supply-side economics led to or helped lead to the great recession, he would say -- >> no. >> what would you say? >> it is more complex than that. but i think that is a generally true statement. >> the republicans and democrats are continuing to do the same thing they have always done. who is here talking about getting our money back to the sound system? we need to get back on the gold standard. until we have that, we will have the government printing money out of control. we have the congress spending out of control. we are headed for financial disaster unless we have not tinkering around with earmarks, we need to be talking at this table about what departments of the federal government will be cutting on day one.
there is along list. not earmarks. >> doctor, should medicare be reformed, should medicare be eliminated? >> i do not believe it should be eliminated. i think we should keep it but it needs to have an overhaul. the fact is, we are spending 18% of our gdp on health care. but is really sick care. 75 cents of every $1 is spent on chronic diseases. there is a lot we can do it in savings. there is $750 billion wasted in fraud and abuse. people need the help system. if they do not, that was shot in the emergency room and we all pay. having a system that will allow people to appreciate pursuit of optimal health and wellness to drive down the cost of care is going to help us.
>> about of voucher system? >> a voucher system i am concerned about i am concerned with -- as it transfers the risk to the patient. the patient shops for health care. does not drive down the cost. the patient will still drive up costs because they are eating the wrong foods, they are smoking. the cost rises. both parties got it wrong. the costs will continue to rise from 18% of gdp to 25%. >> medicare, what do you think? >> it has to be reformed. we have heard what we have heard throughout this campaign, what somebody referred to as happy talk bromide that absolutely nobody could disagree with. we have to make sure that people have a greater health choices. we are facing a crisis here. medicare as we know what will and unless we reform it. will and for those who are currently in their senior years and it will and for others as well.
what we have done in the house of representatives have put forth a plan -- it is not a voucher plan. it is called premier support for those under 55. will not affect those over age 55. but the doctor will criticize republicans are actually taking a position but he will not offer one of his own. >> the congressman is showing you what it is like to be a chronic politician. he has been there for a dozen years and it is always somebody else's fault. republicans have it right, the democrats have it wrong. both parties have gotten it wrong repeatedly. you have to look at the short term and long term. the big cost drivers are chronic diseases, most of which are preventable. if you forget that, it will keep going up. if you give them a voucher, and you cannot do anything else, the cost of care continues to rise. >> let me addressed -- the crown a politician is one who will not take a position. -- the chronic politician is one who will not take a position.
we have taken a position in the house of representatives. but the senate will not even pass a budget. the senate has not come under democratic control has not passed a budget in three years. >> all i'm saying is the plan they have does not deal with the rising costs. it transfers the risk to the patient. >> he asked, what is your plan? >> short-term there is a lot of fraud and abuse within the system you have to eliminate. you have the go line by line to what the programs are to be able to reduce them. in the long term, you have to -- the public cannot do what they want to do -- smoke, drink excessively, do not wear seat belts. >> respond to this, please. >> there we are again, a statement nobody can disagree with.
to put forth a plan, we get criticized for the democrats will not put forward a plan. we know that compromise is essential in washington. the problem is we have put our stake in the ground with the ryan budget. the senate will not put their own stake in the ground so we can say, here is the middle. perry brought water said that politics is nothing more than business. -- barry goldwater said that politics is nothing more than business. we cannot get dr. carmona's party to put forth a plan. >> he says we have to eliminate fraud. if you think there is a lot of fraud now in the medicare- medicaid world, wait until you see the kind of fraud and corruption in things that are over budget under president obama's healthcare plan. i am going to say something that is on popular because i would rather take a principled stand. number one, there is no support in our federal constitution for the federal government getting involved in anything related to health care.
show me where it is in congress's powers and i will change my mind. number two, involving the federal government and healthcare is one of the worst decisions are country got involved in. we have a situation and we need to move in a way that does not cause harm to our citizens to get out of that situation, but we need to stand up finally in our country, take a principled position that there needs to be our wall of separation between government and health care and government and most things. >> the for care act. how would you have voted? >> the way it is, -- the affordable care act. >> i would not have voted for the way it was. the reason is that i believe it is unsustainable in the long run. i was a surgeon general. as a nation, we could come together and not politicize health care and make sure that all people have access to health care. when we look at adding 32
million people into the system, the way the business plan is set up to take money from doctors and hospitals, they are being threatened. they are not signing up to take more medicare patients. i would encourage the president -- is a big document. it is complicated. it rolled up too fast. business plan needs more work. i am fully behind the aspiration to ensure that every american has access to basic health care. >> single payer plan? would you be in support of that? >> the fact of the matter is it would not work. we teach that school. will never be able to get it done in this congress. >> the affordable care act. >> i know how you feel. >> we do not know how dr. carmona feels, because when he started this campaign he said he supported it. it is on tape. now he is saying he does not. you have broken new ground because you have gotten him to take a new position tonight. >> the congressmen, again, is mischaracterizing.
what i said and what they take out of snippets when they do their videos is that i fully, 100% support care for all. then i would have the provides. here is the problem with the aca. yes, i am a doctor. but people have to participate in the system. they cannot get a car and drive up the cost of care and expect the government to pay for it. >> they have to participate whether they want to participate or not. how does that mesh with what we are about in america? we are free country. the federal government will get involved and say what you like it or not, you are part of the syem. everywhere else in the world, this has been tried, every version will result in rationing. we will go from the belt health care on the planet to one of the worst -- the best health care to one of the were. >> this is a new position. dr. carmona has been on each side of this. in 2010, when the democrats took a bath nationwide, according to
the fema county recorder's office, dr. carmona did not even vote in the primary or the general election. it is not surprising that we have someone who will not take a position on most issues and when he does he abandons it soon afterwards. >> that is certainly on this characterization again. the congressman is doing all he can to run from his record. the fact of the matter is, where we need to be spending time is talking about why is the blocking access to health care to women? why is he not supporting our veterans? i am a combat veteran. he voted against the gi, the veterans' benefits. he voted against the transition and the combat -- he voted against many other areas repeatedly. when i looked at his legislative record over the years, i mean, it was reprehensible how he has done so many things.
the fact of the matter is he is putting people at risk whether it is social security, medicare, our veterans, and women especially. >> yes? >> especially with women right now because the fact of the matter is is he who partnered with congressman akin on that bill to define legitimate rape. >> start with a veteran's benefits because we've heard this. i want you to respond. >> you bet. if you been in washington for more than a year, you voted on a thousand pieces of legislation. i voted for more than 100 veterans bills in my time in congress. dr. carmona will pick three or four bills that have veterans and the title that work larded up with extraneous items. one of them, we have funding for the national science foundation who funded a study $150,000 to determine why politicians give a vague answers. that was part of it. to vote for a bill simply because it has a veterans is
that -- in the titles is why we have a budget deficit of $1.30 trillion and a $16 trillion debt. >> the question would be, is it worth not getting these benefits to the veterans if it means no more lard? >> what happens is those bills will be brought right back. they are popular pieces of legislation. people want to support veterans and they should. when this ad ran that claimed that i would deny care for veterans with missing limbs and legs, it did. it showed pictures of them. my father is a korean war veteran. my brother has done two tours in afghanistan, two in iraq. april white, when she saw that ad, she called our office and said that may be sick because when i cannot get the benefits i was due only one person without the and that was jeff flake. >> let's look at the facts. we can stipulate -- my father and uncle served in combat. my brother served 30 years and special forces. that is not the issue.
the congressman is trying to evade the issue. there are three specific bills he voted against those issues. it is not only me. the iraqi-afghanistan veterans organization gave him an f. the vietnam veterans gave him a zero. organizations to follow these things says he voted on the wrong side and the time when our kids need the support the most because they are coming home with traumatic brain injuries and amputations and he voted against it. >> this is part of the problem with politics. everybody is afraid to say, i am in favor of not giving more to veterans. i am a combat veteran. i served under the gi bill. i was happy to do that because i served my country. what i support as a senator everything that's said veteran on it to give more to veterans? no. because we have a job which is
to get our spending under control. rather than talking about that, would you want to help the veterans? we need to get out of this ridiculous afghanistan situation. how did we get into this iraq situation. >> we will get to foreign affairs and a second. senator john mccain, a veteran we all respect, saw that at that dr. carmona ran and said it was deplorable that -- to insinuate that i would deny care of veterans. it is deplorable. >> he can defend it, run from it, have excuses. the fact of the matter is, he voted against it. that is not by me. that is by the veterans' associations i quoted. >> let's move forward with a topic that is always front and center in arizona, and that is immigration. congressman, we had on the program talking about this. you have been criticized for changing your position. is that criticism valid? >> no. we have to have broadbased immigration reform. we have to do more than secure the border.
but the reality is in washington for those of us who have worked on this issue across party lines, worked with senator kennedy on this issue. for 10 years i worked on this issue and hit my head against a brick wall like everyone else. myself, senator jon kyl, senator mccain realize that until we to have border security nobody will trust the of federal government to move ahead on other items. we have to have a border security in the tucson like we have in the yuma sector. >> we hear that alot. what is a secure border look like? when is the border secure enough for reform? >> i can tell you exactly. there is the metrics that is used -- the yuma sector, we have operational control. if an illegal alien crosses the border, we have a reasonable expectation of catching them. that is what we have in the yuma sector. i worked with the democrat who
endorsed me who will say that we have operational control. we do not have anything approaching that in the tucson sector. once we get that, we can move on to the other reforms. >> hold on. should we be adopting comprehensive immigration reform now as opposed to waiting for a secure border? >> we absolutely should, because the fact is i do work on the border as a deputy sheriff. i understand the border better than most. it is not just a theoretical construct. i have been there. that is a dynamic issue. the congressman, trying to take what is happening in yuma and transfer it to tucson sector does not transfer easily. we need to have comprehensive immigration reform and we need it now. the congressman, when it is politically correct, he flips and flops. when he was running his primary, he was off to the right, we only need this control. he had sarah palin and he talked about her endorsement. as soon as the premier was over, he starts moving back to the center.
he goes on hispanic television and told them, i will take care of you and do something for you. he is playing a political game. we need comprehensive immigration reform now. no sense in stalling. >> have to have a secure border. if we have learned anything the last couple of years with the death of brian terry, we need to have other reforms. we have to make sure that our labor needs are met. we have to deal with the humane -- in a humane way with those that are here now. individuals that are here that were brought when there were two years old. it is a complex issue but has to start with border security. >> it is not that complex of an issue. we did not have these kinds of problems many years ago.
we came from a place where the statue of liberty was facing outward. we had waves of immigrants who walked into our country and the late 1800's and early 1900's. we did not even have a term illegal immigration. the problems at the border are a function of the fact that we have not -- we have an ever- increasing welfare state. if people want to come to the u.s. for the purpose of pursuing happiness, like they did in the late 1800's, that does nothing but good for america, just like it did then. if people are coming here perfect of its, the way? that is get rid of the benefits. -- people are coming here for the benefits, the way you fix that is get rid of the benefits. the drug war is why we are having a problem at the border. if we do not address the drug war, we cannot get the border situation under control and we cannot get our justice system under control. no one is talking about ending the drug war. the need to end the drug war. >> should comprehensive immigration reform include a
path to citizenship for those already here? >> i think it should. when i looked at comprehensive immigration reform, the concept of securing the border is a dynamic one. there is never a day when he would be able to say the border is secure because our adversaries have countermeasures. we have seen that for years. until we decrease demand by this side for whatever people are coming for, we will not be able to secure it. it will be an ongoing challenge every day. but we need comprehensive immigration reform. i support that and i support the dream act. but are not citizenship. we have to stop letting congress use this as a divisive, political wedge. president bush and senator kennedy came up with a great idea. two different politicians acted in a statesmanlike way to provide as a plan, a pathway to citizenship in the dream act. >> for those that say that plan as a shortcut for amnesty, you say -- >> i do not think so. it is a solution to a complex problem. the fact is, you will not be able to support 12 million people in the united states. so you need a reasonable way to adjudicate this problem. and i think president bush and
senator kennedy had it right and congress failed them. >> do you support the dream act? >> the dream act, if it has certain provisions in it. i introduced the strive act. with it was included a version of the dream act the did not mandate the state's offer in- state tuition. we have to deal with those who were brought here illegally. if the version of the dream act is good, i will. >> does this mean that he believes that were brought here it -- that those that were brought here as children need to go back to their country and reapply for entry to the united states? >> i do not think so. i think we can find a way to deal with that, but it has to be part of a broader picture. >> then you had before. thes tory changes. >> i introduce legislation for this. how can it be different? >> congressman, you flipped on a number of times depending on
where you are in the political cycle, to ingratiate yourself. >> that's not true. >> i was in court today representing someone who was illegal. the judge sentenced him to several months, got 16 months in prison. now we all as taxpayers have to pay to put him up in the bureau of prisons. this is ridiculous. he did not come here. he came here like most americans -- he did not come here looking for a benefit here he came here looking for work. he was shoveling gravel in mexico. but if we get this crazy national health care thing, if we wind up keeping this nutty, more government involvement with health care, what we are doing is we are sending a call to attract people. come here and use the government benefits. we are creating a welfare state.
>> you just said it is a fiction that they are coming for benefits and now he said they're coming for benefit. >> some of them might be coming here for benefits. i know there are people who come here to have birth and had the baby said they can both get citizenship as well as get the pregnancy coverage. we need to eliminate that. no person has a right to live at the expense of another person. that is an american principle we have forgot about in this country. we need to get back to that. >> congressman, how much should the united states police the world? >> i think we ought to detect our national security interests abroad. it ought to start with what is our national security interests, does our activity overseas for that interest? and two there are other reasons to be active overseas and one is humanitarian. it is a great thing we respond to natural disasters or intervene sometimes when we can save lives. but the foremost thing in our thinking has to always be, does this activity for the national
security goals of united states? >> your colleagues have criticized the administration for leading from behind. do you agree? >> i do not know how to characterize it, but it is a bit schizophrenic. we are seeing on the libya situation, where the administration simply cannot decide what it believed and when in terms of why our ambassador got killed. was it in response to a video that came out? that is what the obama administration said for a couple of weeks. now they are conceding, it seems, that this was a calculated effort by probably an al qaeda operative. >> our position in the world, is that where we should be? should we be more or less involved? >> what we have to do is ask the question, what is the global
footprint we need to protect our national interest and also the allies were obligated to? the congressman mentions the issue and libya. the fact of the matter is, having been in the military and having been in the department of defense, health policy board, dealing with issues, we know intelligence built over time. it is difficult sometimes to ascertain specifically what happened. i am not offending anybody, but some of these issues are more complex. what is the and the congressman is typical, chronic politicians stuff. everybody is wrong on the other side. the democrats and republicans do it. and everyone of these issues. i think it is really, really unfair because is it -- these issues are much more complex. when the incident happens, you do not have all of the intelligence. you wait and see. >> chronic politicians. >> the other side is wrong. since i have been and the congress, i have been able to pass more floor amendment then my republican colleagues. in the past four years, no democrat or republican has passed more floor amendments that i have. that can only come when you work well with the other side, when you have the temperament to sit down and work with people.
i have worked with others in farm subsidies. i worked with luis gutierrez on some immigration is huge. this notion that i blame the other side. your record shows you vote more than michele bachmann with your party. >> they said congressman jeff flake abandoned me on the issue of immigration. it was not bipartisanship. when he needed to move, he abandoned me and did not falter when he said he was going to do. >> do we want to talk about who abandoned whom? the obama administration had two years of republican house and senate and they did not introduce the same reforms that had been introduced before. >> this is all politics. we are not the world police. we are not supposed to be the
world police. you go back to george washington and he was saying, to not be the world police. what i want to know from the congressman is, will he admit he got hoodwinked on iraq? the government sold us a bill of goods about weapons of mass destruction for a country that has the gdp of a small city that was no threat there. it was no threat made or no ability to harm the united states, but here we are nine years into a war in iraq for 4,500 servicemen dead. he got faked out on that one. that is something we should not have been involved in. i wonder if the congressman would admit he was wrong? >> hindsight is 20/20. you had virtually the entire congress move along with the resolution to go to war.
>> there is something happening in iran with nuclear weapons that is getting a lot of attention. how can we handle the threat of nukes in iran? >> right now there is an embargo. two step process -- they have to enrich uranium so much that they can weaponize. they are not there yet. the estimates are six months, maybe a year away. if we can get china and russia to cooperate, we can make the embargo hurt them. right now, there are substrates flying over syrian air space. we need to do everything we can to prevent them from getting nuclear capability. the problem is, if they do, it is not just a threat to israel. we have an extremist group with nuclear capability. that would be a point where we have to act to prevent that from happening. >> do we have the resources to act?
we can do it if we want but we have had a couple of wars. >> we are broke. we have the debt up to the level of our gdp. it is something we do not want to do, but to protect our nation and to make sure that extremists do not have nuclear capability, we might have to act. >> iran. all options have to remain on the table. we hope we do not have to go there. >> that's every option. >> one second. back to iraq. this is why before we send troops around the world for things like iraq, congress is supposed to declare war. they did not. that should have been a debate. rather than sit there and get hoodwinked by the administration, now 4500 servicemen dead, congressmen should have a debate before they send troops abroad. the situation with iran, america has a right and obligation to defend its citizens. if there is a threat over there, and there may well be, if that threat becomes imminent we have an obligation to act to
protect our people. but i am not going to get hoodwinked. i will be a lot slower on the trigger to go after a country like iraq that really did not have any capabilities. >> obviously, the campaign is for the senate. the filibuster has been used in this current united states senate a lot. has it been abused? >> i think every party will say the other party abuses. i like the system. i like the requirement to get 60 votes. it requires working across the aisle. that is something i am well- suited for. i would not vote to get rid of the filibuster. sometimes it is abused by both parties. >> 1917-1970, 57 cloture votes. the current senate, 109. >> you have a dysfunctional son. we have not had a budget passed in more than three years -- we have a dysfunctional senate. the last time they passed the
budget, the ipad had not been invented yet. >> can it be functional if the filibuster is rearing its head? >> it can. we have had a filibuster for years. senator john mccain said that this is the first time in 51 years the senate has not passed a defense authorization bill. so the problem right now -- i do not think we will convince harry reid to change his stripes. in an election year, you do not have to convince. you have to replace. that is why we need a republican majority. >> given the people we have in congress, i would rather see gridlock then them getting through some of the crazy ideas, putting us more in debt like raising the debt ceiling. you know it is coming again. you know congressman how flake will look for it. maybe he will correct me and only vote for raising the debt ceiling when there is a republican president -- rather than have these people march down the same road, we are better off with gridlock.
we need to change hearts and minds. >> i want to know your opinion on the filibuster. is it being abused? should it be done away with? >> it is being abused. i would favor doing away with it. it is being abused. >> you do not think it is being used properly. >> it is not. >> before ago, a couple of quick questions. are you a member of tea party? >> no. >> are you proud to be backed by tea party? >> you bet. >> dr. carmona, we have heard that you are at times in the past have been difficult to deal with, difficult to get along with, your temper and has been questioned. how you respond? >> i have had tough jobs. when i was asked to come in and run the county health system. the board wanted to save the hospital. we saved the hospital. i have had tough positions throughout my life and sometimes leadership requires
you to take this tough decisions. every one of these issues that have come up, when i was vetted to be surgeon general, and they were all looked up here the fact is that i got a unanimous senate confirmation. i think the senate saw there was no merit in any of those allegations. >> and he would be able to cooperate with others in the senate. there is a question of whether or not is on my way or the highway situation with you. >> it is that way and the senate right now. as surgeon general, i got things done because i was able to work both sides of the aisle. i worked for one of the most conservative president in history -- president george bush. i work with democrats and republicans on issues of health, safety and security for the nation. . >> did you sign the grover norquist no tax pledge? >> no. >> would you sign it? >> no. the only pledge i signed is a pledge to sign no more pledges. we have got to ensure that we go back and represent our
constituents and away -- i believe the limited government, economic freedom, individual responsibility. i do not want higher taxes. >> we have to stop right there. you will get your closing statement. each candidate will give a one minute closing statement. going in reverse order of the opening statements, we start with jeff flake. >> thank you, all. this has been a great debate. the hallmark of this country has always been that the next generation will have a better than the previous generation. that is certain hallmarks of arizona where the beauty of the sunset is only eclipsed by the beauty of the sun rise the next day. we have got to insure that we have somebody who understands the proper role of the federal government, that it is there to establish a tax environment and a regulatory environment where businesses can floors but it does not do much more. right now we have a federal government that is too large. $16 trillion debt. $1.30 trillion deficit.
we need somebody who will stand up and fight. i have that record in the house. that is the record i will take to the senate. that is why i appreciate your vote. thank you. >> our next closing statement is from mark victor. >> our country was founded upon freedom. we are about individual rights and responsibilities and free markets. we are about being free to vote -- and define and pursue your own happiness. it is about americans in charge of themselves. these are our principles. we have strayed so far from these principles. we have a busybody government that is into everything, it regulates and taxes everything and everyone to death. it is involved in our lives cradle to grave. over $16 trillion in debt and growing ever higher. the highest incarceration rate in the world. over 2 million in prison. perpetual war is that we keep paying for with more debt and human lives.
we are speeding in the wrong direction. and guess who is driving? it is the republicans and the democrats. if you like how things are going, do not vote for me. >> we have to stop you right there. our final closing statement is from richard carmona. >> i appreciate the opportunity to be with you. you've heard the debate tonight with a lot of different issues. obviously, we have to get our spending in check. we also absolutely need to look at how we can protect economic growth. but what i am running for, i want to make sure that every kid has an opportunity to appreciate the american dream, just like i did. the fact of the matter is congress is broken. congressman flake has been there for a dozen years. we have communities that are struggling in arizona. people have reached out and said, when you are a senator, you need to help us. these remarks -- it is not about earmarks.
it is about us having infrastructure growth and opportunity. i will not run to be worried about being reelected. i want to run because i want to change washington and make sure we have an infrastructure of opportunity for all those kids to want to move forward. >> thank you, all, candidates. thank you for watching a special vote 2012 debate featuring candidates for arizona's open seat. be sure to join us for the debate between the candidates in district 9. that is thursday, october 18, on arizona horizon. to replay this debate, visit our vote 2012 site at azpbs.org/vote2012. i'm ted simons. you have a great evening. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] .
. . we concluded, simply that heightened expectation of instability and supply disruptions triggered by the consequences of a nuclear iran would cause the price of oil to go much higher and to remain high for a sustained duration of time. significantly impacting the united states economy. the price and economic impact would be much greater if these occurred. we hope that this paper which is a departure from the focus of most papers on the consequences of a nuclear iran or a nuclear capable iran will trigger a new
discussion and enable an expanded debate on the topic. i would like to introduce michael, the foreign policy director of the bpc, a former oil analyst to boot. he directed this effort and will review some of the key findings. he will introduce our very distinguished panel. mike. >> thank you, senator. thank you everyone for coming. as the senator said, the purpose of this report is really to trigger a debate. we are not suggesting that we have all of the answers, but we wanted to introduce a new dimension to the debate about iran about preventing a nuclear iran. we are not focusing on the economics, we are not suggesting the economic issues
should drive united states policy one way or another. but it has definitely come up in the debate. it has been raised, certainly in terms of let us say about the impact on sanctions and military, so we wanted to say, let us fill out this debate more. was the cost of inaction. when we talk about a nuclear iran, maybe a more important consideration, strategic concerns, the human aspect, you know, what would happen if there are conflicts and so on? those are preeminent concerns. but the economic concern is very legitimate. and it has been raised when we have a tough economy as we do right now. that is what we wanted to try to address.
and we hope that -- we think the policy makers need to consider. let me raise, it is a complex issue, complex for us as we grappled with it. let me discuss exactly what our methodology was, and what our key findings are. our approach, briefly, and there are many ways you could skin this, but as the center said, there are myriad consequences. some you could foresee, some you could not. we focused on the economic consequences based on the energy consequences. water the energy consequences and what does that mean for the united states economy? there are other consequences better not energy related. our approach was to basically consider five plausible defense that could follow a nuclear iran and have an impact on oil
supply and demand over three years. some were more plausible but others. the five are -- greater political stability in saudi arabia, more attacks on saudi arabia facilities, potential saudi-iranian nuclear exchange, and potential of a nuclear exchange, and what happens if a nuclear iran allows this to affect the oil market. we took these events and assigned probabilities to the events. and we assess how it would impact the risk premium of the oil price. and to be clear, markets -- clean oil markets react to change expectations for future supply and demand.
people often think, if there is a disruption, the market is affected. obviously is. but the expectation of change in supply and demand alone affects the market. and that is more of the focus of our report, on the expectation. once the book of how these expectations will affect the market, we bending macroeconomic analysis on what this would -- how it would impact the united states economy. our key findings were these -- again, the report if you have it with you, let me summarize this quickly. we think the expectation alone of instability and conflict that a nuclear iran could trigger could have these impacts. it could increase the price of oil but about 10% or 25%. it would roughly mean it would change every day. -- it would mean about $10 or $27 a barrel higher.
within three years they could increase 30% per barrel. and if those things actually happened, inflation could be projected to rise about 1%, according to a loss of about 1 million jobs in the united states. and g.d.p. could drop by more than 1%, which would equate to about $220 billion. if any of the conflicts or inner disruptions we discussed actually occur, then the implication and the consequences would be far more significant. let me give two examples, and the case of less say significant instability and saudi arabia, or saudi iran and nuclear -- oil prices would
double, gasoline prices could increase more than 70%. about $2.75 at the pump. a significant recession. inflation could skyrocket by almost 5%. unemployment increased by almost 4%. which would translate into 5 million more people out of work. let me give a caveat. current models -- current economic models are really ill equipped to predict how the world would react to nuclear exchange. there's no nuclear exchange and world war ii.
but we use current models. we could get into that. based on current models, to some extent, that is what we came up with. the consequences could be even more dramatic because we have really no precedents of this. so those are our key findings. again, i think the economic consequences could be significant, just purely the energy related consequences. as i said, the strategic consequences, human consequences -- they are even more important. but i think this is a provocative report. and i mean that in a constructive way. i think it should be very thought-provoking. and to help discuss that, i think we have a good panel.
we have susan here, the editor of foreign policy who will moderate this. we have ambassador dennis ross, for former senior obama white house administration official. in a task force member. we have daniel, the chief commodity economist at citibank. also a task force member. and we of stephen, a former assistant secretary of state for non-proliferation. i will turn it over to susan. i want to add some more things. we have a review board. we had never done this before. with a task force -- had issued a number of iran reports of the last four or five years. because this is such a complex issue, we added a review board of other energy experts and economists.
and it is in the report about who they are. there were very constructive and helpful to us about how to think about this. we thought it would be useful to of outside experts to help guide us in the energy and economic experts, even though we have a couple of energy and economic folks at the center, i was an oil analyst years ago. but this is complex stuff. and we thought the outside stuff was used all. i also want to thank and acknowledge dan in the front row, also a task force member. and i also want to thank, in particular, in my group -- and also jonathan, who worked incredibly hard to produce this. i am very grateful for all of their work. and i want to thank ashton and elisa and joanne for all of
their other help. without further ado, i will turn it over to susan and sit down. >> thank you very much, michael. and i think you to all of you for coming this morning. i think as michael said, there is a lot of provocation. let us provoke a real conversation around this. starting with the title, the price of inaction. which is a point of view from the task force. i also want to bring in daniel pretty quickly to walk us through what really were the assumptions, what were you not able to factor in coming into these numbers. i thought i would start with ambassador ross. perhaps you could give us a picture into these five scenarios.
how likely or unlikely are they right now? certainly iran is in the news every day. i think it takes a few -- [no audio] >> when will look at the character, the turmoil speaks for itself. we should assume that it is somehow going to be a time limited. it is what i call the era of awakening. is an awakening from the standpoint of many people for the first time see themselves as citizens. and as citizens, they think have a voice and they can make amends. they should be able to create accountability. they do not have institutions that allow them to create that
accountability. but they have expectations. that awakening has not really expressed itself so far in the gulf states. partly because they have a kind of wherewithal where they can deal with a lot of potential discontent. but one should not assume that it cannot at some point express itself in a variety of ways. the first point in response to your question, turmoil is for some time to come. the second point is, there's an ongoing competition between the iranians and the saudis. we sit as expressed in a lot of places. syria is a focal point for that now. but we have seen, excuse me, we have seen the turmoil which is a home run in many respects. but also, the saudis see it -- we have seen increased turmoil
with saudi arabia. here again, you could say there are many reasons for this. but the saudis proceed. here is a context, you take the nuclear issue, and i know from my own direct experience with the saudis, they have made it unmistakably clear that if they acquire these weapons, they will. if they get it, we get it. that relates to the kind of -- at least the context of which this paper was being written, that immediately would create a new reality in the area. it would immediately create a set of expectations about the potential for much greater disruption down the road. i would to the point of departure for the paper is quite realistic in terms of, if you are born to take a look at
the title you said is thought provoking if nothing else, there is unmistakably a price of action geared of military action were used, you would see an immediatdestruction. my sense is that it could be time-limited. if you compare that to a situation where iran has a nuclear weapon, the saudis have nuclear weapons come and the potential risk that the scene and that is going to express itself in terms of the risk of- premium prices. would there be a war between the iranians and the saudis? the book have nuclear weapons, that would create recognition on their part, there would be a high price to be paid. there would be likely a gap in terms of time. when the iranians and saudis have it. it is hard to imagine iran with nuclear weapons behaving more responsibly than it does today. it is hard to imagine that they do not see themselves as having any leverage within the area. it is hard to imagine that they do not see themselves dissolving a shield to which they can engage in a higher degree of coercion and their
proxy can engage in a higher degree of coercion with impunity. i think that is one of the build and scenarios that is quite realistic as well. you know, whether you have a nuclear war, and not about to predict that, i do not think the scenario is unnecessarily predictive. what they are meant to be, is to offer an illustration that you run a pretty high risk once you have iran with nuclear weapons. president has spoken moderate recently in a speech to the united nations when he spoke about the threat that represents in terms -- to israel's existence, to the gulf states, to the global economy, to non proliferation and the survivability of that after you have 12 resolutions of the board of governors from the six resolutions of the security council saying the same thing, three american administrations that said they cannot have it, and then they have in it. to think that does not have an
impact on psychology would be an understatement. the last one i would make is, directing the potential for conflict if they have it goes up immediately? i think instability increases. the notion that the cold war scenario -- were you have a bilateral -- a bilateral reality of united states and soviet union, where we actually had to communication, and hot line. between iran and israel, there is no communication at all. there may not be communication, but one thing that would exist is the reality of where no one will feel on like the that the states and soviet union -- nobody there will have that. and so, i think they will all databases of having a kind of finger on the trigger. a region where conflict is the norm, not the exception. it would not make me so comfortable that conflict, and
nuclear conflict at some point could not happen. even if it doesn't happen immediately come to think you will have a stable reality and the rules of the road that defined this is a real stretch. >> clearly, the lands to which this report is looking at that set of questions is not so much in the strategic or even the psychology of what and iran with nuclear weapons would be, but why the numbers specifically for the lens of oil prices. maybe you can walk us through what some of your assumptions were as you made those calculations? and what were some of the surprises? apparently, it is not surprising to tell people that oil prices will go up. in the case of increased stability or the perception of
instability and a possible nuclear conflict in the gulf? we all get that could lead to higher oil prices. what did you learn? >> that is a really great question, susan. it was an interesting exercise. what the report did. to try to look at the economic consequences. and even there early, through the lens of what would happen to the economy through just higher oil prices, we did find some surprises. before i get into that, i just want to start with a caveat, the joke being, one hand of an economist is one hand of the other hand. it is an exercise in counterfactual.
enough to think about a world in which they do not become a nuclear versus a world in which they do become a nuclear and see how and these two a different universes', how the various markets, agents, households would react. and for something as complex as the oil market, the united states economy much less the global economy, there is quite a lot of mechanisms and feedback loops that we will have to consider. i would say that the results in the report, while they are pretty striking, and i will say that one immediate thing that i left out of the page was the degree to which the united states economy is still vulnerable to a classic oil price shock like we saw in the 1970's, despite all of the progress that the united states has made sense, in terms of energy efficiency and achieving
that hydrocarbon self proficiency, energy independents. >> with the explosion, and shell gas and new oil production in north america, you still see us as being for the foreseeable future quite dependent on what happens here? >> yes. on the other hand, another thing that was perhaps surprising was that because this is not happening in a vacuum, and this is happening as the united states economy is still struggling to get over the after effects of the global financial crisis of 2007, we, i would say most economists would consider an reassumed in the model that the united states is still quite far away from its potential growth rate and its potential rate of employment. and while this can have pretty damaging and catastrophic consequences in the short term,
under the worst-case scenario where iran and saudi arabia have a nuclear exchange, by the time, say 2015 or 2020, the damage can be healed fairly rapidly because the united states is in the position people of already -- in the position of already becoming healed of the aftereffects of 2007. >> and their five scenarios, there's only one in which oil prices do not go up. and that is an interesting scenario under which in fact, what happens is that the sanctions that there worked so hard to put into place basically collapse as a result of the world regime. now they are nuclear and we have to live with it. and wouldn't we rather have access to the oil in particular asian partners and some europeans?
that is the scenario? why that scenario? and for both of you, about how likely is that one? the scary picture of armageddon we are painting with the other scenarios. >> as i said to mike, i actually think this is another example of a scenario you are putting in for a lesser purposes. i do not think that is this likely cured the reason why, because it should iran acquire nuclear weapons, while it is clear that have got it, let us go back and take advantage of the need to access. i think there will be a strong position nationally to say, they have broken all of the rules, they have to continue to pay a price. if we want to somehow preserve what they are doing the path they are on, they have to see the price high.
the scenario was in there too -- for completeness sake, to suggest that there could be one scenario -- when you do continue the planning, you think about consequences. you are still trying to measure with the consequence could be. it is a valuable. but i do not know that it is all that realistic in terms of reality. >> i want to bring and stephen and mike. was recalled as the price of inaction. should we be looking at the price of action as well. and your take on how likely or not you see any of these scenarios right now? >> i have views on the likelihood of a lot of scenarios. i agree with much of what he said. the first time he talked, p i agree with what you just said. but to go back and answer the first question, i think
obviously there can be disagreements about the methodology and the precise percentages that are presented in the report. i do think the underlying point that there is an economic cost, and measurable economic cost to inaction, that is undeniable. especially after reading the entire report. i would hate to see it get into a quarrel about the methodology. because i think we would lose the audience. and economists might ensure that, but the rest of us would find ourselves very lost. but i think it is important addition to the public debate that in addition to the obvious fact that a war, united states military action or israeli military action would have a disruptive effect on the world
economy, theron be a price tag associated with that, it is important to recognize that there's also a price tag allowing iran to acquire nuclear weapons. that is why the commission's report -- it is a very useful contribution to the continuing debate. i think economists have work to the question of what would be the cost of a global economy, and military strike on iran. those reports are out there. and they can be compared to the price tag. they noted in this report, those costs compared to the costs identified here, and then economists candidate. and i certainly do not want to get into that debate myself. but i think there's a cost in either direction. on the saudi issue, maybe i will respond to something dennis said. i think looking at that saudi scenario is one of the more interesting ones to consider, because i think dennis is absolutely right.
the saudis will be among the most concern of all of the observers if iran succeeds in acquiring a nuclear weapon. and the likelihood they will feel that they need to acquire their own is high. what is not been thought through is what the united states reaction will be at that moment. i would like to touch on that. if there is an iranian nuclear breakout, we would be on the cost of what everyone has talked about, what president obama talked-about at the u.n., the cascade of proliferation, the unraveling of the regime. that is what would follow from the saudi opposition of nuclear weapons, because it does not probably stop saudi arabia. there are other countries in the area that will want them as well. preventing that will become a very high priority for united states foreign policy. and by preventing that, i mean
preventing the saudis from responding. we do not want to end up there, but think that is where we are the moment it becomes clear that they have nuclear weapons. what we do? one thing we will do, and quite confident is to apply the cold war deterrence model can and try to persuade the saudis that they do not need nuclear weapons if they are the victim of a nuclear attack. i think there's a lot of reason to think that we might not be as persuasive and making that case to the saudi government as we work to the germans and other allies during the cold war. another thing, we will go to the saudis and say, we will keep in place in sanctions regime. you are trying to walk back iran's nuclear program. as long as we are desperately seeking to prevent that cascade of preparation by stopping the saudis from taking a second step, there's a good chance with a whole the sanctions regime in place. i think if we fail, and that the saudis acquired nuclear
weapons, what do we do? recension saudi arabia? economically, it would be hard to do that. the likelihood is that we do not. security's no u.n. council penalizing them for what they have done. there's a double standard issue. we are sending one side, not the other. i put this question to them. in that kind of scenario, or the casket a proliferation has begun, we are acquiesced their response by our allies to what iran has done, can we maintain a double standard? or at that point, do we say, it was a good idea, similar to what happened in south asia, it was a good idea, unfortunately it failed. let us go back to work as usual. >> that is a great question to throw at you, you have directly
engaged with the saudis on this question. the beverly said to you, our plan is to get in nuclear weapon if they are required buy iran. what is the united states government's position on this? >> prevention. because we consider the consequences are likely to be. steve races a fair point. i do think that we will make -- in those circumstances, we would make a major effort. it would fail. one of the reasons, is because, and this is not just theoretical, i had discussions with the saudis, and when the king said if they get it, we get it, i was duty bound to describe what the consequences would be cured and after 10 minutes of being a highly eloquent on this subject, he
said to me, if they get it, we get it. there is a reality that they see their main competitor from every standpoint. including a religious standpoint. having an advantage over them. having a technological advantage. having a military advantage. they are not going to accept that. i think the reason our policy is prevention is because we understand what the consequences will be if we do not succeed in maintaining this. that is the point about containment. containment does not prevent the saudis for making this decision to go ahead and do this. and our ability to persuade them along the lines of, look, you can count on our insurance. i said before, the obama administration would be the third american investors and that says they cannot have this. right after the acquired this,
we are going to go in and say, never mind, you can accept our insurance. they are not going to accept the insurance because they have already seen that what we said was not going to hold. the reason is so important to have prevention as an objective is that containment will fail if it comes to with least that measure. >> daniel, quickly, because i want to get to mike on the title of this report and what you think it implies in terms of policy. but quickly, steve referenced the studies that have been done on the price of action, can you give us a sense of what they have been and how they compare with your own studies on the price of inaction? >> certainly. the literature on the relationship between oil prices and the economy is a long and rich one. that is still ongoing. and there have been studies in which -- have minimized the
consequences, arguing that the main angle by which the damage occurs is not so much through the higher oil prices per se, but rather to the general inflation that it unleashes and the forcing of the federal reserve to tighten rates and cool down the economy to combat the that. >> you are not talking about specifically in the case of a strike on iranian facilities, and the journal science about an oil price shock? >> regarding the strikes on -- in nuclear exchange or strikes on facilities per cent, it becomes a lot more challenging. and i think this study is a fairly pioneering one in terms of trying to put some hard numbers on a the actual economic consequences. simply because it is very hard indeed to get a good grasp on how the psychology of markets is going to respond.
if you just looked at how oil markets have responded in the past few weeks with seemingly unexplainable spikes and drops, no less than 3 or four times in the last two weeks alone, you begin to grasp just how complex it is to make an assessment when these markets themselves to not exactly know how to price this in. one more thing that i think may be a useful segue to your question to mike about the price
of inaction. the -- one scenario that we did in this study is what happens if we let sanctions last, but we take as -- the existence of a nuclear iran. that would bring in the a risk premium into the oil markets. and it would be a -- different than a national exchange and that you might see an immediate destruction that causes oil prices to spike. but all of that eventually reverses. and that, by the way, getting back to an earlier point i made, or ultimately, the united states economy will try and get back to full employment and therefore have some positive growth impact after the initial damage has been done. in the case of a permanent risk premium that enters into markets, because now they understand that there is a much more significant risk that can
be a much more devastating scenario, if tensions escalate, there is no way that the united states 10 fully recover from that kind of permanent paradigm shift in the oil markets. so, getting to the price of inaction, there is a very significant price of inaction as well as a price of action, which is why obviously, this is such a complex and difficult topic. -- for ambassadors to tackle. >> mike, as an energy analyst, as well as your current position, the price of action versus the price of inaction, what are your thoughts? >> as you mentioned a few minutes ago, we cited in a report a couple of the reports that have come out about the cost -- if there's a military
strike. one report surveyed 25 experts and said this is what prices would do if there was a military strike. we also side, there was recently a jpmorgan report that actually said that the cost actually would not be that high, that oil prices would not spike that high if there was a military strike. estimates vary. some say the cost would be very high, others. jpmorgan said they would not be as high. we have found, and this get your point about why we titled as the price of inaction, as to the price of action, those general in the debate, and somewhat in the financial world, which you read in the op-ed pages and editorial pages among politicians -- when people bring up the economic argument, it is usually about the cost of action. if we of tough sanctions on
iran, which we have a right now, this was a debate months ago -- and there was a back-and-forth about that. higher oil prices. and then there are those who say we cannot strike militarily because the oil market would spike -- prices would spike and it would hurt the economy. president obama -- dennis alluded to this. in his u.n. generally assembly speech, he talked -- u.n. general assembly speech, he talked about this. we have found that nobody has filled that out. what is the cost of allowing a nuclear iran. dennis pointed out, our policy is prevention here in our view is -- the bipartisan policy center puts out a number of reports over the past four or
five years, you have to prevent a nuclear iran. tough sanctions and military action as a last resort. thay have said pretty much the same thing. a last resort. we have to prevent a nuclear iran. bipartisan agreement -- more on this issue than any other issue right now about preventing a nuclear iran. but still, i think it has distracted a lot of people about what if we fail? what if we do not do what is necessary? look, if he did not prevent a nuclear iran, however you feel whether it is because sanctions were not tough enough -- if they go ahead despite our warnings -- we just want to enlarge the debate. we have not seen anyone else do
it. that is why we have done their report. >> i want to get questions from the audience. of people with microphones. if you can identify yourself and make it a question, that would be great. >> dennis, i am going to ask an economic question. if there is a cost to -- my name is mark, former bush administration official. i want to go back to the issue of the cost. you'd say there's a cost to inaction, it cost to action could? could be that those costs are already included in the high price of oil at present? the extraordinarily high costs we are seeing have already been factored in by the traders? if one makes the argument that there will be other spikes regardless of other scenarios, traders are already taking that into account and have already factored in to the price. how much additional price you think will be added in? or have the market's already factored in the cost of action or inaction to the current price of oil?
>> that is a great question. i will be interested to hear. in the study, we made the assumption that part of the risk premium was already priced in. it is a whole other debate. how much i actually markets are taking this into account. also get into questions around how much actual spare capacity there is in the oil markets. i can tell you my own personal opinion based on my research. my research suggests that if it wasn't for this risk premium, while prices should be somewhere around $85 a barrel.
and so, about $15 depending on whether you look at wti or the other. i am not just -- not just the iranians -- but anything from a domestic instability, everything else included. so, you are absolutely right. that the markets have already taken into -- taken the risk into account to a degree. however, obviously, prices will spike if there is a physical disruption.
and markets will have to price in a higher risk premium if iran does become a nuclear and now markets have to reassess a world in which there could be this proliferation, there could be a lot more heightened tensions, stronger pillage rents from iran, and potential concerns about pipeline flows, everything will have to be reexamined. >> let me also address that general. i want to qualify what this report does and does not carry not predicting what the oil price would be. we are saying, if the market had the same view we do, we think the price will move accordingly. i think one of the challenges here and when you are trying to -- we have a diverse group of oil people, finance people, military people.
and no one is an expert in everything. political people are not often as comfortable with the economic issues. the market is not fully informed about all the political issues, either. for example, as we talked about before, thereby to get nuclear weapons if the iranians do. -- they are going to get nuclear weapons if the iranians do. apparently some market people missed that. i read everything dennis says. but some people may have missed it in the market. therefore, let us say that there's a nuclear iran. well, let us say there is not a nuclear saudi arabia. the chance of iran-saudi arabia nuclear exchange is is zero right now. but if the iranirans get nuclear weapons, and the saudis get nuclear weapons, the probability of a nuclear exchange, while still very low, it is not 0 anymore. it is higher. you could say it is 10%, 5%,
15%. you could argue about the probabilities, but it is not the zero anymore. what people in the markets call black swans, tail risk, low probability, it needs to be taken into account. the market should move accordingly, f they understood these probabilities -- we think the report is also -- it should inform policymakers, but also be informative to the market of some of the risk. and the main part of the whole effort is to say, we really need to understand, this is not some theoretical exercise. right now this world does not exist. one of the hardest things to do is to imagine a world that does not exist. but you need to understand the strategic argument we have hashed out -- others have hashed it out, there are other elements, economic is one.
we want people to think this through and say, you really need -- we need to ratchet up pressure to prevent a nuclear iran because the costs are significant i think. >> to do an analysis like this, you have to simplify the world. to be able to run the numbers. when the simplifications in this report, the world in which iran does not have nuclear weapons and the world in which they do. i do think that is an oversimplification. and the real world, there's and in between where iran has advanced so far in that direction of having nuclear weapons and capabilities to produce not just one but perhaps many nuclear weapons on extremely short notice, gets us to the point that they have nuclear weapons.
and the international community, their neighbors would have to treat them as if they had nuclear weapons even if they had not done with other countries have done when they want to announce the have a nuclear weapon, to test one. i think arguably, we are coming to that point now. the time line for them to make a mad dash to create materials. there's a report of yesterday that they are two to three months away to producing the material for a weapon if that is what they want to do. may be being able to do that for one weapon is not -- virtually the same as producing a nuclear weapon, if the time when jordan further and they are able to produce multiple weapons and a short time -- if the time line at short and a further and they are able to produce multiple weapons in a short time -- short of them testing a nuclear weapon, the further they get in
the direction of having capabilities. [inaudible] >> you could maybe blame them now because they could price it in. thank you for the question, i want to get to a couple more. maybe you could both ask a question. >> i am just curious come in your analysis, how did you factor in the uncertainty about the effectiveness of a military strike? to a already indicated if there was a military strike, as i understand, having not read your report yet, that there would be a spike up in the short term of the price of oil. there seems to be almost an assumption that there would be closer to the issue of iranian
military of nuclear capability when in fact there may not be closure. and i am just curious, was there a lot of analysis to that point about just this uncertainty about the effectiveness of any military strike? >> and we will take your question now, to. >> i am mitsubishi energy systems. i wanted to ask, to get everyones opinion on how the calculus' changes if iran a latent nuclear threat but not actually construct a weapon. and my other question is related to united states economics, these united states. the ability to adapt to a more diversified fuel supply like natural gas or electric vehicles? >> thank you very much. >> i am going to say quickly, we did not get into the issue about what would be the cost of the strike so much.
we had to use some numbers for calculating what the premium is. we assume that the premium -- the risk premium is in the market today. but we really kind of left those assessing the cost of a military strike to others. we try to avoid that. we had to use numbers that we took based on merely what we read. [inaudible] >> you are raising a couple different issues. one of the issues you are raising, there's no military strike that is going to create an end to this issue. any military strike is going to set the iran's nuclear program back. and you ought to think about --
what are the implications of setting it back? what is the behavior of others in the area? how did they feel that. they see iran was set back, does that build our credibility with others to say, we are quite serious about what we mean? that is not an argument for using military force in terms of prevention. i think what michael is saying, that as an action, it may come to that if diplomacy fails. i do not think it is too late to have a diplomacy succeed. i do think for it to succeed, the economic pressures which are clearly unmistakable, the iranians are clearly doing this in ways that have not been true before. their currency is being devalued on a very rapid basis. the level of inflation is very unprecedented now. we are seeing demonstrations from places we have not seen. until recently. and, you know, the impact of the sanctions is being felt. it is not expressed itself in terms of the iranians changing their behavior. but the potential to affect
their behavior is clearly more of their now than before. i also agree with something mike said, you need that as well as them understanding that if diplomacy fails, they are the ones that pay a bigger price than anyone. >> daniel, do you want to quickly address these specific issues? >> i will try to answer the question on the economics. as i mentioned before, one of the surprises of the support was all vulnerable in many respects the united states still is, despite the shale gas and shale oil revolution. it is not to say that the progress toward energy and independents has not provided measurable gains in energy security and in reducing the vulnerability. but it is still there. even if, in a hypothetical world where the united states has come completely self- sufficient in oil, oil markets are globally integrated, and a spike in oil prices due to
something that happens in iran will drive up prices everywhere, including the united state so, while having a more diversified fuel mix and diversifying away from oil and natural gas stuff, it will definitely see benefits, it is not a silver bullet that will completely solve the problem. >> i think we are just about out of time. steve, i want to go back to you. they were sort of a making your point about -- >> on the second question, that was an excellent question about what you do in a situation where there is ambiguity whether iran has a nuclear weapon. i think, in my personal opinion, that is actually the most likely scenario for the iranians. i think that is what makes the most sense for them. maybe not over the long term, but certainly over the near term. and by near term, maybe the next 10 years.
the, and there are historical precedents for that, south africa had six nuclear weapons. in never tested one. they just let people surmise that they must have one. they achieved the benefits of being a declared nuclear power without demonstrating, without declaring that they have nuclear weapons. and the other similar analogy is north korea. the united states intelligent judgment starting about 1996 was that north korea probably had nuclear weapons. we did not know that for a fact until 2006 when they finally tested one. for a ten year period, the united states intelligence community was telling us they probably have a nuclear weapon. so if you were a united states military planner, a south korean or japanese military planner, you had to assume they probably had nuclear weapons. and you had to plan accordingly. for iran to achieve the same thing, where all of the neighbors in the united states and the israelis all have to assume that iran probably has a nuclear weapon. that gives them many of the benefits they are seeking to achieve with a nuclear weapon, without necessarily inccurring
in the international program that comes from clearly violating this. >> but there is a threshold issue here. if they get to the point where, let us just take the saudis as an example. the saudis draw the conclusion are effectively in a nuclear weapon state, the saudis say they have to have it too. they are clearly not at that point yet. and so, this is at least one of the thresholds, one of the issues to be looking at. >> ok. thank you very much to everyone. we appreciate all of the great questions and the work of our panelists. thank you very much. [applause] >> i will just close. i just want to thank susan, also. susan and the panelists. and i want to thank you all for coming. i wanted to try to finish a little early today. >> in the councils of government, we must guard
against the opposition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or on sought by the military industrial complex. >> why was that speech so important? >> it warned against the industrial complexes. which is a cliche now. they sure have a sense then. i spent much of his presidency making sure the military did not get out of hand. it was only partially successful. but he kept military spending steady. that was very hard to do in the 1950's. tremendous pressure. we were creating an arsenal. the army really cut in order to have the money to buy the missiles. military spending was 70% of the federal budget. fed got 25%.
jpmorgan chase ceo jamie dimon says his company lost $10 billion as a result of doing the government a favor. he also said it is virtually assured that bond markets would reject united states debt if congress cannot reach a deal. he spoke of the council on foreign relations wednesday to discuss the global economy. this is one hour. >> good afternoon. i am richard haas and want to welcome you all to the council on foreign relations. and to today's ceos speaker series meeting. this is part of the council and foreign relations program to increase the programs and links between the business community and the foreign policy community. which to one extent or one in the same. i also want to thank, rather will come those around the world and the country who are participating in this meeting through the wonders of modern technology. speaking of modern technology, if people would just take a second to turn off their cell phones and the like. that would be most welcome.
this meeting is on the record. anything you say, sir, can and will be held against you. in this day and age, probably some things you haven't said will be used against you. >> there is no such thing as privileged and confidential any more. >> the phrase someone needs no introduction is often used. it actually applies. jamie dimon is not simply the head of one of the principal financial institutions in this country, jpmorgan chase. but i believe has emerged as one of the most important and influential spokesman for the worlds of finance and business in the united states. which we are going to have this conversation today for a few minutes, and then will open it up to you all for your questions. let me get one or two conflicts of interest off of the table. i should say that jpmorgan is a corporate member of the council of foreign relations.
one of around 175 corporate members. and i am a shareholder in the company. unfortunately, i am a distinct minority shareholder. and i wish it were enough to present a conflict of interest. but alas, it is not. so, there you go. mr. dimon as i expect many of you may know is of greek heritage. so in the last 24 hours, the chancellor of germany has been visiting the country of your ancestors, of your forbearers. how worried are you about the prospects for greece? and what it might mean, not just for greece and europe, but because of globalization and economic linkages for the united states and indirectly for your organization? >> thank you for the introduction. my ancestors left greece like 1915. so you cannot blame me for what is going on there.