tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 2, 2015 11:00pm-1:01am EST
well as secretary of defense. he can also give us insight on health and health care issues as they relate to the united kingdom. i'm also delighted to welcome general skokroft with us and the former f.b.i. and c.i.a. director. we're delighted to have you both with us. and dr. fox, i think that gives you a sense of the importance that we subscribe to this conversation. and we look forward to your remarks. dr. fox will give us opening remarks. then we'll transition into a discussion and welcome our audience today for a lively q&a on the future of the u.s.-u.k. special relation shch. shch -- relationship but i think we'll have a broader conversation about the variety of international challenges we face. with that, please join me in welcoming dr. liam fox. [applause]
>> well, good morning, ladies and gentlemen. and it's a great pleasure to be back here. it is not a quiet time in global events. in fact, i can never remember a more turbulent time. but what a better time to talk about the relationship between the united kingdom and the united states. in fact, when winston churchill first used the term "special relationship, he did it during his speech in fulton missouri. which is of course better remembered for his use of the phrase iron curtain for the first time. but when churchill spoke about the special relationship, he did so as a wartime leader. it was basically an intelligence relationship, a military relationship. the somewhat gooey-eyed commentators are not for me, the concrete foundations that it has. this is a relationship about our security in a dangerous world. and there are so many threats in
this very inter-dependent world. one of the changes that churchill would have been astonished to see is the level of inter-dependency that we now have. and we have so many warnings about just how inter-dependent we've come in recent years whether it's the terrorist attack of 9/11, whether it's the event of s.a.r.s., the japanese tsunami, what is very clear is that a connotation in one part -- a contagion in one part of the economy will quickly spread to the west. the term there might become somewhat dated as we go ahead. when i was writing the book i wrote about global security threats, it was pointed out to me that back in 1993, not exactly a very long time ago there were 130 websites in the
world. at the end of last year, there were 654 million, which is a whole change, quantum leap, in information. but it's also a lot of terrorist haystacks in which to hide terrorist needles. and that's something i want to come on to in a moment. but i want to set out the range generic range of risks that we face, before i come to some of the specifics. but i set the most feeling states, the rise of religious fundamentalism, the spread of transnational terrorism financial imbalances, competition for commodities. and that's before we even got to the state on state threat that we face. and i began by setting out what the risks i thought were of failing states. and the one that i actually identified was pakistan. and i said pakistan not out of malign intent but because of sheer instability.
most of us, politically will be used to dealing with opposite numbers. but in a country like pakistan, where frankly we're never really sure who is in charge, whether it's the politicians, the military or the isi, we have to develop a whole range of relationships. of course, from a british perspective, i was very interested as to why, after 200 years of common history india, after partition, went on to become a relatively stable, prosperous and increasingly middle class economy whereas pakistan effectively ruled backwards, from the very beginning. perhaps it's something we can discuss. but i was interested in that partition. nobody knew what to call pakistan. it didn't correspond to any natural historical or geographical entity. so in fact it's an acronym. pakistan is actually a made-up name, made up of the initials of the provinces. and i think that it's a fair bet
that if you're country's name is made up, then it's not probably the most stable entity that you're likely to see. and i say that this is a worry, because here in washington, with all the focus on iran at the present time, people seem to have forgotten that pakistan is sitting on something like 120 nuclear warheads and has recently brought into play two new plants that will enable them to produce nuclear warheads from now on. it is the nuclear problem that nobody seems to want to acknowledge and talk about in detail. then, of course, we've got to the rise of transnational terrorism. it's nothing new. but it changes its manifestations. of course, the worry that we have is that this nuclear proliferation, in places like pakistan, will find its way into the terrorist game. and people say well, if it's so easy to make a dirty bomb, and so much material out there, why have we not seen one?
and yet nobody seems to know that in 1995, in moscow, the nuclear material was there but it just wasn't attached to a bomb. or that in chechnya, we have had material attached to mines. so the threat is there. and it will increase. and we need to look at our whole issue of proliferation in light of the increased terrorist threat. we also need to understand some of the other risks that are coming from left field. and one of the ones that i constantly talk about is the risk of competition for commodities. and in particular, water. and people talk about china but they very often miss out on one of the really important parts of the equation, which is that 48% of all the people alive on our planet today get their drinking water from a river that arises on the tibetan plateau. why do you think china is so intent on tibet?
is it the dalai lama? or is it the fact that it's the world's greatest resource in terms of fresh water? unless we know the data we will not make sensible interpretations of events and therefore are likely to make policy mistakes. the rise of religious fundamentalism particularly islamic fundamentalism, is there for us all to see. we're facing this crisis now with isis, the latest manifestation of this, but i doubt it will be the last manifestation of it. we need to be very very clear about the threats that islamic state poses to us. first of all, the humanitarian threat the immediate threat to the population that lives under their control. we've seen what they're capable of beheadings, crucifixes, setting people on fire. for video cameras, violence we thought had been left behind in the middle ages. the second threat, of course, the further destabilization of
the region. they would love to see a full-blown religious war. this is in fact part of what they're trying to achieve. and then, of course, there will be the university of jihad if we allow them to do so. and they will export terror to western democracies if they get the opportunity. and we've seen cases in the united kingdom of people who have gone to fight for isis and then come home. personally i don't believe you can have a sabbatical from civilization and then come home. no jihad gap here, that you can come back and say you're very sorry that you did it. so we have to, again, think about the domestic problems. and then nuclear proliferation itself. iran clearly the big issue. when rouhani became president there was so in the the western area who were describing it as a breakthrough, a new moment in the relationship. big disappointment there, for the people of iran.
they've not really noticed much of a difference. the repression, the executions continue. and what people seemed to fail to understand was that the shots are still called by the supreme leader. and if you read -- there's a wonderful little book, and he has a politically consistency that most western politicians would kill for. his belief in the purity of the islamic revolution, his hatred for the united states, his contempt for the existence of the state of israel, all very, very consistent over a long period. and i think it is absolutely unbelievable that people still will look at the evidence in front of them in terms of what iran is doing, in terms of its nuclear program, and say, well, maybe they're not trying to achieve a nuclear weapons program. there is no possible excuse for
the levels of nuclear work they're doing, other than that they're trying to get a nuclear weapons program the clan des tine way in which they were developed. there is a problem here, a generic problem in the west, which is that on too many occasions we have allowed wishful thinking to take the place of critical analysis. because we want something to happen, we have used the data to try to make it look as though that is what is happening. and it's not happening in the case of iran. why should we worry about a nuclear iran? first of all, it does provide a threat to israel, with all the implications that that has for wider policy. secondly, i think it would mean the npt is not worth the paper it's written on. and if iran gets to nuclear
weapons status, why should egypt, saudi arabia and turkey not want to follow them? and that means a nuclear arms race in one of the most unstable regions of the world. and after all the work that was done particularly in the united states, at the end of the cold war to stop proliferation and to stop the former soviet states from being able to have nuclear weapons surely we want to leave something better to the next generation than a new nuclear arms race. this is a challenge for all of us. i worry about what is happening today in terms of the negotiations. some say we need to get a deal. i actually think no deal is better than a bad deal. and what do i mean by a bad deal? i think any deal is a bad deal that allows iran to become a threshhold nuclear state because of the dangers that i've mentioned. i particularly worry that the --
about the potential of a bilateral agreement between the united states and iran that doesn't come from the p5 plus 1. we need to stand together in the face of international threat and not be divided. and i'm sure that's something we'll talk about in our conversation. and then on this happy list of the threats we face, we didn't really think that we would be facing a state on state threat to the extent that we're facing today from russia. and if ever there was an example of wishful thinking, displacing critical analysis, it is in putin's russia, because we have so wanted russia to become a useful partner in the international family of nations that we have simply been turning a blind eye for too long. there are two basic principles followed by putin which make it extremely difficult if not impossible to normalize
relations with russia. the first is that putin still clings to the idea, the old soviet idea, of a near abroad. in other words, that he should have a veto over the policies of his immediate geographic neighbors. and we have seen what that has led to in recent times. the second is concept, his concept that he believes that the protection of ethic russias or the systems of law, under which they live, but with an external part, russia itself. and these two views are the root of many of the problems that we face. and we can see the manifestations of these today in ukraine. i do not believe that putin's word on any agreement when it comes to his borders. i think that what is happening in the ukraine is truly shocking. the annex saition by force, of
crimea the destabilization of the eastern borders of ukraine, the fact that while nato carries out normal military maneuvers and exercises, russia is actually testing weapons systems, lies in eastern ukraine, from the book missile system. these are real times testing that russia is carrying out. and we are standing by and arguing about whether we should give the ukrainians the means or not to defend their homeland. just think about it. we are actually saying, we cannot give ukraine the secure -- the anti-tank capability that they need, because that might exacerbate the crisis. that is a charter. that simply says we will never give anyone the means to defend themselves, because that might make the aggressor even more
angry. this is a ridiculous policy. and we need to recognize that the defense of the baltic states, for example, begins in ukraine. and we are only one miscalculation by putin away from potentially getting an article 5 involvement of continental europe and we need to waken up to it. we have been serial appeasers of putin. and it has not got us very far. when he had a cyberattack on estonia, we did nothing. he invaded georgia. and he's still there. and we did very little. we made some sanctions in response to what is happening in ukraine and crimea. but appeasement has a bad track record. it had a bad track record before. it has a bad track record today. so why should we even view the united kingdom -- we the united kingdom, still look to the united states, in an era of all
these potential problems? because you are the world's biggest economy. because you are the world's biggest military budget, which is very reassuring. and you are a close ally of the united states. but more than that, we need to have a partnership of values because in all these problems that we face in the world, we need to understand that we are who we are. not by accident. we are who we are by design and by decisions that were taken by those who went before us. and we are built on the concept both our nations, of our ability to exercise a free market our economic liberty in a free market. we understand the value in terms of prosperity and security in free trade. we understand the need for a rule of law applied equally to the governing and the governed, independently. and we understand the concept of rights, across race, religion and gender. these are what make us who we
are. and we need to take ownership of these, and we need to be expanding these in a very unstable world. and to my american political colleagues, i would say this. there has never been a time when we were more able to shape the world, in the era of globalization, we need to shape it in our image and by our own values. this is not a time for america to look inwards. this is not a time for america to become more isolationist. there has never been a time, i believe, where america was more needed on the pitch than it is today. and that's probably, i think heather, the best place to begin our conversation. >> perfect. thank you. [applause] >> well, thank you. that was wonderful a great tour didtourdeforce.
i think we'll have a conversation with us, and i'll turn you over to our audience. i will form you that center for strategic and international studies audiences ask very tough questions. so i'm a mere warm-up to what you're about to experience. but you gave us a broad one. i think i'll focus more on europe. let me start with russia, since that is where you concluded. the murder of boris nemtsov, do you think that's a turning point? will we see a different environment within russia? i think one of nemtsov's most poignant remarks literally days before his murder, was that he felt that there needed to be a midon in russia an awakening in russia, which in some ways i think is the most powerful threat to vladimir putin than to anything. did you see these unbelievable images from moscow? literally steps from the
kremlin? did you see this as potentially a turning point for russia? >> it's potentially. but, again, given the level of control and repression that exists there, we have had these before. being a vocal opponent of putin is not a safe position to be in, as nemtsov, you name them, the very long, growing list of enemies of the russian president who have been silenced. it would be nice to think that we would get a change. honestly, i'm just not that optimistic about it. >> you had some conversation as recently as yesterday on bbc 1 radio talking about the level of defense spending. very concerned about british defense spending, the lack of a commitment to 2% of gross domestic product towards defense standing. i'd like to pull you out a bit on that and really, offer some
reflections. is nato ready to confront russia? we have seen extraordinary military mobilization, snap exercises. i saw a statistic that since david cameron has been prime minister russia has gotten very close to air sovereignty of the u.k. 43 times. are we ready to confront this challenge militarily? >> well, you added the word militarily at the end. i think our biggest problem is having the will to confront. you can have as much military capability as you like. if you haven't got the political will to use it, it becomes largely redundant. i think that is, of the two elements of nato, its political personality and its military capable, it's that political one i worry about. i think this is where the 2% comes in. it's not just the ability that gives us, in terms of military equipment, it's about our
willingness to show our longer-term commitment to the alliance. only four of the nato allies meeting the 2%, which remember is the floor. 2% of g.d.p. is supposed to be the floor of our spending, not the ceiling of our spending on defense. if you look at what happened, for example, in the libyan crisis, in libya the europe european elements of nato would not have even been able to carry that out without the united states, because we simply didn't have the refueling capability. the big problem with a lot of the european members of nato is that so many of them were very quick, after the cold war in particular to get into nato. and they all recognized what a opportunity it was for everybody to get the insurance policy but asking just a few others to pay the premiums for us. and we are in the position where
there are too many countries taking a free ride on the united states in particular with i is why i think it's -- why i think it's very important that britain show the moral leadership to make that 2% commitment. we have given our word as a country that we will play our full part in the alliance and we must do so. last week i was in poland, the world from warsaw looks very different than it does from either london or washington. and there is a palpable fear there about what is going on. and the geographic proximity of putin is getting them to waken up. and they are, of course, going to increase the defense spending. our country is like estonia. but they're coming to the threat late in the day. so we do need to get our political act together inside nato. and there's a related issue here. and i know this is -- we did talk about this in williamsburg. but i go back to it again. and part of the problem with
nato is the european union. and the european union trying to take on a defense and security rule -- role. that is not what the e.u. is for. that is what nato is for. if we try to duplicate what nato is doing inside the european union, and worse, if it ends up having the diversion of funds away from the scarce funding that we're giving nato, into a duplication in the european union, that can be of comfort only to those who are our enemies. >> i'm going to turn to the e.u., because i definitely want your thoughts on the eurozone and immigration issues. before i >> i'm going to believe russia, your opening remarks, and you mentioned prime minister churchill. i have to say i struggle with this. what would churchill say today? on the one hand, he described the rise of naziism wartime prime minister, to create that defense. there's no choice between war and shame.
you'll have shame, and then you'll have war -- that it will come later. but he also in some ways agreed to a sphere of influence. we need a new strategic framework for this challenge that putin is presenting the west. how do you strike that balance between the values proposition but, again, the political will to meet mr. putin with strength? >> first of all, we have to provide ourselves with the capability. but we also need to be willing to confront them where necessary. we have seen his modus operandi. we need to have a stronger presence in the baltic states in particular. and let's be very frank about what he's doing here. he's got them in the baltics. he's been bullying some of the smaller baltic states into fearing politically funding pro-russian candidates. he's been encouraging them in the balkans to see the illegal
referendum in crimea as a precedents. he has still got forces in georgia. he's created virtually a state in armenia. how many lessons do we need in what is happening here? this is the ability now to cause instability at will, in terms of european security. we need to counter that. we need to have a larger and permanent presence in the baltic. we need to beef up the baltic air patrols. we need to look at countries like poland and see whether we need to have a greater permanent nato presence there. we need to use the powers that we have to show that we are not going to allow this concept this sphere of influence, to take hold. for example we should be sending our naval power into the black sea, just to show that we have every right to do that, and that this is not the personal pond of putin.
so there are things that we can do. but we have to have the will to do it. and we have to have the leadership to do it. >> let me turn to the european union. in some ways, the may 7 general elections is, in part not completely about the future of great briive in the european union -- about great britain in the european union. obviously you've been a critic of the e.u. and britain's role in there. expand a little bit on what you've been watching over the last several years, whether it's within the eurozone and how the 19 eurozone members have been dealing with an ongoing economic crisis certainly the last few weeks with the prime minister. it's really been an unprecedented conversation. but more broadly, how the european union is dealing with larger issues like immigration maritime security. things like that. >> how long have you got? >> you've got a couple medicines. you can go -- a couple minutes. you can go. >> first of all, in terms of the
u.k. election, the conservative party, my party, believes we should have a referendum, because no one under about 57 years of age in the u.k. has ever been able to take part in the referendum about our membership. it's one of my earliest political memories the referendum of 1975, because my parents campaigned on opposite sides. >> a tensen tense household. >> it was. my parents still have the same views that they held then. but lord mandelson said, in britain, that -- and i quote -- europe is too important an issue to be left to the lottery of the electorate. which i think tells you all you need to know about the mind-set of the bureaucracy in brussels. and in an era where people cross western political systems seem to be losing faith, in the political system itself, giving people a say on their own destiny, i think, is one of the ways in which you restore faith in that system. and you keep faith with the
people. so that's one side of it. the eurozone well, a lot of our european partners are now becoming serial economic self-harmers. and the whole concept of the you're row, which of course we decided to stay out of, i think has been a disaster. i remember, on the night we were voting in the house of commons, john major said to me, who in their right minds would go into anything in life that doesn't have an exit? and we're now discovering, with the greek situation, exactly what happens when you don't have an exit. and the euro was always flawed. there were two models that they could have taken.
they could have said, it's purely an economic project and only the countries that make the grade are allowed to join. they didn't do that either. in fact, the wrong countries were allowed to join countries that were never close to making the convergence criteria, and then having been allowed to join, they followed fiscal policies that made them diverge rather than converge, building instability into an already flawed architecture. and we're living with the consequences of that today, because what you're getting is monetary policy effectively applied across the whole continent that suits germany the biggest continental imhi. economy. and i'm afraid that histories are too short for people to accept what they perceive as austerity being applied to them from berlin. and the reason that i mentioned my parents' positions on the europeeuropean referencei worry now
that what we are getting in the euro is a re-creation of the tensions economically that will lead us to many of the same positions that we had before. how do you go about de-risking? you can go back to the national currencies. that is not going to happen. you can throw out the outliers greece portugal, spain probably italy, but it would undermine it. that is not going to happen. the third would be to throw out the biggest outlier, germany. that is not going to happen because germany likes the euro. it is an under-valued currency for the size and strength of the german economy. the fourth way is for the
countries inside the eurozone to move to a full fiscal and monetary union. i spoke to a member in brussels recently. he said, you are quite right. what we will do is continue to take the risk, hoping the bomb goes off on someone else's watch. i regard the euro as being the single greatest threat to global stability. the basic problem is not being solved. the most important issue for european politicians, the de-risking of the euro, 58% of young spaniards are unemployed. how long do you think you can tolerate those levels of unemployment being foisted upon a population for what is effectively a political project?
this is not a sensible way to be running either the economics or the long-term social stability in europe. i wonder how many younger europeans on the current trend will be sacrificed on the altar of the single currency before leaders wake up to the truth of what is happening. >> something about the eurozone which has its own rhythm at the moment, are you under-valuing the incredible benefit the united kingdom has received by being part of the single market? trade between the united kingdom and the union has increased. can the conversation about the u.k.'s role, are you not under-emphasizing the great economic benefits? london is the financial center. it is in the union, but not of the euro. >> it would be the end of london
as the economic center. it has not worked out that way. i take a very simplistic view of this. money goes to where money can be made and money can be moved. money comes to london for both those reasons. it can be made because of our taxation-free market, especially at the moment, and it can be moved because of our system of commercial law. that will continue to make it attractive inside the european union. i have not noticed norway or switzerland suffering hugely for not being members of the european union. of course, there are gains for being inside it. it is a debate for the ledger, pluses and minuses. britain would have to look to see, where britain to leave the european union, pointing out the
rest of our european partners export more than we export to them. it is very much in one direction. i think we do need to have this debate. i really rather dislike some of those who will say, we could not stand -- britain could not exist outside the european union which is nonsensical given the success of some of the countries in that region. i would like to see a renegotiated relationship with europe. i would like us to go back to the concept of a common market. i want to be will to cooperate with european partners and it is in our mutual interest to do so. i want to keep levers britain might need to use. >> one critical party that has benefited from the
anti-european-union immigration stance is -- i would like to turn a little to the domestic politics and put the crystal ball on the table. may 7, we have the commentary class. it is speculated that what we are about to witness on may 7 is going to be a real mess, a very difficult coalition, the scottish national party, perhaps the u.k. on the other side, might be determining what future british governments look like. how does the average american understand what is going to happen on may 7 and what are the implications? >> i will also give you the lottery numbers this week. >> the bookies always have this right. >> i tend to go with the bookies as well. people are more circumspect on where they put their money. what does look like it is
happening at the moment is the main parties are increasing in strength again at the expense of the smaller ones. for all the talk of the breakthroughs, in a country like britain, it is very difficult for parties to break into that. i think, and you will see with some justification, you would say this, i believe that when you have an economy where we have created 1.8 5 million jobs with historically low in trade -- interest rates, the growth in the economy feeding through to the pockets, i think it is hard to see why the public would throw out a government that has provided them with that. labour party unqualified to lead
the country. i think that when it comes to the election, people will look at the economic record of the government, look at the fact that in david cameron, they have an experienced prime minister. it is not looking great. i think what they will decide is not to make the change. i think it will be close to an overall majority. i remember the election when i was elected in 1992. the scenario was not dissimilar to this one. we were not at the head of any opinion polls. the electorate, when faced with actually putting across, i think they are working very hard and >> as a member of parliament, you served on the constitution
committee and focused on constitutional affairs. for those of us that have been watching the scottish debate last fall's referendum, a bit of a heart-stopper, were not quite sure how that would evolve. now we see where the scottish national party is going to be doing, we think, very well heart-stopper on may 7, which may cause labour to not do as well. what does this mean for the united kingdom? is it becoming more disunited? will this begin to pull at the very fabric of the united kingdom? >> i would have thought that tony blair's proposals for devolution were in balance and would have repercussions. we argued at the time it was our responsibility at the time. i argued that what was happening was a recipe for the rise of nationalism. i did and would have not -- 87% chance of
getting that referendum. it paid out the day before the referendum actually took place. the trouble with it is the independent site who lost the referendum won. they had been continuing to push more and more in that direction. that has been a problem. it is also not very apparent that labour party looks like it will do very badly in scotland. i think that is a problem. what will it mean if there is a big -- that will depend on the outcome. the nightmare scenario is a la bour snp coalition. the reason that is a nightmare for me, not just yet more money will move from my constituents
up north of the border into scotland and there is more scottish spending per head, but the worry is the snp, they believe in a nuclear-free country. i wonder what price the labour leader would pay to get the keys to that. it should worry our american friends. >> my last question, then i want to bring our audience in. i will ask you a question that i get asked very frequently by journalist. is -- does the united states still have this close, exclusive relationship with the united kingdom that it had in the past? does the united states still consider itself a european power? is it still involved as it was in the transatlantic relationship?
has it decided, we will maintain, but we are focusing on the asia person -- asia-pacific region? how would you answer that question? >> i thought the whole concept of the pivot was a little bizarre. it is not as though the atlantic will disappear any days in. clearly, the united states does have to focus on the pacific. there is also an atlantic part. it does not have the luxury of choosing which way to look. global security, for the reasons we were discussing, is not something you can decide which geographical area you are not going to worry about and which areas you will disregard. it is not like that. events in ukraine are showing you. the u.s. is still the global superpower. with that comes responsibilities. we need the u.s. to be in the game.
i wonder what signal mr. cooper -- putin got that the u.s. would be focused on the pacific. i wonder what signal he took from that. i wonder if it would be advantageous. >> interesting. thank you. i have given you your worn-out -- warm-up. i will unleash the audience. we have a microphone. if you could identify yourself with name and affiliation. we have about 15 minutes. i asked for comments to be short and questions to be very focused. please. we have one right to in the front. >> thank you for the realist view of the world. my question follows on asia. i was going to ask about the pivot. does the u.k., eu, nato see this as an outsider's purview? how are you pursuing it?
>> thank you. we had a question -- >> thank you. you have spoken quite a bit about diplomacy and defense, the need to build political will in those areas. i wonder if you have any thoughts on the development and how the relationship between usaid and the united states and the department for international development in the u.k. has transformed, how you think it should transform in the future, and if that is a significant aspect of what you are talking about. thanks. >> great. let's take one more. thank you. >> dr. fox, thank you for joining us today. real quick question. it seems like one of the emerging narratives in the debate about the future in nato is that there are some member states that are oriented to the
east. i think the ukraine -- others are concerned about instability in libya. how do we help change that narrative from an "or" to an "and"? >> the question of development and the south versus the east. that is a great question. can nato do both? do they have to choose? can the alliance be united? what the first question goes to the heart of this entire discussion. i think increasingly you have to understand the implications of globalization. we can't simply disregard other parts of the world because they're not close to us geographically. i think of the 20th century as being the century of the block which was defined by our geography. so we cooperated with countries that were close to us in terms
of physical geography rather than countries that are like us in terms of our values or our political systems. increasingly, the world is shrinking because of the effects of globalization and as i said at the beginning, we can't afford to disregard risks that are rising in asia anymore than we can risks rising in europe because they will both affect us very quickly. politicians have a problem with this. if i am allowed to say that. i think politicians on the right resent the loss of sovereignty that inevitably comes with globalization and therefore tend to not want it to happen. politicians on the left dislike the unavoidable strategic risk that comes with globalization that has to be paid for. and our systems of government also with a very neat way in which we have silos that say , that his economic policy,
that's trade policy that's foreign-policy that security policy failed to grasp how globalization is developing in the interdependence and the unavoidable risk that comes with that. so we do have to look at it more widely, at risk and emerging risk and recognize that whether we like it or not, it's going to happen and how well we prepare for it today think it's the end of geography not the end of history. he would have been a lot closer to the mark in terms of the world. in terms of -- you cannot choose the conflicts. this is the problem of security. we are going to reduce their spending because we think the world is becoming a safer place. conflicts choose you more than you get to choose the conflicts.
that's one of the lessons of history. we have to be ready for the unexpected and libya showed some real shortcomings. it also showed the dislocation iyou get to choose the conflicts. think of our military action and our plans for longer-term political stability. since the marshall plan, i can't think of an example of where we got both the military action and the reconstruction and stabilization right. so we have a lot of thinking to do there. it's very useful in terms of being able to help out in the short term. my view is that if you want to alleviate global poverty you do it through free trade and i think capitalism has actually given a much greater step up to the world's poor than any amount of aid program can do, but i do think specifically well targeted aid is very useful.
i don't just mean in terms of physical or monetary poverty. i think we should be using our aid budgets to change behavior and values, in particular i think our taxpayers who provide this money live by certain ethical values and i think that we should be using our aid budget more to get a change in behavior. for example, i think that countries that exhibit religious intolerance that do not give women equal rights and don't send girls to school, we should be trying to use our aid as a lever in those cases. we should be trying to apply the values that are people live by to those countries that we give aid to. i think it was in the aid debate and it's been understandably focused on public health which has a doctor i regard as important and the alleviation of poverty, but i think there are other things that the aid budget should also be involved in enough of the promotion of our values. and i think if you go back to what i said at the very
beginning that we are who we are by design and not by accident, if you believe that as i do but -- as i do i think you have a , moral responsibility to ensure other people are able to benefit from those values, too. it is what i see our aid program as being a very important part of. i just don't however by this -- i just don't, however buy this idea that you can diminish your need for hard power by having more soft power. that really is an and, not in -- not an or. >> one quick question and i will turn to the audience. i'd been meaning to ask this question. we followed closely the house of commons vote on syria and
was that a real turning point in how the united kingdom looked at foreign-policy challenges, or was that in some ways trying to mitigate the past and past decisions, putting those decisions on the rocks? >> it was an aberration and a mistake. i would not take it as reading too much into how britain sees its role. it was recalled from summer holiday three days before they had to. people don't take kindly to that. there was not a great deal of preparation done about the actual issue. a lot of it was about domestic politics. i would not read too much into it. however, i think that the damage, irrespective of the outcome of the vote, has been very substantial. i think there are two things you should do in politics. don't make promises you know you can't keep. don't make threats you are not willing to carry out.
if you drawl redlines and say they will not be crossed, then they are crossed, the one thing you can be sure of is your next redline will be tested. it was not only about this specific issue. it was about how many of our allies as well as our enemies perceive our willingness to enforce the policies that we set out for ourselves. that is a very dangerous world. >> i think we have time for maybe two more questions. there is one there. >> i am an exchange officer british exchange officer working in the pentagon. i would like to ask about information operations regarding russia in particular. i would like your opinion on just how costly it was to cut the russian-speaking bbc world service in 2011, as far as i can tell the only reasonable means of countering russia today is a state-sponsored information
-controlled network and if you agree with me that it was with hindsight extremely costly whether it can be reversed? >> thank you. just take the microphone. thank you. >> national defense university. among the big defense issues you face in 2016 will be making a -- will be the main gate decision. how strong his support from the conservative party for a like for like replacement? since you were defense minister at the time you signed the defense treaties in 2010 are you satisfied with the level of british-french cooperation? wife any predictions on the strategic defense review for this year? all right. that is how you will end up, on a strong note. >> the question of information -- as well as forgetting about
the concept of deterrence in general, we have also forgotten the value of propaganda. you would think we have lost constitutional memory of the cold war. both of these are really important things. russia is now becoming extremely adept, as isis are, for example in conducting an information war despite having the technology , and tools at our disposal. we seem to have failed to understand the importance or the potential that it gives us. so i'm entirely with you that we need to really raise our game right across the information piece. in terms of nuclear deterrence there's strong support inside the party for replacement. the biggest argument in britain against it are why would you spend so much money on a system that you will never use which utterly fails to understand the
concept of deterrence, which is that we are using it everyday as a deterrent. when they say you can't really afford 20 billion in terms of capital costs for the new program i point out that we are , very happy to spend 9 billion for three weeks at the olympics , but we are reticent of spending 20 billion for 35 years protection from nuclear blackmail. it does seem to me that we want to think hard about our priorities on that one. as for the sdsr, clearly the next thing you will have to take into account that had the -- into account, that heavy initial cost in the capital program for the nuclear deterrent. that, i think, is factored in but it's a big cost and i would , say the defense budget is driven by four things. four drivers and constraints. the first is the international security environment which is
deteriorating, which suggests we need an uplift in the budget. secondly it is driven by the commitments entered into, the 2% made a commitment our commitment to upgrade our nuclear deterrence and it's also the gaps that we decided to take in but which we will not be able to 2010, take again and surveillance capability for example has probably been a billion on the budget just for the one item. then you have got fiscal position which is improving , dramatically in the united kingdom because of the long-term economic plan that we put forward. the fourth one, i think is the , international obligations and your willingness to have a role in global affairs. i think that we have given our word to the country and as a member of the alliance. we need to keep that word and i think if we want to be able to propagate the values and systems, international obligations and that i've been talking about we
-- about we have to be willing , to provide the means necessary to protect them. so i can see no option than a rise in the budget. i fail to see how you can produce what we didn't in the future for 2020's set out in 2010 without increasing the budget nevermind filling in the , gaps that we would have to because of the deteriorating security picture. i think it's inevitable the budget will go up. i think smart politicians would turn necessity into a virtue. >> dr. fox, it is always a great opportunity to have a great discussion with you. you have given us a lot to think about. we are going to focus in on the outcome of may 7 and see what the future holds for british politics. although the u.s.-u.k. relationship may be complicated and evolving, it is vitally important. we are delighted that you could spend some time with us. please join me in thanking dr.
fox. relationship[applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu will address a joint meeting of congress tomorrow. he has been critical in the ongoing negotiations with ran over its nuclear program. minister benjamin netanyahuwatch live coverage of the speech here on c-span at 11 a.m. eastern. later on c-span3, defense secretary ashton carter will testify about the pentagon's budget request. he will be joined by martin dempsey. we will have live coverage from the senate armed services committee at 2:30 p.m. eastern. >> the c-span cities tour takes book tv and american history tv on the road, traveling to u.s.
cities to learn about their histories and literary life. we partnered with comcast for a visit to galveston, texas. >> the rising tide went right through them. they watched in amazement as both of these actors -- at the time, we had wooden bathhouses out over the gulf of mexico and we also had a huge pavilion. as the storm increased in intensity, the structures literally were turned into matchsticks. the 1900 storm struck galveston saturday, september 8 1900. the storm began at noon
increased in dramatic intensity, and then finally tapered off toward midnight that evening. began atthis hurricane was and still is the deadliest recorded natural event in the history of the united states. >> watch all of our events from galveston saturday at noon eastern on look -- booktv. >> florida republican senator and potential 2016 presidential candidate marco rubio was in manchester, new hampshire, last week. he spoke at a politics and eggs breakfast. new hampshire traditionally holds the nations first presidential primary. >> that's perfect that's
great. 2017, a year away. you're a junior. oh, that's right 2017, i'm sorry. my pleasure. thank you for having me here. >> thank you so much. >> new jersey, exactly. >> yeah, absolutely. >> one more. >> that's a great time. good to see you. my pleasure. >> one more. thank you, both. thank you. >> great to see you. >> likewise. >> one more. thank you. >> thanks for having me.
>> thanks for having me here. >> thank you so much. >> nice to see you. >> likewise. >> one more. thank you. >> thank you so much. >> how are you? thanks for having me. thank you so much. >> one more. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> welcome, senator. >> thank you for having me. glad to be here. >> absolutely. >> thank you both. >> thank you so much. >> thanks for having me. >> thanks for coming. >> thank you very much. >> hi, how are you, so good to see you. how are you? >> one more. >> thank you. >> we tried to cut back on the outdoor activities. >> how are you, good to see you, thanks for having me. i'm glad to be with you guys
thanks for the invitation. >> i have a few articles, i'll give them to you. >> i would love to see them. >> i would love to hear. >> how do you do? >> i never forget the county commissioner. i enjoyed it. >> it was brisk. >> we're cutting down on the outdoor activities. >> we'll amp them up. that's a test. >> thank you both. >> thank you, thanks so much, guys.
>> thank you. >> how? >> thanks for having me. >> thank you. we're thinking about it. >> hello how are you? >> good to see you. >> welcome to new hampshire. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. >> senator, good to see you again. >> thank you. >> thank you both. >> i tried to reach everybody, how to get ahold of them. >> she has gone on with her life. >> hi, good morning. >> thanks for having me here. >> the bankers right? >> yes. good to see you.
>> in naples, yeah. >> much nicer down there. >> no snow, right. >> hi, how are you? >> one more. >> thank you, both. >> good to see you. thanks foring is me. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. glad to be here. >> i'll meet them. i put that heater on in the room. >> thanks for having me. thanks again for having me, guys. i already feel older.
thanks for having me. i enjoyed your presentation. >> you're in the right place. >> see you guys later. >> thanks again for having me this morning. >> perfect, thank you. >> thank you, guys. >> thank you. thanks for having me. >> no problem. >> thank you. >> thank you. thanks for having me. thank you so much. thanks for having me. >> thank you both. >> i have been looking forward to it. thanks for the invitation.
thanks for having me. >> glad to have you. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. you got to give me your card. >> yes, sir, thank you. >> glad to be back. >> thank you. >> how are you? how are you? >> sorry about the weather. >> no, the weather is fine. >> thank you. >> the "wall street journal" entry -- [speaking spanish]
>> great to meet you. thanks for coming in. >> thanks for having me. >> one more, thank you. >> that's not true. hi, how are you? >> good to see you. >> nice to see you. >> good to be here. >> one last one. >> excellent thank you. >> my pleasure. >> we went through that quick. >> perfect. thank you, guys.
>> how are you? good to see you. i don't know where you got this one from? >> ebay. >> yeah, we did a bunch of these ideas we actually passed some of them and they put them into law. my pleasure. i don't like that cover, sorry. when is he going to retire? hopefully never. >> you're probably right. there you go, guys. where do we go?
thanks for coming. thank you. thanks for coming. hi how are you? thank you for being here. >> thank you. that was really good, i didn't know that. very good. >> i would have totally messed up on that. thanks for coming today. i'm glad to be here. thanks for having me. i heard that sometimes they like you to sign a few of them. this is going to be part of my family heirloom.
>> how is your accuracy? >> we'll see, they better be, the net neutrality going on with it. >> what's going on with that? >> the problem a lot of companies will stop investing in some of the infrastructure and need improvements. we're hoping to have a debate on it in congress here fairly soon. the senator is committed to do that. net neutrality, the f.c.c.? they're going to push through
whatever they're going to do. we have the ability to come back aggressively. >> can you stop it? >> well, we can put in place something that supersedes it that in essence overcomes it. what it does, it really paralyzed innovation in technology. a lot of providers will stop innovating and that will hurt us in that regard. the internet has grown rapidly and created opportunities for a lot of things to happen. net neutrality will pull that down. >> there is no senate bill, we're taking up to the house and the house let's get on the bill and have a debate, amend it in you want to amend. let's get on the debate. they won't let us have the debate.
i don't think we should be doing it by executive order. i support tax reform. but if a republican president said i'm collecting 20% of your taxes instead the full rate, i wouldn't support it. >> executive order just concentrate on those immigrants with a criminal record and depore pages. >> the problem is executive orders are designed to improve the way you enforce the law, not to rewrite the law. you're not going to enforce it on an entire segment of people that number in the millions. either way, you're creating, you're creating a precedent now where presidents can decide i'm going to rewrite law by forcing elements of it. another reason i'm against it it's going to make a change in immigration reform a bill even harder. now people know -- we have lost it, absolutely, we have less votes than we did two years ago
than the senate bill. targeted the last elections, but we have less votes today than we did two years ago. part of it is the executive order and the impact it had in 2012. i think this one may be even harder. the only way to solve the problem is the enforcement problem. they'll be reasonable about everything else. first of all, some of those people are turned back at the border. second, he hasn't enforced the law. there are sectors of the border that are completely undeterred. that too, but actually 40% of our legal immigrants arrive legally in the united states and then overstay. we don't have a reliable system for tracking that, either. that has to be addressed. florida is probably one important state. enforcing talk -- that's the opportunity i really -- my goal was to be a bestseller
thanks for having me today. i appreciate it. thank you. thanks for having me. >> all i can tell you the heater at the comfort inn works. i woke up it's like 95 degrees in there. not like florida in february. thanks for having me. guys, thank you again for having me. i'm grateful. is that what it is? >> that's a tradition. >> i thought they were used to express disapproval. thanks so much for having me. great to see you guys. >> thanks for coming up. >> my pleasure. >> we'll see. i don't know yet. trying to trick you. >> i'm not even engaged yet. we'll see. i look forward to t great to be part of this.
>> do you run the house as well? half my time was spent on administrative duties. >> he was chief about 10 years ago. so he's well versed. >> the rest of the year was spent negotiating contracts. that's the speaker had the administrative duties as well. >> love to have you come speak before the house. >> i'd love to. your house has more history than ours. how many members? >> 120, yeah. >> that's a lot of cats to herd. >> 239 to 161. >> almost the size of the congress.
and the senate? >> 24. >> that's a big difference. >> makes it interesting. the house had 424 but couldn't fit them in the room. it was based on population. >> are they in districts? >> yes. >> single member districts? you got both single members -- >> i wish you the best. you're in the middle of session now? >> we are. >> we are excited to have you. [inaudible] >> small world.
big fan. read your book. big fan. >> thank you. >> thanks so much. >> the purpose of why we are here today, of course, is to hear from the junior senator from that very warm state of florida, marco rubio. we truly had hoped that the senator might bring some of that florida weather with him, but unfortunately we are stuck with the new england cold and the snow. the senator is someone you may know is the son of cuban immigrants.
he was born and raised in miami, started his career in public service in the late 1990's. not long after earning a law degree from the university of miami. the senator has served as a city commissioner in west miami before being elected to the florida house of representatives. and then elected speaker, and as someone who served in the legislature, myself, to know that in just a few short years he was elected speaker of the house says an awful lot about how his colleagues viewed him and valued his input and his counsel. that's quite an accomplishment. in may of 2009 he announced he would run for the united states senate. he ran an impressive primary race. edging out an incumbent governor to win the republican nomination and eventually prevailing in the november, 2010 general election. during his first term in the united states senate, senator rubio has established a
reputation as an outspoken advocate for issues he truly believes that are important to streamline our federal government, eliminate the federal debt, and promoting job creation. he's called for a number of reforms that he believes will, quote, restore the american dream. including, reforming our social security and medicare programs to preserve them for future generations. reforming our higher education system to make college affordable for young americans and spurring our economic growth and policies that encourage american innovation. i will add that the senator's also been an advocate for updating our nation's broken immigration system, an issue that has been a priority for the new england council, particularly as it relates to highly skilled stem workers. the science, technology, the engineering, and the math. he's been a lead co-sponsor of a piece of legislation that the new england counsel has been very supportive of, that's the immigration innovation.
what we call the isquare act. this bipartisan bill, which is also co-sponsored by new england's only senator blumenthal, would increase the number of the h-1-b visas available and would advocate a portion of that free from those visas to the stem education initiative. it's a commonsense solution to address the shortage of our stem workers. and council is grateful to senator rubio for his leadership on this very important issue. i hope and i know that we are all looking forward to hearing from the senator about his vision, the future of our country, so with that i thank all of you for joining us here today. please join me in welcoming you and giving a very warm, warm, warm welcome to the honorable senator, marco rubio. [applause] >> thank you. thank you for having me.
it's an honor to be here. by the way, let me on the outset say that any time i stand behind i see the words new england together, it triggers -- connotes all sorts of horrible memories for me like tom brady beating the dolphins. when is he going to retire? i hope soon because we hope to have a division championship like once for my kids to see before they turn 18, that would be great. thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. i want to thank the council for its invitation and all of you for having me here today. it's an honor to be here. i told my kids earlier this weekend that i would be speaking at an event called politics and eggs. they immediately thought, is that because they throw the eggs at you? and i was worried about that. then when i walked in and saw they were made of wood, i was really worried about that. i'll try to avoid being the target of your egg throwing. thanks for the invitation and opportunity to be here today. what i think is a critical
moment in american history. i'll make a proposition to you tonight -- this morning, and that is that the 2016 election will have nothing to do with what party we want in office or individual govern our country, 2016 will be a referendum. it will be a referendum on our identity. the fundamental question before the country in 2016 will be what kind of country do we want america to be in the 21st century? i can tell you what america was in the 20th century. it was an exceptional nation and it's something i can speak to about personally because i have seen it in my own life. imagine for a moment being born in a country or society where what you are going to be is decided for you. imagine growing up in a society where you basicallycally know no matter how hard you work, how talented you are, how big your dreams may be, and how hard you're willing to work to achieve them, none of it will
matter. because you don't come from the right people. because your family's not politically connected. because your parents aren't wealthy. because you don't run in those networks. imagine growing up in a society like that. it's hard for us to imagine that. i say us, i mean me. i was born and raised in this country. and it's easy for those of us born and raised here to take for granted how special this country is. you don't have to work hard to imagine to work hard to imagine a nation like that. most of the people who ever lived have lived in a place like this. two of them were my parents. my parents grew up in a developing country in the 0th century in cuba. my father lost his mother when he was 9 and left school and went to work at 9 years of age. he's as old as my oldest son would he work for the next 70 years of his life. my mother was one of seven girls raised by a father who was disabled. having been stricken with polio as a young child. he struggled to provide for his family in a developing country primarily agrarian society in the early part of the 20th century. they met and got married in havana, and they had big dreams. my mother wanted to be an actress. my dad wanted to be a successful businessman. they felt trapped.
they felt like no matter what they did, how hard they worked for people like them it would be difficult if not impossible to succeed. and so in may of 1956, they made a decision that changed not just their life, but the future course of our family. they came to the most exceptional nation in all of human history. they came to the united states of america. now, life in america was not easy, either. in fact, their first few years here were difficult. they struggled. they were discouraged. they were so discouraged there were times they thought about going back to cuba. thank god they did not. but over time they persevered. my father found work as a bartender at a hotel. primarily on miami beach. my mother worked at a factory. she was a cashier, maid, she was the stock clerk at kmart. my parents were never rich. they never owned more than one home or one car at a time. they didn't even save enough money to pay for us to go to
kohl reg. but working as a bartender and maid, my parents were able to provide us a safe and stable home and the chance at a better life. my parents never made a lot of money and never made it big. but they fully lived the american dream. because the american dream has nothing to do with how much money you make. it has nothing to do with how many things you own. the american dream is about living the kind of life you want and achieving happiness as you define it. what makes this different from the rest of the world is that here millions of people have been able to do what my parents did. now, fast forward to today. where we now have millions of people in this country starting to doubt whether that's still true. they read the newspapers that says the economy's doing better, unemployment is down big corporations are making more money than ever before, the stock market is going great. they don't feel t they are still working hard. they are still persevering. and they are still living paycheck to paycheck. they are literally one broken car away from disaster. there are millions of people living like that.
these are hardworking tax paying americans who have done everything they were told you need to do to succeed and they aren't getting ahead. one of the great challenges before us today is that there is a great concern in this country and a growing perception that in fact we are no longer the place where hard work and perseverance alone is enough to succeed. that is a definitional challenge for us as a nation. because if we lose that, it's not just that it hurts our economy, it deprives us of what makes us different. it deprives us of what makes us exceptional. so why is this happening? why is it so hard to do in the 21st century what so many people did in the 20th? the answer is because the world around us has changed. and we have been slow to change with it. first of all, we don't live in a global -- we don't live in a national economy anymore. we are truly participants in a global economy. globalization is real. and what it's meant is there are more people than ever that
buy the things we make and invent. it also means there are more nations than ever we have to compete against for investment and innovation. globalization is also meant many of the jobs that once sustained our working class have gone overseas and we have not done a good enough job of replacing them with better jobs. information technology and automation is also real. the jobs that once sustained our middle class, many of which have now been replaced by machines, i mentioned my mother was a cashier. the next time you go to the grocery store, notice how many of those are now machines? that never worked, by the way, they are always stuck and somebody has to get you any way. that's another point. now ail get a letter from the national cashier machine association. my point is that automation is real. it's replaced a lot of the jobs that once sustained the working class. and we have not done a good enough job of replacing them. these are the challenges of the 21st century. there are also extraordinary opportunity embedded in t you and i are 5% of the world's
population. the fact that we can now sell to 95% of the rest of the world who can now afford to buy our things, things we make, things we invent, that's going to create greater prosperity if we are in position to take advantage of it. it's true automation has replaced many jobs, but it's also creating new ones. the problem is that those better paying jobs require skills and education and training that many of our people don't have. why are we missing the opportunity to capitalize on this potential? primarily because we have government policies deeply rooted in yesterday. and yesterday's ideas don't work anymore. you cannot continue to tax and regulate with impunity with the attitude we are the only economy in town because we are not. there are now dozens of other countries that have reduced regulations and reduced taxes and out competing us for some of the job creation and some of the innovation. so the first step in solving this challenge is to once again make america the best economy in the world to invest and to innovate. that means tax reform that makes our tax code simpler and more affordable. that means regulatory reform
that requires a cost benefit analysis before we throw yet another regulation on the back of the american job creator. that means repealing and replacing obamacare which has discouraged job creation. that means bringing under control our national debt that threatens our long-term viability and security and discouraging people from investing in america's future. that means fully utilizing our energy resources. that won't just lower the cost of living in america, it will make it cheaper and more cost-effective to manufacture in america. creating millions of jobs along the way. that's the first step. we have to once again become the healthiest economy on the planet. the most globally competitive economy in the world. but if i have one fault to criticize my party is it usually stops there. oftentimes the republican speech ends right here with economic growth. economic growth is important. and it is the most important thing we can do. but it cannot be the only thing we can do. for the second thing we have to do is we have to equip our people with what it takes to
succeed in the 21st century. that begins by recognizing that in the 21st century it takes a higher level of skill acquisition than ever before to achieve the sort of american dream prosperity that my parents had. here's the hard truth. if my parents had come to america in 2006 instead of 1956, there is no way they could have lived the life they lived working as a bartender and maid at a hotel on miami beach. everything costs too much and those jobs don't pay enough anymore. instead, my father would have had to become a mechanic or plumber or electrician or welder or machinist. my mother would have had to become a dental hygienist or pair legal or registered nurse. and that's the way forward in the 21st century. we can create better paying jobs, but those jobs will require more education than ever. the problem we have is we have these one size fits all higher education system which is basically this. you either get a four-year degree or nothing. that is no longer acceptable and no longer responsive. the solutions that come from
left on this issue are pour more money into the existing higher education system. that won't work. we need a new higher education system. one, for example, that graduates more people from high school ready to go to work ready to go to work as a welder, ready to go to work as a plumber, a b.m.w. technician or airplane mechanic or medical technician. you can teach people to do this when they are 17 and 18 and graduate making $45,000 a year at a start. at a start. at a start. at a start. at a start. imagine for a moment a single mother raising two children working as a receptionist at a law firm making $12 an hour more than minimum wage. the only way she will ever get ahead, she acquires the still she needs to be a parallel. here is the problem. she has to wake up every morning at 6:00, make her kids
breakfast. drop her kids off at school rush back to pick them up before aftercare closes. rush home to make them dinner and get them homework. 10:30, 11:00 at night she is exhausted. and while there are innovations. more most americans there is no flexible and affordable program available to them that allows them to acquire the skills they need to get ahead. we need to create the conditions to that. we need to stop discriminating in our financial aid programs and allow her to get college credit for she has already learned. she has learned something we can give her credit for. we have to allow her to take forces online, some that are free. take courses at night at her own pace. package that into a degree that allows her to go from being a receptionist making $12 to a
parallel making $55,000 a year, that will change her life. that will change her children's life. i'm not saying the four-year degree won't matter, it will. it will continue to be a valid choice for millions of american. here is what we cannot afford to do any more. we can't graduate people with four-year degrees that do not lead to jobs that saddle them with student loan debt. i know about it, i owed over $100,000 myself. i was only able to pay them off with the proceeds of my book, "american son" now available in paperback. it's not a joke, i'm series, available in paperback. you are now paying my children's loans when you buy it. i propose that every student before they take out a student loan be informed by their
college or university this is how much you can expect to make when you graduate from our school with that degree. you're free to pursue it, but the market for greek philosophers is tight. you deserve to know, again, you can major in anything you want, it truly is a free country. before you saddle yourself with loans, you should know what your job prospects are. student loans don't just hurt you financially. student loans keep you from entrepreneurialship or home ownership. oftentimes they keep you from family formation. in the realm of empowering people of what it takes to succeed in the 21st century, hard work, discipline self-control, respect for others. i don't care how many diplomas you have on the wall, you don't have those values, you can't succeed now or ever. the problem is no one is born with these values. these values have to be taught and reinforced, which is why we see what a devastating impact the breakdown of families is having on our economy and our
society. here is the truth, i can't pass a law to make someone a better husband or wife. if i could pass a law to be a better husband, my wife would run for office. we can't pass a law to make people better parents. i propose a family friendly tax code that helps working families with the cost of living. that's why i support school choice because i believe every parent especially low income parents have the right to send their children to the school of their choice not just the government's choice. we need to eliminate the marriage penalties that exist in our tax code and safety net programs. in the realm of the safety net programs, we have a record number of people in poverty. why, they don't treat it, they treat the symptoms. they do nothing to help extract people from poverty. the best cure for poverty is a good paying job.
every single one of our safety net programs should be helping people acquire the skills they need or the opportunity they need to acquire a good paying job. the federal government will never be able to do that. no one size fits all federal program will ever be able to do that. that's why i have proposed pooling all of the anti-poverty money into a flex fund to turn over to state and local communities. they're different in different places. even in my home county of miami dade, urban poverty in the urban city looks different, has different causes and different solutions than rural poverty in south dade and the ago cultural communities. only states and local communities and not for profits will ever find the innovative solutions to those problems. if we do these two things, if we empower our pump what it takes to succeed and make america the best place in the world to inknow sit then, we will have set the template for
another century. it will reach more people than ever before. what i would be remiss if i didn't point out that none of this would be possible if we don't do a third thing and that is provide for our national security. a nation that is thought secure cannot be prosperous. no one argue that we are safer or more respected today than we were five years ago. a simple quick tour around the world points that out. asia, china is acting on their tertrorl claims. 50% of global commerce goes through the south china sea. in latin america in the western hemisphere after two decades of democratic progress we see democracy eroding and cuba that hasn't had it in almost six decades. in europe, we see putin
challenging eastern europe's order with the invasion of ukraine, before that, georgia, before that, the war on chechnya, not to mention all of the murderous plots in russia and around the world. in the middle east, it has never been more unstable in recent memory. first you have the threat of the iranian nuclear program which they continue full steam ahead on. it's not just the ability to enrich and repossess, it's the fact that they probably have bought a bomb design. it's the fact they continue to develop long range rockets capable of reaching parts of europe and eventually able to reach our very homeland. isis and al qaeda, the spread of radical jihaddists who find themselves on multiple couldn't nets and countries. and homegrown extremists who become radicalized online and
spurred to take action. the threats are real. and they must be all of them confronted. the question is what is america's role in confronting them. america can't solve all of its problems on its own. nor do i suggest that america should be involved in every conflict on the planet. in the absence of american leadership not of these problems can be resolved or confronted. no other nation or institution can fill the role we fill. not the u.n. united nations not nato, the organization of american states and not russia or china. no one can rally other than the united states and when it doesn't play that role, chaos ensues. that's what you see happening in place after place around the plant. you cannot have a safe and prosperous world without strong american leadership. you can't have strong
leadership without first and foremost being backed up, not just strong diplomacy but with the strongest military power on earth. the rapid do creases in military spending are threatening our ability, not just to defend our country, but to remain the strongest military power on earth. it makes no sense. military and defense spending is not the cause of our long term debt. they are entitlement programs that are currently structured in unsustainable ways. my mother is on these programs. i would never do anything to hurt her or anyone else on these programs. they go bankrupt. that's the cause of the long term debt. we have had to come back years later and unslash spending. it's cost more money and been more chaotic. when china endeavors to build a 300-ship navy, russia is acting out aggressively and increasing
spending we can't dismantle the american military advantage and we cannot afford to lose the technological high ground. this is the choice before us. we must decide now what every generation before us has to decide are we willing to do what it takes to keep america exceptional. if we do the three things i outlined today mark america the strongest participant on the global stage, in the 21st century, the most process rouse era we have known as a people. if we fail, we will be the first americans to lead the generation worse off. the that should be an unacceptable outcome. let me close with this observation. america doesn't owe me
anything. i owe america everything i do. if my parents had not come here in 1956, if it wasn't the nation 90 miles off the shore of cuba shts i would not be standing before you today. i maybe a really good bartender or something else related in the hotel industry. no way i would have the same dreams or future as the son of a president or the son of a millionaire. the reason why that is possible, for reasons i will never fully understand, god blessed me and my family to grow up in the freest and most prosperous nation. it's early for a bartender, but many of these events -- well, you never know. who knows what is in those eggs. in many of these events i speak at, there is usually a bartender and a portable bar in the back of the room. it reminds me of my father.
my father worked like that for decades. i know that there were nights he probably didn't want to go to work, the new year's eve he wanted to be with us instead of them. my father worked like that into his 70's. he was grateful for the job he had. he didn't want it for us. did he do it just to pay the bills? no my father stood behind a bar all of those years so one day i could stand behind the podium at the front of the room. the journey from behind that bar to the front of the room, that is the essence of the american dream. people from anywhere can player anything they set their mind to. that makes us different. don't ever take that for granted. those of us who have lived that which is basically all of us, those of us who have seen that experience in your own lives, basically all of us have a unique and special aly investigation, not just to protect it but to expand it to
reach more people than ever before. there are people trying to make the same journey my parents made and the same journey your parents made. this story is your story, too. it's the story of your mother that worked odd jobs so you could finish school. it's the story of your father that did everything he needed to do that all of the things he couldn't do in his life you can do yours. that is the unifying principal of our nation. the idea that we would lose that is unaccept aland unimaginable. that's what here on the verge of doing if we continue on the path that we're on right no. every nation in the world has rich people. what makes us different, millions and millions of people that achieved happiness by working hard and persevering. i just want that to reach more people than ever before. that's the chance before us. that's the unique and exciting opportunity of this 21st century. i thank god every day that i'm
alive at this time, right here, right now. i believe we're on the verge of another american century where the american dream won't just survive, but reach more people than it has never reached before. that's the unique opportunity for our time. i hope we seize it. to do so we must turn the page. we must be proud of our history and excited about our future. we understand the 20th century is over and never coming back. we need to manufacture forward with real opportunities and challenges. if we do these things, in essence, what every generation before us did, confront the channels and seize the opportunities of our team, then you and i will leave for our children what every generation of americans before us as left for theirs, the single most exceptional nation that man has ever known. thank you for letting me talk about it today thank you. [applause]
>> we have some movable mics. if you have a question, identify yourself especially if you're a resident of the state. he would like to know that. maybe i can ask the first question, senator. president obama submitted a resolution to the house and senate. some members of congress feels as though it limits them too much in the language and there are others who feel that maybe he will use this to commit troops down the road. are you going to support it?
>> there are two separate things authorizing the use of force and the other is strategy for the use of force. they are two separate things. the strategy for use of force is something congress can exercise oversight. it's ultimately the responsibility of the commander in chief. authorizing a use of force is a congressional action of the let me give you an example. in the history of the united states, on only two occasions have we authorized use of force with restrictions. both you were u.n. peace keeping. we authorized the president to destroy isis, period. it's up to this commander in chief and the future one to do what must be done to defeat them. we can debate the tactics and conduct oversight, but here is the reverse of that. so you're going to do, the authorization for use of force, we authorize you to fight them for three years. what does that mean. that means if isis is still around in three years, they get
to stay. but we authorize you to conduct operations in iraq and syria. you told them to move to libya or some other place that is not covered by the authorization. i think congress should authorize the use of force to militarily defeat isis. i believe the perfect strategy for that or the best strategy for that, not perfect the ideal strategy is a combination of american air power and local ground forces, egyptian, jordanan sunni, turk ground forces kurd armed forces, the armed forces of the gulf kingdoms they can send contingents from those local countries to confront isis on the ground. we to provide intelligence, logistical support and intelligence for that operation. there may be a need for special operation forces for the targeting. that's the ideal tactic to move forward on this endeavor. i think it's the right one.
it's not about entangling in a ground war, i believe the local forces have the best chance of success without triggering all sorts of collateral action we vice president anticipated. >> senator thank you very much, a pleasure to be with you and a great presentation. my name is bob, i live here in new hampshire. the getting to a domestic problem now, i notice in a news article not too long ago that you were looking for ways of helping low income buy prescription drugs that could go into the hundreds of dollars a month. with that in mind, would you support the u.s. negotiated for prescription drug for pharmaceutical companies the same the western world does and go further, would you legalize the same importation of
prescription drugs from select countries? >> well, a couple points. the first one, we're always open for importing drugs and keeping in mind the safety of the chip for those drugs. for the f.d.a., we will beautien was withdrawn from the marketplace. we are concerned about the safety of our patients. the f.d.a.'s regulatory framework is often frustrated and overly complicated, it keeps us safe. it's not just the importation of the drugs but the chain of custody and from production to user has not been contaminated along the way. in the united states, there are many prescription drugs that people buy on the black market, when you test in those drugs, they aren't what they say it is. in the state of florida, the medicaid program does negotiate
a form larry with drug companies. it becomes promising and the bigger challenge is the commercial plans. the cost of pharmaceuticals is significant because of the reseven and development that goes into these drugs and the patent time they need to make the profit. i invest a billion dollars for a miracle cure, i have x number of years to make money off of that investment. they charge american consumers than elsewhere on the planet because they can. that's a real problem we continue to confront. some still remain very costly. those are options that we're open to, but neither are silver bullets in terms of solving this problem. >> other questions?
>> senator from boston first of all, it's a fantastic presentation and i'm very, very glad your folks decided across the caribbean. i wanted to bring up an requested that our c.e.o. has proposed numerous times. if we are concerned about the shrinking of the labor force and people not participating and we want to have people hired and we're concerned about stagnant wages, why don't we consider some kind of refundable tax break to companies that show from one year to the next they have grown on their payroll. the only way you would quality for that would be by hiring americans or by giving raises. nobody intends it. that tax effectively is a tax on hiring people and on giving them raises. isn't there some way we could
rebate some of the funds to firms who have given jobs and have given raises? >> i would hate to opine on something i haven't head all of the details. one of the proposals that we have discussed, the wage enhansment credit. we have the earned income tax credit that people apply for and how many children and if they are working. it does encourage work. it has a lot of fraud. we should replace it with wage enhancement. the way it works, it will be open to all workers including childish singles. it could incentivize work, their is the gist behind it. i would rather you be working for $10 and supplementing the difference than having you not work at all and collecting the equivalent of $6 an hour in
government benefits or $5 an hour in government benefits. it saves the taxpayer money but when you are out of work for a long period of time, it makes it very difficult for you to re-enter the workplace. it demoralizes you personally and very different to re-enter. that's why you see a low level of participation today because we had a large number of people not participating in the marketplace. the people won't take the work. if i can get the equivalent of $6 from the safety net program, would would i work for $8 or $9 an hour. i would rather enhance your income with an additional $2 than i would you sitting at home and not working. there is no such thing as a dead-end job. there are jobs where you don't want to wind up at the end of your life. every single job that you have
has value and merit. you learn cabts skills, you acquire experience that will be useful to you in the future. that's important for us to energy as many people as possible to enter the workforce. the long term implications are extremely danging to our economy if we don't reverse that. >> other questions in the back. >> thank you for being here with us today, senator. appreciate it very much. you refused to a clone sharsization for the use of military force. why would not congress declare war on islamic terrorism including but not limited to isis al qaeda, and others and would that not resolve some of the problems that we have trying to put these terrorists on criminal trials in the u.s. or elsewhere. >> if you're involved in
hostilities with them, they're enemy combatants lau them to retain them. we should be doing that and that's on the level front. as far as the deterioration of war is concerned we only declare war on nation states. isis is not a state. i refuse to elevate them to that standing. >> they are an armed insurgency/terrorist group that have taken on elements of an army. we can achieve the same goal without elevating them the way they want to be elevated. part of the strategy is the preeminent jihadies group on the planet. that's why they spent so much money on the propaganda they put out which is professionally produced, things you never saw from al qaeda. the message they are trying to say they are the most
inevitable radical jihadies group on the plant. they are desperate for us to elevate them beyond what they really are. they are a threat to the world and need to be destroyed. i would fear declaring war on them by name would elevate them to at the end of the day, this reaches the same legal parameters but without the symbolic victory that isis is trying to achieve. >> i am from salem. thanks for sharing your personal story which is so inspiring and your vision for the future of the country. the future is in doubt if we continue not to fix the debt. could you tell me how to you are going to get