tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 25, 2015 10:00am-8:01pm EST
thanksgiving. -- ♪ >> coming up this afternoon, president obama will pardon the national thanksgiving turkey. this will be the 68th anniversary of the event. this year's turkey at alternative for hatched -- you will be able to watch today's ceremony at 2:45 eastern on c-span. coming up tonight, we will show nou are marks from david skorto
had of the smithsonian institution. tospoke about his approach the works of art and how he plans to handle exhibits that may be seen as controversial. [video clip] artists,eve that whatever they are, dancers, musicians, performing artist, visual artists in the world differently. they may perceive trends sooner than what the general populace receives trends. when creating a -- reflects the different perception of reality, they may bump into people that may not sure that point of view. years go by, or generations go by, and perhaps that was in earlier perception of something that happened to be true. whatever it is i'm a creative activity across the spectrum will gender controversy. -- weo be ready for it have to be ready for it.
backedrofessional curator by normal institutional processes the size to put something up, we should not take it down. even if there is public outcry, even if there is concern. one example right now is thearet sanger's bust in gallery. i cannot be more supportive of the decision for the national portrait gallery and under secretary richard, we have to tell the story of our country. both hearts that we are very proud of, and the parts that we shake our heads about and wonder . otherwise, how are we going to understand and think more towards the future? of ant is a brief portion event held recently with the new head of the smithsonian institution. you can see his entire comes tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span.
on c-span two, discussion on how government regulates food, including school lunches and modified lunches. on c-span3, it is a look at the 2016 presidential elections from two gun rights organizations. best access to congress with live coverage of the house and senate on c-span two. over thanksgiving, watch our conversations with members of congress thursday at 10:00 eastern. republican from georgia and the only pharmacist serving in congress. then, a new jersey democrat and electrician. friday, representative mark, a california democrat and former restaurant owner. 10:30 congress and mark, republican from north carolina. saturday morning at 10:00 eastern, congresswoman wimi
walters who entered in washington dc as a college student. and at 10:30, in massachusetts democrat and marine who served four tours in iraq. >> c-span takes you on the road to the white house. the best access to the candidates at town hall meetings, speeches, rallies, and meet and greets. we are taking your comments on twitter, facebook come and by phone. every campaign event the cover is available on our website at www.c-span.org. house's road to the white continues with remarks from presidential candidate governor chris christie. he spoke yesterday on national security -- >> good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. i would like to welcome all of you to the council on foreign relations. for those of you who do not know us. we are an independent, nonpartisan numbers of organization. we are a think tank and a publisher as well. we are dedicated to being a resource for our nearly 5000 members from government officials, to business executives, journalists, educators, and students. others as well. to help them understand the world and the foreign-policy choices facing this, and other countries. consistent with that mission, we are making ourselves a resource for presidential candidates and their staff, as well as for the american people in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. i have written to the democratic and republican candidates, offering briefings from our experts. as well as the opportunity for
them to come to the council and speak and take questions from our members. so far we have hosted marco rubio, the senator from florida, jim webb from virginia and most recently, hillary clinton, the former secretary of state. today we are honored to host the governor from new jersey, chris christie. he was elected governor in 2009. before that, he served as the u.s. attorney for the district of new jersey from 2002 through 2008. our conversation will be conducted by jerry. she is the author of the weekly column in the wall street journal. the scenario we will first hear is prepared remarks from governor chris christie. he will take questions from the council of foreign relations.
with that, let's be welcomed the -- let's welcome the governor to the podium. [applause] gov. christie: richard, thank you. thank you for being here today. i appreciate the forum and the input from a number of members in the council. both as my time as governor and in this campaign thus far. the united states faces problems today all around the world. they are worst now, and they have been almost everywhere since 2008. our biggest problem, america's largest problem, we face a fundamental and crippling lack of leadership. the american people feel it and their anger, i believe comes from many different causes, but
the root of their anger is the crippling sense they feel of the lack of leadership in washington bc. -- washington dc. it reminds me of the late 1970's. back then, americans were angry and unhappy as well. failure in vietnam, a weak economy, hostages in iran, and a president who told us we had to settle. to aspire to something greater was unrealistic. at that time we were depressed and fearful as a nation. fearful that things would not get better not only around the world, but here at home as well. i think we needed today what we got back then. a president that will finally put american interests firmly first in a dangerous world. no further apologies for american history or our goals around the world.
a president who fought for the american people first. not for the u.n. crowd, or the "new york times" editorial page, but for the admiration and respect of the american people. they ridiculed them. they ridiculed him as a cowboy. they said he would start a nuclear war. they said he would leave the world if he became president. less safe, less stable, and for some, a world that would not be here because of nuclear annihilation. what happened because of his -- stability of the world and the end of the cold war. that is what strong leadership can do. that is what it did under ronald
reagan. that is what it can do now. i had a political science professor at the university of delaware who gave me two great lessons about politics. i will talk about the first phrase. he talked about how essential listening was to leadership. he told me all the time that great leaders listened much more than they speak. i asked him, why do you think that makes the most effective leaders? he said, because without listening, you have no followers. a leader without followers is just a guy out for a walk. we have a president who no longer listens. he listens to a small group around him. i have said this publicly before, and i will say it again. when i look back on this presidency, i think it will be
marked by one phrase. often wrong, but never in doubt. that is a dangerous thing to have in the president. reagan won over the american people by listening to the concerns, interests, fears, and aspirations were. -- and what their aspirations were. and he protected american interests first and foremost and unapologetically to anyone else around the world, or here at home. this most recently has come up with the syrian refugee issue. any policy, if it is going to be successful, must have the broad support of the american people. if that policy is not seen as being in the american interest, it is unlikely to have the broad support of the american people. the president's huge blunder, in my view, is going overseas and
criticizing people at home who have raised genuine concerns over the safety of americans under this policy. i will be quite clear. when the fbi director stands up and says he cannot assure the safety of the american people, that ends the conversation for the moment. we cannot allow ourselves at a time of great peril, to put ourselves in peril because they -- there are some people who believe it will make our country look better. i have a large muslim american population in my state. i think it is the second-largest in any state in the nation, he -- behind michigan. muslim americans are not nearly that sensitive. not nearly as sensitive as some of the people in places in here in washington or the white house believe they are.
they are muslim americans and they understand that the safety of their families are at risk. just as catholics and buddhists are at risk. when the american homeland is not safe and secure. this is common sense. i know the fbi director and i worked with him when he was the u.s. attorney in manhattan. that is what passes as foreign policy. when you are u.s. attorney. dealing with the southern district of new york. i knew him as my boss is the deputy attorney general, and i now know him as the fbi director . he is one of the most honest people i have known in public service. when he stands up and says he cannot assure the american people, the president should be a president that listens. listen to the officials around him.
when the fbi agrees, then we can approach the topic again. instead, with the president decides to do, he decides to be little -- belittle those that have a different opinion. it is not just enough to disagree. that is not what a real leader does. a real leader attempts to persuade. a real leader attempts to cajole. a real leader attempts to bring people in with differences to find common ground. a real leader does not stand on foreign soil and the little blue belittle the people. i don't care any less about the widows and orphans of the syrian war than the president does. not one bit less. my focus is different than his. my focus is on the widows and
orphans in the united states. my focus is on the widows and orphans of september 11. they live with me every day. they live around me every day in my state. it is 14 years later for everyone in this country, but for me, it is a daily occurrence to look into the eyes of the people who lost their husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons, and daughters on september 11. their pain is no less today than it was 14 years ago. their loss is no less today. the goal and the intent of the american president has to be first and foremost to prevent another generation from having widows and losses on american soil. that must be a first priority as president of the united states.
the president, i believe, has lost his focus in an attempt to justify a failed policy. maybe in an attempt to curry favor around the world. he has lost focus and lost support. that is why the american people don't support this policy. not only because it does not make common sense, but because the president has lost focus on what his priority should be. we can keep syrians safer in syria as well. the president has not kept his word in this regard. we should set up safe zones in syria to keep syrians safe inside syria. our leaders should assure our safety. and they want us to follow them into the abyss. that does not make sense to the american people, there are other
options to follow. that does not mean that those of us who have a differing opinion needed to sit down and keep quiet. i think it is more important we stand up and be heard. as much as that bothers the president, he will have to keep hearing us, even if he will not listen. on the topic of not listening, let's get to isis. despite everything we have seen in the past 12-13 days, the president continues to minimize the threat of isis. the president called them a group of killers who are good at social media. the secretary of state yesterday said, they are not 10 feet tall. this is eerily reminiscent of the characterization of them not too long ago.
i will be -- i would be fascinated to see the president go to paris who lost their loved ones 12-13 days ago and tell them that isis is just a group of killers good at social media. it would be fascinating to see the secretary of state go to those parisian families and tell them that isis is not 10 feet tall. this is a transparent attempt to justify a failed policy. the president should admit he underestimated these folks. he underestimated the nature of the threat, the severity of the threat. he did not come up with a strategy to be able to confront the greater threat. often wrong, but never in doubt. you can see through his comments
not just on syria, but on isis that this is a continuing theme with this administration and its foreign policy. continue to deny reality. reminds me of the old country song. are you going to believe me, or your own eyes? there is only so many times that he can say that to american people and not believed it. there is only so many times that he can continue not to lose credibility and support. listen, mr. president. listen to the american people and their common sense. the threat is not minimal. the actions and the words that try to characterize it as minimal are not only naive, but they are gravely dangerous. this is a cult of evil. we can never allow this cult of evil to take hold in our country and live among us.
it is the antithesis of what it means to be an american. to willingly participate in this. it has visited too many places, in addition to paris. we can all go through the list of cities where isis has already struck. i don't know if they are 10 feet tall, but they are looking pretty tall in those cities. i don't want them to look that , or anywhere near that tall, in cities like new york, washington, chicago, los angeles, san francisco, or minneapolis. i am a former prosecutor. i am a former prosecutor in the post september 11 era. i was nominated by president bush and named to that job by the white house on september 10, 2001.
the next day my wife did what she had done for 20 years. got up in the morning, left the house by 6:00 a.m. drove to the train station. and went to the world trade center and walked to her office, two blocks from the world trade center. that morning i took the day off. i had been named to a new job the day before and decided to spend the day at home and take my children back and forth to school. we had three at the time, 8, 5, and 1. when i got home, the first building was on fire. i called my wife to ask how she was. she said it was no big deal. a commuter plane flew into the building. they told us not to pay any attention to it. they have fire engines outside. when we were on the phone, the second plane hit the second building. she said to me, they are evacuating to the basement.
i will call you back when i can. five and a half hours later i still had not heard from her and the buildings had come down. many stories had turned out to be inaccurate, but we did not know at the time. we do not know about bombs and other explosions in manhattan. the inability of people to evacuate. i sat at home over and over again trying to call her and not finding her. and, as it got near the time i had to pick up our children at school, i started to think about these things. if i don't hear from her, what will i tell the kids when they ask about mom? so many of the children at their school have parents who work in lower manhattan. the school called and told us they had informed the children of the attack.
they were going to ask about the bomb as soon as they got to the car. i started to think what kind of life i would have without my best friend and what kind of single father was i going to be of three young children? those thoughts replicated over and over and over again, tens of thousands of times where i live. five minutes before i left to pick up my kids, the phone rang and it was her. she was caked with dust and dirt, but safe in a bar further up town where she found an operating payphone to get in touch. we came home that night and the first call we received was from a woman in our neighborhood. mary pat had helped her husband find a job after he lost it some months earlier. it was at a place called eurbrokers on the 44rth floor of the world trade center.
she asked her, have you seen frank? did you see him at all, did you hear from him, did you commute with him? she hadn't. she said, i am sure he is and the hospital somewhere. we knew then in our hearts and we know now, there were no hospitals. there were almost no survivors. we see her at church every sunday and the gym in it that church is named after her late husband. we were at the funeral. our oldest son's best friend, his father worked there. we know the results of that. for 14 years since, we have watched that young man grow up spending a lot of time in our house. every year on his father's
birthday on facebook, he puts up his father's picture with one simple sentence, "dad, we will never forget you." i fear that this administration and many parts of this country have forgotten. i can't forget. terrorism is not theoretical to me. it is real. i see it in the eyes of people in my state every day. the loss is significant and never goes away. i would love to govern in a world as i wish it was. i don't. real leaders have to govern in the world as it really is. i wish the president would enter with us into that world. that is the world i have been trained to see.
not only through my personal experience, but through the next seven years i spent as a prosecutor, prosecuting planned acts of terror in my state that because we took the steps we needed to, because we had a president and attorney general who kept our eye on the ball, we prevented future attacks from happening, future deaths from occurring, future families from suffering the loss and pain that i see right in my hometown. my sacred obligation as president would be to protect the american interests first and foremost. if we don't take care of ourselves, nobody else will. we don't need a global order that will protect the interests of global business and academia. we need a strong american that will protect the interests of the american people and a strong
nation states around the world that will ensure world stability. this nation is our home. it is where our children are born. it is where our grandparents are buried. it is our homes and our neighborhoods. they have to be safe and secure. they have to be a place where families believe we can reach our fullest potential. despite whatever the president says, do we feel that way today? do we feel that we are safe? do we feel that our government is acting in our interests to provide that safety and security, or do they have another agenda that they have placed unfortunately, in front of it? this government is paid to be on our side, our side. not working for other interests, but to work in our interest.
and today, i don't believe that is the case. not on this issue. ronald reagan said, we are the drivers of this government, not the other way around. national security is not a privilege. it is not an option. it is the fundamental right of the people of this country and we must never forget that. people forget that in all types of aspects today. some people think trade deals are negotiated by global interests and that is something we have to sign onto. the proof is in the pudding. it has to be in the interest of the american people. some people believe borders have become outdated and believe in a post-american world. even an anti-american mindset, most of us utterly just reject that. we don't believe in our core that that is true. we recoil from it, but we have to speak out against it. even when it becomes politically incorrect to do so.
we have to stand up against those statements and feelings, no matter how often they are expressed and what publications they are expressed in. we have to put the interest of the average american on the front burner. i am not a pessimist who believes that washington is beyond repair. if it is properly led and run, it will serve the interests of the american people. it has before. i would tolerate nothing less if i got the privilege of being president. you will always have critics, that is fine. i have been through that fire over and over again. i manage lovingly in an unruly state. there is nothing that is ever easy in new jersey, but you can walk through that fire and live through to the other side if you stick your principles. always been political campaigns,
there is this emphasis on new. new can be exciting. new can be wonderful. it is perfect. it is untouched. new is untarnished, but new is untested. new is not necessarily reliable. new seems fabulous, but 'till the moment comes that you need experience. if it -- experience with the bureaucracy and facing down one's adversaries. experience in distilling down experience in formulating policies that will actually work and serve people. this president was new in 2008, boy, was he ever. let's look at that legacy of newness. record number of people out of the workforce.
record number of people on disability. obamacare. more than double the national debt. increased racial tensions in our country, not decreased. and a foreign policy that at best, has been inconsistent and ineffective. think about some of the things the president has told us in the past few years. he claimed our borders are more secure than they have ever been. he said that al qaeda was on the run. he said isis was jv. just hours before the attacks in paris, he told george stephanopoulos that isis was contained. all these things, every one of them, have turned out to be wrong. this is the problem. newness and inexperience allows you to see the world as you want to see it, as a fantasy.
not the way the world really is. we cannot afford to have another person behind the desk in the oval office who sees america as he sees it. we cannot afford to elect another president without the requisite experience and values that our fathers enshrined in the declaration and constitution. less than one term in the united states senate has proven to be woeful training for the oval office. especially when most of that time was spent running towards the presidency and away from the issues. you cannot abandon protecting the american borders because the political heat is too great. you cannot cast the vote because it is fashionable to do so at a time of seeming safety. that is not the time of leadership american needs in a dark and dangerous world.
i stood up last spring against the restrictions that were proposed for the nsa for one very simple reason. i know the policy worked. it is easy to theorize and debate when you have never been responsible for implementing those policies or making those decisions. when you have been given that responsibility, it becomes a lot harder to give into the fashion of the day, to the political movement of the moment, decide
what the presumed political adversary is in the future. i made these decisions and i have used the patriot act. i have seen the indispensable role that intelligence plays in preventing attacks on the american homeland. congress and the president made a grave mistake. not only in restricting the nsa's ability to do their work. but also at the same time, the -- demoralizing the spirit of intelligence officers and the law enforcement officers. this has led to a loss in the effectiveness of our intelligence community and the loss of spirit in our law-enforcement community. the fbi director has said repeatedly that there is a chill wind blowing through law enforcement in this country. it affects their ability to stop plots and plans in conjunction with federal agents being put out by terrorist groups.
morale is not divisible in law enforcement or the intelligence community. the actions of the last year by this administration and some collaborators in congress of both parties has made our world less safe. i had this argument with senator paul on the stage in august. folks maybe understood the argument less. 11 days after paris, it is significantly more acute. a leader has to have the will to be capable of standing up to criticism. criticism that will come from all fronts. there is no doubt that many of the policymakers here in washington, along with many
leaders in the press, have gotten into the lazy habit of assuming any policy popular with the american people must not have been totally thought through. we asked for a pause on the entry of syrian refugees to make sure there was time to them.ly vet if you do so, you are accused of xenophobia. if you insist that we enforce the immigration laws, you are accused of nativism. an effective leader cannot be intimidated by the labels. if what you believe in your heart you let come out of your mouth and you stand up for it, you can't constantly lead by having your finger up in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing. when the that wind is blowing
inside the united states, or across either ocean toward the united states. no one, no one, and i am not, advocating a return to the isolationism and the practices of the 1930's. no group of americans want a policy like that. i don't either. what they do want is thoughtful experienced, prudent leadership. that recognizes this country is our home and we deserve leaders who constantly and carefully look out for our interests in a dangerous world. even if that means taking actions that are not popular with certain portions of the opinion making society and this country. i think that in times like this, those are the truths that should be self-evident. those are the truths that should form the basis and foundation of
how we lead in this country. those are the self evident truths of the american people. they must be to our government and to its leaders. some seem confused by the current political season. they don't know what to make of it. they say they can't figure out why the american people are expressing the concerns they are expressing. we need to listen and not try to rationalize. listen to their frustration and anger. it is based on the ineffectiveness of the policies they see. the ineffectiveness of the government they see. the ineffectiveness of the government they are paying for. and the sense of drift they feel from a country and a government
whose leaders are unwilling to make the difficult decisions and take the stand that needs to be taken, whether it is popular for the moment or not. i understand what is happening here. i understand anger and frustration. i am from new jersey, of course i understand anger and frustration. we live for anger and frustration in new jersey. maybe that is why we understand the american people's complete detachment from what happens here. they don't think anybody here is listening anymore. there are two ways to react when you think people aren't listening. to keep quiet and go away, or to yell even louder.
unfortunately, we have both going on right now at the same time. we have scores of people detaching themselves from the political process because they feel like their voice will not be heard, no matter how loud they yell. and then we have a group of people who believe, hell with that, i will yell louder and louder and louder. if we don't respond to this dynamic, our way of life will be buried by it. we need to listen. and lead. and not be polling every question that confronts us. but to ask in our hearts, who do we really stand for? the answer i believe, has to be that we start putting our policies here and abroad that
put the american people and their interests as they see it first. and if we do, we have a real possibility of uniting our country again. regardless of the ideological differences. regardless of the religious and ethnic differences. we can reunite our country. it will not be reunited by someone who simply talks. it has to be reunited by someone who listens first and then gives a voice to the people he is honored to represent. that is the type of leadership i propose for our country. not only because it is good politics, but for importantly, because it is the only way to bring a spirited country back to a sense that tomorrow will be much better than yesterday. if we do that, then we have an opportunity to bring our country together again.
i am happy to answer your questions. [applause] >> thank you, governor christie. thank you councilmembers here and those participating by teleconference. we will hear from some of them later. here is how we are going to do this. i will take advantage of my prerogative as moderator to ask you a few questions. then, we will open it to questions from you all and some from people who are listening in. you talked for a while about the battle against isis. down the street this morning, president hollande was here, asking him about ways to increase u.s.-french efforts and
to create a better international effort. in a christie administration, what form with the american effort take? chris christie: we are inheriting a situation that has been allowed to get so out of control that our options are limited. what do we do now? i would say this, i would hope that france invokes article five. this is an attack on one and all. we need to be really clear about this. it seems like mrs. clinton won't use the term "radical islamic terrorism" because she thinks this will be insulting to the rest of the muslim world. i think it is clarifying.
if you say you are going to war with "radical islam and ic terrorism," by definition, it that we are not going to war with the rest of islam. in my state, we have the second largest muslim american immunity in the country. there are muslim americans and in high-ranking positions in my state. these are good, hard-working americans. let's remember something. they are trying to limit our freedoms. and so, a christie administration would work with the nato alliance to bring the
full effect we could have, hold diplomatically, but also from an intelligence perspective to do what we need to do to bring isis to a conclusion. we also need to be honest with the american people. because of the situation we inherited, this will take a long time. they cannot happen overnight. i have heard some people say this is our world war and this is the way it will work. it may be true. in terms of length and effort, we need to prepare the american people that this is not something, whether it is handled diplomatically, militarily, or through intelligence, that will end easily. >> is there some concern that that is what isis wants? will to drop in a western response to validate their dinner table that this is the crusaders against the true believers.
that it is a trap, essentially. chris christie: the trap only works if you walk into it. this has to be done carefully and that is why working with nato is not all be have to do. we have to work with our allies in the middle east as well. most of our allies are suspicious of what american interests really are in the middle east and what our motives are. they look at what has happened with the iranian deal. they look at what has happened with our public interaction with israel. i think they are wondering if they can count on the americans to resolve anything. this is not only a nato operation. we work hard to bring our arab him and allies into it as well -- our arab allies into it as well to avoid the trap isis has set. >> and president putin, what is his role? what does chris christie say? chris christie: i think we could get there eventually to a relationship. he would have to understand the limits of our patients. he is reaching the limits of our
patience. i don't think we would be fast friends. >> would you be partners in syria? chris christie: not as long as he wants to partner with assad. our goals are different. his role in syria is to prop up asad and to keep him there. i don't think he has any real interests. even after isis attacks his own people. i don't think that is his priority. he has limited capability and he is focusing that on his top priority. that is, propping up assad. >> the last question from me, to follow-up from that. i take it that you don't buy the theory that what the u.s. and france should do is grit our teeth and accept the fact that asad should stay in power right now so we can fight isis.
chris christie: the premise is faulty. not everyone will focus on isis. others like the russians and iranians will focus on solidifying asad's position for the long-term. you can't have an agreement with someone whose goals and objectives are completely different than yours. i don't think we are at a point at the moment, maybe russia will come around, but i don't see it happening anytime soon. not with the iranians either. the premise of the question is faulty. i don't agree with that. >> let me ask. here is the deal. you have to stand up, wait for the microphone, tell us who you are, where you are from, and ask a question. not make a statement. >> sounds good.
>> governor christie. my name is barbara and i have lived in livingston, new jersey at one point. chris christie: as did i. >> on syria, who would you support in opposition to assad? how would you make a coherent opposition to him that could fight isis? what do you make of the fact that our air up allies have been -- arab allies have been concentrating most of their time on bombing yemen? chris christie: i will start from the end and work back up. i think they are spending their time on that for two reasons. they see it as a greater threat to them. secondly, they don't think they can count on us. i think they have good reason to think they can't count on us.
our policies have at best, then erratic. they differ from our words. i think if you spoke to the jordanians, the saudi's, and the egyptians they would say the same thing. they don't know what american policy is. the are afraid we are playing footsie with iran. they don't know what that will mean for their long-term interests in the region. i think the belief that american result is only as good as the -- resolve is only as good as the next poll that comes out , if that is the case, why would they want to get involved with us? on the syrian part, that is the part that makes what happens over the past two years or more, makes this even more complicated. i don't think there is a coherent opposition at the moment.
the problem is that assad himself is one of the great causes of isis and one of the great irritants in the way he is conducting his policy toward his own people. the president has now left us in a really difficult situation. the president's solution is what it always is. don't do anything. let others do stuff and see how it shakes out. in the meantime, isis is getting stronger and they are not contained. their scope is not contained. there range is not contained. it will only get greater. i don't have an answer to, who is the group you would put in charge of syria? the problem is, given how badly it has deteriorated and how long the president has ignored this festering problem, he has left
us with a situation that is at best, on your best day, too complex and too problematic for a two minute answer. but long term, assad staying doesn't help the isis problem and creates other problems in the middle east as well. >> right here, and then we will go back there. >> thank you. nelson cunningham. you spoke quite a bit about president reagan. you did not speak about his vice president, george h.w. bush. nor did not speak about the most recent republican president, george w. bush. many of us could easily ri image the remarks you may today stated . bush.resident george w
would you be a president in the mold of george bush? would you have the same policy? chris christie: concerning the fight on terrorism, there are a lot of similarities, yes. i think all of the tools we need to have it should be made available to us and we need to make sure we police those who use the tools. the argument we had this past spring was, somehow the tools were inherently faulty. they are not. they are effective and prove to be effective. there are always going to be folks operating in every sphere of life who will color outside the lines. there are bad doctors, lawyers, accountants, athletes. in every walk of life. what we decided to do was throw tested and proven effective tools out because of allegations, not even proof, but allegations that somehow those tools could be used in a way
that was unconstitutional. i still have not seen the case may that anything that was done was unconstitutional. when that case is made it is by people who don't have any idea what they are talking about. you hear about the metadata collection operation at the nsa. you hear people talk about that. they extrapolate it to people reading your e-mails and listening on your phone calls. of course, none of that was going on. but, you know, this administration has an agenda. the agenda was to ratchet it down. politicald for a moment to do it.
on the terrorism issue, i would say president george w. bush was combating terrorism and stopping attacks on american soil -- his record is pretty good. on the law enforcement side, one thing happened on my watch that not only i would be ashamed of -- that i am not proud of -- we intercepted at least two serious plots of terrorism after 9/11. one regarding a shoulder fired missile purchase and one about a private attack. either of which had occurred would have cost american lives. we need a president that understands this. our foreign policy could be changed in a number of ways. on the fight on terror, the language that might be most like george w. bush, i am proud to be part of that administration.
>> just a follow-up on one point -- there was a judge that admitted a program was probably unconstitutional. so, how do you avoid that? gov. christie: first off, that is one federal trial court judge. he or she is welcome to their opinion. that will be appealed and that will likely go to the supreme court to make that determination. there could be potentially, depending on the ultimate decision, small changes that could be made that can address those concerns. this is a wholesale abandonment. this was saying we will put it in the private sector hands. to make it accessible to us immediately. listen, i'm a former federal prosecutor. when i subpoenaed, grand jury
subpoena materials, it was not immediate. nor will this be. it is fantasy to think the metadata program will be nearly as effective, effective at all. -- if effective at all. paris will prove to be on the long run an intelligence failure. people from multiple countries, synchronized attacks -- they can get together at taco bell and do this. that means an intelligence failure. it is not a coincidence to me this happened in the aftermath of restricting those programs and, remember, also the intelligence community. they came from the senate democrats at the end of last year.
it was a complete political instrument that did nothing more than demoralize americans across officers all across the world and you cannot expect they would not do the dirty work that needs to be done to get this information. you put them at risk and put take tools from them at the same time. >> mark kennedy from george washington university. you alluded to some concerns about trade. wondering if you have any specific concerns about the transpacific partnership and whether you see it as a significant geopolitical step in putting us out of implements in the pacific? -- influence in the pacific? gov. christie: my concern was it was negotiated by barack obama. that is my specific concern. that has been in the american -- i have not seen an agreement he has made that has been in the american interest.
so, i have great skepticism about that agreement. do i have skepticism about trade overall? no. i like trade agreements that are fair and something that the american people can support. i do think the goal of having expanded trade throughout the pacific, with china, it is important thing. i wouldn't have this present negotiate to buy me a car because his first words to the this is my be friend, chris . he is not leaving this without a car. [laughter] let's negotiate price. that is my concern. >> let me turn to a question -- gov. christie: about cars? >> close. it is from new york. andgovernor christie: not real.
not really. i mean, again, it sounds to me like the world i wish it were run rather than the way it is. i don't think they are interested in it at the moment, and are there elements? sure. what i use american power? no. no, i wouldn't. >> right here, then right back there. here we go. yes, sir? >> i'm formally with the department of state. governor, as president what changes would you see to make in our current immigration policies? governor christie: a number. first it goes back to what i was saying in my remarks, that any
change to policy of that kind in the united states has to have the broad support of the american people. the reason in my opinion immigration reform has failed up to this point, even the efforts that were made a summer or two ago is because the american people don't trust the government to do what they say they are going to do. they have pretty good reason not to. the first thing we need to do is regain the trust of the americans will in the way to do that is to enforce the laws that we have now. effectively and fairly. so, we need to secure our border. that's only part of the issue. i could go through -- i'm not, so that we can go to -- get arough this part, i'm not 2000 law -- 2000 mile wall guy. i don't think that makes sense. i've had the privilege of meeting a couple of times in the last couple of months with president kenyatta. he's paying for it
. no matter how they ask him. [laughter] i do think that walling and fencing along the border in the most heavily populated areas has some efficacy to it. secondly, i think that on the border we need to use much more about technology. drones, stationary cameras and such so that it does not become ungodly expensive to do it but you have a way of monitoring the activity. i would be embedding a lot more at the eye, adf, and ca agents with our border control folks as a public safety issue. problem is one of the biggest issues that the american people are set about. we invite people here for a time, and then we don't keep track of them and then they stay. listen, we're all going to thanksgiving? right?
us will be inviting others to thanks giving. it would be like waking up on saturday morning and going to the guest room and they are still there. i invited them for thanksgiving, not the weekend, you know? got to find a way to make sure they don't stay. i've gotten in trouble with this in some measure. i thought everybody in the media, like i did, used english as a first language and i said -- you know, if federal express can figure out how to track a package from the minute it leaves my doorstep to the minute it arrives where i wanted to go and every step in between, we should be able to do something better with a visa program. this of course led to the wonderful folks in the media saying that chris christie wants to track immigrants like packages. asked -- are they you talking about putting chips in people? you know, the media complains about the level of intelligence in debate, it's really fascinating for me as a candidate. a biometrico to
system on visas. by the way, i don't need to put barcodes on people, you are to have them. your fingerprints are your barcodes. everyone has an individual one. every person who comes here with a visa should have to get their fingerprints. and there should be a database. when they access services in this country they should have to give that. if you are over your stay time, that's the moment when we cap you on the shoulder and say -- time to go home. whether it's 10, 11, 12 million people, whatever study you look at, most of them say that 40% or visaof those folks are overstays, not people coming over the southern border. if you just deal with the southern border and not the visa overstay, you will not be able to control that flow. lastly, you have to be up to verify as well. some people come here to work. that's what they are coming here for. do those things first.
pete -- show people you are willing to enforce the law. one of the things people are most upset about with this president are the laws of this country. don't like the immigration laws? don't force them. because i don't like them, so don't enforce them. don't like the marijuana laws in this country? let states have marijuana laws for recreational use. i don't like it anyways, don't enforce it. the law that we don't enforce today that you like is the law that we don't enforce tomorrow that you don't like, right? and then all of a sudden we have a real problem on our hands because justice becomes only a word, not a way of life. i think that if you want to move towards fixing this problem, the first thing you have to do is convince the american people that you can do the job they have given you already before they then give you greater latitude to do other things, some of which may be laudable but none of which they will support right now because they don't believe that the government is even competent at doing what it needs to do.
>> time for one last question, but before we do that i want to remind you that this conversation has been on the record and i want to go further to the back this time. governor christie: oh, now you do. [laughter] quite that was your first clue all asis was -- what are cameras back there? >> that was your first clue that this was on the record. -- what are all of those cameras back there? >> that was your first clue that this was on the record. >> i wanted to follow up on the syrian refugee question. the former hhs secretary said that talking about biometrics, they are run on syrian refugees and it is the most rigorous process that we have. are you open to reconsidering the possibility of letting in syrian refugees if you can be convinced that it can be done safely? i know that condoleezza rice said that we are sending a bad signal, one that could play into isis propaganda by blocking all syrian refugees. check kane said a syria --
similar thing. -- jack kane said a similar thing. governor christie: i know. none of them, by the way, have any responsibility today for worship -- ensuring the responsibility of the american people. it's easy to be an academic about this. we have to be critical of app -- academics. they have a role that no responsibility. when the fbi director says that he will do it, i will be considered. until then, michael chertoff used to have my. -- my job. he was dhs secretary. he's a really bright, smart guy, but he has no responsibility today for doing what needs to be done. it's easy to say those things. people on television want you to say them because it's the politically correct thing to say today. that is the politically correct thing to say. believe me, i have seen the e-mails i have gotten since i said what i said. the facebook posts and the rest of that stuff.
i'm not deaf, dumb, and blind. i'm not saying it. i have a responsibility. by the way, the federal government has a responsibility to let me know what's going on in my state as governor and this administration does not inform governors when they place refugees in their state. most people -- i was on some program last weekend i said -- that's impossible. they said no, actually, it's happening. you know, the president, when we were on the phone with him last week, told the governors that when that issue was raised to the president he said -- well, we will try to do better. that is wonderfully assuring if you are the governor of the state. that the person who has the responsibility today, the primary responsibility for telling us what the enforcement capability is of law enforcement at the federal level is the director of the fbi. the attorney general i think has
been relatively quiet about this . he has spoken out before congress saying that it cannot happen. wherewithalave the in their databases at the moment to be able to effectively do this. so, to me that is determinative. it's only not determinative if your priorities are different. like, if your priority is to win a nobel peace prize, then say ok. if that's your priority. what you want is a pat on the back from the world opinion shapers? say otherwise. but if your responsibility is to protect the lives of the people that you represent and you have the top law enforcement official in the country saying -- i cannot that them -- it doesn't seem to me to be a hard decision. it only becomes hard when we decide to get all politically correct with each other. we are sending signals. what happens if one of these folks comes in and winds up
participating in the attack that destroys america? what kind of signal is that? opinion -- that the the folks with the opinion to let folks in will be running for the hills. they said -- wait a second, i said this, that, this and that. when you are in charge, when you have to be responsible, you don't get to run and you don't get the hide. you should not run and hide now. is my view. i have the responsibility and have had a responsibility as a so, you know,r it when the fbi director tells me that he can do this better and more effectively, that changes the equation. up to this moment, we don't have that. we have a bunch of used to be. that's what they are saying. it's a fine role for them to play. their role is to write and go on television.
and say things. then when something goes the other way, they go on television and say the other way because they don't have the responsibility. deal of respect for all the people that you named and the ones you will -- or going to continue to name before i interrupted you. [laughter] for them,at respect too, but they are not the ones who are responsible. i am telling you, that is one of my biggest problems with the president. he is responsible. he should know better. i cannot imagine that he knows more than jim komi about this issue. i cannot imagine a scenario in which he understands and knows his words. sometimes like i said in the speech, leadership without listening. to whatit's contrary
you want, you need to listen. i will tell you, if something does happen where american lives are lost? the american public will and should be relentlessly unforgiving. responsible for doing the politically correct thing and not listening to the people who knew more than they did. >> governor christie, thank you very much. it's been a pleasure to have you. thank you for your time. [applause]
>> c-span takes you on the road to the white house. townhall meetings, speeches, rallies, meet and greets. we are taking your comments on always, facebook, as every campaign that we cover is available on our website. we will take you live to the white house rose garden. life for you here on c-span when it gets underway. this afternoon president obama will part in the national thanksgiving turkey in a ceremony from the white house rose garden. it's the 68th anniversary of that event. this year's turkey was hatched and raised in california and after pardoning they will be on display for visitors in their permanent home in leesburg, virginia. you can see the ceremony live at
2:45 eastern on c-span. coming up tonight, a discussion on how government relates food in the u.s. and in harvard, food law lab founder, saying that food labels should contain information about the recommended daily amounts of sugar and how they should be controlled. here's more from that now. >> given the perils of excessive sugar intake, i would say no recommended daily allowance of sugar on food labels. most provide allowances for carbs and sugar as separate items. not the poison it is sometimes described as. >> i don't know of any defensible reason not to provide that information, it's information we provide with all the other ingredients. there is a political story of is true,n't, and that but to expect politics to be absent from politics is silly. [laughter] --the other hand, pop politics is not absent from
politics. the industries and organizations we are talking about are powerful, strong interests that have been deeply involved in food policy for many years. some for good, some for ill. i think the products with a lot of sugar in them do not want that information on the label and the reason is straightforward, it is incredible how much sugar is in most products. i know this, i teach this, yet every day i am of -- i am amazed at how much sugar is in those products. portions just a brief of an event held at the constitution center on government and the american diet. you can watch the entire event tonight at 8:00 eastern. >> four days of nonfiction books and authors this holiday weekend on c-span2 possible tv. starting at 8:00 eastern, coverage of the national book festival from washington, d.c..
beginning at 8 a.m. eastern bit featuring author talks. 3:00 at afternoon at the fall for the book festival in george mason university, robert poole on the plot at arlington national cemetery. known as section 60. the united states versus windsor, which struck down the defense of marriage act. >> i got a call from the trial level attorney basically saying -- look, we need 30 days. we are thinking about what to do in the case and we need time to decide. i will be honest with you, i did not believe her. i thought she was stalling for time. first of all, i don't get to be a plaintive all that much. number two, she had serious health issues.
she wanted to make sure that not only was it still alive, but ediehy enough to -- 80 -- still alive, but healthy enough to enjoy it. all weekend,tv every weekend, on c-span2. >> this weekend american history tv has four days of feature programming, beginning thursday at 4 p.m. eastern. we will take you inside the world war ii museum in new orleans as we look act to the war's end and his legacy, starting with the allied invasion of north africa through d-day, the fall of the third reich and the war in the pacific. curators and historians will share the experience of soldiers who fought on both fronts, including african americans who served in a segregated military. our new series, road to the white house rewind, taking a
look back at the campaigns of ronald reagan, bill clinton, george w. bush, and michael dukakis. saturday afternoon thomas tutor, president of "society and the honor guard," on the role in creation of the tomb guard and stories but some of the notable people in the cemetery. the cbs news special response -- , with from morley safer interviews from officers, enlisted men, and the widow of a combat casualty. american history tv all weekend and on holidays too. , we are going to talk about efforts to raise the minimum wage across the country. in particular, this fight called fight for $15. discussionroundtable across the country. we i joined here at our "washington journal" table by
james sherk with the heritage foundation. and joining us from kansas city is kendall fells, the organizing director in the organization called fight for $15. kendall fells, let's start with you and ask you about this effort, fight for $15. what is behind it? guest: i think first we have to take a step back to about 36 months ago, about 200 fast food workers in new york city when on strike. they had to demand, $15 an hour and the right to form a union. fast foode when workers went on strike, people thought they were crazy. here we are, 36 months later, and you see victories all across the country. $15 in l.a. state,tewide in new york where about 150,000 to 200,000 fast food workers receive $15 san francisco, seattle,
companies like facebook, i can go on and on. the point i making is these fight for $15 workers have created a movement in this country that is changing politics as we know it. i think working people now say when they come together, their voices can be heard. you see in the victories that politicians and companies are listening. and now these workers have their eyes set on the 2015 elections. minimum wageeral is $7.25 an hour. that is over doubling, correct? why such a big increase? guest: when you look at fast food workers specifically, over 52 percent of them are on public assistance. used to feed, house," these workers because companies like mcdonald's --
workersnd clothe these because companies like enoughd's don't pay them to get food, clothing, and shelter, and just able to survive. sherklet me ask james from the heritage foundation. what happens? what is the economic impact we have seen or is there any evidence so far of what happens when the minimum wage gets raised specifically by that amount? guest: there is no doubt that people are struggling. this has been a very weak economy. but what we need are policies that are going to hell. the congressional budget office estimated that if we went to $10.10 an hour, that would cost half a million jobs. we really don't have a lot of evidence on what will happen if we go to $15 an hour, because neither us nor any other industrialized nation have tried
to raise the minimum wage that high. has a cost-of-living and per capita income about a third of that of the u.s. when they went up to the federal minimum wage, this was something in the neighborhood of $15, $20 an hour here. one of every 11 jobs on the island disappeared. fortunately for them, they have the ability to immigrate to the mainland. jobs disappeared. we don't have a lot of evidence, but the evidence we do have is pretty concerning. host: when was the last time the federal minimum wage was raised last time? guest: in 2009. since then, you have about 25 or so states that have minimal wages above the federal minimum wage could host: we want to invite our viewers to join the conversation. (202) 748-8000 for democrats.
(202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents2 for and others. theif you are earning minimum wage, and understand that could be different in the city where you are, a special line for you, (202) 748-0003 f.r we will get to your calls momentarily. kendall fells, about that minimum wage, it is different from state to state or cities to city. -- city to city. is it your intention to move this $15 our effort -- $15 an hour effort nationwide? $15 an hour for all job categories? guest: here's the thing, fast food workers are really spearheading the fight for $15. but when you look at everyone that is coming out to the rallies, people have been motivated by these fast food workers. you see childcare workers,
convenience store workers, etc. food workersst really want, they want mcdonald's to come to the table and negotiate. what you have seen as politicians that have gotten caught up in the momentum and they are responding to the demand. at the end of the day, low-wage workers, it is about 64 million of them in this country. and they want $15 an hour. workers need enough money to be able to survive in today's economy. host: tim sherk, getting back to your comment, the report on whether they raised it to $10.10 an hour, would there be an economic impact if they raised it to $7.75 an hour? eight dollars an hour? isst: the fact of the matter there are not all that many workers making the federal
minimum wage right now. they put out a report every year, and i would invite the listeners to google that report. what you can see in that report is there is about one million workers making at the federal minimum wage. and 2 million workers making below the federal minimum wage, and that is tipped workers at restaurants. host: let's see what our viewers' experience is. florida, this is mike on our republican line. caller: good morning to you. i would like to wish everyone a happy thanksgiving. i would like to direct my comments to mr. fells. mr. fells, i don't want you earning $15 an hour. 25 dollars,arning $50, or hundred dollars, $200 an hour. and the concept
structure of employment and working in america is centered around -- you have to advance your skill level. unfortunately, pretty much every single job at a fast food establishment outside of very little,quires if any, skills. meaning you could take a human being and bring them in and in two hours they could master the skills. i'm not saying it is not demanding work and i'm not saying it doesn't have value, but the value that it presents -- it doesn't equal $15. and if i can, c-span, i need to talk a little bit more about the financial -- this all comes down to the value of our dollar. and various socialist laws that are being passed, does mr. fells understand how obamacare has directly affected fast food workers and the hours? host: a couple good points
there. guest: i think the facts speak for themselves. when $7 billion a year in tax dollars are being spent to subsidize workers who work for companies like mcdonald's, who makes $5 billion a year, the fast food industry is a $200 billion a year industry and has the largest this party between the front-line workers and the ceo -- more than a thousand times as with the ceo makes more than the front-line worker -- i think the people realize the only way we are going to get the economy back on track is to get in the pockets of low-wage workers. taxpayers are forced to pick up the bill well companies make off with stacks of money. and now you see that dynamic changing, and you see -- you know -- since this campaign study, over 12 million workers have received a raise. there are children and families who are going to have better holidays because of this
campaign and what workers have done. think we arehat i at. host: your response. guest: i think the gentleman has point on the minimum wage being more of a learning weights. the fact of the matter is a majority of the american workers started out making within a dollar of the minimum wage. a report they did a few years back. more than half the people watching us today started out at minimum wage. very few of those people are still on minimum wage. two thirds of minimum wage workers get a raise within a year. it typical race about 25%. you start out with your skills. skills, this like showing up regularly for work every day. host: on this learning wage bill, do either of you know what the average age of a fast food worker would be? guest: again, if you look at the
bureau of labor statistics report, what you can see is 56% of those were making the federal of between the age of 16 and 24 years of age -- of betweenimum wage the edge of 16 and 24 years of age. when: there was a day teenagers are trying to get bags. now they are adults trying to pay mortgage and keep food in their refrigerator. host: from massachusetts, ray on the independents line. caller: hi, how are you jekyll i wanted to say -- you? i wanted to say my girlfriend worked at walmart for 16 years. she got ms and they used to have seminars to tell those people how to get on food stamps, how to get health insurance. they used to have seminars.
there years of working way to is diagnosed with ms, they took her discount card away from her. you know? i mean, sure, the republicans got the midterm election, but let me tell you something. come the new elections, everybody is going to come out. you only had 26% of the people vote in the midterm. wait until this next election. you will see a big change. thank you very much. host: here is texas, independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i was just -- i just don't understand why it is a big problem if the democrats says something -- say something -- [indiscernible] -- i sang that the minimum wage ought to be $15. but when a democrat was saying
it, it is wrong. but now with the republicans now even calling in on the show saying it is hard for somebody to live on $15 an hour. is a thing try to keep upper in order where the is try to keep everybody in check if you do this or that. i'm just going to leave it right there because i can't get it all straightened out. but they try to paint a picture of where you should be, but everybody needs to make good money to survive. to oreople are working three jobs and still can't pay their bills. was talking about politicians, their comments on the campaign trail about the minimum wage. we have heard in particular from hillary clinton. here is what she is calling for in her efforts to boost the minimum wage. mrs. clinton: the overall
message is that it doesn't result in job loss. but if you went to $15, there are no international comparisons. that is why i support a $12 national federal minimum wage. that is what the democrats in the senate have put forward as a proposal. but i do believe that is a minimum. and places likes yet a, los angeles, new york city -- like seattle, los angeles, new york city, they can go higher. is the hardest way to move for because if you go to tall dollars, it would be the highest historical average. host: do you think this is an issue best left to individual cities and states? guest: i think absolutely this is an issue that should be addressed local -- as local as possible. means very different things in new york city than
west virginia. $12 an hour in san francisco and $12 an hour in memphis, tennessee are very different things. trying to impose a uniform federal minimum wage simply cannot account for those local cost-of-living differences. you could have an economy that is never session where jobs are very hard to come by. wage doesn't take that into account. host: the organizing director of fight for $15, tell us about your local campaigns, or local successes and some of the failures. guest: when you look across the country, i think the evidence is overwhelming. you look at a place like new york state, governor cuomo, who is really far from a part of the economic, kind of the liberal economic speaking -- thinking, so to speak, next thing you
150,002n hundre -- 200,000 workers -- what hundred 50,000 to 200,000 workers are at $15. if you look at l.a., same thing. through the city council, $15. seattle, the same thing. alabama, $10.10. $11 in st. louis. facebook raised their wages to $15. so on and so forth. the democratic party has picked up $15 as the platform for 2016. i think what you see is politicians specifically relies that in november, there is going to be a referendum on wages. and these workers need $15, and they need it now. the voting bloc is about 64 million workers across this
country who make less than $15 an hour. in north carolina, 2 million or more workers make less than $15. florida, 4 million or so workers make less than $15. just moving a fraction of those workers to the polls couldn't swing elections all across the country. i think this movement has been extremely successful. 36 months ago, they said these workers were crazy. now the democratic party has picked up the platform. nicely companies raising their pay to $15 voluntarily. and you see rob emanuel in chicago going to $15. togetherers all come around simple demands, change can be created. host: our conversation this morning about raising the minimum wage with james sherk and kendall fells, we welcome your calls. (202) 748-0003 for those of you
making minimum wage. guest: what is interesting, if you look at the polls, 75% of americans oppose raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. including a lot of those who are below $15 an hour. the reason for that is because people realize it would be very destructive and lose a lot of jobs. the company is not going to hire a worker unless the revenue and the additional productivities that they are bringing in for the company is more than their weight. you have a worker that only produces $12 or $13 an hour in value for the company, they are not going to get >> that did not get a job, it
the average family in america would save about $4400 a year because of these regulations. i think that is a much better approach of doing it. there are a lot of people that are in difficult spots. the solution is to get rid of these costs drivers that will force them to pay more to buy a car or an apartment in the first place. next is john from maryland on the democrat line. the last speaker if only have good points. i think you might be -- he says that minimum wage is zero. the new -- if the new wage is zero, then the profit for companies is zero and companies not do business with us with no money. what i heard in reference, the people earlier, but how many people were at the -- working under the minimum wage, i want
to know is that includes over the -- over the one billion $.27 anin prison making hour? or companies like victoria's secret, johnson and johnson, those workers as well? >> those statistics were not include people in prison. -- taking advantage of prison and paying them the fraction of the competitive market wage. that was basically a reference to unemployment. unless you are an intern, you will not be working for free. if you are bringing in $10 an hour revenue, they are not going to take a loss of hiring you. host: a couple of comments from twitter.
senior working on a fixed income, i can hardly afford to go out to dinner. and glenn asks, do we need a category for wage earners? not all can survive on $15 per hour. what do you think? >> i think the fight for $15 a call for large corporations like mcdonald's, burger king, to step up to the plate and that it is past time for these companies to give back to the employees, what these employees have given to them. worker productivity is on the rise. there was a poll done in new york state after the wage board was done in about 70% of folks and new york state said that they would support a raise in the minimum wage to $15. 60% of those people said they would not mind paying more money
for a big mac and fries and make sure that the workers who work there are making a living wage, when they can keep a roof on their head, food in their mouth, and clothes on their back. they sympathize with the fact that now we have a de facto minimum wage will be making $15. you see overwhelming support, not only for the $15 minimum wage, but also having to pay a little bit more money in order to make sure that workers get off state assistance and that taxpayers can stop footing the bill. >> it is funny that you're talking about an increase in prices. that is not what happened. we put out a report last year about fast food him and wage crisis. what we found, if you go to $15 an hour, fast food restaurants would have to raise the prices almost 40%. think about who is paying for that bill. 1%, you areout the
primarily talking about lower income and middle income families. it is an enormous rice increase. another study was done analyzing who bears the price increases will minimum wage goes up. the businesses have to get money from the customers. they will have to charge more. it is progressive. it is lower income families and middle income families. the benefits are fairly well distributed, because you have a lot of people working for the minimum wage who are teenagers or college students coming from the relatively affluent family. upper --s middle end produce prosperity across the country. host: frank, good morning. caller: good morning. this all started back in 1938 when the wage labor act was
passed. $1.40 an we were at hour as the minimum wage. at that time, kids working in affordt food, they could to take himself and his girlfriend to a movie, have , two of his friends and him could get an apartment. city,d in the new york metropolitan area at this time. now, you look around, and these kids cannot afford to buy insurance for your car because cars are so expensive. orsed car now, $7,000 $8,000. 1965, $160a kid in -- if you do the math, the wages
have grown over the year. they are not keeping up with inflation at all. host: thanks for calling on that. cnn did that exact same thing. look at the gap between inflation adjusted, he was talking about the mid-60's. there is a spike in the 60's and 70's for our radio visitor -- i apologize. at the peak, the adjusted minimum wage was $10 an hour in the early 1970's. right now, it is about seven dollars, it is even, there is no adjustment for inflation. >> this is one of those cases where the devil is in the details. how do you adjust for inflation? nextrsonal consumption best expenditure -- expenditure act. there is another call the consumer price index which is just tax bracket. -- the congress is not
one of those changed. if we change that, they were be lower social security payments and higher taxes. if you look at the economic exports -- experts, they say it is an accurate -- encourages anyone to google the report on the minimum wage. they have the inflation adjustment to minimum wage. the ultimate hiking from 1968 at eight dollars and $.50 -- $8.50 an hour. that is not sound like a good idea to me. host: tell us about your typical fast food workers, their economic experience in terms of dealing with inflation? if you were to talk to a lot of our fast food workers, you would find that a lot of them are -- they stay on different relatives and friends's couches, a lot of them
are homeless, some of them stay in homeless shelters. of them sleep in their cars, sometimes five or six of them stay in an apartment. most of them do not receive raises. making sevenl $7.25 and i have worked there for five years and i've work that same amount. someone else came in the door $7.25.y make these companies are making more and more money. ,ou see these low-wage workers not just fast food workers, but convenience store workers, gas station workers, all of these workers are coming together, and raising wageshey demobilizing and being on the streets and protesting and going on strike, they realized their voting power. is in athe country position where they are making less than $15 our, which means
they are struggling. i think people's expands with inflation, everything is going up, except their wages. workers are taking to the streets about it. host: let's go to atlanta on our democrat line. caller: i just wanted to say that these corporations are making a lot of money on people who have been doing it for years. nobody has said anything about this, and that is, the social effects of the low wages. apparent that has to or three kids they cannot survive on what they are being paid today. it is hard for them, and as a result, i were kids are being left in the streets, doing all kinds of dangerous things because parents are not at home with them in helping to raise them. that is what i wanted to say, thank you. and: to our republican line james from albany, california. caller: thanks for taking my call.
listening to the minimum wage stuff for half an hour now, i think it should go up. how do they pay a mortgage, how do they have a house? how do they have a new car? i have been to school, i have an education, i really think we should give it a break. i was making $100 every 15 minutes and i could have what i wanted. before that, i was making hardly anything and i hardly had anything. i see people in bags on the street and i was almost joining them. now, i am 60 years old, and i have three kids and i have a disability with a back injury. i am worried about income. i was worried back then, i got and i- the head -- ahead
am worried now. -- she does not understand how the illegal immigrants are people who do not have id have free medications. host: james from washington with the heritage foundation. historically, how much is the minimum wage been a part of the economic discussion? why are we seeing now this push to boost the minimum wage to a fairly substantial amount? >> historically, the minimum wage does not affect people in the economy. it is always an entry-level wage, with people with experience. majority of people start off with the minimum wage and move up. the reason we are seeing such push on this, is a number of laboring unions has spent a lot of money to make this a major issue. they been organizing these
protests. when you look at the number of actual workers involved, you are looking at a few workers across the economy from his protests. -- that is not much. p my hat to them as a pr effort. washington examiner writing about the spending, $23 million, close the president of the international franchise association says they are spending the money towards the $15 minimum wage and boost the minimum wage would only hurt workers. this is from the head of the franchise association. what is your reaction? >> nobody knows what these workers need better than these workers. these workers started going on strike back in 2012. these workers have put their lives on the line, they up with their jobs on the line, they're
been arrested, they have gone to chicago. there have been thousands and thousands of workers that have shown up at events. it is a little bit laughable to hear someone say there is a couple of hundred strikers were there have been conventions were thousands of workers who have gone on strike. the reason that income inequality is the top issue in this country, is because the wagers made it a topic in this country. and you go back to 2012, conversations were around budget cuts and political deadlines. now, the conversation is about low-wage workers and companies that make too much money and that it is time for workers to get a livable wage where they can support their families. if you work 40 hours a week and full-time, you should be able to afford a roof over your head, food in your mouth," -- clothes. the reason we are having this debate is because workers have been so courageous. i think the facts for themselves
-- speak for themselves. when you look at places like birmingham, kansas city, seattle, chicago, even the heartland, wages are being three dollars, four dollars, five dollars, six dollars. host: you told us that the average in terms of fast food workers age was 28. how long does the average worker work at a desk in the business? >> the average worker floats around, it fast food worker has been a worker for three years mobiles a homecare worker, cvs, floating around to all of these low-wage drop -- jobs. >> one of the things i find , you saideresting
they were talking about how -- the man city dollars an hour. when you look at the law ordinances they get past, the chicago minimum wage, says you have to make $30 an hour unless you are in a unionized facility. unions try to get it from los angeles. what a lot of the unions have pay $13 we now have to or $15 an hour, unless you are unionized. then, you can organize for less. if you believe this is about the dignity of the workers, why would not there be a product for union workers? --two major hotels that unite -- shortly after the $15 an hour
with the union cargoes that went those contracts have never been made public. the press has asked for them, nothing was handed out. hope is a strong hotel -- that unions campaign for this and say you do not have to pay for it if you bring us in. host: we have a special line set aside for minimum wage workers or local or state minimum wage. , from maryland, how much is the memo wage in maryland? >caller: i believe right now, it is 7 -- $7.45. i'm going to tell you my concern , because there is going to be more competition in jobs. i am also an older worker. , i know credit scare
when you fill out your application, they give credit if you have ever been on welfare and certain things. they lower the wage for those people. , welready and competition are getting all the work we can well, we cannot see as well, and we cannot compete as well. i am wondering why we cannot get a credit for the older people that have to work? we can't live on social security. host: let's get a quick reaction. , we had politicians down in florida that took what the workers called the minimum wage challenge, which was politicians trying to live off of the weekly salary of a low-wage worker. wasink that what we saw
politicians began to sympathize and empathize with where workers were coming from when they ask me have to go to the grocery store and make decisions based off of what food was be least expensive, versus food that may be the best for you or healthiest food. experience on a day to day, hour by hour basis, and that it is hard to survive. who can survive off of said -- $7.25 per hour? workers need $15 just to be able to get by and get off of state assistance. i don't think that taxpayers want to continue to keep paying for this bill and that is why i think this movement has been so successful. twitter, that says minimum wage workers are on food assistance. >> this is something where the
economists disagree on this analysis. they all agree that the existenceprograms and the like,e is government welfare programs, force employees to pay slightly higher wages. you could imagine that walmart and mcdonald's and these employers are kind and compassionate and want their employees to have a basic standard of living. the government kicks in more and they feel they need to pay less. or they are basically amoral and they are setting wages based on supply and demand. pretty much everyone agrees it is the latter. the question is, what do these government benefit programs do to the supply and demand? there is a slight effect in her terms of reducing the supply. people might be able to work part time instead of full time
because if you don't have anything coming in, you have to work. if you do have benefits coming in, there is not quite as much pressure. everyone agrees that these government programs reduce the labor supply. as a result, the walmart and mcdonald's have to pay slightly higher wages. this is an argument he made in his own research. it is something that simply even liberal economists agreed that it is a talking point that is not correct. host: and you have been researching since 2006. kendall fells, the executive $15.ctor with the fight for 1 about 15 more minutes of your phone calls and comments. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 745-8002 for independents and others. (202) 748-0003 for minimum wage earners.
orange, connecticut. good morning to linda. caller: good morning. i am coming at this equation from a middle-class property on a. and this is why it can't be left to the states. states like california and new york and new jersey, connecticut receive between $.65 and $.75 back to the state for at every -- for every federal tax dollar that is paid. this means the middle class -- [indiscernible] obama: good morning, everybody. i just had a chance to meet with my national security team, including my secretary of homeland security jeh johnson, my fbi director jim coming, and my attorney general loretta lynch for a regular update on
our security posture post paras and going into the holiday -- post paris and going into the holiday season. i think all of us recognize how horrific what took place in paris was. and as i said yesterday, for many of us, the events have touched a deep chord, given the connection between the united states and france, the degree to which americans see in paris a way of life that is so familiar to us here in american cities. and given the shocking images, i know that americans have been asking each other whether it is safe here, whether it is safe to fly or gather. i know families have discussed their fears of the threat of terrorism around the dinner table. many for the first time since september 11. and it is understandable that people worry something similar could happen here. watching the events in paris made the threat feel closer to home.
so, as we go into thanksgiving weekend, i want the american people to know that we are taking every possible step to keep our homeland safe. isil, we are going after wherever it hides. that has been our strategy for more than a year. i will speak about this in more detail in the coming weeks, but let me remind the american people of what our coalition of some 65 nations is doing to destroy these terrorists and defeat their ideology. our military partners have conducted more than 8000 airstrikes on isil strong cold and equipment. those airstrikes, along the efforts of our partners on the ground, have taken out key leaders, have taken back territory in both iraq and syria. we continue to work to choke off their financing and their supply lines and counter their recruitment and their messaging. and even as america is already supporting french airstrikes in
syria, yesterday president holla nde and i agreed we would step up that could nation even further and do more of that work together. we are stepping up the pressure on isil where it lives, and we will not let up. adjusting our tactics when necessary until they are beaten. that is our first goal. second, we continue to do everything possible to prevent attacks at home and abroad and to prevent foreign terrorist fighters from entering the united states or other nations. since 9/11, we have taken extraordinary measures to strengthen our homeland security, and everything from aviation security to border security to information sharing. upon theseroved actions over time. anytime there is an event, we learn something from it. and we continue to refine it. we continue to improve upon our approaches as we speak.
right now, we know of no specific and credible intelligence indicating a plot on the homeland. that is based on the latest information i just received in the situation room. it is similar to the information -- that i -- the briefing that i received on saturday before i left on my trip last week. so, as americans travel this weekend to be with their loved ones, i want them to know that our counterterrorism, intelligence, homeland security, and law enforcement professionals every level are working overtime. they are continually monitoring threats at home and abroad. continually evaluating our security posture. they are constantly working to protect all of us. their work has prevented attacks . their efforts have saved lives. they serve every hour of every day for the sake of our
security. they did so before paris, and they do so now. , andut fanfare or credit without a break for the holidays. so the bottom line is this: i want the american people to know entering the holidays that the combined resources of our military, our intelligence, and our homeland security agencies are on the case. they are vigilant, relentless, and effective. in the event of a specific credible threat, the public will be informed. we do think it is useful for people as they are going about the business to be vigilant. if you see something suspicious, say something. that is all we tell people. but otherwise americans should go about their usual thanksgiving weekend activities. spend time with family and friends and celebrating our blessings. and while the threat of
terrorism is a troubling reality of our age, we are both equipped to prevent attacks and we are resilient in the face of those who try to do us harm. and that is something we can all be thankful for. happy thanksgiving, everybody. >> [indistinct chatter] announcer: president obama delivering a message of assurance that security officials are on duty on this day before the nation celebrates the thanksgiving holiday. this afternoon, the president will do something a little lighter, as he celebrates the national thanksgiving turkey in a pardoning ceremony from the white house rose garden. it is the 68th annual anniversary of the pardon. these turkeys were hatched and raised in california.
they will be on display in leesburg, virginia. you can see today ceremony live at 2:45 eastern right here on c-span. here is a look at our prime time schedule, to getting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, remarks from the new head of the xina smiley and -- the smithsonian institution. on c-span2, a discussion on how government regulates food in the united states, including school modifiednd genetically foods and labeling policies. and on c-span3, a look at the 2016 presidential election, with remarks from two gun rights organizations. tonight, rapper snoop dogg debuts on c-span. he discusses new candidates pop-culture website, mary jane. here is more from that event. >> it gives off more than just me trying to smoke, with me giving you a whole explanation of what it is.
if you want to get some insight about it, we will provide you all the information you need to know. we will be the encyclopedia to the cannabis world. >> cool. what kind of content can we expect to see? he said there's going to be a large network of not only celebrities, but editorial workers. what can we expect? >> well, it really is a diverse range. you are talking about cultural content with regards to technology, food. we have a cooking show and a bunch of original series that are coming out. expandd of extend -- further, the great thing about the cannabis industry besides its medical benefits and the social benefits is the job creation. we are talking about a business that will be in the $19 billion range domestically in a few years. $1 billion in the flour sold in colorado last year alone.
state that went to the and 10% of that 30% went to the board of education. where else are you going to see a cultural and economic revolution like with cannabis. and that is a beautiful thing about what we are doing. it is a movement and an integration into what pop-culture is and what real business is in america today. announcer: and that is just a brief portion of an event held recently at the annual techcrunch disrupt san francisco. you can watch the entire thing tonight here on c-span. announcer: c-span has the best access to congress with live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate on c-span watch our -- c-span2. thursday at 10:00 eastern, buddy carter, the only pharmacist serving in congress. at 10:30, donald norcross, a new jersey democrat.
friday at 10:00 a.m. eastern, representative mark desaulnier, a california democrat. at 10:30, congressman mark walker, republican from north to line up and a baptist minister. and saturday morning at 10:00 eastern, it is congresswoman mimi walters, a former state senator who interned in d.c. as a college student. and at 10:30, congas men seth moulton, harvard graduate and a marine who served four tours in iraq. your best access to congress is on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. course, wasy, of the person who shot president reagan. and president reagan was not wearing a bulletproof vest. john hinckley was stocking jimmy carter before this. announcer: sunday on "q&a," ronald feynman talks about various assassination attempts
and physical threats made against presidents and presidential candidates throughout american history. >> there have been 16 presidents who have faced assassination threats, although not directly since ronald reagan. i also included three presidential candidates. , who wasout huey long assassinated. and i talk about robert kennedy in 1968, who was assassinated. and george wallace, who was shot and paralyzed for life in 1972. i cover candidates as well as president. announcer: sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." today, theearlier pentagon released results of its internal investigation into the october u.s. bombing of a doctors without borders hospital in afghanistan. we heard more on this from general john campbell during this 45 minute briefing.
>> good evening. and good morning back in washington dc. i received a report of the u.s. national investigation into the strike on doctors without borders and sf trauma center in kunduz, afghanistan. let me start by offering lessons are condolences to the victims of this devastating event. no nation does more to prevent civilian casualties than the united states. but we fail to meet our own high expectations. this was a tragic, but avoidable accident caused primarily by human error. it was important that the officers investigating the in prison -- incident have their seniority and independent to conduct their inquiry. for that reason, i requested an outside investigative team. u.s. central command supported my request. they sent an army major general
independent of army forces afghanistan, to lead the investigation. he was assisted by two brigadier generals. also outside for my command. the report included specific findings related to systems, processes, and personnel. and i have already approved some of the findings and recommendations. based on the recommendations, i have already directed some immediate changes to be sure we learn and apply the right lessons from this incident. in addition to the u.s. national investigation, the nato and afghan partner combined civilian casualty assessment team also conducted an investigation. the findings of both reports were generally consistent. i have personally briefed the , thesecretary-general president, and dr. abdullah on the results. nato were released the report in
the coming days -- will release a report in the coming days. i also briefed the nsf on the results of the investigations. dealing withns systems and processes will be managed within this command. matters regarding individual accountability will be managed in accordance with military justice, and administrative practices for joint commands. i have decided to reverse some of the recommendations to the command at u.s. -- to the specialr at u.s. operations command. i will discuss individual cases because our system requires fairness. i can tell you that those individuals most closely associated with the incident have been suspended from their duties, pending consideration and disposition of administrative and disciplinary matters. because i am still in the process of reviewing the investigative report and
investigating officers report, i will defer any questions today to my spokesperson, brigadier general wilson shoffner. that said, i am able to provide an account of the events. the report determined that u.s. strike upon the nsf trauma city, in kunduz afghanistan was the direct result of human error. the u.s. forces directly involved in this incident did not know the target compound was the nsf trauma center. the medical facility was misidentified as a target by u.s. personnel, who believed they were striking in different building several hundred meters away where there were reports of combatants. the report also determined that the personnel who requested the strike, and those who executed it from the air, did not undertake the appropriate measures to verify that the facility was illegitimate
military target. place thertant to events leading up to this tragic incident in context. on the evening of september 27, kunduz city was suddenly attacked by a significant force of taliban and insurgents. by the evening of september 20, local afghan forces quickly with true, leaving the taliban in control of most of the city. on september 29, nsf sent the its of their trauma center in kunduz to multiple recipients within the u.s. and nato chains of command. " in its were received and distributed -- those coordinates were received and distributed. the united states special operations forces and their afghan counterparts rapidly deployed to a camp adjacent to the kunduz airfield on the early morning of september 29. by that evening, they were forced to defend the airfield from a taliban attack.
the u.s. maintained defense of positions at the airfield throughout the night until the early morning on september 30. they moved from the airfield into the city and established themselves in the eventual t-cell -- in the eventual chief of police compound. between the time that they were established in the compound and the time of the incident on october 3, u.s. and afghan partners sustained enemy attacks and conducted multiple defensive strikes in kunduz. 3, the u.s. soft had remained at the compound longer than intended. as a result, by the early morning hours of october 3, u.s. soft at the peacock out had been engaged in fighting for nearly five consecutive days and nights. during the evening of october 2, ask on soft -- afghan soft
advised that they intended to do an operation that night. this included a former national director of security headquarters building they believed was occupied by insurgents. the afghans requested close u.s. air support as they conducted their clearing operation. the u.s. commander agreed to have the support on standby. he remained at the compound during the operation and was beyond the visual range of either the headquarters or the nsf trauma center as he monitored the progress of his afghan counterpart. the report found that from this point forward, multiple errors occurred that ultimately resulted in the misidentification of any strike on the nsf trauma center. aircrafte a c-130 designated to provide close aircraft support launched 69 minutes early in response to a troops in contact situation. requires of emergency
an immediate response, but the result was that the aircraft brief,without a mission including the no strike designations, which was evident of had the locations of the nsf trauma center. aircrafthis a c-130 and crew were not needed for the initial troops in contact mission, they were diverted and fight to provide close air support to the u.s. soft commander in kunduz. during the flight, the electronic systems on board the aircraft malfunctioned. preventing the operation of an essential command and control capability, and eliminating their ability of the aircraft to transmit video, send and receive e-mail, or send an receive electronic messages. this is an example of technical failure. in addition, as the aircraft arrived in the vicinity of kunduz, the aircrew believed
they were targeted by a missile, forcing the aircraft to move away from its normal orbit during orbit approximately eight miles away. this degraded the accuracy of certain targeting systems, which later contributed to the misidentification of the msf trauma center. i would like to review to the chart now in order to refer -- to show you key locations as i described the events. to give you some skill, the distance from the top to the bottom of this graph is approximately 1000 meters. the u.s. soft commander on the ground is located at the chief of police compound, the green dot in the upper right of the chart. his controller, the commander provided the aircraft with the correct garden its to the headquarters building -- the correct coordinates to its headquarters building.
again, this was the building that the u.s. commander intended to strike. thewhen the aircrew enter coordinates into their fire control systems, the court in its correlated to an open field over 300 meters from the headquarters. the yellow 2 on the chart depicts the location of the open field. this mistake happened because the aircraft was several miles beyond its normal orbit, and it's centers were degraded at that distance. the investigating of his or found the aircrew visually located the closest largest building near the open field. which we now know was the mfs trauma center. the mfs trauma center is depicted by the red 3 on the chart. the court in this roughly matched the description of the mfs trauma center, as seen by the aircrew.
at night, the aircrew was unable to identify any signs of the hospital's protected status. the second chart shows the mfs facility pre-strike. this is what the aircrew was able to visualize, although they would have been seeing the facility at night. according to the report, the aircrew concluded based on the description of a much building, that the mfs trauma center was the headquarters. tragically, this misidentification continued throughout the remainder of the operation. even though there were some contradictory indicators. for example, once the aircraft returned to its original orbit, the aircraft's grid location system correctly aligned with the facility instead of the open field. however, the crew remained fixated on the physical description of the facility, and at that point did not rely on
the great court in it. also, the investigators found that the aircrew did not observe hostile activity at the mfs trauma facility. these are examples of human and procedural errors. the report determined that as the operation proceeded, the u.s. commander requested the aircraft to engage the building that the aircrew mistakenly believed was the nds headquarters. the report found that under the circumstances, the u.s. commander lacked the authority to direct the aircrew to engage the facility. the investigation also found that the u.s. commander relied primarily upon information provided by afghan partners, and was unable to adequately distinguish between the nds headquarters building and the mfs trauma center. report, one the minute prior to firing, the aircrew transmitted to their operational headquarters that
they were about to engage the building. they provided the coordinates for the mfs trauma center as their target. the headquarters was aware of -- court in the match the location on the no strike list. or that the aircrew was appeared -- was prepared to fire on the hospital. this confusion was exasperated by the lack of video and electronic communications between the headquarters and the aircraft caused by the earlier malfunction and a believe that the headquarters required air support as a matter of immediate force protection. the strike began at 2:08 a.m. officer or see the call from mfs advising that their facility was under attack.
it took the headquarters of the u.s. special operations a.m. tor until 2:37 realize the fatal mistake. 130 hadtime, the ac already ceased firing. the strike lasted for approximately 29 minutes. this is an example of human and process air. the investigation found that the strike resulted in the death of 30 staff, patient, and assistants, and the injury of 37 others. u.s. forces afghanistan is currently working hand-in-hand with mfs to identify the injured and the families of those who lost loved ones in order that we may offer appropriate condolences. based upon the information learned and the investigation, the report determined that the approximate cause of the tragedy was a direct result of avoidable human error, compounded by process and equipment failures. foundition, the report
that fatigue and a high operational tempo contributed to this tragedy. it also identified failures in systems and processes that, while not the cause of the trauma center,fs contributed to the incident. these included the loss of electronic and medication systems on the aircraft, the nature of the planning and approval process employed during operations in kunduz city, and the lack of a single system event for targets against alist. we have reviewed each of these failures and implemented corrections as appropriate. we have learned from this terrible incident. we will also take appropriate administrative and disciplinary actions through a process that is fair and thoroughly considers the available evidence. the cornerstone of our military justice system is the independence of decision-makers following a thorough
investigation, such as this one. we will study what went wrong and take the right steps to prevent it in the future. as i said in an earlier statement, this was a tragic mistake. the u.s. forces would never intentionally strike a hospital or other protected facilities. our deepest condolences go to all the individuals and families that were affected by this incident. we will offer our assistance to doctors without borders in rebuilding the hospital in kunduz. doctors without borders is a respected humanitarian organization that is important life-saving work, not only within afghanistan, but around the world. alongside our afghan partners, we will work to assist and support them in this critical role that they play in this country. again, thank you very much for your time. i will be followed by general shoffner, as he will take your questions.
general schaffner: good evening and good morning to those of you joining us from washington d c. investigation, what we have said from the beginning is that we are determined to ensure this investigation is both thorough and transparent. the fact that we are even doing this is conference today is unusual. but ask secretary carter has said, we are committed to ensuring full accountability on this incident. this investigation is an important step but it is only one step in the overall process.
u.s. authorities may determine additional investigations are required and if so, that process will take additional time. we have to ensure the due process for anyone involved in this process. in an effort to be transparent, we are going to share everything we possibly can at this point. once the investigation is redacted, the full report will be posted to the central command website and we will provide a link to that at the conclusion of this process. at this time, i will take your questions. >>. following due process, etc., it sounds like multiple violations have been addressed as human error. there is a chain of command and there has to be some responsibility. where does the buck stop?
looking at a matter of honor, offering resignation? afghan officials have said all they have specifically referred to the hospital as the command and control center as -- for the insurgents. making the decision whether or not to continue the attack, where do they come into this? ad, it seems like contradiction, so i'm wondering what impact this will have on the level of trust between the u.s., nato and afghan forces going forward?
gen. shoffner: two the first part of your question, the investigators found some individuals involved did not follow the rules of engagement. in terms of what happens next, investigation itself is an important step in the process but just one step toward full accountability. based on its findings, the investigating officer made several recommendations. general campbell has decided to retain some of those at his level and has referred others to u.s. so calm for his review. the individuals most closely associated with the incident have been suspended from their duty positions. i will comment while those views are underway. individual cases underway as we have to allow for due process is and we must allow
for the independent review by the decision-makers involved. to the second part of your question, i won't speak for the minister but i will point out that on the civilian casualty and assessment team investigation that was done, that was not just a u.s. investigation, it was a nato investigation and the members consist this it -- consisted of u.s. orders, seven afghans appointed by the president and i need to point out the purpose of that was different -- it was intentionally narrow in purpose and designed to determine the basic facts and whether casualties had occurred. as for your final question, we remain committed to remain --
remain committed to our afghan partners to rebuild sustainably in afghanistan. >> can you tell us how many individuals were suspended? gen. shoffner: all i can tell you is some individuals have been suspended. u.s. authorities may direct additional investigations to determine whether for -- whether further actions are warranted. investigationsal be required, those will be made public once complete and redacted. again, we have a responsibility to ensure due process.
i will not comment on general campbell's position as he is reviewing some of the recommendations that have been made in his capacity as the appointing officer of the investigation. >> roger, can you hear us at the pentagon? >> we hear you just fine. can you hear us? quest we've got you. go ahead. >> this is bob burns from the associated press. you a set -- you said the rules of engagement were violated. was the basic decision to use air power under these circumstances justified giving the non-combat role the u.s. assumed at the end of 2014?
, narrow a limited circumstance under which the use of force is permitted and did that fit this circumstance? thank you. gen. shoffner: under certain circumstances, u.s. forces can be used if they request air support. ultimately, that decision is in the hands of a u.s. commander. into the specific rules of engagement, but we are make sure this does not happen again. we will review all the recommendations and use them to improve our systems and processes. reports of casualties seriously and review each one of them thoroughly. general campbell has already ofected a thorough review
the planning process as well as the targeting process. this will take place at all echelons of command and will determine how we use no strike lists. up. very quick follow do i understand your answer to mean that no, this was not the proper circumstance in which to use combat power? is that what you are saying? the investigation found some of the individuals involved did not follow the rules of engagement. >> general, doctors without borders, which has proven to be a pretty reliable source in regard to what happened said they made at least two phone
calls. one just prior to and wondering the airstrike to the pentagon. we have been told that was relayed from joint staff to the and mcc. that they were under attack. information ever reach the operators in the battlefield? gen. shoffner: what i would like to do is briefly review the sequence of events leading up to the issue at hand. approximately 12 minutes after the firing commenced, doctors without borders called to report the attack. unfortunately, by the time u.s. forces realize the mistake, the aircraft had stopped firing. it is important to remember this is a complicated and chaotic situation.
the ac 130 had been shot at by a surface to air missile and u.s. personnel were focused on doing what they had been trained to do. that said, chaos does not justify this tragedy. let me be very clear. we did not intentionally strike the hospital. we are absolutely heartbroken over what has occurred here and will do absolutely everything in our power to make sure it does not happen again. doctors without borders. we have great respect for the important and life-saving work doctors without borders does in afghanistan and around the world. we are committed to working with them and committed to rebuild the hospital and provide condolence payment to those affected by this tragedy. the easing of the suffering by those affected in the conflict and will do everything in our power to help
the efforts. >> pentagon, go ahead. >> just a couple of follow-ups. did the flight crew aboard the a c-130 express any concern or orstion the validity legality of the target they were about to strike and, if there were so many problems with systems and identifying targets, why was that attack allowed to proceed? gen. shoffner: the investigation found some of the individuals involved did not follow the rules of engagement. >> tom bowman from npr.
a couple of questions. the msf called less than halfway into this attack and it took 10 minutes for the commanders to realize they had made a mistake. time oflmost half the the attack itself. fire comingre's no from the hospital, why would they think this was a legitimate target? gen. shoffner: the investigation found a medical facility was miss by u.s. personnel who believed they were striking a different building several hundred meters away, where there were reports of combatants. i think it might be helpful to put this in context.
at the time of the incident, forces had been fighting for five days when the incident occurred. and afghan forces had reports of telegram throughout the city. we are determined to learn the right lessons and ensure this cannot or does not happen again. >> [indiscernible] gen. shoffner: joe campbell has directed all personnel in theater receive targeting authority and we conduct a
comprehensive review of our process as well as our targeting process at all echelons of command. he has directed a thorough examination of how we develop and use the no strike list. >> do you want to continue that kind of close air support in the future? we remainner: committed to working with our afghan allies as we assist them in building sustainable security for this country. >> a few hours before the nss -- is msf strike, the location clearly known. how do you count for this discrepancy a few hours later question mark the accordance
just a few hours earlier, there had been an attack and had been a strike in that area? they found the special forces commander did rely on information provided by the afghan partners for the location of the compound. but those grid coordinates given by the afghan forces were correct. let me comment on how we came to that conclusion. the investigative team went to great lengths to ensure a full accounting of the facts and circumstances. they were driven by the need to be thorough, not by a timeline. the investigative team consisted of three general officers and a dozen subject matter experts.
they spent a full three weeks on the report, they visited the doctors without borders site and interviewed over 65 witnesses and compiled over 3000 pages of documents area evidence. and engage with each astral on in the chain of command. we stand by their findings and recommendations and support the process by which they conduct the investigation. >> [indiscernible] gen. shoffner: i'm sorry, could you repeat the first part of your question? >> [indiscernible]
gen. shoffner: general campbell did meet with representatives from doctors without borders. when he met with them, they provided their initial review. he gave it to the investigative team. they read it and considered it as they wrote the report. also point out that the findings of the u.s. investigations were consistent with that of the sea cat, the combined civilian casualty assessment team. we are confident with those investigations coming to the same conclusions in those findings. allow aou going to national independent investigation? it seems the investigation team was all american and the forces
that launched the attack was all american. is there any problem in that? while you say it was not an intentional strike, every u.s. servicemen from basic training and prior to deploying must review the basic rules of war, including proportionality and sanction. even if you had struck the proper place, do you think the attack was proportional? in terms of it's not just the rules of engagement, but the basic laws of war that you were training to make things better? the investigative team has completed a thorough investigation and we are confident with the facts and evidence collected. question, ito your can tell you what the investigation found. involvedhe individuals did not follow the rules of and gauge meant.
the investigation found the actions of the aircrew and the special operations forces were not appropriate to the threats they faced. investigation officers recommendations have been referred to the proper authorities for this position. comment further because that matter is under review. again, we did not intentionally strike the hospital and we are absolutely heartbroken over what has happened here. >> what about an independent investigation? gen. shoffner: the investigation team -- >> and independent investigation. they have been calling for a u.n. mandated procedure when there is a humanitarian problem. they are ready to go but they need the americans and afghans to say yes and it seems they have both said no. gen. shoffner: we believe the investigation completed was full and impartial and we stand by
the findings and recommendations . we support the process by which it was conducted. >> how can it be impartial when the people investigating our in the same organization as the people who attacked? gen. shoffner: general campbell has decided to refer some of the recommendations to the commander of u.s. so, for his review and action as appropriate. >> this is not the first time u.s. airstrikes have caused civilian casualties. gen. shoffner: we are determined to learn the right lessons from this and ensure it doesn't happen again. the process that i mentioned is this headquarters
procedures whenever we have an indication of civilian casualties or an allegation of civilian casualties. it provides a means of looking into it quickly to determine if further investigation is needed. if further investigation is needed, that will be done and we will use that investigation as the basis for adjusting our systems and procedures so this does not happen again. we have time for more question. >> [indiscernible] what kind of messaging was passed? [indiscernible] gen. shoffner: the
investigations found the corps commander did rely on information provided by the afghan partners. the investigation also found that information was correct. as i stated earlier, the investigation found some of the violate theuals did rules of engagement and we will take appropriate -- you have to take precautions around civilians -- does that not [indiscernible] it looks like your systems were not working. these systems were set up to protect civilians. the investigation found the actions of the aircrew operations did not
take place. i will not comment on that further. before i depart, i want to emphasize that we made a terrible mistake that resulted in unnecessary deaths. we have been committed from the beginning to a transparent and thorough investigation and we will do everything possible to prevent this from happening again. investigation was an important step in this process, but it is just one step toward full account ability. , ever dowe would never anything to harm innocent civilians. thank you. >> angst, everybody. -- thanks, everybody. afternoon,p this president obama will pardon the national thanksgiving turkey in a ceremony at the white house rose garden. this will be the 68th
anniversary of this event will its this year's turkey and alternative were hatched and raised intel california. the turkeys will be on display at their permanent home in leesburg, virginia. you will be able to watch the ceremony live starting at 2:45 eastern right here on c-span. will showtonight, we you remarks from the new head of the smithsonian institution. he talks about new exhibits, technology and controversial works of art. he spoke about his approach to those works of art and how he plans to handle exhibits that may be seen as controversial. here's a look. david: i believe that artists, whatever kind of artists, they could be answers come a performing artists or other types of artists, they may perceive the world of it differently. they may perceive trends sooner than the general populace perceives transit.
when creating an expression that reflects a different perspective of currency of reality, they may bump into people who do not share that point of view. years go by or generations go by and perhaps it wasn't early perception of something that turned out to be true or perhaps not. creative activity will engender controversy, so, we have to be ready for it. i think that few axioms to me would be if a professional, a curator act by normal institutional processes done correctly sized to put something up how we should not take it down, even if there is public outcry, even if there is concern. one right now is margaret sanger's portrait in the national portrait gallery. in a case, i could not be more --portive of the decision of
that we have to tell the story of our country, both parts that we are proud of and the parts we shake our heads about. how are we going to understand and think more towards the future? >> that was a brief version of an event held with the new head of the smithsonian institution. you can see his entire comment tonight starting at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. over on c-span2, a discussion about how government regulate food, including genetically modified food and labeling policy. look at theit's a 2016 presidential election with for marks from two good rights organizations. gun rights organizations. >> four days of nonfiction books holiday weekend on c-span2's book tv. all-day coverage of the 15th
annual national book festival from washington, ec -- washington, d.c. 3:00, fromternoon at the bookss fall of festival, robert poole on the 14 ate plot but -- acre plot robertan cemetery and kaplan, who argued the case the united states versus windsor which struck down the defense of marriage act. case and thehe government gets a certain amount of time to respond. i got a call from the trial level attorney saying we need 30 days. we are thinking about what to do in the case and we need time to decide it. i did not believe her. i thought she was stalling for time. number two, eve had a lot of serious health issues.
alive,y was she still that was very much weighing on me. i said forget it, note extension. zoehe's interviewed by tillman. watch book tv all weekend every weekend on c-span2. >> this thanksgiving weekend, american history tv on c-span3 has four days of feature programming, beginning thursday, we will take you inside the national world war ii museum in new orleans as we look back to the wars and and it legacy starting with the allied invasion of north africa through d-day, the fall of the third reich, and the war in the pacific. curators and historians will share stories of soldiers who fought in both fronts, including african americans who fought in a segregated military. series, wrote to
the white house rewind, looks at the campaigns of ronald reagan, bill clinton, george h.w. bush, and michael dukakis. saturday afternoon at 2:00, the president of the society of the honor guard, tomb of the unknown soldier, on the history of the cemetery, the role in creation of the tomb guard and some of the notable people buried at the cemetery. sunday afternoon at 4:00, the cbs news special report by worley safer on the five-week battle of you drank valley with the widow of a combat casualty. american history tv, all weekend and on holidays only on c-span3. >> up next, president obama awards the presidential medal of freedom to 17 people. it is the nations highest civilian honor and this years recipients include yogi beria, and willie mays, gloria a stephan barbra streisand, steven
spielberg and u.s. senator barbara mikulski. from the white house, this is about 50 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the recipients of the metal of freedom. larry berra accepting for yogi vara. stephan, gloria a fan.han -- gloria este willie howard mays junior, the honorable senator barbara mikulski, it's act perlman -- stephen sondheim, steven
president obama: hello, everybody. please, thank you. everybody please have a seat. welcome to the white house, everybody. a bunch of people were saying i was pretty busy today, which is true. but this, this is a fun kind of busy, right here. today, we celebrate some extraordinary people. innovators, artists, and leaders who contribute to america's strength as a nation. we offer them our highest civilian honor, the presidential medal of freedom. [applause]
let me tell you just a little bit about them, although i suspect people here already know their stories. growing up in west virginia, katherine johnson counted everything. she counted steps, dishes, the distance to the church. by 10 years old, she was in high school. by 18 she graduated from college with degrees in math and french. as an african-american woman, job options were limited. but she was eventually hired as one of several female mathematicians for the agency that would become nasa. katherine calculated the flight path for america's first mission in space, the path that put neil
armstrong on the moon. she was even asked to double check the computer's math on john glenn's orbit around the earth. so if you think your job is pressure-packed, hers meant forgetting to carry the one might send somebody floating off into the solar system. [laughter] in her 33 years at nasa, she was a pioneer who broke the barriers of race and gender, showing generations of young people that everyone can excel in math and science and reach for the stars. in the early 1960's, a lawyer named william ruckelshaus drove through indiana in a truck, taking samples from streams choked with dead fish.
he called it "a very good time." i think we have different definitions of a good time, but it was all part of protecting americans from big polluters. in 1970, when richard nixon created the environmental protection agency, he made bill its first director. under his leadership, the epa developed clean-air standards, banned the harmful pesticide ddt, and bill set a powerful precedent, that protecting our environment is something we must come together and do as a country. he became known as "mr. clean," and lived up to that nickname when he resigned from the nixon administration rather than derail the watergate investigation. he never truly retired. he recently led the fight to protect puget sound, and has urged his fellow republicans to join him in fighting climate changes. he spent his life putting country before party or
politics, and he reminds us how noble public service can be. our air and water is cleaner, and our lives are brighter because of him. back in 1966, plans were laid for a highway straight through some of baltimore's neighborhoods. it seemed like it was going, until it ran into a young social worker. let's just say, you don't want to be on the wrong side of barbra mikulski. [laughter] she stopped that highway and jumpstarted one of the finest public service careers we have ever seen. for decades, barbra has been a lion, a lioness on capitol hill, fighting for working families, fighting for high-paying jobs, fighting for the prospects of america's women and girls.
i could not be prouder to have her by my side as i signed into law the lilly ledbetter fair pay act, the first law that i signed. barbra's legacy -- [applause] barbra's legacy reflects her roots, a mom who offered grocery store credit to steelworkers on strike, a dad who greeted every customer with a friendly "can i help you?" we are lucky that a question barbra has been asking and answering longer than any female lawmaker in our history. [applause] there are people in our country's history who don't look left or right, just straight ahead. shirley chisholm was one of those people. driven by a profound commitment to justice, she became the first
african-american congresswoman, the first african-american woman from a major political party to run for president. when shirley was assigned the house agricultural committee despite the fact that her district was from new york city, she said, apparently all they know here in washington about brooklyn is that a tree grew there. [laughter] but she made the most of her new role, helping to create the sentimental nutrition program that feeds poor mothers and their children. shirley chisholm's example transcends her life. when asked how she would like to be remembered, she answered, i would like them to say that shirley chisholm had guts. i'm proud to say it. shirley chisholm had guts. at its best, lee hamilton said, representative democracy gives us a system where all of us have a voice in the process and a
stake in the product. in 34 years in congress, lee hamilton was a faithful servant to that ideal, representing his beloved indiana and his country with integrity and honor. as head of the house foreign affairs and intelligence committee, he guided us through the cold war and into a new era of american leadership. a man admired on both sides of the aisle for his honesty, wisdom, and consistent commitment to bipartisanship. from serving as vice chair of the 9/11 commission to making congress more effective, lee remains a tireless public servant and a trusted advisor and friend to many. i am proud to count myself among them. we also celebrate those who have stirred our souls and lifted our spirits as icons of the stage, screen, and song. born in brooklyn to middle-class
jewish parents -- i did not know you were jewish, barbra. [laughter] barbra streisand attended her first broadway show at 814. she removed thinking -- remember thinking, i could go up on that stage and play any role without any trouble at all. that is called chutzpah. it helps when you have amazing talent, all of which made her a global sensation, one whose voice has been described as "liquid diamonds" and whose fans have considered bronzing her use coffee cups. [laughter] she has sold more albums in america than any woman in history.
she has collected just about every honor and award that there is. i could not believe she had not gotten this one. [laughter] off the stage, she has been a passionate advocate for issues like heart disease and women's equality. in interview, violinist itzhak perlman was once asked what sound he loves. his eyes lit up, and he replied, "the sound of onions sizzling in a pan." a man of large appetites, who knows how to live. he also happens to be a pretty good musician, and he persevered through childhood polio to become not only a virtuoso, but
a powerful advocate for people with disabilities. he has played with every major orchestra in the world, conducted many of them, tops generations of young musicians. he has won grammies, emmys, performed with the greats, leonard bernstein, yo-yo ma, sesame street. [laughter] what perhaps makes him the greatest violinist of our time is that he approaches music the way he approaches everything in life, with passion and with joy. he lays bare the soul of a piece, and by doing so he makes the world a little more beautiful. i'm proud to call the next honoree a friend as well. the truth is, a lot of people say that about james taylor. that's what happens when you
spend four decades telling people "just call out my name and i'll come running." [laughter] but that's the thing about james. you always feel like he's singing only to you. as a fan of his once said, james can turn an arena into a living room. that's why he became one of the driving forces of the singer-songwriter movement, and his honesty and candor about overcoming substance abuse has inspired not only his music, but people all around the world. so come fire or rain, come carolina, mexico, or a country road, james taylor is there to comfort us, to help us look within, and to urge us all to shower the people we love with love. on a miami night in 1975, a young woman named gloria walked
into a wedding reception and saw a handsome young man named emilio leading his band. he was playing "do the hustle," on an accordion. [laughter] i'm quoting her now. she said she found this "sexy and brave." i mean, the brave part i understand. [laughter] but it turns out he had a few other things up his sleeve. he brought her up to sing a few songs that night, then invited her to join his band. a few months later, emilio asked gloria for a birthday kiss. it was not his birthday, but he got the kiss anyway, and emilio and gloria estefan have been partners since. sometimes people worried they were to latin for americans, and to american for latins. together, their fusion sound has
a sold more than 100 million records, and as proud to been americans they have promoted their cultural heritage and inspired fans around the world. an awful lot of people have gone to musicals to forget their troubles, just like they were dancing to estefan's music. stephen sondheim, i think, is somebody who is not interested in that. as a composer and lyricist, a genre unto himself, sondheim challenges his audiences. his greatest hits are not tunes you can hum, they are reflections on roads we didn't take, wishes gone wrong, relationships so frayed and fractured that there's nothing left to do but send in the clowns.
yet stephen's music is so beautiful, his lyrics so precise, that even as he exposes the imperfections of everyday life, he transcends them. we transcend them. stephen reinvented the american musical, which has loomed large over six decades in the theater. with revivals from broadway to the big screen, he is still here, giving us support for being alive. here's how steven spielberg once explained his creative process. once a month, the sky falls on my head. i come to, and i see another movie i want to make. [laughter] this sounds painful for steven, but it has worked out well for the rest of us. in his career, steven has introduced us to extraterrestrials, archaeologists, killer sharks.
he has taken us to neverland, jurassic park, but also the beaches of normandy and nazi concentration camps. despite redefining the word "prolific," a spielberg movie is still a spielberg movie. someone is calling to see if they can make a deal with him now. [laughter] they want to make a page. see, there's this really good-looking president -- [laughter] a spielberg movie is marked by boundless imagination, worlds rendered in extraordinary detail, and characters who struggle to seize control of their destinies. all of that reminds us so powerfully of our own lives, and his films are marked most importantly by a faith in our
common humanity, the same faith in humanity that led him to create the shoah foundation and lend a voice to survivors of genocide around the world. his stories have shaped america's story, and his values have shaped our world. so, we celebrate artists, public servants, and two legends from america's pastime. what can be said about lawrence yogi berra that he could not say better himself? [laughter] the son of an italian bricklayer, they called him yogi because he sat like one while waiting to bat. he was born to play baseball, but he loved his country, and at 18 he left st. louis for the navy and found himself on omaha beach. after he returned, he embarked on a career that would make him one of the greatest catchers of all time.
with the yankees, he played in 14 world series in 18 years, winning 10 world series rings and three m.v.p. awards. he had, as one biographer put it, the winningest career in the history of american sports could nobody won more than this guy. and he coached the game with as much heart as he played it. he lived his life with pride and humility, and an original open mind. one thing you know for sure, if you can't imitate him, don't copy him. [laughter] took everybody a while. [laughter] we don't have time to list all of willie mays' statistics.
660 home runs, .302 lifetime average for the list goes on. will not even describe the miracle grab at the polo grounds, because he says that was not his best catches. we have not seen a five tool player like willy before, and we have not seen one since. he could throw, hit for contact and power, and he was so fast you could barely keep a hat on his head. on top of that, he also served our country, and his example helps carry forward the banner of civil rights. a few years ago, willie rode with me on air force one, and i told him than what i will tell all of you know. because of giants like willie, somebody like me could even think of running for president. [applause]
finally, we celebrate those who challenged us to live up to our values. billy frank junior likes to say, i was not a policy guy, i was a getting arrested guy. that's true. billy was arrested more than 50 times in his fight to protect tribal fishing rights and save the salmon that had fed his family for generations. he was spat on, shot at, chased, cast as an outlaw, but he kept fighting because he knew what was right. in 1974, a federal judge agreed, honoring the promises made to northwest tribes more than a century before. billy went on to be a national voice for indian country and a warrior for the natural world. i don't believe in magic, he once said, i believe in the sun and the stars and the water, the hawks flying, the rivers running, the wind talking.
they tell us how healthy we are, he said, because we and they are the same. 23 years ago, bonnie carroll's world was turned upside down when her husband tom, a brigadier general in the army, was killed in a plane crash along with seven other soldiers. heartbroken, bonnie began healing the only way she knew how,, by helping others. she founded the tragedy assistance program for survivors, creating a national community to support the families of our fallen servicemembers, and each year taps hold seminars and workshops for military families across the country. through their camps, they bring together children of our fallen to learn how to cope with loss, to honor the legacy of their heroes, and to try to have some fun as well. as one gold star child who lost her father in iraq said, because of taps i know someone is by my side.
on a saturday night in march of 1942, minoru yasui left his law office to walk around portland, oregon. it was a seemingly ordinary act that defied the discriminatory military curfew imposed on japanese-americans during world war ii. min took his case to the supreme court and lost, a decision he fought for the rest of his life. yet despite what japanese-americans endured, forced removal, discrimination, internment, min never stopped believing in his country, never stopped fighting for equality and justice for all. we believe in the greatness and great ideals of this country, he once said. we think there is a future for all humanity in the united states of america. today, min's legacy has never
been more important. it is a call to our national conscience, a reminder of our enduring obligation to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. an america where the of his sacrifice. ladies and gentlemen, these are the recipients of the 2015 presidential medal of freedom. let's give them a big round of applause. [applause]
and now -- have a seat, we're not done. they have to get some hardware here. let's read the citations. >> presidential medal of freedom citation. larry berra receiving on behalf of lawrence peter berra. one of our nation's most beloved and quotable sports heroes, lawrence peter yogi berra was a world-class baseball player and a great spirit. he left home to join the navy, fought on d-day, and came home with a purple heart. as a three-time m.v.p. major-league catcher, he won 10 world series championships. as manager of the new york yankees,, he guided his team and the sport he loved with a wisdom
that lives in our national consciousness, and taught us all we can observe a lot just by watching. [laughter] [applause] >> bonnie carroll. [applause] after her husband died in an army plane crash, bonnie carroll channeled her own grief into service. as the founder of the tragedy assistance program for survivors, she has devoted her life to building a network to support families who, like hers, made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.
bonnie has comforted the hearts and lifted the lives of thousands of families across the country. her strength and generosity are testaments to the enduring human spirit. [applause] andre dubois, receiving on behalf of the honorable shirley chisholm. [applause] as the first african-american congresswoman and the first african-american woman to seek a major party nomination for president, shirley chisholm
carried the torch of progress into a new generation, from classrooms in new york city to committee rooms in congress. she gave voice to the plight of marginalized communities and announced sexism and racism. by refusing to stand on the sidelines, never letting any others define her limits, daring to be herself, shirley chisholm embodies the american spirit. [applause] emilio estefan junior. gloria estefan. [applause] a native of havana, cuba, emilio estefan junior rose to become a
musician, producer, and businessman, bringing his distinctive latin sound to north america's pop audiences, proving the power of these it transcends cultural and economic by using songs to elevate the , he has blended cultures and created a wholly new american sound. [applause] with her infectious rhythm and iconic vocals, gloria estefan is a music powerhouse who has sold millions of records across the globe. transporting the spirit of
havana and miami to beyond, her music broke down barriers and established latin music in the american mainstream. a humanitarian and a devoted family leader, gloria estefan embodies the story of america and of a pioneer who will forever symbolize the potential of all those who develop their talents and build their dreams. [applause] frank. receiving on behalf of billy frank junior. billy frank junior devoted his life to protecting the rights of native americans and conserving our planet. for over 50 years, he tirelessly
and fearlessly fought for the preservation of traditional ways of life and the protection of treaty fishing rights. he was widely renowned as an advocate for the physical and cultural survival of native americans. his legacy reminds us that the pursuit of equality and justice is the work of every generation. [applause] the honorable lee h. hamilton. [applause] a leading voice on national security and foreign policy, lee h. hamilton has played a pivotal role in developing solutions to some of the most complex challenges of our times. his leadership in congress reflected his profound commitment to preserving the safety and integrity of our nation.
and his role in promoting pacific engagement has made an impact for generations to comp. -- come. lee h. hamilton has changed the course of american history in a spirit of bipartisanship and he continues to strengthen the homeland and promote diplomacy. [applause] katherine g. johnson. [applause] with her razor-sharp mathematical mind, katherine g. johnson helped broaden the scope of space travel charting new frontiers for humanity's exploration of space and creating new possibilities for all humankind.
from sending the first american to space to the first landing, on the moon, she played a critical role in many of nasa's milestones. katherine g. johnson refused to be limited by society's expectations of her gender and race by expanding the boundaries of humanity's reach. [applause] willie howard mays, jr. [applause]
born in segregated alabama, willie howard mays, junior grew up to become one of the greatest baseball players of all time. with his unmatched power and agility, he stepped into the history books as a two-time m.v.p. with 660 career home runs and 24 all-star appearances. along the way, the "say, hey, kid" man captured hearts. his story reminds us of the power of hard work and his legacy continues to inspire generations of americans. [applause]
the honorable barbara a. mikulski. [applause] [laughter] for decades, barbara a. mikulski has served the people of maryland and our nation with conviction, heart, and the spirit of selflessness. as a social worker, community organizer, city counselor, and the longest-serving woman in congress, she has been a tireless advocate for families, women, children, and seniors. in the senate, barbara mikulski has wielded her power to fight for equality and fairness for the most vulnerable members of our society. her example helped pave the way for other women in elected office, and her legacy will endure in all those who climb the ladder of opportunity she fought to build. [applause]
itzhak perlman. [laughter] [applause] a teacher, conductor, and one of the greatest violinists of our time, itzhak perlman has brought joy to millions, inspired countless new artists, and earned adoration from global audiences. born in israel, he has devoted his life to sharing his love of music. from tel aviv to shanghai, from london to moscow, he has served as one of the world's most
cherished cultural ambassadors as well as a tireless advocate for the disabled. itzhak perlman's heartfelt performances on stage and dedicated efforts to educate the next generation will continue to enrich the human symphony. [applause] the honorable william d. ruckelshaus. [applause] from his time as an army drill sergeant to his service at the highest levels of government,
william d. ruckelshaus has served our nation with dedication and integrity. the first administrator of the environmental protection agency, he led the government's efforts to help community struggling with contaminated rivers and polluted cities. years later, he returned to the helm to carry forward its mission of environmental stewardship. with conviction and courage, william d. ruckelshaus continues to place principle over politics, continuing his lifetime advocacy on behalf of our nation and our planet. [applause] stephen sondheim.
[applause] [laughter] [laughter] an acclaimed lyricist and composer, stephen sondheim is a master of the american musical. his witty, poignant lyrics tell tales of misfits, romantics, dreamers, and lunatics. each meticulously rhymed, many grappling with the dark urges or dashed hopes. yet his musicals are full of byoy as energy, sustained gorgeous melodies and turns of phrase. his astonishing body of work includes many of our nation's
best-loved, most frequent staged musicals, and people around the world know and love his songs. stephen sondheim has forever left his mark on the american stage. [applause] steven spielberg. [applause] from "e.t." and "jurassic park" to "saving private ryan" and "schindler's list," steven spielberg has established his place as one of history's most influential filmmakers. he has brought entire universes
to live, broadened our horizons and ushered iconic american , characters into being. our world has been shaped by his stories and through his shoah foundation, he has helped thousands of survivors from tell world-changing stories of their own. he represents the best of american culture and humanitarianism and we honor his timeless contributions to our national life. [applause] barbra joan streisand. [applause] for six decades, barbra
joan streisand has used her extraordinary voice to bring life to the range and humor of the human experience. her talent, authenticity, and bold performances have left an indelible mark an american film, theater, and music inspiring , generations of fans and performers. as a philanthropist and powerful advocate for women's heart health, she encourages others to use their own voices to make a difference. barbra joan streisand's legacy will endure in the american narrative. [applause]
[laughter] james taylor. [applause] for decades, james taylor has used the power of music to enrich our nation and the world. from longing and love to loss and renewal, his songwriting captures the heart of the human experience. through fire and rain and so much more, each generation that grows to know james taylor's music will continue to be moved by his timelessness and enduring beauty. [applause]
minoru yasui. -- receiving on behalf of minoru yasui. [applause] from the fruit farms of oregon to the hallowed halls of the supreme court, minoru yasui devoted his life to fighting for basic human rights and the fair and equal treatment of every american. in challenging the military curfew placed on japanese-americans during world war ii, he brought critical attention to the issue and paved the way for all americans to stand as full and equal citizens. minoru yasui's example endures as a reminder as the power of one voice for justice. -- echoing for justice.
[applause] president obama: ladies and gentlemen, give them a big round of applause. 2015 presidential medal of freedom winners. [applause] president obama: this is an extraordinary group. even by the standards of medal of freedom recipients, this is a class act. [laughter] president obama: we are just reminded when we see these individuals here on the stage, you know, what an incredible
tapestry this country is. and what a great blessing to be in a nation where individuals as diverse, from as wildly different backgrounds, can help to shape our dreams, how we live together, help define justice and freedom and love. they represent what is best in us. and we are very, very proud to be able to celebrate them here today. my understanding is also there is pretty good food in the white house. so please enjoy the reception, and congratulations to all the recipients. thank you very much, everybody. [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]
announcer: coming up this afternoon, president obama will pardon the annual thanksgiving turkey in a ceremony at the rose garden. its year's turkey and alternatives were hatched and raised in california. following the pardoning, the turkeys will be on display for visitors at their permanent home in leesburg, virginia. you will be able to watch the ceremony live today at 2:45 p.m. eastern, right here on the span. -- on c-span. how america regulates food, and jacob gersen says labels should talk about the daily allowed amounts for sugar. here is more. >> given the perils of excessive thereintake, white are not levels on food labels?
items, for sugar in the united states. >> i am aware of no defensible know any defensible reason not to provide that information. there is information we provide for all of the other ingredients. there is a political story for why we do not, and that is to expect politics to be absent from politics is silly. hand, politics is not absent from politics, so there are powerful, strong forrests that are involved many, many years, some for good, some for ill, and foods have a lot of sugar in them. they do not want to have that on the label, and the reason is very straightforward. it is amazing how much sugar is in those products. every day, i am amazed at how
much sugar is in those products. announcer: and just a brief portion of an event in philadelphia on government and the american diet. you can watch the entire event tonight on our companion network at 8:00 p.m. on c-span2. c-span has the best access to congress of live coverage of congress on c-span and the senate on c-span2. watch the six freshmen members of congress. eastern,at 10:00 a.m. republican buddy carter, the pharmacistscan -- serving in congress, and then a long time unit electrician. aulnier, ades california democrat and former restaurant owner. friday, martin walker. and saturday morning,
congresswoman mimi walters, a republican from california, a former state senator who interned in d.c. as a college student, and then at 10:30, seth on, harvard graduate and marine who spent four tours in iraq. c-span radio, and c-span.org. host: john hinckley, of course, is the person who shot ronald reagan, and ronald reagan was not wearing a bullet proof vest that day. theas a short trip from white house, but he was also another -- stalking before that. announcer: threats made against presidents and presidential candidates throughout history. an: eyeball to eyeball, and since ronald reagan, and
there are 16 presidents. i talk about hughley along, who was assassinated, and i talk in 1968,ert kennedy who was assassinated, and george wallace, who was shot and in 1972, sour life i talk about candidates as well as president, and it is a long ont announcer: sunday night c-span's "q&a" at 8:00. announcer: earlier today, prime minister david cameron took questions about the upcoming climate talks and the uk's strategy for fighting isis in syria. >> order. questions for the prime minister. hear.r, you, mr.on: thank speaker.
before i start, i would like to say something. many in this house and watching at home know from the central the prime minister's principal plays in the life of the prime minister and of number 10 downing street. well, this morning, my principal private secretary died of cancer. chris martin was only 42. he was one of the most loyal, hard-working, dedicated public servants that i have ever come across. i have no idea what his politics were, but he would go to the ends of the earth and back again or his prime minister, fort number 10, and for the team he worked for, and today, we are leaving the seat in the officials box empty as a mark of respect to him. we think of his wife, zoey, his family, and number 10 is rather like a family, and we feel we have lost someone rather between a father and a brother toward us, and whatever happens, we
will never forget him. this morning, i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and i will have further such meetings today. >> the prime minister's thatment, and i am sure all members have our thoughts and prayers today and that they will be conveyed to the family at this time. and there is the children's mental health charge, telling us issue has a root cause. the prime minister is a champion of family life, so can we confirm that the announcements will bede later today about the security and family relationships and opportunities for vulnerable children? i thank my: honorable friend, and there will be condolence books at number 10 and in the security service,
where chris martin works. she is absolutely right, that families are the best that we have. they bring up our children, they teach us the right values, and they care for us when we are sick and unwell. we want to help families, and there is a chance that we will say something about that later as we discussed minimum wage and tax cuts for working people and crucial with childcare. as i said before, all of these policies should pass the test of helping families. you, mr. speaker. on behalf of the opposition, can i also expressed my condolences to the family of chris martin on his death? me howme minister told ill she was on sunday, and i am pleased that he was able to visit him at this time, and also on behalf of many members who worked with chris martin when we were in government, we appreciate very much the work he did in the highest and best traditions of the civil service of this country, and if our condolences could be passedn, i think that would be very helpful.
55 labor, mr. speaker, councils have talked about running entirely on green energy by 2050. with the talks under way, will the prime minister join me in commending those councils and call on the other councils to do the same? i certainly commend all councils for wanting to promote green energy, and we have made that easier by having the feed in tariffs and the forr measures we have had particularly solar power and wind power. we will be taking part in the paris climate talks, because it is absolutely vital to get that global deal, but we absolutely have to make sure that we take asion locally as well globally. if you compare the last parliament to the current parliament, we saw something troubling in renewable energy. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the commitment to those labor
councils is a bit of a contrast to the prime minister's performance, because he used to tell us that his was the greenest government ever. does he remember those days? and does he agree with the energy secretary that britain is likely to miss its target of getting 15% of energy from and robles by 2020? mr. cameron: while, first of all, i believe that the last government does rightly claim that record, the world's first green investment take, pioneered in britain, and renewable energy, a meeting of all of our climate change targets, contributing to a new deal at means that we go to the climate change conference in paris with a very strong european record and the ability to say to other countries that they should step up to the plate. weo, in the last parliament, spent record sums helping developing countries to go green, and in the next five years, we will be spending 9 billion dollars i helping other countries, which will be crucial in building the paris deal next week.
you, mr. speaker. the problem with the prime minister's answer is that the gap between britain's 2020 target and our current share of renewable energy is the biggest in the european union, and some of his decisions he has made recently, such as cutting homest for solar power on and industrial, scrapping the green deal, cutting support for wind turbines, putting a new tax , affectinge energy diesel generators, is it any wonder that the chief scientist of the united nations environment program has criticized britain going backwards on renewable energy? mr. cameron: the facts paint different pictures. the wind power in the last parliament, that is an a enormous investment, and also, to make the debate about solar panels, of course, when the cost of manufacturing solar panels plummets, as it has, it is right to reduce the subsidy. if we do not reduce the subsidy, we ask people to pay higher
energy bills, something i seem to remember the labour party in the last parliament making rather a lot of the i think if you look at the speech, you will see the right balance between affordable energy and making sure we meet our green targets. that is what we are committed to, and in addition to that, building the first nuclear power station for decades in our country, something that the , andr party talks about that we are putting into action now that we are in power. >> mr. speaker, thousands of , and i haveen lost a question from some a print and solar fitters at bannister house, a large community energy project. ziggy, israel, and jay say that cutting feed in tariffs means stopping solar projects that are needed to help our environment and to give us jobs. they asked to the prime minister
this. why do you want to throw all of this away? we are doubling investment in renewable energy in this parliament, and as for solar panels, i think i am right in saying that in the previous parliament, over one million homes were fitted with solar panels. it is right that we go on supporting that industry, but we should do it recognizing that the cost of manufacturing solar panels has plummeted. therefore, the subsidy should the what is necessary to deliver solar power, not what is necessary to pump up the perils of hard-working families. >> jeremy corbyn. corbyn: that is not much help to those who are losing their jobs in the solar industry at the present time. i would like to as the prime minister something else. today is the international day for the elimination of violence against women. on average, two women a week are killed by a current or former partner, and to mystic violence
accounts for up to a quarter of all violent crime. will the prime minister please explain why one third of those referred to women's refuges in england are mr. cameron: now being turned away? we up more money into refuges, and the chancellor will have some thing to say in his autumn statement about funding women's charities. the fact is that when it comes to rape crisis centers, we have protected or domestic violent centers that we help fund. the government have a good record on helping women and making sure that the crime of domestic violence is properly investigated by police and prosecuted in our courts. >> jeremy corbyn. mr. corbyn: the late denise marshall, who was chief executive of the domestic put thischarity eaves, very well when she said -- if you're a woman who has experienced some form of
violence, i believe that you have the right to the very best service, and the community owes you an opportunity to recover. in 2012, the prime minister's government signed the istanbul convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. this would make women support services statutory and would have stopped the closure of eaves. can the prime minister please tell the house when he will ratify the istanbul convention? go oneeron: we can further than that, and in the autumn statement, the right honorable gerald and will be here in a minute that we are going to be putting more money into women's charities, including charities that fight domestic violence, that i rape, and that make sure that we cut out those appalling crimes in our country. in addition to that, we have done more than any previous government to help that forced marriage and prevent the horrors of female genital mutilation, which do not just happen in nigeria and countries in north africa. they happen here in our country also. i do not think any government before this one have got a stronger record on these
grounds. m >>aria caulfield. caulfield: many of my constituents come to my surgery desperate to be able to get their own home. many of them are on a low income, and they recognize that the monthly mortgage payment will be significantly lower than their current monthly rental payments. d therefore share the excitement of my constituents about the housing and planning bill? mr. cameron: i do share my honorable friends enthusiasm for that. clearly, there are a lot of individual interventions we can make, such as helping to buy, which has put buying homes in the reach of many more people by reducing the deposits they need. we can help people save, which we do with our help to buy isa, but the biggest contribution we can make is by building more houses, which we are going to be doing or in this parliament and crucially by maintaining a
strong, secure, and stable economy, with low interest rates so people can afford to take out a mortgage. >> angus robertson. begin byson: may i associating the scottish national party with condolences sent by the prime minister? having spoken to him last week, i am aware how much of a personal loss this is due them, as, of course, it is to chris martin's family and friends. fatal dangers -- of unintended consequences and escalation in syria are clear for everybody. and from which, countries, the supply minister have in his plan for syria? first, i thank you for your remarks about chris martin, whom i know held all parties in this house when they had inquiries. this is crucial. i am not for one minute arguing
that action from the air alone can solve the very serious problem we have with isil. clearly, we need a little settlement in syria and a government in syria that can act copperheads oblique with us again isil. for the house which we will address tomorrow and in the days to come if should we wait, can we afford to wait, for that political settlement before we act? and my view is no, we cannot wait for that political settlement. we should work as hard as we can for it, but we should be acting now with allies because this is about keeping our own people and her own country safe. he asked specifically about ground troops. the fact is there are ground troops in syria, the free syrian army and the kurdish forces, who would work with us to help eliminate isil. range of, the full troops will not be available until there is a typical settlement in syria, but my question is simple. can we afford to wait for that single settlement before taking action to keep us safe at home?
and my answer is no, we cannot afford to wait. >> angus robertson. the unitedon: kingdom has spent 13 more times on bombing syria than on investing in its reconstruction after the overthrow of the gadhafi regime. we constructing syria. how much has he allocated from the u.k.? we have one of the largest reconstruction developing budgets anywhere in the world as we support that. we have given the syrian refugees, 1.2 billion pounds. clearly, part of our plan will be to help to fund the reconstruction and rebuilding of syria alongside the political deal that we believe is necessary. far rather, frankly, spend the money reconstructing syria than on some porting people who are kept away from their homes, kept away from their country, who dearly want to return. >> richard drax.
thank you, mr. speaker. i know that my right honorable friend is aware of the growing chorus of concern surrounding the conviction of alexander the former royal marine noncommissioned office or who shot a fatally wounded insurgent enough get a stand in 2011. would my right honorable friend agree with me that it is right that this matter should be looked into again? this is exactly with the criminal cases review commission exists to look at, where there is or may have been a miscarriage of justice. as he knows, we gave the internal report of the naval services to sergeantma lackn's legalgeant blackman's advisers, so there is proper disclosure in this case. say that our royal
marines have a worldwide reputation as one of the world elite fighting forces, and they have made an incredible contribution to our country, and we should picture to them. >> margaret ferrier. ferrier: the government's handling of the child sexual abuse inquiries has done little to instill public confidence so far. last month, the goddard inquiry announced that it had accidentally and permanent legal related -- permanently deleted all victim testimony submitted through its website over an 18-day period without anyone from the inquiry even reading them. pleasee prime minister tell the house what independent investigation has taken place to establish the cause of the data and to establish whether or not there was any criminality behind it? i amameron: first of all, sure the whole house will welcome the fact that the goddard inquiry is now up and
running, and the best way to get justice for these victims is to make sure that we have the full and independent inquiry that we have spoken about. this is a matter for the inquiry. if there is further detail, i will certainly write to her, but what matters is that the inquiry is up and running. >> robert jenrick. 3000 jobs in new york or lost under -- in newark were lost under labour. can the prime minister agree leads the that newark way again to a strong economy, high employment, higher wages, and lower welfare? i am delighted to hear that newark has meant that landmark. it is well worth remembering this figure represents 10,000 people. well remember visiting my
friends constituency. i cannot promise to visit as many times in this parliament as i did in the previous one, but there was the creation of 800 newarknd as ever, where leads, i am sure others will follow. berry: has the prime minister ever heard of shaquan cartwright,r, alan stefan appleton, or vaso kakko? they are all teenagers, stabbed to death in the streets of islington in the past year. two daysmurdered just ago. does the primacy really think it is in the interests of safety and security of my constituents
to cut the metropolitan police? r. cameron: overall, knife down, but there are still too many people carrying a knife and not recognizing that it is not only against the law but at a enormous danger to themselves and to others, so we will continue with arch up on knife -- weand to disband gangs will continue our work on knife crime. the metropolitan police have done a good job at cutting back office costs and putting police on our streets. >> steve double. mr. double: after many years of rnwallt under labour, co is once again seeing investment in our roads, railways, airport, and tourism. cornwall is ambitious to diversify its economy and become a center for the u.k. aerospace
industry. providee prime minister an update on the decision for the spaceport, and does he agree that newquay would be the big place for it? it is good that this parliament contained such strong voices for cornwall, speaking up with that county and ensuring that it gets the assistance, resources, and help that it needs. i am a strong supporter of newquay airport. will create jobs. there are a number of other airports in the running, so i wish them all well, and i can tell him that we are aiming to launch the selection process next year. siddiq. ms. siddiq: the government and i disagree.
the primacy last year when he pledged to change the law to include mothers on marriage certificates. i have heard nothing since. while the prime minister take the important symbolic step to ensure that mothers are not written out of history? mr. cameron: this is an area where the honorable lady and i agree, and my understanding is that proposals for legislation have gone to the relevant committees in government, and she has made a very articulate case for why that bill should be included in the next session. >> graham stuart. stuart: thank you, mr. speaker. will the prime minister join me in commending the french government for facing down terror and continuing the climate summit in paris next week? will yet knowledge the important role of legislators, such as those at the globe summit on the fourth and fifth
of december, and does he agree that this personal presence in paris sent a message to the world about our continuing commitment to a lasting climate deal? mr. cameron: i am grateful for what my right honorable friend says. i will be going to paris to set out what britain and the european union will be doing to bring about a deal. as i have said, what we a put on the deal in terms -- on the table in terms of climate finance, nearly $9 billion over the next five years, is one of the most generous offers made by any country anywhere in the world. the good news about the paris conference is that unlike the kyoto deal, china and america will be signatories to the deal, which means much more of the world's will be covered by this deal. is aed to make sure it good deal with proper review clauses and a way of tightening any deal to make sure we keep to two degrees. nobody should be in any doubt that britain is playing a leading role and is lead by example and with money. >> caroline flint. speaker, there
will never be a future where we do not need steel. can i asked the prime minister if he will send a clear signal today to those potential investors in our u.k. steel industry that he will do whatever it takes to back a sustainable, cutting edge u.k. industry in the future? we want to see steel that is used in the u.k. and across the world stamped with "made in britain." i completely agree. we want to support our steel industry, which is why we are taking action on procurement. we should back the british steel. we are also going to be exempting heavy energy users, like british steel, from the higher electricity charges, but it does go, i have to say, to to theorable lady questions asked by the leader of the opposition. it costs even more to exempt
behind energy users. that is why you need a balanced program. everything we can do to help british steel, including a very clear infrastructure plan that you will be hearing a bit more about in a moment. it is all good. >> mark garnier. garnier: thank you, mr. speaker. in 2010, unemployment in wyre around 5% of the working population and has now dropped to just 1.6%. to helpfriend agree those who are still unemployed and to boost productivity? we need more opportunities and skills training. does my right honorable friend of agree with that, and what more can the government due to offer helpful places such as wyre forest? mr. cameron: they should have a real choice of either being able to take on an apprenticeship, and we are planning on 3 million in this parliament, or to be
able to go to one of our universities. we do not want anyone left behind. everyone should have that choice breeds he is right that unemployment has fallen in his constituency as around the country. we will hear from the chancellor in a minute about what happened over the past five years, but the fact is that britain over those five years has grown as fast as any other g7 country in terms of our economic performance, and we can now look back and see the decisions that were made in 2010, 2011, and 20 tells -- and 2012 were difficult, but they were laying the foundation. ssain: at the man at the bottom of the league tables, cannot be children failed any longer, so will the prime minister support my call for a bradford challenge, based on the highly successful london challenge, and will you stop dangerous changes to the schools
funding formula that would drag the children of bradford further into the land of inequality, despair, and neglect? mr. cameron: we made commitment at the last election about funding our schools and funding school places, and we will be keeping all of those commitments, not just the revenue that we provide to schools, where we will not be reducing the amount that goes in her pupil but also spending much more on new school places in this parliament that in the parliament that preceded me becoming prime minister. we are also helping with building new academy chains and new free schools, and they are available for his constituency as for others. edinnick.tr tredinnick: does he agree that the turmoil in northern iraq and syria gives opportunities to resolve long-standing international disputes, not the least with russia? and does he agree that the attack on the russian bomber,
something that never happen in the whole of the duration of the cold war, was disproportionate, and will you make absolutely sure that we do not get into a conflict with russia over syria? will say is what i that there are opportunities for sensible discussions with russia about the agenda in syria, which is about a political transition, so there can be a government who represents the people of syria, and i had that conversation with president putin last week. you mentioned the downed russian jet get i think we should respect turkey's right to protect its airspace, just as we defend our own, but i think it is very important that we get to the bottom of exactly what happened. cunningham -- >> mr. cunningham. the primegham: minister often tells us that the first duty of government is to protect the public.
will he give an undertaking to restore the cuts to the police and emergency services to ensure the public in this country are protected? we had a funding situation with the police that help them with a cut in crime of 31% since i became prime minister. >> jake berry. morton, a drunk driver, destroyed the lives of amy baxter and hayley jones, baxter so severely injured that she is paralyzed from the neck down and still in hospital 16 months later. he was sentenced to just a three-year driving ban, a fine, and a 20-week tags. weeks later, he successfully magistratesolton court for his tact to be removed
so he could go on holiday to a stag party. will my right honorable friend looked to issue guidance to magistrates that a tag, what part of a sense, should never be removed to allow criminals to go on holiday? i was not sitting in the courthouse and did not hear all of the points made, but the point he makes does seem to be very powerful. a punishment is a punishment. a tag is a tag, and i think he is making a very strong case. >> stewart mcdonald. today's middle east is increasingly resembling the central europe of a century ago. my constituents, the scottish national party, and i understand the threat posed to groups by daesh.
how was the premise are planning to prosecute a bombing campaign that does not alter the demographic map of the middle east, preventing aleppo from mosulng the new lublin or the new budapest? mr. cameron: we will set arguments tomorrow. we do not live in a perfect world, but we can deliver a clear, long term strategy that will work. now, he talks about the lessons we learned from the last century. sayof these lessons i would we should learn from the last century is when your country is under threat, and when you face aggression against york country, you cannot and thusly sit around and dream about a perfect world. you need to live in the world we are in. ghani.at ghani: will my right honorable friend to join me in congratulating the staff at the
birthing unit, including the midwives and the ers, and localhamb activist richard hallett, on scoring 100%? the commitment of the midwives is matched only by the conservative commitment. mr. cameron: my right honorable friend is right to highlight be friends and family tests. it is a simple way of measuring whether our hospitals are giving great care, and i think it has been a real advance in our nhs, but as well as to make sure you would want your friends and family treated in a hospital, we need to provide the resources for that hospital, and that is exactly what we are doing with the spending years released today. it is crucial not only on childbirth, and it is not often that i stand here inside "the but it is worth looking at what it is saying about the importance of the the seven-day and
nhs is also going to mean a much stronger nhs. tasmina ahmed-sheikh. ahmed-sheikh: the big lottery fund supports import local projects in my constituencies, and some are left behind. will the prime minister join with me in congratulating these local projects on their work and reassure the house that this government will protect the current level of national lottery funding earmarked for charities and trinity projects? i can surly tell the young lady that will be protecting the lottery fund. it doesn't excellent job, but im afraid i cannot resist making the point that, of course, one anthe things -- it does excellent job, but i'm afraid i cannot resist making the point, of course, that one of the things that the united kingdom
brings is a bigger national lottery. let me just make this point. following what has happened to the oil price, if there was a scottish november autumn statement, it would be a statement that was about cuts, taxes, taxes, taxes, with no relief from the national lottery. announcer: coming up at about 20 minutes, president obama is set to pardon the annual thanksgiving turkey in a ceremony in the white house rose garden. it is the 60th anniversary of the pardon, and after the pardoning, they will live out their days in virginia. that is at 2:45 p.m. here on eastern. host: november is native american heritage month, and here to talk about that and issues facing native american communities is the executive council of a
american indians, and as we get to the end of the year, 2015, what is the state of native american tribes and communities in the united dates? guest: we believe tribal governments are strong and getting stronger. addressing the governmental needs, but then we also see this great resilience at least in our cultural values, in our language. host: we have 5.2 million americans who identify themselves that are american indian or alaska native. there are 560 six federally recognized tribes in the u.s.. what does it take for eight try to be recognized by the american states? guest: there is a process they must go through. a must demonstrate that they have always had a governmental relationship, and ongoing governmental relationship, not
the function of another tribe or a group that might have splintered off, and that they have a continuing kind of presence in the community, unless they had been reinforcing other policies of the federal government. host: the executive director of the congress of american indians. based here in washington. what is the role of your organization in terms of what you are looking for from the federal government, and which is the organization in government that your work deals with the most? are thee say we national congress of american indians, just as congress is, so as you mention, there is 566 tribes. tribes are a member of our organization, and they have representatives that send delegates to our meetings, and then we passed resolutions, just like congress passes laws, and
those give us the policy directions that they want us to seek and washington, d.c. it was created in 1944 to be the eyes and ears of the indian country so that there is a presence in washington, d.c., and there was not policy creep up that we did not know of, and we are also a consensus-based organization. we actually get work done and by consensus, and we deal with policies. congress reaches out to us to get information. we work very closely with the white house and very closely with the department of interior, usda, and hhs, or host: we welcome your calls.
for those of you in the eastern and central time zones -- and for native americans, a special line set aside. what are some of the top issues -- you are among the 566, what are the top issues your members are looking for to talk about with the federal government? guest: right now, we are trying to address some of the implementations and how it effects tribes. with the department of interior, we are working on trying to streamline the land leasing processes and land into trust processes so we can restore land that might have been taken from us or we need to purchase back. we can accessre them for viable economic
development. president obama talked about native american youth in the travel conference earlier this month. : when we talk a lot the future of indian country, we are talking but the future of young people. i don't need to tell you the enormous challenges they face. native children are far more likely to grow up in poverty, suffer from significant health inblems, face obstacles educational opportunity. a lot of young people i have met have gone through more than anyone should have to go through in an entire lifetime. losing family members to violence, suicide or addiction and struggling with the kind of poverty that is unacceptable in the richest nation on earth. these circumstances, sometimes it is hard to dream your way to a better life and these challenges not just happen randomly to indian country. , thewere the result
accumulation of systematic discrimination. but for all our young people have endured, the gun people i have met have given me incredible hope. i've seen so much determination and in the words of the naked it -- the native american writer, courage has been bred into you. it is in your blood. and you are not alone. i want our young people to know we believe in you. that is why we started something called generation indigenous which focuses on cultivating the potential of our native youth. at least 20 tribal natives have become brothers keepers communities. has the situation improved for native american youth? andt: yes, absolutely, indian country. president obama is the best
president for indian country we have ever had. and i am not just saying that. tribal leaders to the table to have policy conversations at the highest level. a quick snapshot on that native american communities -- rate, labor participation 67% among youth in native communities. alcoholism and mortality rates are 514% higher than the general population. 16% report substance abuse and 12% illicit drug use. it also has the highest associated rate of meth use in the country. guest: i know that people don't necessarily understand what that means, but it hasn't been that
long ago that we had forced removal of our children to go to boarding school. my mom went to boarding school and my husband's mother went to boarding school. we are still trying to redress those issues and when we get back to our culture and the language that we practice, the strength of our youth and communities resounds. waiting.have callers it's good to william in washington, d c. caller: what are your thoughts on the washington rich kids? that is a question we can definitely speak about. in 1968, nci past our first resolution addressing this derogatory name and mascots. are very involved in change the name and want to create a
win/win environment to create a name that works and we are seeing across the country, people are changing the name of their team and rallying together. they have the red hawks -- schools across the country, a deed is came out and announced thatwill help any school needs financial support in changing the name. we see this is an era of respect and recognition for our tribal people as who we really are. host: what is your take on the name? caller: i think it is political correct this gone amok myself. the line for native americans -- let's hear from alexis in wilmington, north carolina.
hello, alexis? are you there? caller: hi. in the last to know seven years, yes, can you hear me? host: listen to your phone, not the tv. caller: i would like to know what last seven years has brought to the american indian community as far as the republican blocking almost all of the obama administration initiatives and how that has affected the community. we are one of the communities that works really well in a partisan fashion. we need republicans and democrats to get our issues passed through congress and the support of the administration. , weng the last seven years
were able to get a lot of things accomplished. we were able to get the violence against women act passed, the indian health care improvement act passed, and all of those are critical. theere able to settle settlement and have had a lot of wins in the last seven years, but only because we have to recognize we have to work both sides of the aisle. syd in saratoga springs, go ahead. is, with allestion the native american gambling casinos in this country, why can't those tribes throughout the country request more funds and help from these gambling casinos to ease some of the problems some of these native
americans are having in various parts of the country? i would have to say it's not any different from the state of connecticut helping the state of rhode island. you have to do that by mutual consent. certain sanctions on connecticut to say you have to send a certain portion of money to rhode island. and evenribes that do though you see is across the manyry, there are not that that are successful. those that are contribute aggressively to indian country. they have stellar records of giving back and continue to do so on a regular basis. what is the number of native american run casinos?
there are a little over 200 casinos and probably 25 to 40 more in the successful range than others. the rest operate -- you see state operated business, they do it and all the revenues that come from gambling are did hated to go back to the community. the education and supplements the federal system. asidewe have a line set for native americans. it's rosslyn in saratoga county. caller: hi. my question is concerning the national congress of indian effectiveness across the usa. in 1976, i held the title for the national congress for american indians. i was wondering, based on your
experience over the years, how n caiive do you think the organization has been as far as identifying individual tribal concerns. i am navajo from the navajo reservation. i would like to have your comment on that. n cai has grown not only in its political voice, but in the representation of tribes. we collaborate with the national indian education association, the health care and the list goes on. recognizing them as technical experts and bringing together policy leaders, and we have tribes that participate regularly. presidently elected
of the navajo nation gave an incredibly powerful speech, so -- wehough our membership work for the benefit of all tribes whether they are members were not. what is the largest tribe in the united states? guest: the navajo nation. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? your guest andss congratulate her on the way she expresses herself and address the whole nation. robert and inius what they to address have called the washington redskins. this would be lyrically correct
and literally correct, the name the washington dc americans because they were the americans. they were misnamed indians. to pull this political crop republicans pulled all the time, anyone in his this of colonial lysing the area and colonial lysing people and taking what belongs to them, they have misconstrued the subject. the subject is the name of the people who were here. america -- not the intruders and interlopers came to this area. the issue of the name comes up a lot and people wonder why it is a big deal to us. it really represents what people think and they respect behind
it. we have seen study after study with our youth that when they see these images how it makes them feel. "washington journal" live every morning on c-span. we leave now to go live to the white house for the annual turkey pardoning. obama: good afternoon. have a seat. feel free to keep on gobbling. fouru may have heard, months, there has been a fierce competition between a bunch of turkey's trying to win their way into the white house. some of you caught that. today, i can announce the american people have spoken and we have two winners. babe names are honest and -- and abe. i confess that honest looks like good eating, but this is a
democracy. abe is a free bird. tus -- the turkey of the united states. is he attacking you? my political director is getting packed. i want to thank the chairman of the national turkey federation, dr. douglas as the farmer who personally raised this turkey in california's central valley. america is a country of second chances and this turkey has earned a second chance to win out his live comfortably on 1000 completelocal land, with a barn called "the white house on turkey help." -- turkey hill." if for some reason, he cannot
fulfill his duties to walk ,round and gobble all day honest is in an undisclosed location ready to serve in the line of succession. oh, boy. by the way, i'm going to publicly thank melia and sasha for once again standing here with me during the turkey pardon. [applause] they do this solely because it makes me feel good. they actually think this is something i should be doing. [laughter] as you get older, you appreciate
when your kids just indulge you like this, so i am grateful. where was i? today, michelle, melia, sasha and i will take some of the last -- some of the less fortunate turkey brothers with us. they will have been packed and frozen, to serve meals to homeless veterans here in washington, d.c. [applause] not only of the spirit of giving during this holiday season, but our national obligation to make sure all those who served and sacrificed for our country have a place to call home. my administration considers this one of our top priorities, considering that we are bringing about the reality of zero homelessness for our veterans. i would like to thank the turkey -- inn in sylvania
pennsylvania for donating the turkeys for the seventh year in a row. [applause] to believe this is my seventh year of pardoning a turkey. time flies, even if turkeys don't. [laughter] >> that was good. obama: you think it's funny, don't you? i know some folks think this tradition is a little silly. i do not disagree. i've got to listen to my critics say i'm often too soft on turkeys and i'm sure the press is digging into whether the turkeys i have pardoned have really rededicated their lives to being good turkey citizens, but i do enjoy this chance to wish america a happy thanksgiving. through challenging times
of theoften, the news day can make folks discouraged. but the fact is, we live in the greatest country on earth and we are blessed in so many ways, most of all because we have family and friends and people we care about. we look out for each other, we look out for our neighbors and grateful for the brave men and women of our military who served all around the world and for the families who miss them. grateful to have the privilege and honor to serve as your president. factalso grateful for the that the bears are going to beat the packers this weekend. with that, i hope everyone has a very happy thanksgiving and i'm now going to go over and, with the power vested in me officially pardon this turkey.
president obama: see you guys. [applause] >> the tradition of presenting a live turkey to the president aides back to the 1940's. it usually ended up with the chosen bird served at the thanksgiving dinner. it wasn't until 1987 that president reagan introduce the idea of pardoning a bird for the first time. coming up tonight, we will show new head offrom the the smithsonian institution. he talks about new exhibits, technology and controversial works of art. he talks about his approach and handle exhibits that may be seen as controversial. here is a look.
david: i believe that artists, whatever kind of artists they are, they could be dancers, musicians, performing artist or visual artists made perceive their world of it differently. they may perceive trends sooner than the general populace perceives trends. thatcreating an expression reflects a different perception of currency of reality, they may bump into people who do not share that point of view. go bygo by or generations and perhaps that was a perception of something that turned out to be true. creative activity across the spectrum of human activity will engender controversy. we have to be ready for it and i think a few axioms to me would curator professional, a backed by a normal institutional process is done correctly decides to put something up, we should not take it down, even if there is public outcry, even if
there is concern. one of the examples now is margaret sanger's bust in the national portrait gallery. in that case, i cannot be more supportive of the decision of the director of the national portrait gallery and the undersecretary -- undersecretary that we have to tell the story of our country, both the parts we are very proud of and the parts we shake our heads about and wonder. because otherwise, how are we going to understand and think more toward the future? >> that's just a brief version of an event held with the new head of the smithsonian institution. you can see his entire comments tonight starting at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. on c-span2, discussion on how government regulates food in the united states, including school lunches and genetically modified foods and labeling policy. on c-span3, it's a look at the 2016 presidential election with remarks from two gun rights
organizations. c-span has the best access to congress with live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate on c-span2. over thanksgiving, watch our conversations with six freshmen members of congress. buddy carter and the only pharmacist serving in congress. at 10:30, a new jersey democrat and longtime union electrician. democrat, a california and former restaurant owner. walker, republican from north carolina and baptist minister in his first elected office. and saturday morning at 10:00, fromesswoman mimi walters california, the former state senator who in turn in d.c. as a college student and a massachusetts democrat, harvard graduate and marine who served for tours in iraq. congress iscess to
c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> john hinckley, of course was the person who shot president reagan and president reagan was not wearing a bullet-proof vest. stalking jimmyas carter before this. then sunday, the author of book "assassinations, threats, and the american presidency" talks about various assassination attempts and physical threats made against president and presidential candidates throughout history. >> there have been 16 presidents who have faced assassination threats, none directly since ronald reagan. i talk about huey long who in 1975 was assassinated. i talked about robert kennedy in 1968, who was assassinated. and george wallace who was shot in 1972.yzed for life
i cover candidates as well as presidents, and it is a long list. night at 8:00 pacific on c-span's "q&a." a look now at the presidential legacy of george w. bush. authors and academics offer ideas about his political ideology and the vice -- and the influence of vice president dick cheney. this is about 90 minutes. >> it seems hard to believe that five years ago when we set the date of the conference and two years of intensive planning with the faculty program committee, with our conference staff and university, that
we are coming to closure. i don't think we will reach closure on a legacy decision, but i think that is to be discussed today. we have certainly been informed and enlightened by the conversations and the debates at this conference. for me, i have spoken to several people this morning and attending the plenary previously on what lessons we have learned from this conference -- the lessons that have been reinforced from the scholarly , the significance of that change, not just for policy making, but for the president, the evolving role of the vice president, the changing role of
professorresident -- warshaw has written about that and that assessment has been magnified and brought home by several narratives throughout the session. baker's book also makes that point. we have seen some very different world views presented, particularly in foreign affairs. that raises the question, will the documents, will the archives make a difference? is this legacy still unfolding? from theertainly seen officials who work on president bush, from cabinet officials to staff members to political experts and the personal likability of president and mrs. bush was clear. also clear was that this was a
highly consequential residency. they were all days of fire. is we reconcile those two part of what i hope we will have a chance to discuss and how the legacy will unfold today. i'm going to give very brief introductions of my colleagues and i'm also going to say a few words on behalf of the author of george w. bush, the latest volume in the series that arthur's less mature developed. night, so he did not have a voice and i said we will bring you back another night. me a recent opinion piece he wrote for the l.a. times and a few thoughts. to setng to presented the stage for discussion and in turn the floor over to my colleagues.
greatmoderator -- it's a honor to be moderate this session with the director of the center for presidential history at southern methodist university. he's award-winning -- an award-winning diplomatic historian and the author of numerous books, including works on the gulf war. the china diary of torch aged of you bush and numerous other projects. when we started the planning for the conference, i communicated with him to say i hope some representatives from southern will be here, so it is great to be moderating the session today. speakers distinguished --e all written extensively extensively and presidential
studies. she has written 10 books on presidential decision making and the book that is particularly relevant today is the co-presidency of george w. bush and the cheney. she will be discussing that shortly. i'm particularly appreciative her wonderfulng students today. a round of applause for all of you. thank you for coming and enriching our discussion. teacher and the department of local science from towson university, the author of numerous works, including a book that one the richard neustadt award from the american political science group, managing the president message. she has written other books on transition and is completing a
book on presidential transitions and we will be discussing that today. the associate professor from concordia university and the author of a book that came out in 2013 and is particularly relevant to our discussion today -- take up your pen -- universal residential directives in politics. the point -- let me quickly read in if you will, a statement this opinion piece in the los angeles times. saying bush's presidency is likely to be remembered for his lack of caution and restraint. once in the midst of a discussion with his advisers, he made a telling observation. someone has to be risk averse and it better be you, because i'm not. in foreignbles
policy and the economy. sometimes they paid off yet overall, country paid heavily. history is not likely to revise that judgment. iraq,cusses the tax cuts, and the concise analysis of the issues. the legacy is still unfolding and if you are in the previous was wrought tax cut up as one of the achievements. some people say these were actually detrimental to the economy. i think there were some good points about monetary versus fiscal policy and the complexity of the economy and questions about economic choices. say a single policy is good or bad.
what are the consequences for the other choices we make. these are some of the issues. how do we address that as we look at foreign policy, do must policy, economic policy, political leadership, and campaigning. with that range of topics, let me turn over the floor to professor warshaw. >> thank you, everyone. it is a joy to be here. doctor has put together a magnificent conference. she doesn't get thanked enough. thank you. [applause] i was in a wonderful panel -- every panel is wonderful. here and said you
have about 20 or 25 minutes before you lose everybody. tv shows, presidential speeches, whatever, so i'm going to be far less than that so i hope to completely capture your attention in the 10 or 12 minutes that i have. she asked our panel to talk about the political ideology of george bush. graham dobbs is going to talk .bout some thought was george w. bush conservative, was he a neoconservative, i love the way he and his paper. i want to offer a new framework because what i think is he does
have a very clear ideology. it is framed within his own personal moral code. the political ideology of george w. bush is extremely conservative when you think of it in terms of pro-business, pro-government, political ideology, but that is not who george w. bush is. that is who dick cheney is. i have written extensively on george bush and dick cheney and you will hear about this in my talk. what george bush was was a moral pragmatist. wanted to doush was build a civil and moral society. ownke those words from his constant references to building a moral and civil society. he wrote a book called "a charge -- he said "the proper
role for government is to build a single moral community." remember, president george w. bush had his own moral awakening -- he had some long-term drinking problems and quit cold turkey. when he goes cold turkey, he becomes a born-again christian. that is who comes to the governorship -- this born-again sense that the government should have a moral compass. government should welcome the active involvement of people who are following a religious imperative. hisrgued throughout both terms as governor and terms in the white house for religious organizations to play a key role in partnership with the federal government. his religiosity drove who he was
through his entire medical career. involved -- remember, he has this awakening his985 -- in 1988 and 1992, father is running for president. he asked george w who had this religious conversion to reach out to these religious coalitions in support of george h.w. bush's candidacy. becomes hisve political mentor in 1994, it is that very sense that i can reach out to these conservatives to become a keystone of the bush governorship and the bush presidency. so what is the political ideology this panel is asked to address? it is where government holds a
moral society. always rub her, that is who george bush is. how can government use the compass of religion to build a moral and civil society? i spent a lot of time with the reagan people and they wanted to continue the reagan mantra, but that is not who george bush is. buildaw it as a tool to social programs that advanced a moral and civil society. i would suggest bush's ideology keep"ted in "a charge to in which he argued that the government would expand religious programs. his 1999ident in gubernatorial speech, and this is absolutely telling about who george bush was. in 1999, he had just one a
second term as texas governor. the promenade, bush called upon texas to become a moral and spiritual center for the nation. he rip you to leave referred to god and faith in god. "we must rally the armies of compassion. this is who george bush is. when he was inaugurated in 2001, his speech was peppered with phrases. "when we see that wounded traveler on the road to jericho, we will not pass to the other side of the road. -- for bush,ricans
building a moral and civil , while dick cheney focused on the pro-business agenda. co-presidency was a wonderful division of labor that allowed george w. bush to pursue compassionate conservatism and the moral compass of government and big cheney to focus on the pro-business agenda. bush only had three domestic agendas. tax cuts, immigration reform, standardized learning. the pro-business agenda, the anti-regulatory agenda which dick cheney moved, he reluctantly accepted it, he was somewhat of a conservative, it
was the moral compass he wanted to pursue. bush's relationship with god guided his faith-based presidency. i bet you did not know he held prayer meetings in the white house most morning and i bet you didn't know every cabinet meeting held for eight years began with a prayer. every cabinet officer was told when they came to that cabinet meeting, each one was given a day they had to have a prayer to begin the cabinet meeting. for bush, the world was seen through the lens of good and evil, right and wrong, focused with evangelical ideology. his world was built around his face. in theome older faces audience. in the 2000 iowa presidential debate with other the moderator candidates, who is
your favorite philosopher? george bush answered it is jesus christ. i want to mention because i want , they wereut the war spending 2.1 billion dollars programs,ith-based including programs in prism that ensured if you talked to jesus you would be cured. , itinence only education could go on and on. nothing facilitated dick cheney posture medic rise to power more inn the role god played george w. bush's life. for george bush, building a moral and civil society allowed to focus on everyone else. dick cheney manage the
transition, he was in charge of hiring everyone in the administration. so the pro-business agenda was enabled by dick cheney. but then came 9/11. -- while hece faith-based presidency was never abandoned, it was overtaken by the war presidency. this is important because what happens now is interesting. the war presidency became the center of the faith based presidency. good versus evil, right book -- right versus wrong, for george bush, winning the war on terror would be done with religious fervor. some of the panelists talked about this. right after 9/11, what does george bush do, he has a religious service at the national cathedral and declares a national day of prayer.
relating terrorism and of some of bin laden to evil was a daily chore. it comes from the book of psalms. bush declared god is not neutral and supports the righteous and identified the righteous in the war that god said was the united states. he suggested the blessings of liberty, a phrase used to describe the war in iraq were all part of gods plan. david from -- you may remember, he wrote a speech in which he talked about the axis of hatred. another speech writer came in and changed those words from axis of hatred to axis of evil. because evildoers are a biblical term and what george bush wanted to do was framed the war on terror with a biblical sense to ensure we were right. ofology became a large part
not only everything george bush did but it focused on the war in iraq. all we want about why we go into iraq, but you have to separate you george bush was, dick cheney, you have to separate the war in iraq from who george bush was. bush called for a free iraq to protect freedom of religion. bush's christian conservative ideology influenced everything about this war. u.s. soldiers painted a mural in baghdad that said "thank god for and freedomn forces fighters at home and abroad. saddam'strance to palace, u.s. soldiers had a whole sign that said bible study, wednesdays at 7:00.
the military was being transformed into a faith-based military in line with bush's presidency. so, going back to our original question. what was the political ideology of george w. bush? the answer is simple. george w. bush was actually a fiscal conservative. welcomed the contribution of his vice president, dick cheney to molding his administration into a strong am a pro-business administration. for howthe clear vision to control the federal bureaucracy and shape the bureaucracy with the right personnel, bush would have been far less successful in shifting governmental priorities to the right. i should also note bush never often very -- that
was all dick cheney. when we assess the ideology of dort -- of george w. bush who is not conservative, not really, not in the ronald reagan way who want smaller government, reagan argued for smaller government. nothing george bush did argued for smaller government. the federal budget increased more under george w. bush than any president in history. and bush was not a neoconservative. ofre were a lot neoconservatives in his administration, but he was not one of them. the connection george bush had to ronald reagan -- bush championed tax reductions and he got them. he had no problem with an activist government at work with face -- faith-based groups.
to cut regulatory oversight. what was george bush's political ideology? it was exactly what you saw -- a man who sought to improve citizens lives using the compass of his worn again christianity combined with the resources of the federal government. it was most visible in the painting in his oval office -- he names his book "a charge to keep" after the painting whose message he believed was to serve god in all of one's actions. that was the message he wanted to bring to his presidency and that was his political ideology. he had a charge to keep. he says faith changes lives and i know because faith has changed mine. he wanted to use the values to
was simples -- it and straightforward. lives.ent can improve the idea ofsson conservatives? certainly he had only a limited the reaganp to revolution. he expanded social service programming and infused many with christian values. it was cheney's view of a government with fewer regulations and fewer mandates that fostered was's alliance with conservatives. in summary, bush was a hybrid conservative whose personal value structure governed his
faith-based presidency both in the mastech and foreign policy -- domestic and foreign policy. with that, i will sit down and let arthur talk. -- martha talked. [applause] >> good afternoon. this has been a good conference that has generated a lot of discussion. discussions panels of was he right, did he do things correctly, did he not? when you look at the presidential transition, the transition was into the white house, it was an excellent transition, only 37 days to do it and they had it very well organized so that when he came into office, he had his agenda down. the first week, they discussed
education, then faith raised and then strengthening the military. weeks after that, budget cuts and tax reform, they are able to stick to their agenda and not spend time talking about the election. a good transition was important for all of us and the quality of their hand over power to president obama. transitions matter and that one in particular did. on inauguration day, the tradition is the incoming president comes to the white coffee withey have the outgoing president and vice president.
the incoming vice president comes as well as in a sit and have their coffee and then go up to the hill. this inauguration day was a little different. in the situation room, there was a meeting where they talked intelligence and national convened theeople incoming and outgoing department heads and agencies to discuss the thread on inauguration and the last few days, a threat came up and the threat was from al-shabaab. that there was going to be some kind of attack. at at the samet time that the two presidents were about to go up to the hill. the benefit of all the work they
had done leading up to that time of inauguration was the incoming and outgoing secretary's new one another. they had met during the crisis training in mid-january where they went through for a day how things would work with the crisis. they talked to one another and felt comfortable with one another, which was important discussingthey are something that was going to be crucial and how it should be handled. whateir discussions of some of the alternatives were, steve hadley, the national security advisor for president meeting hillary clinton asked the question that she had experience as a it raisedand she said
the specter of the secret service coming and pulling president obama off the podium. should that be done and she said i don't think so. would have been terrible for us and the message it would have sent. ultimately, the threat fizzled in an important way for several days and shows the importance of the kind of work you do during a transition has. looking at the' and, what were these elements of success? the first one would be president bush themselves -- himself. 2007, he talked to his
chief of staff, josh bolten, and two wars,hat with they have to have a transition and he wanted it to be the best transition ever. thee deputized him to run operation and come to him with issues he thought needed his judgment. he decided there were three issues that he did not want staff to transition with president-elect's staff obama. he wanted him to tell them how important they were, he thought for the whole battle in the war on terror. himselfed that doing it
would send that message. the three issues were drones in pakistan and what the status was there of our operation and programs in iran which could have been the stocks that where the computers are doing attacking the centrifuges. then the third issue he wanted to transition himself was the importance of our relationship with saudi arabia. you look at it, you see president obama has himself found them to be important issues. he was not the only one that was
going to be working early. so was his national security advisor. inve hadley began working 2007 and what he wanted to do was together memoranda that dealt with issues and dealt with countries that would let an incoming administration know what the accounting issues stood when they came in, what they had done during their time in office. what happened on the issues and what the status was on the end. theirave a template for 40 issues and those were passed around the national security staff and steve hadley says was ultimately involved in them.
the intelligence community, the --ense and the foreign calls as well as a not quite as well -- ioped in the sense think there were 17 in the contingency plan. bolten's case, he began wanted 2007 and what he to do is something that had not happened before. wanted to doman the same thing, but eisenhower would not go along with it. to discuss issues he thought was going to be important.
ableerson would indeed be to hit the ground running. issues was presidential appointments. he thought they needed to know how important they were. to do that, they took stock of legislation for national security checks. they did that before they came in to office. they wanted to be ready for the transition itself. they also told both candidates that what they would do is, however many names they wanted to send up, they could do, and they wouldn't be involved in it.
they would send it right to the fbi for the fbi to do background checks, and they never went through the white house. that was important so that the candidates didn't think that there were going to be leaks, and there were no leaks. the obama people took advantage of it and put in the names of 150-200 people. at the time when president obama they haded, as then their first selections ready, so they had their first briefing, rahm emanuel was there with him, and the reason was that he had already done his background check, so, they did their appointments early, got another aspect
of it was the white house of new, based on their experience, a lot of people would send in resumes to be considered for , and they thought the software they had was not capable of handling the pressure that was possibly going to be put on the incoming president. inthey brought representatives -- and these people came in in the end of june and early july, and they worked on a software package. what did they want in the ?oftware package and the white house would pay for it if they could agree on what they wanted. they would pay. so they did. then the memorandum of
understanding, which is so important to the beginning of this administration, because you can't send in people to do ,eviews of the agency programs so what you need is a memorandum of understanding that sets out what the rules are between the white house and the incoming team, and they came up with one. both sides agreed at the white thee, and that was signed saturday after the election. working as thes deputy for the office of management and budget. he handles the agencies, what information they would collect and how they would do it. he brought together the president's management council, and then in july, sent out a
memorandum telling all of the departments and agencies what they were to collect and how they were to do it. but none of this would have made any difference if the obama people had not used it, but they was veryt, and it important to them. so, my timer has gone off. [laughter] it with that.ve it was very useful for the obama people, and i think useful for bush's legacy as well. [applause] >> thank you very much. i very much enjoyed being part of the conference here, and i am pleased to be able to talk to you about some of my research.
i have tried to come to terms with the political ideology of george w. bush, both how best to characterize it and what sense to make of its broader impact and, indeed, its legacy. i think this is an important question, a central, fundamental but like much about bush's eight years, a controversial question. was he a traditional, orthodox conservative, a compassionate conservative, a neoconservative, a paleo conservative, and in authentic conservative, or even a closet moderate? who knows? i think it's important to figure this out. mr. bush himself said i don't do nuance and these are nuanced questions. i don't try to reinvent the wheel here.
tech ist that the best to survey the scholarly landscape to see what others have to say about this, and that is what i do in my paper, i categorize extant views in my own fashion. seek to render them as plausible and comprehensible as , and then weigh in on what i perceive to be the pros and cons. , i think some version of orthodox innovator is the best. that gets the most leverage on this question. so in getting there, let me walk you through some of the ways i see how others have made sense of bush's ideology. political scientists
make careers out of political ideology. i have reviewed what they have done. they have nominated scores that are well known to scholars of congress and others. the singleout as most conservative president by far. i think that's a good place to start. i think it's a good starting point. it does have some issues. it may conflate strategic political announcements with what is in the candidates heart of hearts or mind, but it is highly regarded in my field and i do take it as a good place to start. similar ones, a database on ideology, money and politics in elections in which emerges as more conservative than his father but slightly less conservative than
ronald reagan. i look at online issues, rankings of presidents, and here more, he emerges as centrally conservative than the relatively populist reagan, for what that's worth. of 538 try to figure out where to place jeb bush. averaging these three accounts in an interesting way. here again, bush emerges as a true conservative. so, this is a place to start, but only a place to start. he said he would not be defined by others if he could add his words, so i look at his words. 1999 campaignis , in whicharge to keep he explained why he was
conservative and gives an account of what he believes compassionate conservative as them -- conservatism is about. is could say that this campaigning and not political philosophy. fair enough. but i also think it is a good place to start. i also considered his campaign, his ground in entrepreneurship in west texas, his contract to the connecticut -- contrast to the connecticut bushes and all that entails, his promise to enshrine a culture of ownership, .is overt religiosity he says his favorite philosopher is jesus christ and is accused by john mccain of pandering to agents of intolerance. but then he won the south carolina primary and the rest is history. i also look at the debates,
which is something that comes out in his post-presidency writing. a lesson he learned from dad, don't anger the base. bush made a joke at an $800 a that dinner in new york this is an impressive crowd, the haves and the have mourners, some people call you the elite, i call you my desk behalf and the have more -- the have and .he have mores some people call you the elite. i call you my base. he was joking, but there is truth in it. i look at his policies. as ross perot used to say, this is where the rubber hits the road. there is no better indication of what you think than what you do. bush's policies are very
telling. demanding regulatory review faith-based initiatives. two rounds of tax cuts that he initially resisted but later brought around. environmental policies and regulations. most of that fits pretty squarely with conservatism. there's not too much wiggle room there. but other aspects of his policy squaredo not fit with conservatism. i am am not the first to notice these. they include things like no child left behind, certainly. .he 2003 pep for aids program certainly the tarp program of and medicare expansion.
these constitute a number of outliers. deviations from the mean that can't be explained by bush as a doctrinaire conservative. i think this is a red flag for aose that would call bush doctrinaire conservative. some 10 to see him as a hard right extremist. some republican officials from time to time agreed. christie todd whitman and others. hypocrisy, one writer called him reagan light, a reagan poser, but then was convinced he was the real deal. i review what conservative media has to stay about the president.
bush came in for a lot of conservative criticism, on awful lot. there is a great paper about this i would recommend to you. the volume and tone directed at him from the right, i think was surprising and something to consider. some of those complaints might be dismissed as not being representative, as being narrow, idiosyncratic. others could say these are sinkingtives seeing the ship and trying to prevent the good name of conservativism from going down with the bush titanic. but i think they constitute another red flag toward the fast aisle labeling of bush as a doctrinaire conservative. way ofthere some combining all of this?
i think there might be. i end up endorsing some form of -- an account articulated first on the eve of the clinton presidency in which he describes the recurring context of ,residential leadership presidents across the ages who and up in remarkably similar situations. in that, bush would be labeled an orthodox innovator. he has been affiliated with -- dominant conservative norms in place since the 1980's, clinton notwithstanding, but it's grown a little old, a little stale, so it is bush's job to innovate tohin that end in some ways
entrench it further, to expand beyond what it had already achieved and to try to get new members of the electric into republican columns for ages to come. i think there is an awful lot to us. andink it is complicated there is bizarre terminology, but if you can get past that, it really does indicate a lot of leverage on a complicated question. it explains bush's history. it explains pieces that don't fit. it goes beyond what had been done and brings new pieces into the conservative fold. also, i think, helps to explain some of bush's political problems. innovators tend to be perceived as arrogant and overreaching. tend to run up against an increasingly sick mill you of institutional politics. as time goes by, it becomes harder and harder to make the
tweaks and innovations because government in and of itself becomes a thing that's hard to change. and then there's the idea that orthodox innovators are especially susceptible to the vagaries of events. what might alter the well laid ?lans of a policy maker people are vulnerable to events, and i think it is fair to say that bush's presidency had no shortage of shocks that would disrupt a carefully constructed narrative that was put in place. i would caution that there are two potential wrinkles to this. there are orthodox innovators of an orthodox innovator typology, if you will.
several say it does well as far as it goes, but laid in his second term, orthodox conservativism didn't retreat such that his place in the political context changes and that helps explain much more about his troubled presidency in the later year. in 2006, 2007, 2008, perhaps say and 2010, it is fair to that conservatism was over. past 2010, it's hard to make that argument. orthodoxigued by the innovation of an orthodox innovator typology, but past 2015 at doesn't seem possible to me. thatther possible wrinkle helps explain the pieces that don't fit on the conservative
republican label, there is an alternative possibility. a number of people mentioned this. the presidentsaid is copying his strategy right out of bill clinton's political playbook. doubt, steal your opponents best ideas. education reform and prescription drugs from the democrats. have probably heard something like that before, but the idea is that bush was not being so much a good innovator of conservative orthodoxy, he was being an overly flexible clintonian opportunist. that is not a charge people on the right will like to hear, and i don't think it's an altogether fair one. were there pieces that don't fit in conservatism or were they bits of machiavellian strategy and convenience? it may be in the eye of the
beholder. i will leave it as an open question. there is a broader question of not just how to characterize him but his legacy, the legacy of george w. bush's political ideology. the record since the presidency is money. i would suggest -- is muddy. i would suggest the rise of the tea party further muddies of the waters. at the beginning of the last billra conference on clinton, i was sitting behind to older gentleman. we were reviewing the program and not paying too much attention to the person on stage. but then the person on stage said it's too early five years out to know what the clinton
effect on history will be. a couple of guys were enthusiastic and said here here, exactly right. i was struck by that. at the time i thought, five years out, that's not too short. surely we can say something about clinton. in 10 years hindsight, i think they were right. i think it's too early now to be.what the legacy will it's not just what happens before bush. it's what happens after. we are on the verge of years that will -- if we are on the verge of eight years of jeb see, that will color how we george bush's history. if we are on the verge of eight years of hillary followed by eight years of chelsea, that will change things. there is a legacy, but i will never see it. in 2000 six, george bush said
you never know what you're legacy is going to be until long after you're gone. thank you. [applause] -- those were th three wonderful papers. many of us were possibly recalling a line from chairman , when askedtion about it in the 1970's, it's too soon to tell. i do want to take a moment to discuss this conference in general. it has been a fascinating conference and no easy thing to put together. issues andp so many so many contentious debates that .ffect sensitive nerves it brings up difficult feelings in bitterness of debates. this was a very contentious time
in history. but as a student myself of the , i come from the view a foreign policy and look at diplomacy writ large. when you look right now at the difficult diplomatic negotiations going on in the world today, you have ongoing discussions with north korea and very, very complex negotiations with iran over their nuclear .rogram this makes me want to thank and new professor bose because those are nothing compared to the complex negotiations between a presidential administration and faculty.rsity so thank you for putting this all together. i am going to ask a variety of questions about the historical legacy and long-term consequences of the bush administration of our panel before opening up to discussion. since so much focus was on ideology, i want to begin with
this question. but theou discussed beginning and end points of the , focusing inration large part on his statements of in a charge to keep from 1999. but i wonder if you could speak more about the evolution of his thinking. with his ideology the same in 2008 as it was in 2001? >> when george bush took office it2001, as we said earlier, was a very limited agenda. immigration reform, tax cuts, no child left behind and a presidency. 9/11 changed everything. behind was done. immigration reform, social security for reform, none of that got done.
andalked about medicare epfar, butp particularly medicare part d, these of nothing to do with conservative ideology, they have use ofely to do with his federal resources to build a moral and civil society. they are essential to who george w. bush was. you can't confuse the political ideology of smaller government and a pro-business, less regulatory affairs with who george w. bush was. 9/11 changed everything. he became a war president. dick cheney essentially took over the presidency. many of the programs that had such a socialf security reform were reduced. the 2004 election because americans did not support that war. won, he realized he
needed to reframe some things. things he needed to reframe was the department of defense. he did that. eventually forced rumsfeld and wolfowitz out. cheney ended up with a significantly lesser role in the second term. what you see is a new george bush. we talked about the bailout, the .arp bailout of 2008 that's who george bush was. you see him saying yes, the federal government can do good ,hings, medicare reform immigration reform, social security reform to a lesser extent, but the tarp bailout was saying we can use the resources of the federal government to help people in need. it was not scaling back government. it was not seeking legislation to cut programs. see in the second
part of the second term of his administration was a george w. bush who gained control of his own presidency. in 2000 six, he was a far different president than he was in 2001, and i think he would say that. >> i have been struck at this conference by what i perceive to be an emerging theme, particularly from people who worked in the administration across george bushes -- george bush's eight years. is it after katrina? is it the 2004 election? is it the war in iraq? exactly what causes this change, but it is pretty remarkable how many people describe some sort of change over his presidency.
obama would say he is evolving. his views are changing. that strikes me. if i were of a >> it is remarkable how many people said that. reformer, someone who can make deals in a bipartisan fashion. i do perceive a change from his time as a governor to the end of his presidency. he said in his autobiography, i had a set aside ideology. then the system would collapse, which would make a number of points. it suggests that he had a streak
of pragmatism that critics would be reluctant to concede with. it might also say something about the limits of conservativism. >> if you look from beginning to end, he was interested in management. when you look at both parts of the transition, at the end, we think of having just one president at a time but they were very careful to involve the obama people because they had .un out of political juice they wanted to have an extension taarp. bush was willing to help as far as he could. sunday after thanksgiving, there was a
meeting at the treasury between the obama team and in that meeting, they discussed the bailout for the automobile industry. iny would be willing to name if they could go along with it. but they assumed they would take anybody that they wanted, that the obama people wanted to name. so that they could get started on the auto bailout early. not something that the obama people wanted to do. theink, looking back at roosevelt-hoover transition, roosevelt did not want to get involved. against it because
it would become their problem. the bush people were willing to make the effort. illustrates an argument that seems to be implicit in what year book states. this was a very organized style for the transition. it was indicative of bush's management style, and that is consequential for his legacy. that is what i took from what you were saying. disagreehe two of you on his political ideology. conservative?odox was he a hybrid conservative? thanbook is saying rather look at his policies, we have to and,stand his ideology over time, how you view that ideology will shape how you view
his legacy. >> at different approach from what we have been doing -- >> let's focus on the keyword you brought up, the question of legacy. not is obviously -- it is too soon to tell because we are here. what do you perceive to be his legacy? let's set up the context. president bush left office with a remarkably low approval rating. during that time, there was a lot of discussion on the legacy of another man who left the white house with low approval, harry truman, who left quite unpopular and was thought of as perhaps one of the greatest presidents. consequently, there was some discussion that long-term history will prove him out.
i am curious what the panel , not only the thought that his legacy will you evolve but what will the land upon? >> i think that bush's legacy will evolve. approval, itit 19% has gone up a little bit. time he hopes all wounds, to some extent. the bush legacy really is the war in iraq. the question is -- i don't see that changing -- have we as a society moved past the war in iraq? i don't think we have. --hink the bush legacy george w. bush, the only thing
that people remember about george w. bush is the war in iraq. so, is the crises in the middle remain tied to american actions -- i don't think that the george bush legacy will be rehabilitated because that is who he is, the war any iraq. -- the war in iraq. >> i would make three points here. a part of his legacy is barack obama. bush not and is so terribly, i don't think the u.s. would have ever elected a black liberal president. i think obama has bush to thank for his job.
the second point i would make, the gop really owned the issue of national security, certainly from the 1980's onward. i think bush changed that issue and that no longer helps the gop. that is a big issue. whenever national security is prominent, it no longer feeds into the gop electoral prospects appeared at the end of the day, the last point i would make is .here is nowhere to go but up his standing will increase as the years go by. it could not get much worse. >> i think it has been going up. is just such a volatile area. in ways of how do people see what is happening in
the middle east as a direct result of actions that we took? i think that people remember george bush and september 11. how he handled that and the response in afghanistan. so i think that is going to be a big part of it but for my piece legacy willle, his hopefully be a standard that he sets for how you leave office, the kind of information you gather, how long it takes to do it, how broad you cast the net to gather the information in a way that you work with the incoming team because not only does it help the incoming team, but it helps the outgoing president. because of the goodwill it bills but also the materials that he gathered like the memoranda that
hadley produced. i think a good legacy, a good transition out benefits everybody. >> if i can make an observation about your responses, one of the fascinating things about legacy is, and why we think of bush so contentious 6-7 years after, i think it is because in large part the answers never were given to the question of what is his legacy are interpreted or coded good or bad depending where you are but the answer does not change. for example, you mentioned that his long-term legacy is the iraq war and by extension, we can say his legacy is the war in the fight against global terror. >> i didn't say that.
>> my apologies. it is an important distinction. >> so even -- the point which i would make is that bush's more on iraq is interpreted in different parts of the country as part of the war on terror to different degrees. so if one were to be in, let's say, i don't know, new york city , and you talk about the war in iraq, people largely say that was a mistake. in other places in the country, people look at the war in iraq and say, it may or may not have been right but it was something the right reasons. it's fascinating that we can look at 9/11 or other issues and say that the reason that people get from liking -- the reasons people give for liking him are the same as the reasons for disliking and that it is same reason. , i willave no comment
accept you believe what i said. it is important to note that this depends on where you are in the world could if you go to africa -- in africa, he is an extremely popular president for what he did for aids. something which will change over time. if i could ask one more question before we go to the crown, one name that has come up numerous buts was not george w. bush bush and a looming prospect of another bush presidency. to that effect, one of the things i have been surprised by is how little we have heard from george h.w. bush. his is not a name that comes up frequently. since you are all experts on ideology, if you could give us your sense of where george w.
bush fits within his ideology the city his father and brother. his father and brother. question. a great was one of theh most qualified people for president. one of the problems with the presidency is there is no training. the senate is somewhat of a training ground. i think be in governor of the benefitate was a huge because they deal with legislators. california has a strong executive. howard dean was talking about george w. bush was in a state which essentially the governor has zero power, the lieutenant
governor has more power. what makes george h.w. bush -- in 1979.w. bush runs against ronald reagan in the primaries. it is a very bitter primary because he is a moderate republican. right ofagan is to the george h.w. bush. there is no sense that he is ever a deep conservative. he is a business person who has business interests. his father was a very moderate senator from connecticut. connecticut is not known for their deep conservative political roots. bush was never a
conservative republican but he had some conservative republicans in his and ministration. some of his dad's moderate republican roots -- but he lived in texas. rove moved to the right -- it is who he had been before that. jeb bush was an interesting guy. he had been the most moderate of the three. hispanic.s
as a big difference in who you are. he lived in a very different world than his father or brother. moved to the right to capture i and new hampshire, south carolina. hisher he can find political ideology -- i'm not sure i know it jeb bush's political ideology is. moderatehe is more than some of the other candidates. but our question is, can we find a thread between them. i will say they are moderate conservatives who will move their political ideology as necessary. in looking at george h.w. bush and george w. bush, george
w. bush learns from his father. this morning, and rollins talked about that. the way he had of the relationship with the media -- george h.w. bush was interested in relationships. he was interested in his relationships with people on the hill. with foreign leaders. he would call foreign leaders. just to talk to them, to establish a relationship. when the time came that he , over ao talk to them particular issue, that they already have an established relationship. so he encouraged people to come in one of the things he developed was joint press conferences with foreign leaders
that all of his successors have followed. he did the same with the press. i think he thought of the press as a group that he needed to deal with and have a good relationship with and he often talked to them in personal terms . think of his relationship with sidey. at his memorial service, bush which he a eulogy couldn't finish because he was crying. so his sister read the rest of it. reporters encourage in the summer to bring their and bush had a party for them. thate w. bush did some of but not in the same way.
because he was more distant from them in crawford. george h.w. bush thought of the press as a group to satisfy. he would say to his press secretary, what is the press saying? is the pressure building? he understood that the pressure builds in that briefing room and it is hard on her press secretary so when it builds too high, he would say, let's to a press conference. when george w. bush came in, he wanted to make news on his terms and only had a press conference, debt with the press, when he had something specific to say. [laughter] >> let's give her a big hand. time but has run at a i wanted to take some audience
questions. >> i want to raise a couple quick points. one of the ways in which a lot of people try to make sense of george w. bush is to read his psychology as hardwired with the directive, don't do what thad did you can see this -- don't do what dad did. don't alienate the base or pat buchanan will face you in a primary campaign. , bet be overly deliberative decisive, and talk about how you are from the sun belt, not a new england republican. there is a lot to that. in terms of jeb bush, he would have to distinguish himself from would requirehich some clintonian triangulation. topicsave raised so many
about ideology, policy, issues, transitions, management, and through the course of the conference, examining each of these topics in more categories. let's open it up to questions to address. we have a microphone here. >> at the end of this superb conference, you tap into something instrumental. you have to remember that george presidentwant to be before -- and got to be president because ronald reagan chose him. you could not have two governors from two westerners next to each other.
you cannot have a football player in a movie star. and was a wonderful man history will reflect back on that, but george w. bush is not his favorite son. was never viewed as the politician of the family, jeb bush was a politician who went back and did all the things and they both ran for governor at the same time. george w. bush may not have ended up being the president. george w. bush examined the failure of his father. his father got 37 percent of the vote and had the largest defection of any president other aft. to have , iloved his father duly don't think he saw his father as the governing model and i think he thought that ronald reagan basically had been dismissed by his father is not being as significant as he may be.
i think he saw a reagan as a model and to a certain extent, the george h.w. bush george w. bush relationship developed over time. i think that karl rove and george w. bush realized that the party had changed. was no longer in northeast republican party to or do could not his 29% of republicans and be successful. you had to reinforce that these. that is what drove a lot of it. katrina was the was the point, katrina point where people all of a sudden were saying, this is not a competent administration. you can't let an american city drowned. >> thank you. >> one thing that is crucial to
remember about george w. bush, especially in comparison to his father, this is something that he has said, that his parents have said, i just channeling their memoirs. ining his early childhood west texas, his father was largely absent because his father was on the road trying to build his career. consequently, he thinks of , idolizing his father , but he also thinks of himself as his mother's son. >> do we have a question from a student? . right there. sorry, to the student here.
go ahead. we will take both. ,e will come right back to you sorry about that. >> [indiscernible] >> you talked a lot about transition. with that being said, do you think they would be a different model of transition planning dependent whether jeb bush or hillary clinton wins -- assuming both will be running -- do you think there will be a different transition model based on who wins?
do you think that the country, depending on who wins, will be -- what will the country's actions be if it turns up being exactly as expected in which we have another bush or clinton? i think that obama has a stake in preparing the kind of transition that bush did because i think it is important for his whoeveras well as for comes in. and hillary clinton's case, i think she will start early. she did in 2008. she had robert altman working on --nsition issues and she had managing the campaign and he certainly knew how to run a transition.
past wase ideas in the that you cannot have large agency review teams. you cannot manage several hundred people. between the policy and agency review teams, there were 517 people. smoothly.ked very he knows how to run a transition. one of the things that has happened in the last few presidencies is that people who have worked in transition have built up an institutional memory that is passed along. for democrats, after the carter kaczor materials which were used for mondale, they then were for john kerry, kerry use that -- and johnson
was running a transition effort and jim johnson took the papers that they had developed and gave them to the obama team. job love it did a very good . his information, to, will be run over to whoever the republican ,andidate is so i think now there is just simply a lot more information out there. having ak that president elect who does not know much -- they will prepare well the matter who they are. as ank both of them, governor, jeb bush is going to be interested in management, and i think hillary clinton, as a department secretary, also will be interested in management because the stakes in getting off well at the beginning are
huge because you have a good .ell -- goodwill the people not only wanted to succeed and if you look at the difference between what somebody's vote percentage was in look at their polls as they began office, you can see a 20% rise in some of them so the public wants to give a new president a chance and they are listening and watching. able -- they will tire of a president after a while and not to and into his state of the union messages in that thing but he has their attention but the difficulty is that he has the attention of the public but he -- or she -- is least able to take advantage of it because they haven't covered and they are an inexperienced team. .hat is the difficulty
preparation, everybody recognizes is essential. is not a matter of hubris or arrogance. >> thank you. great question. last question? >> thank you all. i would like to point out or throughout their, speaking as a student and is somebody who has grown up in a different .eneration that is not an insult to anybody. generation./11 we grew up with the tsa's and machine guns and penn station and i would like to get your reaction to the statement that bush's legacy will be how we first started the war on terror and change the world and the way we live. our world is totally different
than it was 20 years ago because of the steps his administration took to fight terror after september 11. i think that that will be his biggest overall legacy and the iraq war will get lumped in with the afghanistan war and the other foreign policy things and i think that is how he will be remembered. response to the attacks on the united states -- it is not as if we just went into afghanistan. he is responded to attacks and people are going to remember the attacks, as well. i have to confess, i am not one of these people who keep saying, 9/11 changes everything. i think that it is important, god knows. and the broader stretch of time, it can be seen more as accelerating and exacerbating
pre-existing trends than introducing things that were new. only time will tell. >> let me pick up on that point. one question we always have to ask when thinking about the how much any leader is their policies actually matter for the long-term trajectory of the nation? they get blamed and they get credit, but how much do they matter? one way to think about the legacy of bush is to remember that after the invasion of afghanistan, there was a renewed excitement for the united states as being at the height of its moment, that the u.s. might actually achieve the promise of the clinton years. questions asking that in 2008. i don't think it was because of the policies of the bush administration.
rather, several policies of his revealedation pursued that change, that the rest of the world had caught up to the united states in many ways that werepeople in the country not willing to recognize. >> it is a great question and makes me think that in another five years, we would do another george w. bush conference. say --ery difficult to 9/11 to find the george w. bush presidency but it will not be definitive for the george w. bush presidency. we are moving into the 50th anniversary of the voting rights act and you look at lyndon johnson in vietnam and how he came to office in his decision not to run for reelection. with the passage of time, you ,an see major challenges
crises, tragedies, and a series of reactions. we talked about katrina, economic policy, social security, immigration, medicare. i think the answer is that it will it will be a large part of the presidency and it points to management style and again how many aspects there are to a presidency. so i think while this is obviously a source for some debate about whether the legacy is decided now, i think that the many parts of the legacy mean that we can't, i would say, there is no single factor that will define the legacy and as we look at ideology and how a president's place in american politics provides opportunities for action, that too will shape how president bush responded to the challenges of his time. so i think with that, we're
leaving on a note of continued reflection and gratitude for engaging in the series of discussions over the last three days. to be continued, thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015 >> tonight a discussion on how government regulates food in the united states. harvard food law lab founder says that food labeling should include information about the recommended daily amounts of sugar. ere is more. >> given the perils of cessive sugar intake, no recommended daily allowance for carbs and sugar
in the united states. >> so i'm aware of no defense, amount of poison that is described. >> i don't know of any defensible reason not to provide that information. it is information that we provide for all of the other ingredients. there is a political story of why we don't and that is true and i think that to expect politics to be absent from politics is silly. on the other hand, politics is not absent from politics, so the industrys organizations are powerful, strong interest that have been deeply involved in food politics for many, many years, some for good, some for ill. products with a lot sugar in them do not want to have that information on the label. the reason is very straightforward. it is incredible how much sugar is in most products. i know this. i teach this. yet every day i'm amazed at how much sugar is in most products. >> and that's just a brief
portion of an event held by the constitution center in philadelphia on government and the american diet. you can watch the entire event tonight. we'll show you to you at 8:00 eastern on or companion network, c-span 2. also tonight, rapper snoop dogg debuts on c-span as part of our techcrunch disrupt conference in san francisco this year. he discussed his new cannabis pop culture website mary jane. he was joined by his mary jane partner ted can khung. you can see that starting at :20 eastern on c-span. c-span presents landmark cases, boot, a guide to our land mark cases series which discovers 12 decisions including marbury versus madison, brown versus
the board of education, miranda versus arizona and roe versus wade, landmark cases, the book, features introductions, backgrounds, highlights of each case. written by tony more row and published by c-span in cooperation with c.q. press. landmark cases is available for $1.95 plus shipping. get your copy today at c-span.org/landmark cases. turkish president and his russian counterpart vladmir putin took to the airwaves today and outlined their positions after turkey downed a russian jet yesterday for what it said was violating its territory from syria. the "wall street journal" writes that turkey vows to protect its borders and russia promises to destroy any threat to its bombing campaign in
syria. the george washington school of international affairs hosted a discussion yesterday on russia under president putin's leadership. his is an hour and a half. >> welcome, everyone, my name is henry hail, i'm professor of political science here at the institute for european russian and eurasian studies and i'm also co-director of the program on new approaches to research and security together with my colleague corey welt. we are very happy to welcome you today to an event on putin and putinism, exactly what putinism is, our esteemed panelists will be happy to discuss with you today. we are pleased to have in particular brian taylor who will lead off and he is professor of political science
at the maxwell school at syracuse university. his research focuses on the domestic political rule of state coercive organizations such as the military and police. he is the author of two books so far and another in progress. the first one, his first one was plings and the russian army which came out in 2003 with cambridge university press and his more recent one is state building in putin's russia which came out with the state press in 2011. our next speaker, so brian will lead off. we're speaker who fortunate to have coming from moscow, russia's top political analyst and scholars working on russian politics today, nick lie pethrov. he is the head of the center of political geographic research and previously chair as you know for the carnegie moscow center's society in region's center. before he worked at the institute of joegraphy he had
russian institute of sciences. he is the author of many publications, most recently two books, the state of russia, what comes next, just out in 2015 and then a couple years ago, russia 2025 coed indicated, scenarios for the russian future. so i think it should be a very interesting discussion. we'll start out with brian and turn it over to nikolay and open it up for questions and answers. please take it away, brian. we're grateful that c-span is covering us today, so thank you for that interest. brian: great, thank you, henry, it's a real privilege to be here with two old friends and colleagues, henry and nikolay to talk about putin and putinisms. the year tempted you in, i'm going to let you down a bit. we're not going to be talking a lot about ukraine. we're mainly talking about russia. we can talk about ukraine if people like.
nikolay and i last night decided i should go first which gives him the opportunity to critique everything that i said in my talks. since i'm going first, i get to say that any questions about the syria question and turkish planes shooting down russian planes will be handled by nikolay. i'll leave that for him. so brief outline, i'm going to talk briefly about putinism, it has to be brief given the time constraints. i want to give an overview of how i think of the system generally and then i'm going to y a bit about how it was already evolving before 2013-2014 and talk about how it's changed in the last two years after the ukrainian events and i'm going to talk briefly about the implications of the changes it's gone through since 2014. i think nikolay will say more about that in his presentation. the basic claim i'm going to make is that over the last two years, russia has moved into a
mobilization rule in response to the quote unquote emergency situation they find themselves in and that is the short-term temptation and a medium term trap. what do i mean by that? the temptation is that it's easier to rule than it is to groven. what i mean by that distinction i hope will become clear during the talk and the trap is that when you rely on ruling rather than governing, you often are prone to make mistakes. state policy becomes ineffective and ultimately you take steps that weaken both the system and the country. so what is putinism? first thing i will call for our purposes super super presidentialism. what do i mean about that? the structure of the political system, in 1993, the constitution was superpresidential. it was designed to make the president the most powerful person in the presidential
system. the constitution also sets out a series of what we might call in the american context checks and balances, a separation of power as we might call it, there is a parliamentary system, a court with judicial review. there is formally a system of federalism with some powers for regional governments and a series of guarantees in the constitution both for civil society actors and individuals in terms of rights of a free press, rights to organize, rights to demonstrate and so on. what i'm going to claim is that under putinism, we have seen the super presidential system that he inherited become even more super super presidential these ening all of alternative sources of power set out in the constitution, weakening the parliament, civil society organizations, sources set out in the constitution, weakening the parliament, civil society taking over the media, weakening the power of the regional leaders and so on.
that's the formal side of putinism. in parallel to this system is the informal political system which is made up of a series of competing plans that were networked together and they compete across institutional lines, across the lines between politics and economics for resources and for influence and for power. i would say that the combination of these two factors, the sort of electoral authoritarian, if you have a formal political system and the informal network system is what political scientists would say is the key findings about russian politics. this is a widely accepted points about post-soviet russian politics, it has many names. richard calls it the dual state. nikolay had a chapter on the network state which similar idea. henry hail's excellent book is basically about the same thing, the presidentialism is the formal side and the other side is the informal side.
some call it the system, the former putin and kremlin visor. he says something in one of his books that is quite apt. putin is simultaneously the president of the formal state and the boss of the informal network state. that's the importance of his role in the system. so so far we're on the institutional side, formal and informal. i'm going to suggest very briefly that there is a third element that is not institutional, more of a mentality and elsewhere i have called the code of the putinism. there is a memo that came out called the code of disputism. the idea is that we can't think of -- we shouldn't think of putin certainly as a rational actor pursuing power or wealth or whatever other things that political actors might pursue. he is motivated only be a set of ideas there are ideas
underlying his behavior, but also like any other human being, someone who has emotions, someone who has a set of habits and tendencies to influence the types of decisions that he makes. i can't call attention to all of the ones i outlined in the memo, they include state imas the guiding principal that he articulated early on, both in how the russian state should be structured domestically and russia should become a great power again in the international system. it's conservative in its essence. there is maybe a bit of controversy about here, but in general, i see putin as being somewhat ill liberal, somewhat distrustful of individual action and he pursues unity as much as possible and he fears in some sense reforms that may deestablish lies the system. in that sense, he is more of a conservative at heart. i think his habits that he developed in his career prior to becoming president tend towards a feeling of the need
to establish control and order and a feeling that the disorder that was allowed under both gorbachev and yeltsin was debilitating for russia. he needs to establish a stronger state system and i think there is also on the emotional level, an element of resentment about the way that he feels and this is not just putin, but other members of the elite, feels that russia has been treated in the post-cold war environment, feel that they were not adequately respected by the west and that they do not get their due in international politics. so these are some of the things i see going into the mentality of putin and those people around him that influences the way they react to various political challenges that they face. so now i want to move to the period between 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, what i call putinism b.c. which is putinism before crimea. already, it's important to
congressmen this, going back to 12, there was a crash down launch when putin returned to the presidency in 2012. we saw this in many different realms. the crackdown came as a response to the series of protests that broke out in moscow and other cities in 2011, 2012 after the 2011 parliamentary elections. this came in many different responses. the it came in terms of a new kind of political strategy i would argue that targeted what the regime saw as the conservative majority in the country, russian orthodox voters, working class voters, rural voters, state employees, people who worked in the power structures like law enforcement and the military and a reliance was put on those actors and there was a subconscious possibly ditching of the middle class, small and medium business, et cetera. this came in many different guyses.
there were increased signs for participating in protests. there was a series of trials that one could perhaps call show trials, the danger in engaging in protests. you see some of these events reflected in the slide. ere sat may 2012 protests in moscow which turned violent. 20 people were arrested and charged with crimes as a result of that disorder that broke out. there was the infamous pussy riot case which was designed to show that the opposition is some kind of alien bizarre anti-russian cultural force and a series of trials involving oppositionists, the most prominent, the first trial in 2013. there are a series of laws cracking down on what we were called foreign agent n.g.o.s, the so-called gay propaganda law, et cetera. there was a concerted, more conservative, more anti-american, more
authoritarian tendency before crimea happened. utinism has gone more in the direction that they were tending towards in 2012-2013. in terms of what i described as the mentality of putinism, we see more emphasis on this notion of russia as a besieged fortress, beset by external enemies, working with internal enemies trying to destabilize the country. one person who has been out in front in terms of articulating this vision is the secretary of the security council and the long-time alie of putin from st. pierceburg, used to head the k.g.b. and he articulated in an interview this summer his idea that the americans are trying to drag russia into an interstate military conflict using the ukrainian events to bring about a change of power in russia and in the final analysis dismember our country.
and he and others like to point to it entirely fictional quote that they attribute to madeleine albright which she allegedly said but never in fact shown to say that this is what the americans hope to do. what about putinism in terms of informal politics and clan networks. i think early on under putinism, accepts 2000, 2003-2004, putin played the role of the first among equals, arbitrating between the different clans, some of them inherited from the yeltsin period, some of them new creations that came with him from st. petersburg and other business interests circulating around the kremlin. ver time, he has put himself at the center of the system so he is now more a czar-like figure than a first among equals figure. he is the one who makes the important decisions and he is
the boss who rules basically over the system as much as he is the president who governs the political system. a russian political analyst in an interview this summer said there is a new group in the different networks at the top, not a new group, but a reformulated group that has the idea that we're not a mafia, we're a hunta. his basic point is that some of the networks around putin for quite a while have been interested in lining their own pockets. there is another group around putin who are true patriots who are pursuing russia's geopolitical interests as a great power. those are the people who are coming to prominence now in this post-ukraine environment, ok. so he is attacking certain actors around putin and a group of loyalists who really have
russia's true interest at hard. and he refers to the decision in 2014 to annex crimea as a coup. and his logic is it's a coup because there was overnight a huge shift in the balance of power among the elite, that the pro western more economically elites lost a lot of power instantaneously and the people who have background in the power ministries like the f.s.v. or the military or similar security organizations instantly gained a lot of power. so there has been this shift. some of the people that have talked about, you can see along the bottom of the slide there, the defense minute ter, the head of the f.s.b., the head of the foreign intelligence council the security and the chief of the presidential staff, also a long-time k.g.b. alie from st.
petersburg of vladmir putin. i'm not suggesting this is a single unified team. perhaps nikolay will have more to say about this. there are rumors that the defense minister might not have been talked about the crimea decision and there was rumors that he would take the military option in crimea. these are rumors, not sure how much truth there is. but putin said that the military at one point actually stopped the operationnd he had to call to get it restarted. there is a suggestion that there is some sort of disagreement in this group. in general, i think it's fair to say that since february 2014, those elements in the security and foreign policy elite have been more power than the economic and liberal bloc within the government. that remains true to this day. maybe that will change, but i don't think it has changed yet. one thing that is interesting about this elite is that
they're fairly, what i would call nationalized, meaning, if we look at the career tracks of the children of all of these five people below here, they all worked for state-affiliated banks or corporations. they're not abroad, they're not educated abroad. they're not living in london or switzerland as some of the children of other close putin cronies are. they are a different political profile. as a result, they're more nationalized which is a priority of putin since even before 2014. final thing i want to talk about briefly is this notion that ruling rather than governing and what it implies for decision-making. so the guy at the top you may recognize, you probably wouldn't have recognized before last week, but that's the minister of sports for russia. the russian ministry of sports was in the news last week because of the doping scandal.
he is an interesting figure. i give you one guess as to where he is from, he is from st. petersburg. he is the minister of sports. the second picture pictured here, we would say he is his brains. he may want to say more later. he comes from st. petersburg and has a background in the k.g.b., the last one pictured is from are st. petersburg and he worked in the police previously and under yeltsin he headed the federal security service. so the issue i want to talk about that brings these three actors together is a meeting of the russian football association, the executive board of the russian football association last summer, in summer 2014 and football of course means soccer in this context. someone leaked the transcript of the executive board meeting in an opposition newspapers. he had sent a request to this board to bring three crimean
football clubs into the rush shanahan association. the executive committee was supposed to rule on this decision. you might think this was an easy decision, but the people who were on this board, some of them are billionaires. the rest of them are multimillionaires and all own football clubs in various cities around russia. they were instantly nervous about this proposal. one of them instantly sort of said, well, we might get sanctioned if we take this decision. who is going to guarantee that we're not sanctioned. another oligarch, who is going to compensate me if we're sanctioned. what if fifa decides after this decision to take away the 2018 world cup which is supposed to be held in moscow. all of these various elite economic actors are pushing back with this idea thing it might harm their interests. he has enough of this and he breaks in and says what is the matter with you people.
you are crawling on your bellies before the west. putin is standing alone on the parapet. he is alone, he is under attack and we need to as citizens support his stance, ok. the club owners then decide, well, our tack wasn't working. we're going to approach this a bit differently. they say of course if the country says i have to suffer some losses for the good of the state, i will do so. we're willing to do that. if there is an order, we'll do this, no question, but what if putin himself doesn't really want this? maybe this will be against what putin himself wants. maybe we should ask him. it would be unethical to approach the president about this decision and another says, i can imagine this meeting if i go to putin and say, well, we're having this discussion about the football clubs and he aid putin would say, in polite english would be buzz off. he would be right to do so.
one of the owners counters, well, if he takes this decision without consulting him and we lose the world cup, you two are responsible for the president for this decision taking place. and another one speaks up to say, i have been building my company for 25 years. i employ 250,000 people, it's worth $30 billion and if i have to for the good of the country go fight, i'm willing to go fight. i'm prepared to discard everything if necessary, but only if it's what the first person wants, that's the term he used, the first person. we better check with the first person and decide before we do this. they decided to wait a few days and someone was sent to go check with putin about whether this was the right decision and then they adopted this decision to bring these three football clubs into the football association. so what's the point of this story? the point of this story is imagine 100 such decisions around russia every day and everyone of them is wondering what does the first person think about what we're good to
decide. you can imagine how this would make the decision-making process rather inefficient if people at lower levels in the system are wondering all the time maybe putin doesn't want us to do this or putin wants us to go further, we have to consult with him. another interesting thing of this episode was that there was a lot of status in this discussion, not because of the time he was head of russian railways, but because he was considered someone who was in the putin inner circle, had direct access and had to be listened to and respected. and the third thing is that despite the feeling that they had to differ to the first person, these groups of elites were willing to push back to protect their interests within the constraints that they saw themselves under. even though earlier i talked about pujols as being more of a czar, he not a czar. elitists try to pursue their
interests. when you have a decision-making system that is this concentrated and this much focused on the rule of the boss rather than the governing of the president that medium and long-term challenges tend to get neglected of that's the trap and that's why i think we're seeing an inability of the system to come up with a coherent economic response to the current economic crisis they find themselves under due to lower oil prices and partially due to international sanctions. and so it was an easy decision to make in some sense that ruling is easier than governing, fewer constraints constitutional, but also a trap leading to mistakes in policy that i think in the immediately yum term are not going to be healthy for russia or the political system, thank you. [applause] nry: our next speaker is
nikolay petrov. nikolay: thanks to brian who was brief about his new berlin book. so i can just add several points to look what will happen next. it's not oint is that the reason for all of those changes that we see in russia and those changes could go in a different way perhaps without crimea, perhaps they will take place later but preparations for those changes that they can place in 2012, i mean the confrontations with the west. there are some understandable reasons why it has been done. one is connected with the political development and with the crisis of legit massey
which could not be fixed at the time when they have decided to go down by usual means and that's why the kremlin and due to the fact that choosing between open economy at monopolyse of losing in the political and economic monopolyd to keep the at the expense of economic oligarchs chose away to keep the monopoly. now, regime is really new in terms of relationships between the leader , and brian did show this pretty
well, political elite and citizens. the leader is much less dependent on political elites. political elites are much more dependent on the leader, which creates a new political geometry. saying there is no place for domestic politics in russia. there is foreign policy. in my view, it is quite the opposite. what we see now at the international stage is driven by domestic political considerations. legitimacy, a kind of militarized legitimacy, which is very important because in order to keep it, you should not wait for elections. timehould invest all the in sports or military victories.
that is why all the scandals connected with sports are so important for the regime. you can develop or should develop harsh rhetoric, exploiting the image of a fortress. repression,ld use which is what we are seeing now in russia. in short, i would say that all made of then 2014 hostage of the regime, the regime the hostage of the leader, and the leader hostage of decisions he made earlier. ,he trajectory of russia now our book describes some different opportunities. it looks like most of them are cut off. there is only one line.
, although extremely powerful, cannot change the trajectory. make thean do is movement faster or slower. i would compare to the trajectory of a plane in a tailspin. there is no way to go out. there are three possible outcomes. number one is the plane meets the ground. the regime is over. unfortunately, there are no will beat a new one better due to the absence of almost any political institutions. the second option is the crew is able to replace the leader, which is hardly possible now, therely due to the fact are no formats like those at the time of the soviet union, where
the politburo could meet. putin does this on a bilateral basis. it is hardly possible to think about any replacement of the leader if he himself does not want this. the third option is perhaps what is the miraclend can happen to let the plane out of the tailspin. veryhis can be either essentially increasing oil prices or something not that important. plane under putin's leadership will go out of the tailspin. it is dynamic. it is not just like keeping
motions. it is sliding down and cannot last forever, which means the regime in its present shape is a transition everyone. it is transitional and there are understandable limits. this can be financial or economic resources, which are pretty much limited. and the new budget to be accepted soon plans to use the reserve funds. the next year, it is impossible to keep all this proportion. second, brian showed us the top of putin's elite. yes, they did lose 1/5 of their
fortune. but they kept the monopoly. elites lost their lost theirf life, opportunity to go somewhere else , to keep their children of broad. -- abroad. they are living in more comfortable countries. they feel like being at the military camp and will not last long. they are eager to get what they were forced to refuse. another reason to think this movement of the plane will not last long is connected to the funnels.f multiply
it consists of several important funnels. shrinking time horizons. this is like a vicious circle. it is a time of growing instability. irrational toly make investments, not only financial investments, but political investments as well, for longer periods. the time horizon is extremely short and becoming shorter because of inability and lack of desire of elites to make long investments. thesecond is connected with third. what is called the crimean syndrome. not only were their plans of support of the leader after the crimea annexation, but we got
approximately the same downgrade looks aty society different problems. say corruption is 20% less important than it used to be. so it looks like society is drunk. is easier tok, it think there are no problems. but it is not that easy to keep a person drunk for a long. needs certain investments that should increase all the time. manual control described by brian. long,eing exercised for it is impossible to switch back
to a connected regime. there are no institutions and there is selection of personnel which cannot make any decisions. if the first person will not tell them what they should decide. ourth is in decision-making russia, we can see more often, elites act on their own without any initial consultation with other major s.lete -- elite clan this is the mechanism which pushes elite clans to act on their own. there are no mechanisms linking to agreement. the danger of making decisions
which are interest of certain clans but not in the interest of the whole system or the danger of not making right decisions in time is increasing all the time. there is a life expectancy of the regime in its present shape, not to speak about different forms. we are seeing a black swan today. it will continue. unfortunately, the probability of white swans is almost zero. what can be an exit strategy? now andew, what we see what started when russia came to toia is exit strategy "a," demonstrate a constructive role
russia can play on the international stage. is already achieved. the goal, tor change something in syria itself or keep assad in place. the goal was to demonstrate putin is a leader who can bring military victories. this goal inside the country is already achieved. with goals in line for keeping legitimacy. it was no longer capable of keeping a new military legitimacy due to victories in eastern ukraine. that is why russia switched to syria. e to the propaganda machine, the goal inside the country was
already achieved, which puts putin in the position of a strong leader and makes it switche for him to relations with the west to change this confrontation to cooperation. as a stepl be seen from the position of a weak lead er and demonstration of his strength. if it is not accepted, then i cank the exit strategy "b" be enacted by replacing putin with somebody else. it will be done by putin. tandem.see a kind of in 2008.ened he can keep being in power with one position.
the name of the position is putin. he does not need to be the president or prime minister. he can keep power by himself. what is important is that the country is coming to new elections. there are early elections to be held next september. almost immediately after this election. why the elections to addressfor putin the nation and declare a new boss. chinaites understood that cannot replace the last in terms money, in terms of keeping the flow to the russian to keep thereserves
course without radical changes are coming to an end. thank you. [applause] mr. hale: ok. i think we can go ahead and open up discussion to members of the audience. i believe we have microphones. if you could just identify your self if you have a comment or question. we can bring over a microphone for you. if you could identify yourself. bachrach. i have worked for aid and ukraine for five years. , mr. taylor,ed about your saying that the head of the armed services was not involved in the initial decision in crimea. know whetheryou
and whatalso the case, more extreme factors of the invasion of eastern ukraine, which i think has been less rewarding? mr. hale: why don't you go ahead and take them as they come? mr. taylor: thank you for the question. i should reiterate that the claim that the defense minister shoygu was not consulted when crimea decisions were taken is moscow rumor. no one has said on the record who putin consulted with. he has said there were four of us. i turned to them and said we will have to bring crimea back to russia. there is a list of name bandied about. list. is often not on the
many people think he was not. there was further implementation he would have been involved with. some of his closest deputies played an important role. the claim is that the decision was made without the defense minister's participation. there are rumors to the effect that many of the elite were opposed to the decision, for seeing potential consequences. putin has the one and only vote in that respect. in terms of military action in eastern ukraine, by that point, shoygu is involved in those decisions. it is hard to see exactly how the russian side of the operation is managed. it looks like those security service was running a game there . a member of the administration
staff had various political connections to the opposition rebels, political forces. the military also had its actions. it does not seem to be particularly well coordinated. thee were rumors that security council was often clashing with the presidential administration about lines of authority for the operations. i would focus on the fact to bloomberg and other , rumors were made about how decisions are made in russia. i would look at the decision on ukraine and crimea in general as consisting of three general decisions.
the first one about major confrontation with the west should be taken by shareholders, not managers. shareholders are guys like y akunin. so-called oligarchs. aboutcond decision ukraine deciding to sign the agreement with the eu short not be made just by oligarchs. about takingision crimea could be made by generals. books, one very informed russian journalist is trying to explain the decision.
he reminds us how the decision was made in the invasion of afghanistan, when the heads of general staff tried to oppose at a politburo meeting and was told that we did not invite you to tell us about your opinion. we did invite you to take our opinion and realize this. this perhaps could happen with regard to crimea as long. -- as well. thank you very much for an excellent presentation. financing, the reserve fund is a minor thing. efforts will be $400 billion as planned. isal international reserves $365 billion. that is a lot of rope to hang
themselves with. first, has the politburo in replaced by the security council, meeting quite regularly? is this the central mediating body today? second question, mainly to brian, you talked about elites against the others. among the others, we have distinct different heelys -- elites that seem to be rising with the state enterprise managers with yakunin. it would be interesting if you could discuss if this is really happening.
we can see it clearly in state allocations of funding. third, how do you look at ukraine in this situation? how it has been a to proceedhow withne being played down putin not mentioning the cutoff whilectricity to ukraine instantly complaining about the russian plane today. thank you. mr. hale: go ahead. mr. petrov: first of all, if you control everything, including
the central bank, the minister , it looks and so on like you can easily fix the problem. if needed, you can print money. this is exactly what is going on. i would like to mention only one funny story about the fact that, just on the eve of the draft of the budget they took to the government and they were forced to refuse this idea. perhaps they did not consult who they should consult. how they managed to do this at the very last moment, they changed the expected oil prices to be increased. and the addition of several billion dollars to demonstrate
there is no additional deficit connected with the wise decision. , thereg of the politburo is a consulting agency in moscow which helps all the time with schemes of putin's politburo. it is misleading because politburo, at the time of the soviet union, was a formal institution where all major claims have been represented, which should meet to make important decisions. no more it works. organization that does me in real life is the security council. like ay council sounds security council in this country, but it is a very different body. it is not so much the institute.
it is more like a substitute. the security council is consulting, shared by the president, who can either make a decision on the basis of the discussion or who cannot make decisions. the security council cannot make decisions by itself. formalines certain institutions like the houses a russian parliament whose chairs do not play any essential role in decision-making. several managers, like the head of social security agencies, and there are no putin's oligarchs there, which makes this body not a kind of real center where decisions are made. looking at major shifts within the elites, i would agree that,
andhe time of war, military secret service guys play a much more important role. while we see some liberal economists at the government, their role is to minimize damage , which is the result of decisions made by somebody else, not by them. and this is very dangerous, i think. putin's role is to keep balance between major elites. he cannot allow one of these clans to win because it will make his position not that influential and make him hostage of the elites. i can hardly mention what would need to be done to restore balance. speaking of ukraine, i am afraid not moscow and kiev are
interested in any kind of radical solution for eastern ukraine. they are more interested to keep it in its shape of the controlled conflict. i do not think there is anything positive the kremlin can get out of eastern ukraine. negativen avoid a consequence connected with many different things, connected with moneyct they should find to keep it afloat or should get revolutionaries to come back to russia, who will not be eager to come back. it is much more effective to keep certain controls to demonstrate something is going