tv U.S. Senate CSPAN October 10, 2012 12:00pm-5:00pm EDT
to be looking at today. anybody possessing small amounts of marijuana will be the technical argument. people will sit through that in anticipation in the main event at 11 when the court for an hour will hear arguments about fischer against the university of texas, which so far is the case of the term. >> real quickly what is coming up next for the court that the viewers should be looking for? >> it's likely in short order to take the same-sex marriage case and if affirmative action is even bigger i would expect in november we will hear whether -- and i think in all likelihood they will say yes they will hear the same-sex marriage case. >> that is what to watch for from atom of "the new york times" but as he says, affirmative action case today adam liptak thanks for your time. and this oral argument today
before the court audio will be released in today's oral arguments on friday after 1 p.m.. look for our coverage of those oral arguments sometimes the the cut. go to c-span.org for more details if you are interested and let's leave in on the back-and-forth of that case. but this morning here on washington journal, we want to get your take on the supreme court taking that the affirmative action case and the affirmative action republican, 202-737-0002, democrats, 202-737-0001, independent, independent phone co. we have a special line from college students, 225-85-3883. also remember you can send us your tweet at twitter.com or post your comments on facebook, facebok.com/csan and send an e-mail email@example.com.
we will try to read those in the first 45 minutes as well. here is a wall street journal story -- excuse me, "the washington times" story on the supreme court consideration of racial quotas and they say this a little bit we hear that about that 2003 case the "the washington times" reports they shut down the seattle system that divided the city's elementary schools equally along racial lines to justice john roberts wrote the majority opinion called the meds extreme. in 2009 the court ruled that new haven connecticut violated the civil rights five-year fighters after the results of a promotion exam because not enough blacks had passed. with liberal leaning justice elena kagan reducing herself a key vote could apply again with justice anthony kennedy as we heard from adam. sandy a democrat. what do you think?
>> caller: yes. >> host: what do you think of affirmative action in this case specifically for the court? >> caller: well, first of all i would like to hear the make up and see the makeup of the total top ten when she was denied because we so often have not only racial problems, we can have gender problems as well. so before i want to -- before we get into a big hassle about affirmative action and how we as black people or we as white people as a minority, we are not able to have a fair shot in getting into that college and also listening to the case may be they may need to reform. the racial ethnic of the and a
graduate student body this is the university of texas, you can see the makeup in 2010, 2007 over 50% white. you can see that number going down in 2011, less than 50% white and hispanic, black, asian making up more of the student body at the university of texas at austin. >> caller: i see. >> host: republican, keith, good morning. >> caller: i have a question. i joined the conversation late this morning, and i was curious if the explained that the 10% rule, which my understanding is that it applies to each individual, high school or maybe district as opposed to the state, whereas in the past was 10% of the highest rank of students in the state. now what they are doing is taking 10% of the individual high school students in each district or school. >> host: every school in texas. >> caller: yeah, but that does
is you may be saying that 11 or 12% range, and your particular school therefore not qualified. you might actually have been in the top three, four, 5% in the entire state and have more than qualified. but because the change the whole to every school as opposed to the entire state, but that does is deny some very bright students of any race the opportunity to get into the state college just simply because they were, you know, very smart in their particular state, but not in that particular school. you know what i'm saying? >> host: this is the "the washington times" with the right. nearly all students finish in the top 0% of their high school classes. so the remaining spots are awarded based on a variety of factors including the universities effort to achieve racial diversity of its campuses. ms. fisher argues the school accepted students of lower academic achievement solely because of their skin color and ignored her a above average grades only because she is white. what do you think?
>> caller: i'm saying if she were in the top three or 4% in the state but unfortunately the top 11 or 12% in her particular school or her particular school district, she is being discriminated against just simply by that. >> host: proponents say this crucial consideration. believe they are necessary to forge a pathway into college for many minority and low-income students, particularly those to come from poor school systems. many also argue that the help form a diverse student body that by enriching the educational experience of all pupils. >> caller: that's good. i guess it goes back to the case the was deemed moot anyway, but the fact of the matter is when you are laying on that table and you are about to have brain surgery, it doesn't matter what color the surgeon is. i don't care if he is black, white, it doesn't make any difference. the fact of the matter is if they were granted admission to school simply based on the fact of their skin color, that in itself is discriminatory. >> host: okay. carroll.
oklahoma city. independent. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i would say that i hope [inaudible] they don't intervene because that affirmative action of white women versus african-american women for jobs and positions and i think it is being used in that respect. hopefully the supreme court will step down and allow it to continue as it is. >> host: okay. new hampshire. the democratic call. good morning, now three. what are your thoughts? >> caller: i just think it's unfortunate that today we need this kind of law we. look at the ayaan to leave the unemployment rate on its higher among black and it is white, so there's still discrimination going on in this country, and we still need this law.
it's really unfortunate. >> host: will be in jacksonville florida, independent. your thoughts are next, willie. >> caller: yes, good morning. it must not be enough highly educated black institutions say i have to go to harvard to get a certain education. we don't have -- we reached the same criteria. we are still lacking and i get an education at the school. i just don't understand.
they have no qualified school that is on the same level with these schools and professors on the same level. uc-irvine saying? >> host: here is the 28 president of the university of texas at austin writing in today's wall street journal traer. he writes history repeats itself when they are in an ironic way the university of texas goes before the supreme court to defend the missions. it lasted 62 years ago when he men's white and african-american work from houston, the university consideration of race that of course had been denied admission because of his race. the university lost that case but america one. they became one of the first leg should universities in the former confederacy to integrate and goes on to see my university kept blacks out. now texas we assure that the
grand children can enter. in the opinion back in 2003 adam referred to, justice sandra day kennedy wrote for the majority -- excuse me, o'connor, wrote for the majority. the constitution, quote, does not prohibit the law school's tethered use of decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the education of benefits that flow from a diverse student body. surely like nine short years have not obliterated this logic. that is sandra day o'connor writing back in 2003. oxford new york is a republican. what do you think of this case? affirmative action before the high court. the head. >> caller: i see that race is playing a very important year, and i want us to see what the party representatives will do in this connection because if you see right now mitt romney about
47% and the 47% as a lot to do with the race and minority. what can they do for us and also my other question is what room do they have for the minorities to enter the schools like that? >> host: on that video the former massachusetts governor talking about 47% of americans. david of mother jones magazine will be here with us later on in the program to be 8:30 eastern time. he's out with a new book about that video and other campaign 2012 issues to rethink of questions and comments that you want to have an answer when he joins us then. you can send them to the facebook page. we are taking them here as well. here is the arizona republican campaign 2012 courtesy of the museum battle down to the - thing states. these top states drawing 93% of ad spending. this is from the arizona
republic. before by election de both candidates are concentrating their precious time and money in the states that still seem to be competitive. those are ohio, florida, nevada, colorado, on what some of virginia, north carolina, new hampshire and wisconsin. that is according to the arizona republic and other papers have similar stories this morning about campaign 2012. here on the washington journal leader in the month we are going to do a series on the battleground states to a closer look into what makes them a battleground state and in the status of the race in those states. that is coming up leading of to the election later on. more stories about campaign 2012. wall street journal front-page romney target's obama voters and the poll shows high rates. the governor tries to kill support from obama supporters. and then the "baltimore sun" this morning in the first set when obama returns to the trenches. the campaign stop in ohio and the 15th stock yesterday in the
state in 2012. was his 30th trip he's taking office in this 15th this year alone to read it so both candidates campaigning in ohio and then as we said showing the race tightening after the debate here is "the new york post" this morning showing that nationwide according to the gallup, romney is up 49%. president obama 37% coming and then here you can see the state of ohio this is a cnn report showing president obama the four-point lead over governor romney in ohio the american research group showing romney up 48% in ohio and president obama 47%, so tightening across the country in the battleground states. samford for the democratic call. we will go back to the topic here. the supreme court to hear affirmative action cases today. what do you think clacks
>> caller: back in the 2003 opinion i think it kind of encapsulates in the sense that the constitution does not prevent your consideration. they also said in that opinion race could not be the primary factor. it could be one of many factors. so why would hope there could be a way where if ms. fisher was denied mission and there were people that were more qualified i think that, you know, that procedure could be discriminatory. but i would hope they would find a way this procedure does violate the constitution but not strike down all, you know, programs designed to include racial equality and try to get a diverse student body. >> host: why this system
specifically? you think it goes a step further so it takes the top ten from each school and then for the next round of the admissions it includes race at that point as well? >> caller: i think i agree with what the gentleman said before about having be unfair because you have someone that in a high year agreed a mistake they are not in that top ten of the school. i can in late so i didn't get the specifics of the case, but i'm not sure that -- the way i understand it is a fine man and admissions office and you have race and other things as part of the recommendation, grades, whatever, and race is sort of one of many factors, but i think that if it gets to the point where if what you're saying is true, she was admitted -- she
was not evident it over people who were of a different race she had better grades and that goes a step too far. >> host: she just missed the cutoff for the top ten program. missed being in the top ten of her school by three or four people. >> caller: i would hope the court would do is maybe strike on that program as applied but not say what they could legitimately say this procedure is incompatible with their decision in 2003 because it's using race as a primary thing it seems like. >> host: robert in miami florida. >> caller: how do you know that she was the person that was
simply bunt from the consideration of the admissions from that law school because she was white? i can hear the arguments that they would apply to the state law school i think everyone else's questioning it was because of so-called black to qualify. first requires that person is not eligible and qualified to be there and you know just like you said that there are other components in consideration for law school, not just grades but other things, and the admissions board couldn't get all of that, so these affirmative action came out that at some point in the history whether they apply to these graduate schools this country is separate. it's understood that if you were
blacked blackie would not be admitted because you're black. there is a history in these particular programs. i'm finding it difficult to believe that this person can legitimately say that they were because she was white. how is the supreme court going to prosecute that type? >> host: it sounds like you are interested in listening to the oral arguments. the audio will be released on friday after 1 p.m.. look for our coverage on c-span.org in case you want to hear what sort of questions the justices asked of those that are arguing the case, and then to find out and get some ideas how you think they might rule on this. rhode island, democratic call. go ahead. >> caller: is this fallujah let? >> host: you are on the air.
>> caller: ayaan jerry. i studied political science and i've also went through the coming you know, the court cases come supreme court cases, brown v. board of education, etc., etc. not. but i want to make a personal comment. i took the s.a.t. with a black friend of mine in massachusetts who is a basketball player and went to play for the jacksonville. we both moaned and groaned over the s.a.t.. i think of was discrimination against both of us because we were from a poor neighborhood. we never had the opportunity to get and i think that this is -- a lot of the problem is the tests to get into a problem which is discriminating against poor white and black men and women also. also, i think that's you can't disregard discrimination in the past and slavery in this
country. what i did is they took a broad brush and started making everyone a minority. this left the black man out of the picture to a large extent. i also feel it's at a disadvantage and give them a shot that they should be separate programs and the colleges and universities for this traditions like that. >> host: jury in portsmouth rhode island. here are comments on facebook. i think white people have been marginalized enough to stop attacking them and he used the free-market approach and said business will last because people won't shop there. with the business decide. bryant montgomery, it further segregates those that feel afflicted. those are some of the comments on the facebook page.
facebook.com/c-span. on to some other news of what we continue talking about in the hearing in this case. here is the front page of "the washington post" this morning. the attack could mark the clinton legacy. clinton was the first of the obama administration officials to condemn the attack and mourn the death of ambassador christopher stevens and three other americans but as the state department has weathered the republican-led criticism of the warning signs before the september 11th attack, clinton has been invisible. clinton will not appear the oversight hearing on the libya attack where they've said they will question the state department security preparations and the administration's account of the attack. the state department plans to the interest in their career with other officials. ahead of the hearing they provided new details about the attack or asserting that there had been no way to predict or prevent the same assault. and as we read in the "the washington times" earlier, the report that the state department
according to them took away any claims that this attack was due to the protest about that video to read that is the front page of the "the washington times" this morning. they also in case you are interested include a brief chronology of the aftermath of the attack on the u.s. consulate in libya if you are interested in that in the "the washington times". ahead of the hearing in a column the purpose of the election hearing is to induce the administration for security but i am unaware of the irony of the diplomatic security is an adequate partly because the budget cuts as fellow republicans in congress. the gop-controlled house proposed spending 9.1 billion for the department's world wide security protection program pops below the 2.1 billion by the obama had been attrition the republicans cut the administration request for the
security funding by 128,000,331,000,000 in fiscal 2012 and negotiations in the senate restored 88 million of the administration request so that is some background for you to name. remember our coverage at noon today when the hearing begins. tune into c-span2 watch of this morning. thanks for waiting and what are your thoughts on that? >> caller: good morning, c-span2 read i guess my main comment is that the whole purpose of affirmative action was to write a does diminish our policy over the course of history in the united states but it's not been applied appropriately. it would be more fair if it was
a place on your income level so that the whole purpose of these people could have social mobility but it's not apply to people that come from low-income homes who don't necessarily have the same opportunity that many people have from middle class or upper class homes i think that creates bitterness from many people on that. last i feel like i guess the main issue is affirmative action right now is that it has unintended consequences for instance a lot of universities people of african descent who generally have parents who came here who have higher education
degrees, doctors, they are giving preference over african-americans in selection in schools, so that i think is an unintended consequence and if we did it based on the income level would be it. >> host: orlando florida republican line. what is your name? >> caller: its karen. i think what we have to understand when it comes to affirmative action is a remedy. what i mean by a legal remedy to right the wrong in the past and if i could explain that really clicked it's like for generation and then you stop me from doing that there is a remedy called an easement then you get to it after the court says well he's trespassing know, you can't say that because it is a remedy to the affirmative action is about networking. that's how most of us get our jobs in the country where people
were separated in the neighborhoods and communities that whites and blacks interact, they didn't know each other. will get your facebook friends if you were to post a job on your facebook page how many of your friends are actually different from you? it's a way of giving people an opportunity that were different from you. and what i don't understand about the case is i don't understand how she knows for a fact she was the lowest scoring white person and minority that she's claiming that got higher than her was lower than her. i am sure there are other people just like her that got into the university, and white people have affirmative action, too. it's called legacy and this is it your parents or you're own or family member went to this school you get a place for that and i wish your school discriminated in the past.
i don't see how that is not affirmative action for white people in that sort of thing. >> host: we regret to keep taking phone calls about ten minutes the first back to the campaign 2012. here is "the new york times" network. even if the candidates don't don't scratch your year even if it really itches and if you have a thought you want to come back too quickly jot down one memorable word not an entire sentence and remember that the camera in front of you represents 60 million highest. that is what the debate is from the candidates when they prepare them for the debate. the biggest year is on the presidential candidates who no matter how many times they reminded they seem to sometimes forget there's still one camera even when they are not speaking. and it goes on to say the major networks, abc, cbs, cnn and fox news all say they plan to use the screen shots regularly
throughout the vice presidential debate. they said it is even considering them during the presidential debate last week. in denver some of the candidates in the past have tried it with varying degrees of success to the limit from using what our reaction shots from candidates. to bill clinton and president george bush in '92 when it starts to write into the debate contract the television networks could not broadcast such images. the story goes on to say networks use whatever schultz the choose despite the pressure from the campaign and the year typically nine cameras hosted by the commission on the presidential debate a nonpartisan organization that oversees the production while the commission has final say over whether the cameras -- where they are placed they do not control the mechanics of filming the camera angles or decisions about when to cut away. it is left solely to the discretion of the network pool is providing the net broadcast.
was abc and thursday this cnn. wasn't mentioned in the article that c-span of the first to start using split screen back in 2000 when al gore was debating george w. bush, and the article in "the new york times" notes the flat screen has become such a modern media phenomenon that as the political scientists have studied it and they say with varying degrees the study concluded that watching the debate on the flat screen considerably reinforces negative perceptions people have about the candidate they oppose. we started doing it here on c-span back in 2000 and we will continue to have split coverage on c-span2 be on c-span2 you can watch the d date with a different take and you will get a seat which is the head-on shot of whoever is talking to be it so you can decide how you want to watch the debate.
c-span, split screen the entire time, c-span2 has the screen shot and then that the date of on the web site, c-span.org. you can follow along on the website and you can read about it and follow those that are tweeting about it all of the coverage on c-span.org. .. >> caller: not everyone can buy as in this country -- [inaudible] are gotten by the biggest companies, not the small
farmers. my biggest case myself, neither black nor white, have a ph.d. from johns hopkins, but i can't get employment in my field which is african-american histories because most people either prefer a woman or an african-american candidate to teach my expertise. so affirmative action is not going to be the justice we seek. it's time to stop it because people like myself can never benefit from that system. it's always going to be a matter of black and white, and i basically agree with the previous caller, chad, that it should be income based. if you've already gotten the subsidies, don't keep milling this cash cow -- milking this cash cow. it's not india with a caste system that you've got to keep talking about past injustices. this country is the first on planet earth. it's time to quit all the subsidizing of people who are just too smart to milk the
system. >> host: neil, what's your background? >> caller: i'm asian, i'm a historian but just can't get full-time employment in my field especially because it's african history. >> host: okay. karen in houston, texas, democratic caller. morning. >> caller: yes, my daughters went to the university of texas at austin, and it was before, thankfully, the 10% rule, as i think although the school district in which we live is very diverse and represents pretty much the state's demographics, the high schools that my daughter went to were very competitive, and i don't know that at least my younger daughter would have been considered in the top 10%, although she was a strong student. so many students who are very strong students at competitive high schools, sadly, cannot get into the university of texas. and i agree with previous callers, um, who raise the
question of the impact of low socioeconomic status. and i guess i would also add that i think that some of the schools in texas which, um, are particularly in high -- >> we'll leave "washington journal" at this point. you can see the segment in its entirety on our web site, go to c-span.org. live now to the national press club today. they're hosting a discussion with the chair of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey. he's expected to cover a wide range of issues related to u.s. military and national security. >> he is the highest ranking military officer in the u.s. armed forces and the principal military adviser to the president, the secretary of defense and the national security council. prior to becoming chairman, he served briefly as the army's 37th chief of staff. general dempsey is a bit of an unexpected appointment. he had just been sworn in as the army chief of staff a couple of
months prior, but when the nomination process for another candidate stalled, general dempsey was called to serve a grateful nation, and he has done so with distinction. since taking the chairman's job a year ago, the 37-year army veteran has made headlines by dealing with the infamous quran-burning pastor by calling him up and asking him to withdraw his support for the anti-muslim video that sparked protests across the middle east. he expressed disappointment over the navy seal who published an unauthorized account of the killing of osama bin laden. he said an israeli attack on iran would clearly delay but probably not destroy iran's nuclear program. he has stressed the need to retool the military for a postwar world with smaller pentagon budgets, and most recently he has spoken about the need to turn up the volume on ways to help war veterans reintegrate back into civilian
world. ask be amid all that -- and amid all that, the general's plane was damaged by taliban militants who fired missiles at ill while parked at bagram -- at it while parked at bagram air force base. he is a 1974 graduate of west point. he and wiz dive deend wife deenie have four children and seven grandchildren. the chairman is also a self-described sinatra irish pub kind of guy -- [laughter] who loves to sing at official functions. among his hits, all available on youtube, are christmas in killarney, the sesame street theme, and despite being from new jersey, "new york, new york." it is my pleasure to welcome general martin dempsey, the melodious chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. [applause] >> well, i did hear you get a
little roughed up when you come to these events. although i will say the last time i was many this room i was actually surrounded by the muppets. [laughter] thanks, theresa. there is a tradition in the cavalry corpses, i am a cavalryman by background and a cavalryman at heart that we call the spur ride. in the early days, a new cavalryman was put on a horse without a saddle, no bridle, just he and the horse. and then an experienced cavalryman would whack it on the behind, and the new soldier would go speeding off across the plain, hanging on for dear life. if he completed the ride, he would earn his silver spurs. the proof of his worthiness to be a cavalryman. so standing here, i feel a little bit like my horse has just been slapped. [laughter] so i'll be looking for some spurs at the end of this engagement.
before we get started, i'd like to recognize the passing of arthur sulzberger. as most of you know, he advanced journalistic excellence not just for "the new york times," but for your entire profession. yours is a profession i respect just as i know you respect my profession, a profession of arms. i'm sure you would agree that our professions are both built on trust, trust that has to be earned over time through the forging of relationships. i want to talk to you a little bit about some of the relationships aye been working on -- i've been working on. that is, i want to talk to you about the relationships i've been trying to build most prominently with partners around the world. i did just pass the one-year mark of my chairmanship, and so it seems to me to be a good time to take stock. over the last year, i've met with 57 of my counterparts, i've traveled to 22 foreign countries, i've placed a lot of wreaths, and i've hosted a lot of dinners. i've delivered toasts in a dozen
different languages, and as far as i know, i've only screwed a couple of them up. [laughter] why do i invest all this time in relationships, especially with my foreign counterparts? simply stated, we need them to make our strategy work. we need relationships born of trust and underpinned by interests and common interests. we need partners who can bring to their capability and credibility. now, i know what you might be thinking, relationships are often hard, and they are. on occasion some partnerships pay seem more trouble than they're worth. on the other hand, when we get together in large groups, i think we risk -- we take the risk of talking past each other. kind of reminds me of when i served in operation desert storm in 1991. now, you know that today's young men and women wherever they're deployed -- aboard ship, in air bases in the middle of the desert in kuwait and afghanistan -- they're connected constantly with their family members.
they skype, they text, they call. it wasn't like that in 1991. in fact, some of you will remember in '91 when i was sitting in the desert to the south we really didn't have any access, any way to connect to home. my wife had remained in germany with the third armor division. so we were exchanging letters, and those letters would kind of pass in the night. so i'd send a letter or, and she'd get it ten days, fourteen days, sometimes thirty days later, there'd be a relater coming my way -- letter coming my way, and we just kept talking past each other. and in one of the letters she said to me, you know, i miss you so much, it's almost like you were right here with me. [laughter] now, i made the assumption, because, you know, again, you can't pick up the phone and say, seriously? did you really -- [laughter] you know? i made the assumption that it was just a very badly-phrased sentences, sent her a note back
and got some assurances later. it does talk about the difficulty of managing relationships over long distances, at least as they've been managed in the past. sometimes our relationship with our partners seem a little bit like that, but mostly they're worth while. let me give you a few examples. every trip that i've taken to afghanistan i've learned more than the last time i was there. i've been there six times in the first year of my chairmanship, and it's been well worth the trip. i sit down with afghan leaders, and i sit down with our nato command team to discuss strategy and the linkage to campaign plans and the linkage further down into tactics. more importantly, i can get a feel for how the young men and women who are out there on the leading edge feel about the mission and whether they retain their confidence in our ability to achieve our objectives. i listen to their insights, and i thank them for their service on the front line. the taliban gets it, gets what we're doing. they know that the bond between the afghan security forces and
our forces will ultimately be what causes them to be defeated. and so they target it. and i'm sure you'll be interested in speaking about the insider threat we face. in my most recent visit to theater, i spoke with leaders at every level about the insider threat, and they all agree we can't let that threat discourage or dissuade us from our objectives, but we must keep our eye on that threat. it is a very serious threat. but our commitment to the relationship and to the objectives remain strong. isaf was built, is being built, and the ansf that we're building on 63 years of nato experience. and nato has proven itself. it transcends transactional relationship. it exists on the basis of shared values. my fellow chiefs of defense at nato and i have gathered four times over the past year, and i've met with many of them one-on-one. i can tell you while there are challenges ahead for both of us,
our bonds are as strong as ever. i should also make mention of the fact that today in brussels the secretary of defense announced that general john allen will, once confirmed, will leave his posting as commander of isaf and move to be the supreme commander of europe, our chief nato military leader, and that general joe dunford who's currently the commandant of the marine corps will move and take the commander of isaf commission. both very, very talented, capable, courageous, thinking officers who will put us in great shape to continue both our relationship with nato writ large and also our campaign in afghanistan. we see the kinds of relationships i'm talking about closer to home as well. this year i traveled to latin america, and i reaffirmed our longstanding relationship with colombia. i spent a little time in the jungle and explored options for expanding our time -- our ties
with brazil, and i learned more about our common interests in south america which are obvious, i think, and include border security, maritime domain awareness and counternarcotics. while on the topic of latin america, you should know that 17 different nations joined us for the pafamax exercise this year. this exercise focuses on the safe passage through the panama canal. now, i mention this because on this date in history in 1913 president wilson detonated explosives at the gamboa dike, opening the panama canal and connecting the atlantic and the pacific. it redefined geography and time. while we've always been a pacific power, the panama canal created new opportunities for east and west. today we're still looking for new opportunities to engage in the asia pacific. in my first year, i've been to the region three times and met with 15 different leaders.
back in june i took back in the shang rah la dialogue where i had the opportunity to reinforce the basics of our rebalance which are more attention, more engagement and more quality. but the rebalance doesn't mean that we're pulling up stakes from the mideast. i'm not sure we could even if we wanted to do so. i've taken five trips to the mideast and held discussions with 14 leaders in the region; turkey, israel, jordan and iraq. i've been to all those countries, most of them more than once. my aim has been to make sure that we're all prepared with options for the challenges ahead, both the near-term issues in iran and in syria and longer-term issues resulting from the arab spring. there are some countries i haven't visited yet, but i plan to. china and india are high on my list, and so is russia. even though i've not yet visited miss cow, i have had several -- moscow, i have had several productive meetings with my russian counterpart here in
washington, d.c., in europe and by video teleconference several times. i could go on. as you can tell, i'm working hard on my friends list. one final thought. during all of these travels, our servicemen and women are always foremost in my thoughts. they and their families have been through a lot. they are an inspirational bunch. i saw this when i was honored to go to london as the head of the united states delegation to the paraolympics. our athletes, especially the wounded warriors -- 20 of the 200 were wounded warriors -- define resilience. one of them in particular i'll tell you about, lieutenant brad snyder lost his vision a year ago from an ied blast in afghanistan, and one year after he was wounded on the battlefield, he won two golds and a silver in london at the paraolympics. i just saw him this past weekend at the army/air force football game where he was accompanied by his brother russell who's his
care provider. there was a touching moment when navy kicked a field goal and began their comeback against air force. my condolences to some of you in the audience who may have been the wrong end of that. his brother said navy just kicked a field goal, and all brad said was, nice. [laughter] so i just want you to know that those young men and women are out there, young men and women who one year after having their life completely altered had redefined themselves. that's what we're all about. with that, i'm ready for your questions and what i imagine will be the most challenging part of my national press conference, press club engagement and the opportunity to win my spurs. thank you very much. [applause] >> are we still on track for pulling our troops out of afghanistan in 2014? what additional steps are being taken to protect our troops from insider attacks? kind of got two questions.
>> yeah. yeah, well, the pulling-out question implies that we know what our enduring presence will be, and we're working on that right now both internal to our government, but also with our nato allies. so we're trying to determine based on the agreements made in lisbon and then reinforced in chicago about what this long-term commitment will be, and it's scoped against several missions, one of which is counterterror, another of which is continuing to train and advise at some level. another is to enable other agencies of government to do their job in afghanistan. and so as we determine how to, what we'll need to accomplish those missions based on the growth of the afghan security forces, sometime early in 2013 we'll come up with a number that will define our enduring presence. and then we'll take what we have there now, which is 68,000 u.s. and about 30, 34,000 coalition partners, and we'll establish a
glide slope to get from where we are to where we're going to be. and the important point is that in that question is i want to reinforce that our objectives remain both sound and achievable. as for the insider threat, as i mentioned in my prepared remarks, the insider threat is a very serious threat because it is clear that the taliban understands that if they can separate the afghan security forces from those of us who advise and assist them, that they will retard the development of the afghan security forces and cause our will to be, to be under pressure. but what i'm telling you from my visits over there is everyone understands it on our side and, importantly, on the afghan side. i visited afghan corps commanders who had gone out to visit battalion-level and company--level organizations, taking their religious and cultural leaders with them to, you know, to explain to them that insider attacks are both a threat to us and to them.
as you well know, they suffer as many or more, actually, insider attacks than we do. so we're all seized with it on both sides. it is a threat, one we can't take our eyes off. but at this point i can report to you with some confidence that it is not jeopardizing our objectives, it's just making it a little tougher. and if anybody thought, though, we'd get from here to the end of '14 in a straight line, come and talk to me. [laughter] >> on a scale from 1-10, how serious do you perceive the danger posed to america by the black swan cyber threats. >> by the what? >> black swan cyber threats. >> yeah. let me not talk about that one in particular because there's a whole, there's a whole pantheon of cyber threats that i could, we could discuss. i assume that ten is really bad and one is not so bad? >> yes. >> now we've got, look, cyber -- i've said this, i've said this since i became the chairman and have learned even more while
i've been the chairman cyber is both our greatest opportunity, it's our greatest opportunity in making changes in our military capabilities, it's also our greatest vulnerability. and we are, we're working really hard to -- my job, of course, is to make sure we can protect our military networks and the cyber domain that supports us. that's been my focus in the first year, as well as trying to contribute to a broader dialogue about critical infrastructure and other threats to the nation. and we need to keep after that until we do the best we can to protect ourselves. >> to what extent do you think that the recently-released capstone concept for joint operations, joint force of 2020 will affect what each service is now doing, and does it change what they were doing under the previous ccjo? >> the -- yeah, i hope it
changes, i hope it changes a little bit of what was published in the previous ccjo. i mean, one of the things that i've tried to champion is that we're a learning organization. and so, you know, you can think about that broadly which is to say what have we learned over the last ten years. what capabilities, for example, didn't even exist ten years ago or certainly didn't exist as they exist today. and i'll name three. one is isr, intelligence-surveillance- reconnaissance. some of you know the kind of, the element that's most visible in that regard are unmanned aerial platforms. but that's not all. i mean, there's aerostat balloons flying all over afghanistan. it's all kinds of intelligence-surveillance and reconnaissance sensors out there now that are informing us about the battlefield in ways that were really unimaginable about ten years ago. so that's one big change. the second is the way that sof has grown, special operating
forces, have grown both in size and capability. so in 2001 33,000 across the services, by 2017 70,000 across the services. but it's not just about the quantity, it's about the quality of the work they do. so a big change in the special operating forces. and the third one is cyber, you know, to roll back on a previous question. if you'd have tried to engage me in a conversation about cyber in 2001, we'd have been -- first of all, you and i, i mean, not all of you are my age, but it would have been hard to have that conversation because there were probably a handful of people who, you know, were out there exploring the potential of cyber. but now it's proliferated. and so as you, as we look at the new ccjo, what i'm trying to do is guide the force in its development toward 2020. what i've realized is 80% of joint force 2020 exists today. it does, it exists because of existing organizational design,
leader development paradigm cans are in place -- paradigms are in place, and programs of record in the acquisition community are humming along or not humming along. but the point is 80% of the joint force we'll have in 2020 exists right now, or you can see it coming. it's that 20% that i'm trying to negotiate with the services, find ways to integrate these existing and emerging capabilities to make us a better force as we also learn to live in a different fiscal environment. >> the capstone concept forward says the world is trending towards greater stability, yet it says the world is potentially more dangerous than ever. how will the stability overcome the threat? >> well, you know, when people ask me about afghanistan, the first thing i normally tell them is it's possible for violence and progress to coexist in places like afghanistan. i'd say the same thing about the paradox of stability and threat.
they coexist. so i've talked about a security paradox which is violence is at an evolutionary low. and it is, except that the capabilities to impart violence are in the hands of people who heretofore wouldn't have had access to them. so you have a paradox of feeling as though the world is -- this is kind of the tom friedman the world is flat and connected and, therefore, is less likely to fight each other. maybe. but there's also the other school of thought that says it's in the unconnected parts of our globe where violence will be both more prevalent, but also more violent because the instruments of violence are more available now than they've ever been. i won't speak about it, because it would take too long. but go back and look at what ten lte terrorists did in mumbai in 2008. the avenue sock they wreaked over -- havoc they reeked over a period of time in a major city.
it's an eye opener. and how they did it and how they leveraged commercial, off-the-shelf technology to empower it. >> with the largest discretionary funding of any be u.s. department, dod is a ripe target for budget cuts. sequestration looks likely since we're seeing little action from congress. what problems is that going to present for supporting soldiers, sailors and air personnel? >> well, one of the jobs that we all have is jcs, and i'll put back on my chief of army hat for a moment, is the job of taking the resources that are provided and keeping the force in balance. so a service chief has about five levers they can pull to keep the budget in the balance. manpower costs on one side, infrastructure on the other, operations, maintenance, training and modernization. i mean, there's probably another lever there or so that i've forgotten about. but, you know, it does come down
to mechanics at some point. how much money will you invest in each of those to have each of those levers stay in balance. and the challenge that you describe in managing the budget and especially as it regards sequestration is that it takes away the ability of a service chief to apply the budget as he or she at some point would like to apply it, and it has a mechanism in place that fundamentally causes it to be reduced by 10% across the board. that makes it almost impossible to keep the force in balance. that's the issue of sequestration. >> what is the department of defense's role in this administration's foreign policy? >> i'm sorry, the role of what? >> in foreign policy. >> what is the department of defense's role in foreign policy. well this is, you know, i'm sure that the question is in response to the conversation with sometimes have about the militarization of foreign policy. is the department too prominent
across the world, and is the department of defense the face of the united states and not the department of state and other agencies of government. i'm sure there's places and parts in the world where that's true because of the way we're organized. you know, we've got six geographic combatant commands and four functionals, and so we are very prominent, we are very -- we have great access because we build relationships, and we're just a lot bigger. but i will say i find that as i travel the partnership internal to the government, so, you know, ambassadors and combatant commanders or chiefs of defense cooperation agencies is actually quite remarkable. i have the opposite fear in some ways, meaning i think that the notion that the military's too prominent in foreign affairs right now is probably mostly focused on the mideast. the rest of the world, you know, i think that it's a pretty, it's a pretty careful and pretty
thoughtful balance. what i worry about a bit is, again, back to the sizing of the defense department. there will be some relationship issues that have to change as we, you know, kind of pull our wings in a bit in face of budget challenges. and we have to be careful that doesn't create a vacuum. i also worry that, about the fact that we are so well partnered. i tell people that i was probably a colonel before i met anyone in the department of state. you know, so i was a 42-year-old guy in uniform before i met my first diplomatment i would -- diplomat. i would venture to say today because of the shared experiences in iraq and afghanistan, there's not a captain in the military that hasn't closely partnered with somebody from state, usaid, all the other agencies of government, nongovernmental organizations. as iraq and afghanistan wane, that, maintaining that relationship had been a
challenge, but we've got to do it. >> does the harsh rhetoric of a political campaign hurt our relationships, or do your counterparts around the world understand it's often just talk? [laughter] >> what harsh rhetoric? [laughter] um, you know, let me, let me use a bank shot approach here, that's a basketball terminology. there, you know, there's been some things said about, you know, me and israel, for example. and in every case when that occurs, i will pick up the phone and call my israeli counterpart, and we discuss any number of things, but we discuss things to insure that he knows that i'm not going to communicate with m through the media. i'll communicate what i really need to say to him person to person. so there is a recognition, i think, on both sides of the ocean with all of our partners
that, um, you know, political campaigns often, you know, create conditions where things are said that we just need to be patient with. i mean, we applaud and we support and we promote democracy around the world. and with that comes some, you know, some pretty zesty moments of discourse and debate and freedom of the press and freedom of speech. and we embrace it. but the important thing is if we ever have a question, that we have that relationship. that's why i talked about that as my principal focus in my first year, that we have that relationship that either he can pick up the phone and call me and say what are you talking about, or i can pick up the phone and call him. >> what is your take on the perceived suppression of military absentee voting initiatives? there seems to be so many obstacles in accommodating the military vote these days, and it's a growing concern to the military members. >> yeah. first, let me say, you know, 38
years in the army, um, swore an oath to support and defend the constitution. one of the things the constitution calls for is freedom of the press. among our freedoms in this great country is the freedom to vote, and i every chance i get either in writing or just at a public service announcement yesterday for internal consumption encouraging our young men and women in uniform to vote. nobody, in my view, has earned the right -- i mean, we all have the right, but nobody has earned it like those who have served their country and put themselves in harm's way. you know, the obstacles -- [applause] thanks. as you know, the move act required us as a department to establish certain procedures to make sure that our servicemen and women have the opportunity to vote. we've been, i've been in support of the department of defense's efforts to make sure that we live up to that, the requirement
of the move act. if there are obstacles, i think as you describe them, it's mostly that states -- not every state has a different system, but there's enough differences out there that sometimes it's hard to navigate, and that's why we put the move act in place, to help us facilitate that. but, um, we're committed to making sure that if a young man or woman in uniform wants to vote, they can. and, in fact, more than that, we encourage them to vote. >> how can you prevent attacks on u.s. troops in afghanistan from local police or service members if the goal to train them? >> well, first of all, i would not -- never stand here and say we can prevent it. there will be, again, this is an enemy tactic. infiltration, radicalization, influence. you know, this is a society that has suffered under conflict for 30-plus years where young men
have often settled their grievances with a gun as opposed to a conversation. and so i can't prevent it. i mean, i just -- we've got to be honest about that. but what we can do is we can continue to work to mitigate that risk, and it's a complex issue. it gets at how do they come into the service, we call it vetting. and then it's while they're in the service, how do we, how do we partner with them to establish that level of trust that -- by the way, i mean, i think it's important to note, and the australians came to the same conclusion. it's often, one of the ways you can mitigate the risk is actually by becoming closer to them, not by walking away from them. you can't commute, i mean, this is just a fact, and i've done in this in iraq, and i've worked with it in afghanistan. you can't commute to work to train and advise someone you're trying to develop. you can't be there for three or four hours a day and gone.
you can't commute. you've just got to be part of their lives. it does, on some level, puts you at greater risk, but as the relationship builds, it lores the race -- lowers the risk. we have counterintelligence resources we've applied, we've turned our incredible intelligence apparatus in this country toward this problem. we're reaching out to their leaders, encouraging them to be as concerned about it as we are. i mean, it's a very comprehensive issue, but we cannot prevent it. we can lower the risk, we can dramatically lower the numbers, but we can't prevent it. >> in light of the differences between the u.s. on one side and russia and china on the other over syria and iran, are we in danger of a greater conflict between these major powers? >> i think syria's probably the most complex issue -- and by the way, now think about that. with all the other things we've
just talked about, and we haven't mentioned four or five other parts of the world that are complicated, but syria's the most complex of all. because it is, in many ways, it's in many ways a crucible for all of the other factors and influences related to the the arab spring, the conflict among different sects of islam, ethnic issues, major power interventions, nonstate actors. i mean, you know, we could -- honestly, i could, there's a catalog of complexity that we could, that we could share on syria in particular. and as you said, i mean, there are major powers with interests and their own concerns about the outcome. what's on the other side, that are dominating their view. so i can tell you that what we're doing -- what we're doing, that's those of us who dress like i do -- is we continue to plan for a number of
contingencies. we're prepared to provide options if those options are required, and that's not just options internal to the united states. as you know, syria is bordered on the north by turkey, a very close nato partner. and so we're working through nato as well to understand, to try to clarify and to try to collaborate on planning that ultimately might be useful. but the military instrument of power at this point is not the prominent instrument of power that should be applied in syria. >> can you provide details on new measures, options on the table to curb insider attacks that will be or are being discussed at nato summit in brussels this week? >> well, i mean, i kind of catalog the multiple threads we're trying to tie together to lower the risk of insider
attacks. in answer to that question, i will tell you that john allen is in brussels right now with the nato defense ministers. and a very important part of his conversation with them is on this issue. because they, you know, they've been victimized by many of the same challenges that we have. and importantly, as i mentioned and i want to mention it again, so too have the afghans themselves. so i can't, i can't say much more by way of emphasis than to say that among the 28 ministers of nato, this issue is prominent as well. >> during an interview on charlie rose last week, sergei love love stated that he feared an arab autumn might be followed by a nuclear winter. as we approach the 50th anniversary of the cuban missile crisis, how can we avoid escalation of the world's hot spots be it syria, iran or the south china sea? >> well, with their help,
hopefully. [laughter] i mean, you know, i hope that budget his intent to volleyball the challenge to us, because this is something we have to work together on across, across the region. it's, of course, you know, the proliferation of nuclear technology, but also of ballistic missile technology that should have us all concerned in particular about iran and also notably about north korea. because they have demonstrated both the intent -- the will and the intent to proliferate technologies in particular into parts of the world that we wouldn't want them to proliferate. but i do think -- there are, by the way, places where russia and we are collaborating mightily. the northern distribution network out of afghanistan is possible only with their help. we're working counterpiracy, counternarcotics, border security, counterterror. there's more places that we are working with our partners than not. but it is, as secretary lavarov
said, an issue that could proliferate in particular, i think, if iran achieves nuclear weapons status. >> why was there no security for our diplomats in libya? >> well, there's a -- first of all, i wouldn't, i wouldn't agree that there was no security for our dip ro mats -- diplomats in libya. but more importantly, as you know, there's a commission that's been formed with thomas pickering and my predecessor, mike mullen, to take a look at the event itself and what led up to it. and i have great confidence in both of those men to answer that a question. >> going forward, how will the navy be changed? do we still need 11 carriers, and what would you replace them with? [laughter] >> wow. you know, i did get a navy cupcake. i'm not sure if that was -- [laughter] i don't know if that was intentional or happenstance.
yeah. you know, um, in the defense strategy that we've revised in the fall both because we wanted to after -- again, you know, we've got to learn if we're not looking at every opportunity to change and embrace it, we're missing, we're missing what is a very dynamic future. so we looked at that strategy for two reasons. one was the fact that it was time to look at our strategy, and hen the second was the budget control act because, you know, strategy that's not sensitive to resources is nothing more than rhetoric. i mean, come on, you know? there's always this balance between ends, ways and means. so the means changed. we had to take a look at the ends and the ways. so in that strategy, though, as you know we've articulated that it is in our long-term interest to begin to shift or rebalance ourselves to the pacific, and that, of course, is based on trends that you're all very familiar with.
not going to happen overnight, not a light switch. we've never left there, but the issue is how do you kind of relance your intellectual capital if nothing else and first, how do you rebalance your intellectual bandwidth to the pacific. so we've been doing that. and as you do that, you know, the pacific is a maritime, largely a maritime domain. many of you have traveled there, and, you know, you've got to go a long way before you find anything with dirt on it. [laughter] so what happens that you begin to look at the navy and its capability. they've done a remarkable -- i'll tell you, the navy's done just a remarkable job of allowing us to meet our needs in the gulf. right now we need two carriers in the gulf, and we've got 'em there. and we've got other carriers around, and they're also balancing that with the defense industrial base and how they move carriers into and out of maintenance, you know, nuclear platforms require a certain level of maintenance that you just can't defer. you've got to do it when you
have to do it, and the defense industrial base -- which we slunk in the '80s and '90s, intentionally shrunk -- is what limited, and you've got to meet your maintenance schedule. now, i say that because at this point in time i believe we've got what we need, and based on the navy's good works, we are meeting, we are meeting the needs for carrier presence around the world. i don't know what -- i haven't had a conversation with john greenard, you ought to have him here -- >> he's coming. >> he's coming? ask him what's next. because there is always something next. is it smell smaller? the it something submersible? i'm sure he'll have some thoughts about that to share with you. for the period i'm talking about which is out through 2020, as i mentioned, i think we've got the carrier fleet sized correctly, and we'll continue to take a hook at it as our strategy
evolves and matures. but for now i think we're in pretty good shape. >> what is the changing nature of land warfare? wanted to get both sides. >> well, yeah. this one i can actually answer. [laughter] well, for one thing, you know, i am in the camp -- this won't surprise you, but it's just not parochialism -- i'm not in the camp that says you'll never fight another significantly big land conflict. one thing we should always acknowledge is you don't always get a vote. i mean, you always get a vote, but so does the enemy. so the idea that we don't need land forces is not a good idea. and as the commander -- not the commander, but as the chairman of the joint force, i really do believe we are far better when we see each other as the sum of our parts, not as individual services. that said, i really like having four different service chiefs around the table when i'm in the tank with 'em because that
diversity of thinking generally pulls us in a direction that creates better options for the nation. so, but land -- so there is a significant change though. i'll actually now having said that i think we've got to be cautious about sizing the land component, army and marines, to an aspiration, i will say the nature of land conflict is changing. and let me describe it this way. as i grew up during the cold war, we built the force thinking about the big organizations first, corps and divisions. you know, 16,000 men increments. and then we said to ourselves, if we need something less than that, we'll disaggregate it. you know, we'll find a way to make it, to decentralize it. but we're going to build it with the big organization if mind. i think that the era we're entering now requires us to think exactly the opposite. that is to say we need to think
about empowering the squad, the ten-man group of individuals with everything we can empower them with and then figure out how to grow it from the bottom up. that's going to take us in a different direction, i think, in the way we design the force, the way we quip it, the way we train it, the way we encourage leadership within it. so there are some significant changes coming, i think, in the way we think about building our land component. and i would suggest to you it's not from the top down, but rather from the bottom up. >> what is the next step to reducing suicides among active duty service members? >> yeah. you know, step implies there's something sequential here x it's not. this is really another one that, you know, we just, we really need to continue to learn about what's happening. now, look, some of it is societal, you know? the young men -- suicide is a national problem. it also happens to be a dire,
important, serious military problem. but something out there is changing in the resilience of young men and women today, and so one of the things we're looking at is what have we got to do as we recruit these young men and women off the streets of america, how do we, you know, how do we build resilience into the force from birth, and how do you sustain it through a career where there are pressures whether it's a deployment or whether it's combat or whether it's even life, whether it's life-altering incidents, you know, divorce, financial challenges. it's really an issue of building resilience over time. secondly, there is, you know, there is a correlation -- there's a medical component of that, i think, that we've got to address. and there's also, you know, the trust of the force is really what i think, ultimately, provides us the best chance to get a grip on this.
here's what i mean by that. if i show up in a unit and i can't do enough push-ups to pass the pt test, you know that some sergeant's going to be out there and say, come here, young man. i want you to partner with her. she maxes her pt test every time she takes it. and so for the next three months you're going to do physical training with her. and by the end of that time, you're going to pass the pt test. there's really nothing exactly like that for, you know, states of depression. and that's what we've got to figure out, is how do you get the entire force -- not just the leaders. the leaders understand it. that's not true. the leaders understand the significance of it. i'm not sure we really understand the depth and breadth of the issue. but the leaders get it. we've got to drive it to the lowest level. it's not preventable. you know, back to the same, you know, you asked me can i stop insider threats, no, but we're trying to do as much as we can. can you stop suicide, no, but
we're trying to do as much as we can, and we've got to keep at it. >> the military, particularly the army, used to be a place where young people who had some trouble in their lives could enlist, serve their country and grow up. it wasn't the army's mission, but it served a purpose for quite a few people. is that era over, and who does the army and other services want to enlist? >> no, we get in plenty of trouble. haven't you been reading the news? [laughter] no, fair question. it's probably related to the reality, which we shouldn't be proud of as americans, that only one in four of young men and women in america can get into the military. that's a fact. it's either because of physical or health or education or moral issues in their youth. and by the way, youtube and facebook are going to be a problem for us in recruiting in the future. so what i'm, what i'm suggesting is that the, you know, we're getting a very high quality young man or woman.
and i don't think, i don't think anyone here would want to change that. that said, there still is the opportunity once you meet those minimum standards to do the kind of growing that you've described. but i think if you want an all-volunteer professional force, that those standards have to be the same. if the nation decides at some point that we should reconsider a conscript army, then it becomes a different issue. but for now i'm very content that we are getting that part of american society that you, the american taxpayer, would want us to have. >> do you support draft? >> you know, um, do i support a draft? i think there's universal service, there's selective service, and then there's the all-volunteer force. if i thought that we could adopt as a nation some form of universal service, i'd sign up for it in a second. selective service really doesn't become something that generally
produces either the force you want -- because it becomes so restrictive, the issue of being selective mostly means that there's plenty of people who opt out. and those that opt out, generally speaking, then cause a part of the society to bear a disproportionate share of the responsibility. i should mention, by the way, that our all-volunteer force is really representative of america. there's, you know, there's kind of -- there's some mythology in street lore out there that it is not, but it is. i can't speak for all the services, but i'm pretty confident in my data. in the army i'm very confident in the data, and that is that we get a good -- not a perfect representation of america, but a very, very good representation of america. and you want your military to represent the society it serves. i'm not sure that we would have -- i just, like i said, i'd have to see the mechanism before
i agreed to the path, because it's the mechanism that'll make all the difference. >> the economy plays a significant role in recruitment and retention. will the economy coupled with talks to change military retirement pay and health care have a negative impact on retaining a professional all-volunteer force? >> i don't know. but, you know, as i travel around and visit with young soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, and i also visit the coast guard from time to time, and i ask them why'd you come in, the answers are really varied. some of them come in because they want to defend their nation, and they know the nation's at war, and then some come in, as you noted, for economic reasons. what i will tell you is it doesn't matter why they come in, but because once you get 'em and you build into them this sense of purpose and sense of belonging, another attribute, by the way, that tends to be missing in american youth as they try to figure out who and
what they are. by the way, i'm not trying to recruit you, but i will tell you that i'm happy to have your kids -- [laughter] but i will tell you that one of the things we do for the young men and women who agree to be part of our profession is we give them a sense of purpose, we give them a sense of belonging, we give them a sense of team, and we give them the opportunity to grow and develop. and i think as long as that's the case, there will always be enough men and women who choose to serve. >> does the armed services have a role in helping service members translate the skills they learned in the service to the civilian market so that they can get jobs? >> absolutely. one of the things we are working hard on is the issue of transition. so i'll just, again, use my own career as an example. when i commanded at the lieutenant colonel and colonel level, this was in the '90s, early '90s and then late '90s, we realized that we needed as we started to downsize
army, went from 781,000 in 1991 to 484,000 by about the middle of the decade. as we did, we realized we really hadn't prepared mostly young men in those days, but young men and women, we hadn't really prepared them for that transition. and so we developed transition programs. but the transition programs were implemented kind of at the very end of a career. some of you might remember this, like the last six weeks you're in the army, navy, air force, marines, here you go, march over there to the learning center, you know, fill out all these forms, sit behind the computer, build your resumé and have a nice day. well, i think -- not i think -- what we've learned is that's a little late because if you do want to figure out how to migrate or transport your skill set from the military into the civilian set, you can't wait until the last six weeks to figure that out. so what we're doing now is we're starting to transition when you enter the service. and we're very closely
partnering with the department of veterans affairs and the former chief of the army, general rick shinseki meet quarterly, and i'm there. there's interim meetings to get ready for the meetings, naturally. but with the issue is we are seeing transition as a career-long activity. and what that illuminates is that you can credential people so if you're a welder in the military, you might be able to get a welding certificate that's portable across the united states. truck drivers, you know, electricians, communications specialists. you know, the tougher ones are infran trymen, artillerymen and tankers. but we're working with all of them in order to allow them to transition over time and not just at the very end of their career. >> attending today we have a veteran student who attended georgetown and the university of oxford saying that costs for oxford are one-tenth of georgetown. would you ask american private universities to provide
vet-affordable education in comparison to overseas education? >> well -- [laughter] first of all, you've got to be a pretty smart son of a bitch, huh? [laughter] [applause] i don't know where you are out there, but well done. i think that, you know, first of all, the benefits, the educational benefits that have come online -- there's the five-minute warning. i didn't notice that before. [laughter] the educational benefits are really very generous at this point, is the right word. and by the way, they should be, you know, with what we're asking these young men and women to do. but the new g.i. bill, you know, does provide a great educational safety net. and as many of you know, it allows you to pass it to your spouse or to your children if you don't have the need to use it yourself. i'm not sure we can do much better than that. i will tell ya, i'm always engaging with business, industry and academia to find ways to help veterans.
in the case of education, it's not so much with the cost because that's generally -- i say generally -- manageable, but it's about the dropout rate. you know, again, back to transition. i'm not sure we, you know, they go to school because it sounds like a good idea and they've got the money, but they're not really ready for it, so our dropout rate among veterans is too high. and on the other end, you know, trying to help them make those kind of decisions early enough so we can help get 'em ready. so i'm not sure that i would go down the path of trying to lower the cost of education at georgetown. there's a whole table of georgetown people right over there. why don't you ask them. [laughter] >> how can we as taxpayers and voters facilitate your work and make military life easier. >> well -- boy, thanks for that one. that's the first softball of the day. [laughter] i don't know if i want it to be easier, you know? to tell you the truth. you know, there is a certain,
um, there's a certain satisfaction for serving in a profession that's, you know, that's uncommon maybe and that's harder than, you know, that allows you to recognize that your contribution made in a different and that you kind of set aside some of your personal goals -- not all of them. i'm all for ambition, but, you know, when you're part of that team, sometimes your own personal ambitions have to be set aside. so i don't know if i want to make it easier. i mean, certainly not while you're serving. when you get out as a veteran, i actually think, you know, there is this, there's this emerging, um, image of the vet iran of this -- veteran of this campaign as somehow a victim. and i, frankly, i just don't see it. now, there's people that need help. there's ptsd, traumatic brain injury, wounded warriors. i got it, and we need to help them. but, you know, believe it or not the vast majority of the force
when it completes service is stronger for the experience. and they make great employees. they make great students. they're disciplined, they're courageous, they have this sense of belonging, they have this sense of purpose. and it's actually trying to reconnect them to society that's the hardest thing. but they're really valuable to the nation, and that's the image. not the serviceman or woman as victim. there are victims, and we need to identify 'em and help 'em. but the majority of the force is something that the nation should be very proud of. [applause] >> we are almost out of time, but before asking the last question, want to remind you of our upcoming luncheon speakers. on october 31st, rodney erickson, president of penn state university. november 12th, roger daltrey, lead singer of the who, and on november 16, admiral jonathan greenert, you can come back for that one. [laughter]
second, i would like to present you with our traditional national press club coffee mug. >> thank you. >> and the national press chub version of a challenge coin -- club version of a challenge coin, so -- [inaudible conversations] [laughter] so the last question i've had many requests if you would reprise one of your irish or sesame street themes. [laughter] >> okay, here we go. if you know it, sing along, by the way. ♪ when irish eyes are smiling, it's like a morning spring. ♪ in the little of irish laughter, you can hear the angels sing. ♪ when irish hearts are happy, all the world seems bright and gay. >> come on, finish it up. ♪ and when irish eyes are smiling, sure they'll steal your heart -- >> away. >> well done.
>> look at what president palma put it on the budget. nothing except to borrow and spend. as a result of the president's application of leadership, as a result of seeing the most predictable economic crisis in our countries history and not fixing it, our credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. >> we laid out a $4 trillion
debt reduction plan over the next 10 years, 4 trillion. we have already passed a trillion of it. ladies and gentlemen, these guys vote against everything. not only did they say they don't like our plan. i get there. you don't like our plan. what's your plan? >> thursday congressman paul ryan and vice president joe biden will face off in the only debate. you can watch and engage with c-span with a live debate preview at 7 p.m. eastern followed by two ways to watch the debate at nine on c-span both candidates on screen the entire debate. on c-span2 the multi-camera version of the debate. all fall by your calls, e-mails and tweets at 10:30 p.m. >> as vice president biden and congressman paul ryan prepare for the only debate tomorrow in
kentucky, we examined their debating styles with lynn university american studies professor robert watson and american university agenda professor and former "usa today" white house correspondent richard benedetto. we also to look at c-span archival video from vice presidential debates with the joe biden as well as from house committee hearings and floor debates with mr. ryan. the hour-long program starts with an update from politico senior political reporter jonathan martin on how and where the vice presidential candidates are preparing for thursday's debate. >> from the u.s. constitution, the vice president of the united states shall be president of the senate but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. in case of removal of the president from office or of his death or resignation, the vice president shall become president. the office of the vice presidency really an afterthought, a compromise from the philadelphia convention in 1787 but all eyes on vice
president joe biden this week and congressman paul ryan as they debate in danville, kentucky. joining us is jonathan martin is been writing about this debate for politico. thanks for being with us. how important is this debate in light of what was the last week in denver? >> steve, i think he touched on the biggest reason why this debate could be more important than these under cards typically are. that is because there is pressure on joe biden to stand and deliver, and to change the narrative from what we've had the last few days. which is a fact given president obama's weak performance in denver, that mitt romney for the first time it seemed a real bump in the polls, and in some states is polling narrowly ahead. so i think biden will try to turn that around, put paul ryan and the gop ticket back on the defensive and at the same time the burden is on trying to keep the mojo going, keep romney's sort of balance here a life released a few more days until
the president and mitt romney face off again next week. so i think that's the biggest reason why this thing matters. also one important point and that is this is one of the first perhaps the only campaign where one side is really campaigning against the policies of the other parties vice president as much as they're running against the other party's presidential nominee. paul ryan and his budget proposals are really a flashpoint in this campaign. i think it's unique in that sense because biden will be hammering paul ryan and the gp ticket on his proposal. ryan's, on entitlement, and on a long-term fiscal issue. >> you framed it this way come in 2008 gentlemen showed debated governor sarah palin, wondering if scranton joe will show up for thursday's debate. >> that's right. the sources that i talked to on both sides of the aisle say this is going to be an aggressive
forward leading joe biden, somebody who's going to want to really frame a negative message against romney and ryan, and pick up where the president didn't do that well last week, or didn't mention at all, thinking of issues like the auto ballot, social security, the ryan proposal on that. the medicare issue, the 47% comment that romney made and people were stunned that obama didn't mention that last week. and, of course, romney's income taxes and how he made his money at bain consulting. those are all issues i think we will hear from joe biden on. and it is very different than what biden's pass was four years ago, steve, as you recall facing sarah palin. the biggest challenge been for biden was don't patronize sarah palin, don't bully sarah palin certainly, try to a quarter to a certain degree of respect. i think this is a different time, and paul ryan is a
different opponent. >> there's been what some are calling the rebuttal as both congressman paul ryan, republican vice president to nominate and vice president biden try to set expectations for the debate on thursday. let me share with you will paul ryan said on the fox news channel late last month. >> he's fast on the cup, he's a witty guy. he knows who he is and he's been doing this for 40 years. so you're not going to rattle joe biden. joe biden on the national stage, he's ran for president twice in a sitting vice president. what i hope to achieve is to give people an alternative. very different governing philosophy, different philosophies. and joe is very good on the attack. joe is very good at trying to confuse the issues. so that the person leaves the debate confused about who stands for what. my job is to make sure that they're not confused about what we stand for and what they stand for. >> you have ted olson press the most respected and smart guy, the guy who won bush v. gore
as your stand-in. what are the sole matters between ted olson and joe biden? >> there about the same age. ted olson is one good debater. >> i hope joe biden shows up more than ted olson because i'll tell you this is one of the best litigators in america. but what ted has done is he is studied joe biden's tapes, joe biden's record, joe biden style. and as you is one of the best litigators in america. is pretty good at adapting. >> have you got lines already prepared? >> i'm not a lying guy. i more of a get guy. i more, you know me well. i don't try to be anybody other than william. i believe in what i believe. i do what i do, and i really believe in the policies we are providing, that we are pursuing. and at the end of the day i'm just going to go in there and be me. >> are you hoping joe biden makes one of his -- >> he doesn't do that integrates. he's kind of legendary for this, that's not in these kind of
situation. he's a very disciplined person when he speaks in these kind of situations. he doesn't produce gaps in these moments. those are when he's on the stump, giving speeches. >> so you're not counting on one of them. >> i'm not counting on one of them. >> jonathan martin come as you listen to become your thoughts about how the preparations are going for both candidates? >> like the leaves fall into the ground, the trees every fall, at least every fully presidential year, steve, this has become sort of a humble right for each side tries to play it off the debate chops of the other and better extremes. there's no question the joe biden, 40 years in public life, 40 years in washington politics, paul ryan chairman of the house budget committee said when he's a regular on the tv circuit, they are both good debater's. they are both articulate. when it comes to making the case for their views, and i think this is a fairly evenly matched
debate. certainly more evenly matched than we saw four years ago with biden and sarah palin. it's more evenly matched we saw four years ago of a topic it with john mccain and barack obama. so i think they're both want to talk about the other as -- but i think you'll both come out. they are capable and i think paul ryan makes a good point by the way. i think joe biden gas comes about when he gets carried away in front of a friendly audience. i think he can be disciplined when he's necessary. for the most part it was during the democratic debates during '07 and '08. >> let me follow up on something that chris wallace asked paul ryan and that is the preparation as we know. ted olson is playing joe biden in the debate prep, and congressman chris van hollen is playing congressman paul ryan and vice presidents by this debate. what's going on?
how do they prepare? who else is guiding both congressman ryan and the vice president? >> let's start with ryan. he spent much of last week inserted the weekend at the wintergreen resort near charlottesville, virginia, doing mock debate, perhaps watching videos of joe barton. he watched the debate with sarah palin for years ago. he watched joe biden foreign policy speech from earlier this year. biden was on the stage. so there's film review as they would say in sports and then there's practice, scrimmaging. in the case of ryan, kerry healey, the former lieutenant governor of massachusetts been playing the role of martha radice, a moderate. ted olson has been sparring as joe biden at what i'm told is olson has taken on his task with gusto. he is not only gotten down the policy views can is cut down the mannerisms of joe biden. joe biden would say literally got down the manners --
mannerisms and is playing the role. that was what a ryan staffers been in the room told me. so i think there is film, there is reading and there's actual mock debates but the same thing with joe biden. he's in delaware his whole-wheat sequester with chris van hollen. he did some sessions last month with chris van hollen as well. and then chris van hollen is a really smart to come he knows ryan really well. he is ryan's counterpart on the house budget committee. he knows facts and figures. as well just let anybody in the house when it comes to the budget. and he is someone that can give joe biden a big dry run. so that's how it's going to let me get reaction to the vice president said last week on the campaign trail in iowa as he talked to reporters about his own debate preparation. here's the vice president.
>> my own debate is, you know, debates, all debates are tough. you get up there and everybody come you're able to sit like i was watching the debate last night and you could sit there and say i would've done that or i would've done this. welcome nothing like standing up before 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 million people. so all the stakes are tough but i'm looking forward to. i really entered the thing about congressman ryan is he's straightforward up do not about everything, all the significant changes he wants to make. we have a fundamentally different view on whole range of issues. i hope it will be a good debate. [inaudible] >> they are going well. what i've been doing mostly is quite frankly studying up on congressman ryan's positions on the issues. and governor romney has embraced at least everything i can see.
i don't want to say anything in the debate that's not completely accurate. for example, i've been saying to you all that governor romney has embraced the ryan budget. well, he has. i just want to make sure that when i say these things that i don't have a congressman saying no, i don't have the position or that's not the governor's position. so it's mainly getting the factual predicates for everything that common key issues on which governor romney has spoken and congressman ryan has added. so thank you all. >> vice president making his comments last week. jonathan martin as we wrap up with the, why change from denver to danville, kentucky, in terms of the obama campaign and approaching these debates? >> they will want a much more aggressive forward leading joe
biden than have in the president last week. joe biden does not have imperative to the presidential. he will be more a traditional attack dog, and so remarkable steve, and the clip you just played, the leading joe biden used about romney embracing ryan's positions, and that gets to my earlier point about this is a unique campaign with democratic, take it is a as much as vice presidents policy views as we are running against republican nominee. i think you can't that. they want to really hone in on paul ryan budget, social security, medicare, and drive that point home. this week in kentucky. >> jonathan martin senior political reporter for politico come his work a bit of on line at politico.com, thanks for much for being with us on c-span. >> thank you steve. >> joining us is richard benedetto, longtime journalist with "usa today." now professor. and joining us from boynton beach, florida, is robert
watson, a professor from lynn university which is hosting the final presidential debate later this month. thank you very much for being with us. >> pleasure. >> robert watson, i want to begin with you. you vp debates matter? >> yeah, they do. if i could quickly go back, i like johnson's comments and agree with him completely. i was sent to add in terms of the vice president shall prep or the presidential prep for these debates they try to recruit the actual stage that the going to use in this debate to try to make these folks as comfortable as possible. with the biden going on the attack, presumably in this vice presidential debate, that's not entirely a new role for the vice president. off or back to 1960 when nixon was picked as vice president or and 76 with bob dole, vice president have been used in that attack roll and we need our member 1996 when bob dole was on top of the ticket and jack kemp was number two, how frustrated bob dole was that jack kemp did not going to check a play that
attack will. and attitude question, did inadequate you bet they matter. even though most colors was a people don't go to the ballot and vote based on the vice presidential per se, that's a little simplistic. voting for president is a complicated calculus. i liken it to a big bowl of gumbo. and maybe a dash of the first lady, we stir in some economic policy and so forth. most folks would agree that lyndon johnson's presence on the ticket in 1960 probably helped john kennedy to win. they matter, the vice presidents matter for a number of reasons. number one we need to remember that for president have died of natural causes in office, forward assassinated, and richard nixon more recently resigned. that's nine vice presidents that the sender to the presidency from martin van buren, once upon time, to george h. w. bush more recently. vice presidents have run for the office on their own. in recent years the vice presidency has become a dramatically different office than it was when the nation was
created. pages to be this old joke about the vice president. they would say mother had two sons, one joined the navy and sailed the seven seas, and the other one became vice president and neither one was ever heard of again. john garner was fdr's first vice president was famous for saying that the vice presidency quote unquote wasn't worth a warm bucket of spit. it's alleged to use a different four letter word, perhaps one it even rhymes with state and describing the office, but this is not the vice presidency today. in raising is the vice presidency has been given a portfolio. i think even trace this back perhaps to jimmy carter's pick up walter mondale. carter being a southerner governor who didn't have a lot of foreign policy experience, and mondale being briefed and upon date caching up-to-date on foreign policy. and at with bill clinton's selection of al gore, brought
foreign policy expertise to the ticket. marie sullivan george w. bush. dick cheney. so although selections, really the vice president contribute something bible to the ticket and all the vice presidents were active players in the white house. we seen that role with joe biden who has played a very important role in afghanistan and back in the war in iraq. and its biden also brought the foreign policy national security credentials to the obama white house. biden having served on the committee for years and years and years. so for those reasons i think the vice presidential debate matters, plus this year, finally i would say this year is so tight, this race could come down to as we all know a handful are one or two swing states impressed even a few counties in the swing states. every vote matters. after obama's rather poor performance and romney's strong performance in the first debate i think eyes will be tuned in on his vice presidential debate, and what biden, what paul ryan said probably matters.
>> let me pick up on the point about these debates and the reference to walter mondale because the vice presidential debates are relatively new phenomenon. they begin televised debates in 1976 with the vice president. but do they move the needle? do they influence ultimately how voters cast about? >> we don't have any empirical evidence for pulling david to show they made any difference. in an election or even moving the polls temporarily. even when there have been significant mistakes made by some candidate such as when dan quayle was not able to respond to lloyd benson's charge that he was no jack kennedy. but the thing is, the thing is that its atmospherics. continuing the narrative, the pressures on joe biden to do something that causes people to not think about what happened in the last debate with the president. he's got to be able to get back on the offensive.
he's probably been told a number of things that he's got to say. many of the things the president did not say, and hopefully, i think the obama campaign is looking for the needle to be bounced a little bit, even though there is no tradition that shows that the needle does gets bounced by vice presidential debates. >> there's a couple of months want to look at and get your reaction to. professor watson is joining us in florida. the first from the 2008 debate in which vincent joe biden and the vice president shall nominate with barack obama discussing the role of the vice president and also reference to then vice president dick cheney. >> governor can imagine a moment ago the competition might give the vice president more power than has and as. do you believe as vice president cheney does that the executive branch does not hold complete sway over the vice presidency? that is it's also a member of the legislative branch? >> our founding fathers were very wise in allowing for the constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice
president. and we will do what is best for the american people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. yet, so i do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we will do we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. and it is my executive experience at as part to be attributed to my pick as vp with mccain, not only as a governor but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gaffe regular, as a business owner, it is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the white house also spent vice president cheney's interpretation to? vice president cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in american history. the idea he doesn't realize that article one of the constitution defines the role of vice
president of the united states, that's the executive. he worked in the executive branch. he should understand it. everyone should understand that. and a primary role of the vice president of the united states of america is to support the president of the nine states of america, give that president is or her best judgment when sought, and as the vice president to preside over the senate only at a time when the fact there's a typo. the constitution is explicit. the only of the replies president has in the legislative standpoint is to vote only when there is a high vote. he has no authority relative to the congress. the id is part of a legislative branch is a bizarre notion, invented by dick cheney to aggrandize the power of the unitary executive, and look where it's gotten us. it has been very dangerous. >> from october 2008 richard benedetto, the style and substance in that exchange between sarah palin and joe biden? >> sarah palin was continually say trying to promote her credentials. that one of the things that have
been, she been criticized for going into this debate was that she was not experienced enough. she was trying to polish her credentials and promote her credentials. and being cable of taking over the vice presidency. on the other and joe biden was taking their traditional political route of attacking the previous vice president of the party, of the party of sarah palin represents by saying that this was a traditional, this was a traditional packet during that campaign, was to run against the bush administration. there's some evidence that they're running against the bush administration even this time. but the fact is that at that time that was a tactic to run against the bush administration, attack cheney, and show that that the vice president style did not work. >> robert watson, sarah palin is on your list that you put together of the worst vice presidential picks, along with tom eagleton, spiro agnew, dan quayle and joe lieberman.
to be fair, your list of the best picks include harry truman, lyndon johnson, george herbert walker bush, al gore and walter mondale. can you elaborate briefly? >> yeah. you know, again as your commentators have both said, there really is empirical evidence one way or the other as to whether the vice presidency moves the needle or how much of a role this plays when the public votes. however, i think it is clear that the vice president matters as we talked about earlier, and without some good pics that are contributing to the ticket, and we have some not so good picks that have harmed the ticket. eagleton i think was the worst in history back in 1972 with george mcgovern running as a democrat. but it was a different day and age. back then, the four-day convention, the president would be picked during the convention. unlike today where we know who the nominee is going to be well
in advance of the convention. and the convention basically ends up being a four-day long infomercial with a red, white and blue balloon drop it back the went into the convention, there was arm-twisting an old-fashioned haggling. then once the president was said they would take the vp. i had a chance to interview senator mcgovern had interviewed other nominees eric and they said back then people really spent an hour talking about who the vice president would be. it was a different world. the government had a list if you look at people like ted kennedy and a number of folks and the ultimate end up with eagleton. he asked egeland if it was anything he needed to know about and eagleton said no, you should mcgovern does nothing. and after mcgovern picks it up and it turned out he had multiple cases of electro- shock therapy which scared the country. mcgovern had to jettison eagleton so that was a double whammy, a double and there's been. sarah palin did bring some things to mccain stick it in a way. fundraising, for example. mccain was being outdone
raised by obama and mccain campaign needed windblown in its sales. it was attracting small crowds. it was kind of lethargic. sarah palin image as a rock star. the press couldn't get enough of her. when she came down can do it to florida after being picked, there were 40 some thousand people that showed up. it was like the rolling stones concert. unfortunately, for mccain, sarah palin pretty she wasn't ready for prime time. so for that reason we now a person is one heartbeat away from the most important office, it matters. without some good ones, so bad was but i think anyway you look at it, joe biden is a good pick. he balance the ticket geographically by age, but never a factor obama was from the midwest. biden from east. obama was younger. bite was over. obama without that experience. eitan was very experienced. i like most present them vice presidents like lbj and ginger didn't get along, these guys got along. biden got a lot to the ticket. most people didn't want test of
the vice president is on day one, would you be ready to serve as president. should the backbone ring with pakistan everybody agrees biden is ready. all right, i think it's a mixed bag. on one hand he brings an part of what sarah palin brought, and that was among some younger conservatives, among some of the far right of the republican party. he's a bit of a rock star. he's seen as a policy wonk, a numbers guy. his positions on social security and medicare, while perhaps outside the main street has resonated very well with the far right of the party he would have been too trusting of mitt romney, the moderate. but on the other hand, part of paul rice praises so take it has been it's the distraction for romney and that the democrats can make fair game by saying this is a guy that is pushed vouchers for social security, the guy is a pretty extreme position on abortion rights. anytime a vice president becomes the topic of the conversation like that, it's not good for the presidential ticket. and i think the best example of
that is much like was the case with mccain and palin, when palin started making mistakes and trying to go rogue as are one called it, mccain had to put on a short leash. we've seen that the romney campaign appears to have put paul ryan on a relatively short leash where he is back at some of his earlier comments and is playing it a lot safer on the campaign stumping i think was a very safe position by paul ryan in this debate because romney is such a strong personal performers that game on. the republicans are back on. the campaign is even. they don't need ryan getting the romney campaign in trouble over controversial positions on important issues like social security, medicare and abortion-rights. >> i want to pick up on that point. we don't have paul ryan in any recent debate but we do have him from the c-span video library, a number of congressional and. he of course is the chair of the house budget committee and here's his line of questioning with treasury secretary tim geithner from february of this
year. >> this is what's writing to us. your rhetoric never matches your actions are i'm not looking at you personally. i'm talking about the administration. spent i don't think that's fair. >> you're showing us a budget to raise tax rates and add complexity to the tax code. spent with the burden -- [talking over each other] >> when you propose a budget as you know -- >> this is your fourth one, and you propose what you said before budgets. >> that's not too. we said is, here's what you have to do as part of a balanced comprehensive debt reduction plan if you will get enough revenue out is in a fair way. what we propose to do in this context is to modestly increase the effective tax in the top 2% expect the top effective rate ghost to 44-point a person on individuals. >> marginal rate. not the top. >> first of all, just assume for the sake of arguing that i'm right, which this thing is been fact checked a million times.
the point is -- exactly. the point is you are racing effective marginal tax rates. in wisconsin i have 10 businesses file as individuals. >> we're only going to raise them come if you decide to raise them and you decide you would rather not give companies a tax reform. they will raise effective tax rate for the top 2%. >> these things you say, you're not putting in your budget. this is the for the budget. we hear all this happy talk about coming together. we don't see those proposals in black and white in your budget. >> one last thing. we've never claimed that this budget included a comprehensive proposal for tax or corporate never claimed. we spent, as you know, for months working with the house republican leadership this summer on a way to get a balanced plan with comprehensive tax reform that raise revenue, alongside substantial savings in medicare and medicaid.
>> i'm going -- >> we found in the process, frankly, that you were not really there yet. not quite ready. so for that reason we decided that the let's do some foundation laying and lay out some broad principles spent i don't even know how to respond. >> richard benedetto, as you watch that exchange, what's your reaction? >> it shows you that paul ryan is a policy wonk. he is a man who wants to deal in details. he wants to deal in facts and figures. he likes to do that. you can do that to a certain degree in these debates, but you've got to be fact and get them in and make them punchy and get out of there. one of the things we're forgetting, this whole discussion of this upcoming debate is the fact that there is an incumbent. the vice president is the incumbent. and, therefore, in debates incumbents usually have records to defend. who causes them to defend a
record? a moderator should. a moderator's job is to ask questions that deal with the performance of the person who is the incumbent. we did not see that in the presidential debate because of the fact that jim lehrer wanted to keep it wide open. so rather than ask pointed questions about what the president has done over the last four years, he asked questions what are your differences between these, the two policies, what are your differences on social security. and we didn't get that kind of contrast. i'm wondering if the debater, the debate moderator this time we'll ask questions of biden that will cause heightened to have to do with what's happened over the last three years. ryan may have to do what romney did in the first debate. >> abc's martha raddatz was the moderator, and following the debate last week the commission of presidential debates issued this statement following criticism of jim blair's performance in the first debate.
quote, after their answer, a moderator's job is to facilitate a conversation on the topic for the balance of the 15 minutes before moving to the next topic. the commission of presidential debates goal in selecting this format was to have a serious discussion of the major domestic and foreign policy issues with minimal editors by the moderator or timing signal. jim lehrer implemented the format exactly as it was designed, designated by the commission announced in july. robert watson, you're quite critical, critical of jim blair last week. a difference this week with martha raddatz? >> i suspect we will. if i can quick jump on the previous comment before answering that. i think we know that joe biden and paul ryan are both tough nosed guys. they can both play the attack dog pretty effectively. what i think is so interesting is there so completely different but i think when biden first took a seat in the senate, paul ryan was three years old. paul ryan has to be careful if he goes after biden about looking disrespectful to someone a lot older than him.
plus paul ryan tends to be as was correctly noted earlier kind of a policy wonk, a lot of numbers. that sometimes as a resident. that didn't work for obama in the early today. it sometimes doesn't resonate. we're running is a policy wonk, joe biden tends to be can he likes to connect into gut. scranton joe likes to talk to the average guy. yes, i was very critical of jim blair in blogs and commentary. for years people have been critical of the commission on presidential debates who initially took over all the presidential debates 1980, from 80 on their front all in the paper for the league of women voters. i'm not one of those scholars or commentators that's critical of the mishnah i think the commission has done a fantastic job. he been able have three presidential and one vice presidential debate, almost every four years. the debate questions have been fair. i think the formats have been legitimate. i think the commission has done a good job in taking their moderators. with a diversity, several women
have moderator. several african-americans have moderator. we have two of the four moderates this summer women. and jim lehrer, there's probably no one who is a better resume, his 12th debate. easton a good job in the previous ones. no one was more prepared i think than jim lehrer. the constant professional journalist. he knows the issues. i was not one of those folks is critical when he was selected. however, his performance was utterly embarrassing. it's hard to say anything good about it. even paused several times as if he couldn't remember romney's name or obama's the. he had trouble removing who would go first, who would go second. he allowed obama to run over time on a lot of his answers, and didn't call him in on the time allotted. to the point where the sixth pot, the tip -- six group of question we do have time to get to the. also he didn't call me at romney several times during the debate if romney had been saying one thing during the 22 republican primary debates, he turns ira and when about 180 degrees and
jim lehrer did so governor romney, this is a new position. this doesn't match with what you've been saying. explained as a. the role of the moderate is to get out of the way and allow the candidates to have a conversation. but if they're too long winded or if they're being disingenuous in their answers, or if you're avoiding the question, the role of the moderators to police the debate and make sure they are the moderator, not allowed obama or romney to moderate. so anyway you look at i think it was a tarnished mark on jim lehrer's otherwise wonderful legacy. i don't think ms. raddatz will do that. she's good foreign policy reporter, same with mr. schieffer, cbs and can decode from seeming. they're all hard-nosed. i think that there was probably with embarrassment as i did, as you did. i think you hold of these candidates to answer the questions. and if there's an inconsistency as often times always governor romney to i think you'll bring that out and say this is not what you've been saying. that's the role of the moderator spent another moment from the
2008 debate with vice president and senator joe biden and sarah palin. on the job of vice president. >> governor, you said in july that you have to, someone would have just been exact with the vice president does every day. you, center, said you would not be vice president under any circumstances. now maybe this was just what was going on at the time. but callous now, looking forward what it is that you think the vice presidency is worth now? >> in my comment there it was a lame attempt at a joke, and joyce was a lame attempt at a joke to i guess because nobody ghana. of course, we know what a vice president does. >> they didn't get yours or mine? >> we know what a vice president does and that's only to preside over the senate, take that position very seriously also. i'm thankful the constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president also if the vice president so chose to exert it in working with the senate. and making sure that we are supportive of the president's
policies and making sure that our president understands what our strengths are. john mccain and i've had good conversations about where i would lead with his agenda. and that is energy independence in america, and reform of government over all, and working with families, of children with special needs. that's near and dear to my heart also. and in those arenas john mccain has already tapped me and said that's why want you. i want you to be. and i said i can't wait to get there and go to work with you. >> gwen, i hope we get back to education because i don't of any government program that john is supporting, not early education, more money for, the reason no child left behind was let them was the money was left behind. we didn't fund it. we can get back to that ice and. with regard to the role of the vice president, i had a long talk as an sure the governor did, without principle, in my case with barack. and let me tell you what barack asked me to do. i had a history of getting things done in the united states
senate. john mccain would acknowledge that. my record shows that. on controversial issues, i would be the point person for the legislative initiative in the united states congress for our administration. i would also go after the wanted a portfolio, my response was no, but barack obama indicated to me he wanted me with him to help govern. so every major decision he will be making i will be sitting in the room to give him my best advice. he's president, not me. i will give my best advice. one of the things he said early on when he was choosing, he said he'd pick someone who had an independent judgment of wouldn't be afraid to tell him when he didn't disagree. that sort of my reputation. i look forward to working with barack and playing a very constructive role in his presidency, bringing about the kind of change this country needs. >> from 2008 in st. louis, the vice presidential debate. robert watson, let me pick up on something we discussed earlier, and that is the role of vice president, how that's changed. and also richard benedetto's
point is that in this case the vice president has a record to run on. >> yes. well, the role has changed dramatically. you heard vice president biden talking about a portfolio. typically the vice president isn't given a portfolio per se. they serve serve as a ombudsman and they are point person on several different roles or is but there are some examples of a portfolio. for example, under bush one, dan quayle played a role in regulatory relief looking for areas to streamline that process. when bill clinton was president, al gore played a significant role in reforming the efficiency and bureaucracy, the layers of government. more recently under george w. bush, dick cheney played a role in energy with reaching out to the energy industry and so forth. biden has played a leading role in the iraq and afghanistan wars and how to withdraw troops and how to refigure the flow of the war. so the vice presidency has changed considerably over time.
case in point, when warren g. harding in 1923, when he died in california of a heart attack, they couldn't even find calvin coolidge. of course, the punchline here is that it's a shame they ever do. the vice president would stay home. they didn't give and go to washington, d.c. in most cases. now they live in the naval observatory. but the first one to do so was walter mondale. it wasn't until the '70s the vice president even stayed in the city. saw this on calvin coolidge in vermont, population of about 33 ugly. there were no major airways in, railways and, roads and. they finally found coach and there was no justice of the peace around. his father was basically a notary and he took the oath with his father on the family bible in their living room. solvable of the vice president has changed considerably. and i think that both, i would give credit both to run and obama for picking a vice presidential nominee that not
all it can help them get elected, but could help them govern pics i think these are both to a degree responsible selections in that respect. and i think no matter who wins this we are going to see either brian or biden played a significant role over the next four years. speak we are prevent the upcoming vice president but to take place on the campus of center college in danville, kentucky, and as you can tell some vice president screwed as well of on the way. but sherwood boehlert be one of the moment from february 2010 during the height of the health care debate in a meeting that took place at blair house across the street from the white house and comments by congressman paul ryan on the health care bill and the vice president. >> the bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of medicare cuts about how the million dollars to pay for six years of spending. ..
when you take a look at the medicare cuts, what this bill essentially does is treats medicare like a big bank. it reads a half trillion dollars out of medicare not said short medicare solvency but to spend on this new government program. when you take a look at what this test, according to the chief actuary of medicare, he is saying as much as 20 percent of medicare's providers will either go out of business or we will have to stop seeing medicare
beneficiaries. millions of seniors who are on -- have chosen medicare advantage will lose the coverage that they now enjoy. you cannot say that you are using this money to either extend medicare's solvency and also offset the cost of this new program. that is double counting. and so when you take a look at all of this, when you strip out the double counting and what i would call these gimmicks, the full ten year cost of this bill has of $460 billion deficit. the second has a one half trillion dollar deficit. probably the most cynical gimmick in this bill is something that we all probably agree on. we don't think we should cut doctors' 21% next year. we stop those cuts from occurring every year for the last seven years. we all call this the toxics. well, according to your numbers it cost her her $71 billion. it was in the first iteration of all these bills. because it was a big price tag and made the score look bad, may look like a deficit, that provision was taken out and has been going on in stand-alone
legislation. ignoring these costs does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. hiding spending does not reduce spending. and so when you take a look of this is just as not add up. let's finish with the cost curve. we bending the cost curve down or up? well, if you look at your own chief actuary of medicare revenue up. he is time we are going up $222 billion, adding more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have. and so when you take a look at this it is really deeper than the deficits or the budget gimmicks or the actuarial analysis. there really is a difference between us, and we have been talking about how much we agree on different issues. there really is a difference between this command is basically this. we don't think the government should be in control of all of this. we want people. that is that big difference. we offered ideas last year and this year. we agree that status quo is
unsustainable. it has to get fixed. it is bankrupting families to a bankrupt in our government, are in families with pre-existing conditions. we all want to fix this, but we don't think that this is the answer to the solution, and all of the analysis we get proves the point. now, i would simply say this. i respectfully disagree with the vice-president about what the american people are or are not saying or whether we are qualified to speak on behalf. so, we are all representatives of the american people. we all do town hall meetings, talk to our constituents. the american people are engaged. if you think they want a government takeover of health care, i would respectfully submit your not listen to them. we simply want to do is start over. work on a clean sheet of paper, move through these issues step-by-step and fix them and bring down health care costs. not raise them. it is basically the point. >> february 2010. that was congressman paul ryan
talking directly to the president, vice president, and members of the cabinet. in 2008 sarah palin and to convince voters who is up to the job. that is not the case with paul ryan. he knows the issues. how does he translate that knowledge into something that people can relate to? >> that is the big problem right here. he has a tendency to be very numbers oriented. a tendency to be very legislativeoriented. he talks of the capitol hill denison, which he is. he has to kind of find a way to talk directly to the american people and make it understandable to them without using all those numbers, without using all those of such numbers, the jargon of offsets and sequestration and all those kinds of things. he has to make it clear what it is that he will do and what his plan will do and what his plan will not do. one of the things he is able to do, as we can see in that last clip, able to talk directly to the president in disagree with him using his numbers and facts.
he is unafraid to do that. he will probably do the same kind of thing with biden. again, you will probably have to back off on all those numbers and try to just make the main principle point that he has to make. the problem here is that he comes off. joe biden, he has a way of personally connecting with people. as a result, he will contrasts himself. if he's smart enough to play off of that if ryan gets to market. >> that the follow-up on that point because in 2007 in b.c. brian williams asked then senator joe biden how he would deal with some of the tough questions of would be coming up in the two dozen a presidential race when he was running for the nomination. >> senator biden, words have come in the past, cut you in trouble, words that were borrowed and words that some found people. editorial in the los angeles
times said in addition to his uncontrolled verbosity, biden is a guest machine. can you reassure voters in this country the you would have the discipline you would need on the world stage, senator? >> yes. [laughter] >> thank you cutlass -- thank you, senator biden. >> from 2007 robert watson on both points, paul ryan's approach and on vice-president joe biden who has been known to make a gap or two. your response? >> yeah. well, joe biden has had his share, but what is amazing is this. much like paul ryan, and john kerry and outdoor both suffered this as well. if you're in congress to long, and right as basic to spend his whole professional life in congress. he was an aide to congress before he became a member of
congress. they tend to speak in congress beach, legislate these. the regular folks don't understand that. i think we are going to hear that same quote from paul reiner directed at biden in directly and obama during the debate. but paul ryan cannot talk about actuaries and cost curse. the average person, all of us, our eyes we will roll back in our head. it sells like some economics professor. he has to put it in a different way. what is incredible of biden, even though he spent his whole professional life in the congress and senate he has a way of connecting with people and really speaking in a way that the average person understands. he makes that got level connection. joe biden, i guess the virtue and vice are the same. that is, he is very likable. everyone in the senate, if there is no media around, republican and democrats will tell you that biden is one of the most favored members of the chamber. but the beauty and the virtues
and vices he does not use the teleprompter a lot. he is so fresh she is real, so it allows an to connect. but these days, y'all intrusive media covers, he occasionally says something wrong. i would not say he is a guest machine. he has handled some of these reasonably well. for example, and no eight he made that comment about barack obama trying to complement, but it was a nest with what some people thought to be racist overtones when he called obama a clean and articulate african-american, something to that effect. but nobody would ever suggest that joe biden harbors and the ill will toward any group of folks. his record is quite the opposite biden also weathered some storms back in '88 when he ran for president over borrowing new clinic, then the labor leader, borrowing one of his speeches when biden was in law school and plagiarizing that its trading credit. in all those cases biden seemed a good natured, to laugh it off,
brush it off and come back in the scranton show, they guy that we all know. did with his handling of sarah palin's. it was a tough order because he had to unmask her as someone who simply wasn't ready for prime time. he could not be too harsh or he would appear to be bullying a higher woman who was popular with a lot of folks. which kind of dismissively said, can i call you joe, he just left everything off. i think the could you should your viewers was a wonderful clip where biden had that comical -- that sense of comic timing read just said yes in response to is he too verbose. yes, i am too verbose. biden said a lot and i am particularly during. but i think that they never come back to, these two candidates have such different styles and the purchase, it will be interesting to watch them. the charge for biden is don't make a gaffe. he has to come strong and hold ryan and from the accountable for what they said. he has to defend obama's position which obama did a poor job of doing.
he has to say something to the effect of osama is dead, general motors is hiring, our troops are out of a rock commander scientists addressed in cell research. and make that case as a proxy for the president. on the other hand, paul ryan past to avoid being potentially patronizing and condescending hon as. he has to stay on the attack. >> of course the reference to joe answer will probably get vice-president and congressman, their former to cut formal titles. >> oh, sure. >> i think that people think that remark but can i call you joe was part of the debate. it was not. it was made when they were introduced and they both met. >> we have that. let's watch it. it's only about 20 seconds. the opening moments from the debate in st. louis, missouri.
[applause] >> estimates you. tonight liuzhou? think you. thank you. thank you. thank you. >> and then the debate began. >> it was not part of the debate itself. she made -- she was saying it as a side to him before, the mind, can i call you joke. he says, sure. it was not -- now has become the folklore that she did it in the middle of the debate, put him on the spot, but it was. >> and there are so she kept telling him all biden. >> one more moment with congressman paul bryant and the house floor talking about taxes, the deficit, and the economy. show you the style and substance of the vice-presidential nominee from the republican ticket. >> that me address just a few of the issues that i have been hearing on the floor. i'm hearing some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle saying we just
cannot afford these tax cuts. well, let's look at it. only in washington is not raising taxes on people considered a tax cut. we're talking about here is not cutting taxes. we're talking about keeping taxes were they are in preventing tax increases. second point, we, meaning the government, cannot afford this. whose money is this after all? is all the money that is made in america washington's money? government's money? is it the people's money you earned it? i here all this talk about the death tax, the estate tax. this will give a windfall to these people. all this money going to these privileged people who built these businesses, made all this money. it's their money. which is to back to we have a country built on equal rights where you can make the most of your life, get up, work hard,
take risks, become successful, create jobs, grow businesses, do well, aaron success. yes. pass it on to your kids. what on earth is wrong with that. that is the american dream. and to my friends on my side of the aisle who simply don't like some of the spending, i don't like it either. let's cut the spending next year when we're in charge. there is junk in the tax code. everybody agrees with this. this is advancing some of the junk in the tax code, and when i say to my friends next year, let's get rid of that junk, but right now let's not hit the american people with a max of -- massive tax increase. if we want to get the deficit going down there are two things we need to be doing. we need to cut spending and grow the economy.
we need prosperity in this country. job creation. people going from collecting unemployment to having a job and paying taxes so that revenues can reduce the deficit. and if we raise taxes, even the congressional budget office is telling us, if this bill fails at these tax increases continue we are going to lose one and a quarter million jobs next year. do we want to do that? low tax rates gives us economic growth. low tax rates makes us competitive in the international economy. low tax rates allow businesses to plan. is this a growth package? no. it's not. you know why? because it is still proposing to move this uncertainty for ridge. it is on a 2-year extension. we're not talking about a pro-growth economic package, but we're talking about preventing a destructive economic package from being inflicted on the american people and about two weeks. the last thing you want to do is
put more uncertainty in the economy. the economy with a huge tax increase, have a trigger a stock market sell-off and lose jobs. so do we want to make this? you bet. that is where we will be financing. the last thing we want to do is inject more uncertainty, raise taxes. we need economic growth, spending cuts. that is exactly what we intend on doing, and i think that is the message the voters sent this year. let's prevent this from happening, clean up the stuff we don't like in this bill next year and that's make sure that when people go to a christmas they know they're not coming to have a massive tax increase five days later. madam speaker, this is a bill that is necessary to prevent our economy from getting worse. this is not a bill that is going to turn it around. next year let's pass the policies that will turn this economy around. with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> congressman paul ryan from
the floor of the house of representatives. we will hear that in some variation thursday night in kentucky. >> he's going to have tech convince and sharpen it up because it is rambling. it is not the kind of way you want to hear a debater talk about an issue to make a point. he will have to convince that down to about 25 seconds and make it clear to people so that -- i think that is the big challenge. i think being able to condense and sharpen his message he sent the answers a question or each time he tries to make a point. >> as you watch the debate thursday night here on c-span online at c-span.org, you have how to score the debates with these points. first of all, the goal as yourself, to dick and it is to what they needed to do? also, to the candid appeal to the base to republican and democratic base and the key swing voters, the independent voters? did the candid is control the agenda? the personal exchanges between the vice-president and congressman paul ryan, the
content of the answers, did they show lead. many singers are blunders. also, the opening statement and closing remarks. your thoughts. >> well, i spent much of my 22 year career as an advocate for civic education. when we learned that we were hosting this presidential debate we wanted to use this as an opportunity to drive this engine of civic education involvement. so we are having mock debates for a school kids. right before i take this and a group of fifth graders who put together a museum exhibit on the presidency of presidential debates in our library. i give a tour to fit your 605th graders. doing all sorts of things. i wanted to try to figure out, like a boxing official who would give round one to obama, route two to romney. i try to, but the rubric, way of scoring. alec did things this dollars and public speakers used to determine was a debate or speech
effective, things like to you appeal to your base? attract moderates and undecided voters, the liver is here, and knocked out blow? how was your opening and closing remark? are you able to stay on the offensive and not be on the defensive and refute your opponent's comments? so i came up with a scorecard is something that our students on campus and area high-school kids are able to use this for hosting watch party for all these debates and campus. we handed out and have the students score the debates. i'm happy to send one debt c-span and let you posted on your website. as send them to area schools all around the country to use systems contract to figure out who won the debate, and lost it. perhaps more importantly, what constitutes a good or not to debate performance. >> director of the american studies project also a professor at the university in boca raton, florida, site of the fourth and final debate in this campaign election year, the third presidential debate. thank you for being with us. >> my pleasure. ♪ and longtime reporter with usa
today and adjunct professor at american university here in washington d.c. thank you for joining us. >> nice to see you. >> a reminder that c-span debate couple of you to keep track of this presidential campaign and these key debates. the three presidential and the one vice-presidential debate. it's all available on our website. check it out. c-span.org / campaign 2012. >> watch and engage with c-span tomorrow as vice-president joe biden and paul ryan will meet in their own the vice-presidential debate. our live to be produced at the seven eastern. at nine the debate itself is under way. ninety minutes on foreign domestic policy. afterwards, your reaction and comments. calls to me mills, and treats. follow live coverage tomorrow night on c-span, c-span radio in online at c-span.org. and coming up here on a c-span2 today, a couple of state race debates. at 8:00 incumbent congressman
mineta boswell debates republican challenger tom lee thumped. the congressman is a sitting member of congress were competing for iowa's third congressional district seat because of redistricting and eliminating one ioc the u.s. house posted by casey see i tv and the the the one register. we'll have it live starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern. and then followed by the montana governors debate. the attorney-general of montana. a former member of the u.s. house. at the base currency of montana pbs and will be held in missoula montana live starting at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span . >> c-span campaign 2012 debate have website provides live and on demand coverage of all the presidential and vice presidential debates handed to the only place for you will see live coverage of behind-the-scenes sights and sounds before and after the date . this site has reached a big question available as a separate clip where you can search and
watch my topic. watch your created clips as well and reid streaming tweets from political reporters and other your reactions c-span campaign 2012 debate have. >> i watched the variousac congressional hearings and congressional deliberations on public policy and also information that is put out by the various think tanks and washington d.c. i like to was the man in a room like brian lamb at 8:00. he hosts different authors. they have discussions. in that discussion about the book that they have written. and so it is just an easy way to get information that iran those books without having to read the books. >> what is c-span on comcast. c-span, created by eric as cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider.
>> the center for national policy host the event looking at the obama administration to expand its use of those tracks. speakers included counter-terrorism experts from the american foundation and the university of virginia. >> good afternoon. my name is gregory, i am a senior fellow to the middle east here at the center for national policy. on behalf of our chairman and our presidents i want to welcome all of you here today and i also want to welcome c-span to cover this event. it is titled the deaths from above, drones and targeted killings. as many as you are aware, join attacks started under the bush administration but have been accelerated under the obama administration. it seems to be the main weapon by the estate's.
one can certainly argue that drones have been effective. data from the new america foundation with which peter is affiliated. somewhere between 15,907 and 2,734 militants have been killed by drone since 2004. this includes some of the top leaders as well as foot soldiers on the other hand, there has been what is euphemistically called collateral damage. since two dozen for the non millets and cash order -- casualty rate has averaged 15 to 16 percent which means that several hundred nine militants have been killed. although it has fallen dramatically it remains a highly sensitive issue. there are many controversies surrounding bedroom campaign. first, of course, is the morality of the strikes, especially concerning non
militant deaths. second, the question is sometimes raised, is the united states making more enemies out of the civilian population than would otherwise be the case? third is the legality of a drug operation. fourth, what about the sovereignty issue. although they presumably have the acquiescence of the governments of the countries in which the text a place, are these attacks hurting the national pride in these countries? are they being used as a political issue by political actors against the yen states? we saw over the weekend that the four pakistani cricket star is now an opposition figure. try to organize a march to protest the drone attacks. he was stopped by the frontier police force, but he did get a lot of publicity out of the event. so the question arises, well more pakistan the politicians try similar tactics to broaden
their base by enflaming anti-americanism? very fortunate today to have a distinguished panel to examine these questions and other types of questions concerning the drawn attacks. and i would like to start by introductions to the person to my left. peter bergen who is currently director of the national security program at the new america foundation. he is also a fellow at the fordham university's center on national security. as many of you in the audience are aware, he is also a leading national security analyst a cnn where he is often called upon for is expertise on terrorism. peter bird and has been covering terrorism issues for many years since his time as a journalist. in 1997 he interviewed in london this was the first interview that the law and gave where he declared war on the united states. this was the first time he said that to a lesser audience.
also reported on pakistan, afghanistan, counter-terrorism, and homeland security issues. he has written many books on the subjects, including holy war, and said this eager world, and manhunt, the 10-year search. several of his books have become new york times bestsellers. we are very pleased -- i'm sorry, to my right, please have him here today. to my left is christopher swift, an adjunct professor of national security studies at georgetown university and a fellow at the center for national security law at the university of virginia law school. he holds a bachelor's degree in government and history. he is the author of an upcoming book entitled the fighting vanguard, local insurgencies in
the glow was the hot. most recently he did field research in yemen which you will be talking about today. he has served in the u.s. treasury department's office of foreign assets. thank you very much. we're pleased to have you. without further ado let me turn to peter for his comments. >> i just wanted to talk about the new america foundation in terms of drones. can everybody hear me? >> speak up a little bit. >> okay. 2004, the drum strike in pakistan or authorized by george w. bush. during his tenure there were 45 drawn strikes. interestingly not a single drum
strike it seems to us has caught or occurred outside the trouble areas which is one of the reasons i think you used the word acquiescence in strikes. there is some acquiescence by the pakistan government. it would very quickly change if they took place somewhere other than the troubled regions, you know, the troubled region are referred to as far area. so the travel regions have never been really part of pakistan proper. clearly they're would be huge push back of contracts were started in north west frontier province. and interestingly also pakistan has f-16s. if there were very serious and stopping the u.s. are a tax issue down the drums. there is some degree of acquiescence, but the days of acquiescence in pakistan are
fading, as you know. pakistan, the united states has a 9 percent favorable rating. down from about 20%. voted to essentially ended the use of drums on territory. basically the united states government is ignoring that. the pace of jones, as everyone knows, has increased dramatically. under president george w. bush there wasn't just like once every 40 days. under president obama there has been one about once every four days. out to reassemble our data about drone strikes? we don't do any original reporting. we rely on western and pakistan in his sources. basically we think credible
media at let's. of that just drives of 70 percent of her north. that is two reasons. the network is based. that is where many of the foreign fighters are based, and that is also where one of of the pakistani army has been leased well poised to do military operations. they would save that it is partly capacity. there have been serious operations to more which is true. the fact is that there are limited pakistan military operations. one-third of these tracks have killed members that have been reportedly targeting members of the taliban with about -- and interestingly recently pakistan major general and acknowledged for the first time officially that the number of innocent people being killed is
relatively low. most of the targets are hard-core militants just to get into that and a little more detail, under president obama there seems to be a shift away toward more taliban targets. as far as we can determine on bush about 205% of the targets and 40% to the spin that we could determine who they were. 8 percent of the targets. the number of militant leader says been declining overall will the life of the program has only been 2%. forty-nine militant leader said been killed with the strikes. initially this is a program that seems designed to kill ml but it has been expanded to kill people who cannot be construed to be militant leaders. we calculate somewhere between
132300 militants have been killed. recalculate the civilian casualty rate which is 33% under president bush. it has dropped close to 2 percent today and the president obama. by the way, says this is a, perhaps, controversial point our methodology has been the same. we were not -- some people criticize us for our plan or our finding because it is not a claim. based on reliable media reporting 2% of the casualties are civilians were a category we call unknown. no one was criticizing us or very few people were criticizing except defenders of the drone program. we're finding with the surface a methodology that civilian casualty rate was 3 percent of the president bush. also, some of these attacks, sometimes this gets lost in the coverage. very much in the interest of
pakistan. i was in pakistan when the leader of the pakistan tell them was killed. the pakistan tell a ban has done something like 30,000 people in the last several years. and the leader of the pakistan a telegram was killed in a cia drug strike. and of course the person authorized the assassination. so some of these attacks have been in pakistan's interest. in my view the drone program has been overused. in 2010 there were a hundred and 22 drums tracks. the number is declining. in 2011 and went down 40%. in 2012 it went down another 25%. several factors. one, pakistan the government closed the cia drone bass.
a debate was in the state department and the cia, the state department to some degree one essentially say we're over using this tactic. the price of a successful from program is alienating 180 million pakistans. that is a high price to pay. there are other factors that cause this kind of decline. there has been increased congressional oversight. senator dianne feinstein when on record with the l.a. times and said the committee staff has held 28 monthly in-depth oversight meetings to really examine this program in more detail. and i think also another factor here is probably a declining number of targets in the tribal areas. you have to be pretty stupid or very desperate to remain in the travel areas if you're a member of the islamic movement. and then just to wrap this up
and may be similar live further, the united states had about 50 drones. now the united states has 7,500 has. the notice is only able to arm its first drone in the post several relevant era. a dispute between cia and defense department about who would pay for them. the first victim was a guy called mohamed auto. the point of that and it is simply that the united states is that point have a monopoly on drums and already dozens. israel and the united kingdom have our bedrooms. israel has sold drone technology to countries like nigeria, not arms thrown spear rees china out of 2010, demonstrating it had 25
different types of drones, some of which could begin to see arms. the monopoly will disappear quickly. and the interesting question is, the president of the united states is creating with the use of drums, you could easily imagine the chinese using drone this against separatists are the iranians using an arms drawn against nationalists and basically deciding what the united states did as president. a public discussion is a good thing. this is the future of warfare. >> thanks you very much. >> thank you. and thank you to the center for national policy for putting together this forum and creating the type of forum we can have a reasonable, rational debate.
i would like to begin this sector and by thinking peter and commending him and the new american foundation for the research they're doing. there are a lot of pundits and policymakers in washington d.c. have strong opinions about the drug program. very few people have gone out into the feel like that the reporting from the field and crunch the data. new america has done that. i think they ought to be commended for contributing as sort of information. they're going to take a slightly different approach. amelie lawyer and a political scientist. i basically have three things i would like to do. i would like to discuss my observations from the field work in human this past summer. what like to talk about those operations, some of those observations resonating with the core principles that define the law. and of like to zoom out. go from specific to general and
brothers judge of distance and we're having in our debate and around the world about technology verses policy, the instruments of policy on the one hand and the substance of our counter-terrorism policy and the other. so i've been researching a book that examines how the interface with indigenous groups in various conflicts owes around the world. the object of the book is to unravel or untangle these webs of terrorist and insurgent networks that we have seen develop since september 11th. a very important case study in that research cheaply because it is the place where they have returned to, the place where they have shifted to following the defeat since afghanistan and pakistan and also iraq. as a result of that shift in a generational shift that is going on after the death we are seeing them develop new strategies, one is the operating in a predominately arab societies where they speak the language, understand the local tribal culture, basically operating on their own home turf.
so crucial for understanding how they are evolving and the way that they are using local insurgencies to perpetuate a global see how. before i went some colleagues and the human rights committee in the national security committee incurs mitchell look at the issue as well and not just a question of how they interface with indigenous tribes. and there were two arguments that these different communities are making. the human rights committee was making the argument that throws strikes are creating more militants. they are the proximate cause of the recruiting efforts. there are some numbers that seem to back that. the threefold increase in the operational capacity since 2009 will we started the program interest. on national security side i have colleagues who came and said, well, let's figure out whether they're helping us stand up effective unity government says are able to deal with the terrorist challenge. when i got there i interviewed 40 tribal and religious leaders from 14 of the country's 21
provinces. i found that both of these narratives, that john structure helping us set up a strong government and they are causing growth in human. no relationship to what is happening and the ground. in fact, what i did find is that the recruiting is not driven by the u.s. truck strike, ideology or religion, that even a driven by a notion of clothes and hot. in a region that is cut off from the west of the world were people living on less than 800 calories a day that makes a real difference. economic deprivation and a real concern about government corruption is pulling people into the insurgency, not u.s. throws strikes or global ideology. all of those things are subsequently used as the indoctrination process. subsequently used to legitimize
and mobilize and prepare their message to the broader world. that's not what is actually bringing 18, 19, 200 kids. the second thing is overwhelmingly they resent the does tracks. they resent the draws tracks of the national sovereignty grounds to national pride grounds, but they also resent them because they have the image that the drones and that the u.s. government is standing up a government that is not accountable to them. we hear this over and over. it did not matter what i was talking to. this notion that the u.s. is propping up a government that is not responsive to the population is fundamentally undermining our political objectives, even while it is serving our security objectives. we have these two stories we have been telling ourselves. neither one bears any resemblance to the facts on the ground commandos are distorting our ability to understand the relationship between the instruments of policy on the one
hand and the actual substance and objectives that our policy has on the other. the misalignment of our short-term security concerns and our long-term political objectives. let me very clearly summarize some of the things that the tribal leaders and religious leaders told me. by and large they oppose them, but they're building to accommodate them if the united states can be three conditions. being, no civilian casualties, not using any more force than is necessary to take care of the problem. they see this as a dispute between the united states. very individualized manners. the third criteria that they said is basically when the target make sure you're targeting the foreign fighters and leaders. they want to pull them away from the organization.
they don't want them becoming a target set for u.s. jones. there have this practical balance. the desire they have to stand of a functioning government. when the general principles of international law and that general principles of the law for, there are three normative constructs that we use to define what is and what is a legal. the second is proportionality. use only as much forces in haiti to remove the threat and the third is restraint. know who you are targeting and target only those that pose a threat. it resonates closely. will we think but international law we have to think not about
the law as a fundamental set of rules that can never be broken and we can't think of it as a set of ridiculous regulations that interfere with our ability to secure ourselves. we have to look at it as a series of lessons that have been collected by previous generations were fought nasty wars and have won some hard lessons as a result. given them to future generations one of those lessons? avoid civilian casualties. civilian casualties of radicalized in business population. use restraint. use only the 45 focus on personality. use only the force you need to take your objective and know who you're have a serious, know what the objectives you want to achieve and don't go beyond that so what do we have today? well, we have today an increase in the ecstasy and intensity of u.s. operations. most importantly a share from
targeted strikes based on a positive identification of a particular individual to so-called sinister strikes that are based on generalized patterns of what we believe our militant characteristics and behavior. that may have worked well in pakistan where ethnic arabs and the tendency to stick out despite their best efforts to assimilate and april amelie environment. in a place where ethnic arabs are coming back from overseas and reintegrating into their own villages in their own travel structures and even their own family structures, the signature strike becomes more problematic and underscores the very important thing that we need to consider more broadly in terms of the relationship between the estimates a policy and the substance of our policy. drones are a tool, an instrument, a platform. did a lot @booktv allow us to extend region reduced the cost of the intervene @booktv to mention in various military operations but don't change the need for having clear intelligence. don't change the need to understand the local, social and political and economic tenements on the ground.
they don't change the human dimension of work. the other policy between a population that is fighting or living and the people who are coming in from the outside to intervene. in these of the questions that are being lost in the drug debate. focusing on the platform, the technology, proliferation, a very hard notion of right and wrong, war and peace, liberty versus security. it reads all the way back. what tools are okay to use. all those is a policy decisions. changing this fundamentally human endeavor. shakespeare once said the fault is not in our stars, some a judge's phenomenon. the fault is in ourselves.
illiberal understanding of what is happening on the ground. the consequences of this kind of intervention going forward. thank you. >> thank you very much. talk of the 1718 year-old. they get recruited for money. john strike. so is there any meeting and the mines to? what is driving recruiting. in economic and social environment that is breaking down. that structure and effectiveness. a water crisis, an ecological crisis, or the majority living on less than $60 a month.
you're the head of families, 30 year old and have a wife with three or four children, the population growth is right now off the charts. and you are living and $60 a day . come into our communities and system i can pay you 400, but you have to believe and carried his rifle. the level of desperation. what it as people get sucked up, that is an unfortunate reality. the trick here is right now we did have a good granular as you of what troubles structures called region where they're is a lot of region influence. we have a general view. you can't fight this kind of war. you have to have that on the ground you. this of the mission had the interventions.
it does mean that we have to have a much more clear picture of who our adversary is, how are ever serve relates to the local population and the points of pressure. >> what is your assessment? some major reverses as a result of the drug program. the drought program. in three what did you make of the comments at the un general assembly. why did he make this? then as far as my understanding, obama met with no one on one meetings except with president heidi of yemen. >> i don't know about the last part. let me try to respond. i was there shortly after the bombing. they killed about 100 young
officers. actually interviewed some of the officers who were literally, the distance between you and me and said the blast radius. that was late may. i was there until early june just before the forces went in. so it is a very exciting time to be there. a very rich time. people's willingness to talk about what was happening in their country. so that is the timing. my general assessments the confined in an article i wrote for west point. but if you look at the current situation in yemen kelli they get extended beyond their capacity. they tried to consolidate territory, set up a system of governance. they were burning a lot of money in the process, using a lot of manpower, and there were not quite ready to do it yet. that army has done a good job of pushing them back from second stage insurgency worries are to
consolidate power. you run the kinds of operations that they are astonishingly good at and that you document in your own research with justice a provocation operations got terrorist operations. i think what we have seen is not an army route. areas where it has better sustainability in the capacity to maintain a force. and your third question, the comments on drones. >> he made is pretty unusual comment. >> and these comments really underscored the difference between the yemeni leaders and their concerns about instability in their country and what ordinary. the is concerned about the security threat. some other country coming in. milling around with the affairs. and this is a disconnect. that is growing and growing and
growing. he gave the u.n. is simply here in washington and the woodrow wilson center a very clear fractional assessment of what drugs can do and how they're helping his government take care of some of the security problems. one of the things i don't think he has a knowledge is the degree to which that kind of intervention and the way that intervention seems in society generally is undermining the legitimacy of his transition of government. >> quite difficult. multiple wars going on. >> i had a very good interpreter who had an extended network of people. the went out to the south. remove from travel check to travel a share to travel shake. getting to the all question of signature strikes, i was riding in pickup trucks with a bunch of
travel fighters. >> i am clearly a foreigner. take the resumption that this is the target. i might have been won, but the simple reality is if you take the time to do your homework and build a local relationship you can get a much richer data set. to sort of relying on third-party reports. they maintain a low profile, move around smoothly. literally moving from the protection of one tribal leader to the protection of another. that does not mean we did have -- did not have so unpleasant interactions. but having seven guys with seven rifles is a very persuasive way.
>> we are very happy you came back. you provided with a lot of rich research. now is time to upgrade up. please identify yourself before you ask a question. >> being deployed, the rules changing? is there anything to be concerned that? >> so how large runs changing? >> as far as a military to the american military. >> of the talk about trounce the use an ordinary warfare is quite
uncontroversial. after get the numbers. it's about hundreds of thousands of hours. using jones. i just bought one on amazon for $250. the ordinary soldier is going to have their own john wrigley sent the technology is already here. so it is changing the nature of warfare. i will give you another example. the libyan opposition brought their own surveillance drones. so if you are able to my clearly for the ordinary soldier, the ordinary american soldier is clearly here. absolutely integrated in to how you perceive of the battlefield.
>> the you 80's. the director of innovations. during to go by. basically that was the evolution of the technology. but when they gave me a bunch of ex navy captains the sake, don't tell me the problems. tommy is solutions. you articulate the problems extraordinarily well. what would you do if you were in charge? that is the real crux of where we go. because you can't stop technology. we are in said that my what even begin to tell you what i saw level years ago compared to today. >> let me break that down into three solutions. one practical.
one security related and one male. practical solution, in terms of u.s. operations in these places where we are doing jones we have to have some disability -- visibility on the ground. we have to know who are local partners are, and we have to have the tools to distinguish them from one another. not everybody with a kalashnikov and turban is allocated. so we have to have that you on the ground. you cannot fight a war by remote-control. from a legal standpoint i would say we're worried about proliferation of the technology. we have a number of tools that we used to prevent the proliferation of all kinds of dangerous technology, be it weapons generally barred nuclear materials with the non-proliferation treaty. withdraw as we actually have a legal regime called the missile technology control regime this says that if you have a rocket system or missile were drawn system with a range of more than 300 kilometers the technology is controlled. certain countries that you
cannot exploit the technology to the missile control technology is what they call that. of voluntary regime. it is developed countries that a word about this. if you can move their regime like that from voluntary to binding international law has some answers to deal with some of these problems. the strategy question. what are we doing? well, i have some profound concerns about the sickness and strikes. i would die by the signature strikes until we have better intelligence on the ground. the thing that makes drone's a better option from a legal standpoint, a strategic standpoint, a tactical standpoint is the fact a you can put firepower directly on the target, directly on the source of the threat. that degree of discrimination is extremely useful for a legal standpoint and political standpoint as strategic
standpoint. if you suddenly decide we're not going to worry about the nature of the target but a profile basis in use such undermine the legitimacy of your actions. used to undermine the degree of restraint you're exercising strategically than the process you encouraged, this misalignment between the short-term security, essential security issues that we are trying to deal with in the long term political objectives are trying to achieve. >> i completely agree. in know, this is the world's worst kept secret. where having this meeting about this issue. it drowns tracks are public events by their very nature. these are not things you can hide. and i think it's good that the obama administration is
beginning to talk about this and a more open way. president obama, a cnn way he made some of his most as far as i can sell on the record statements about the drought program. there should be more public discussion about it. and there should be more public discussion at the international level to talk about the kind of regime that christopher was indicating to a potentially having a binding international treaty on this issue. so i would add one other thing. this secrecy that is surrounding this is unnecessary in counterproductive. why does it even exists is an interesting question. the case of pakistan, to give them plausible deniability. that ceiling to this.
the public was discussing this. they were joking about how they were going to lie about it to their own population. the secret is out. there's no reason for plausible deniability to exist. we have the president making a speech about it to the general assembly. so sunlight is a great disinfectant. this is -- >> way in the back. could you please speak up? [indiscernible] >> i am not familiar with that event. i know that the united states
turned down a request from turkey for on drums. the turks have turned around and sell were going to harm our own drones. i think we are right at the tipping point where a lot of countries. have this technology. it's not that complicated. >> the one. would add to that. but persons familiar with the situation, but the one. would add to that is that euros generally reduce the cost of military intervention because it's easy, just like and iphone makes it easy for you to communicate with whoever is you want to communicate with, they extend your region reduced the cost of getting involved. to the extent we have a proliferation, to the extent that different cultures aware of the world using this instrument to pursue their policies, we are likely to seek greater extensively and then sense of the.
but doesn't matter whether it is the europeans. doesn't matter whether the concerns about operating, we are going to see this be used. lowered to get involved. do we are targeting, what the possible cost of taking the wrong action are, and we have to have a clear public discussion about when it's appropriate to use force, the kinds of targets that are proper to target and weather are not now is the time to use force. these are fundamental questions about the relationship between ball and politics. as i said earlier, these reach all the way back. these are not new questions. there are all questions, and we need to focus of them, not the platform. >> let me add quickly.
if there are drones that would go to egypt, and the egyptian government uses of the border, that would have to be coordinated with the israelis because of the sensitivity of that whole border region. let's go over year. >> come back to this issue of the signature strikes. >> please identify yourself. >> here is how much we actually know about the decision making behind these. if we have any data over whether they actually was discriminant in terms of civilian casualties. it is obvious the phrase is pretty harmful. on the other hand something that strikes me as analogous in a domestic criminal context, and we repeatedly used the same sort
to send people to jail. it's all circumstantial evidence and curious will we really actually know in terms of how these work and what the real differences are. >> to you want to handle what we know? >> well, what we know is not a great deal. at think we can make certain assumptions. my impression is the number of signatures checks have gone down . there was a particularly egregious case in march 172011 which was the day after raymond davis was released. killed quite a number of tribal leaders. seems to be a classic signature strike. my understanding is the u.s. ambassador of pakistan tried to prevent the strike or somebody complained about it. clearly this a major strike is more likely to kill people who may not be -- certainly it's not
killing militant leaders. my impression is that they have declined. i can't tell you if they have stopped. this is the problem with discussing the program. the u.s. government really doesn't say much about it. i think the best reporting and this has been done by newsweek and the new york times. but when it comes to individual strikes, whether there a signature or not the only way you can inferred by the number of casualties because signature stretched into kill more people. >> possible, that is actually an assumption. >> it's an assumption. it is an assumption. also, signature strikes. mike understanding of that term signature strike is it does not refer to one person. it refers to a group of people doing certain things.
now, the administration has come up with a new euphemism. it is called. : de s. i want to tell you that it is -- something to do with terrorism. signature threat is the sound very good. there is a new euphemism to describe it. but i can't really say more than i have just said because i just don't know. >> i don't have an inside view of the criteria they are using to operate signature strikes. nor do i have a sense of the data. that is one area where graders transparency would be in favor of greater legitimacy. but i can talk to you about his the analogy you are drawing between signatures strikes on the one hand and circumstantial evidence of the other. i can tell you, i'm a prosecutor. i have a murder. i want to prove that murder with eyewitness testimony. a lot to prove it with dna. i want to prevent murder with
circumstantial evidence. why? even if i get the conviction it's going to get -- it's not going to resonate quite the same way or be as clear were seen as legitimate and continue to be challenged five years continue as to what 20 years down the road. i want a clear conviction based on facts that i can verify, not based on hearsay or conjecture or circumstance. that is assuming we're operating in a legal demesne. it involves things like to process of law, this amendment. that is a u.s. domestic criminal law analogy. we are not operating in the room of u.s. domestic criminal law. we're operating in the role of war and peace in a foreign conflicts of. the stakes are arguably even higher. there is no trial. the target you may or may not be a militant as i have the chance to save weight. i am actually the guy from the next village over. so substantial evidence in that kind of context, were talking
about war and peace, life and death at a macro level. the cost of getting the decision wrong undermines our policy, our ability to build a relationship in order to achieve the kind of objectives we have which involves stability and prosperity. that is what we are here for. if you do that on the basis of circumstantial evidence it will be hard. more importantly, it's going to be really hard to go to the tribal leader in that region and explain we did it on the basis of circumstantial evidence. when i was in him in one of the chance that i interviewed was a tribal leader from our district in the south. and he had put together its local militia that was literally fighting a que ap house-to-house in their own village. they were standing up, not because the u.s. government has been too, that because the government has been to, but because they have been offended.
there were a threat, and there were taking responsibility for providing security. a couple of weeks ago we accidently churro some civilians in that district. that same tribal leader who came to me and said i can accommodate drones as long as you don't have any civilian casualties, and they might be helpful if the u.s. government to the following things, that can't get is population circumstantial evidence. rather than making a positive identification of the adversary and then taking them out of circulation. let's go back to the bigger question. these laws are not there to restrain us. they're not there to have bureaucracy. these are lessons that have been given to us by our grandparents and their grandparents about the mistakes you can make in the kinds of precautions you should take to avoid them so that were sur's a clear policy, a clear set of objectives rather than
serving itself. >> i'm sorry. speak up. >> and academic report released two weeks ago. held the population with the drug taxol, it is kind of like, it is not good to live there because these drones are operating constantly over their heads. has there been any research? do you know whether there is more radicalization and places like north waziristan where the population of that area? >> the new american foundation did their first independent poll on sense of political issues in the trouble areas about two years ago. there were some pretty
interesting polls. we subcontracted with a local ngo that does are pulling in the region. and the results of the poll were pretty interesting. of course there was a great deal of hostility to president obama. at the because of the drones. it was a great deal of facility to u.s. military activity. there was also very little support and not much for the taliban. one of the questions we asked, if they were on the pole in an election in your area, would you vote for them? think the answer was less than 1% in both cases. so the picture that emerges is hostility. after all, nothing quite like living under the taliban to have a healthy skepticism about their plans are producing utopia.
and also a real dislike of u.s. military activity in the region. i think that as i have been thinking about the drone program, christopher mentioned this issue of national sovereignty. i think at the end of the day naturally the issues that make people oppose this, the perception of civilian casualties with the actuality, that is part of it. the where canada had a drone program where there were taking of members of the mafia in buffalo, new york, was a high degree of success, but a small number of residents were being killed in the process. we would be up in arms. and i think that is the kind of analogy in pakistan, what people are objecting to some of the national sovereignty. it takes several different forms that the estates is done. raymond davis. a busy city. the rate which they did not get
a heads up for. the killing of 24 of their soldiers on the border by a nato airstrike and, of course, the drug program. all these things taken together account for this 9 percent favorability rate that we have in pakistan in general. i don't think it is particularly surprising. >> i think what peter in new america half-hour with their poles and pakistan in terms of the differentiation between opposition to u.s. military intervention and a general dislike, distaste, and even in some cases on a position to that tell a ban on the local level is exactly what i saw with my interview in human. we make a big deal out of them being a muslim organization. going back to arabia. op-eds attraction. the majority are not muslims. they have a very flexible, much more easygoing interpretation.
know culturally they're very different. understanding the cultural differences is important, but this is not exactly for the ground for the way that many people in the west to are not familiar with the local conditions as some. same thing and pakistan. there is nothing quite like living under the taliban to convince you that they're probably not the best form of governance, especially if you care about things like being a will to control your own property and being able to educate your children. the end of the date the question that is key here is not just war and peace or security and liberty but what people in these countries, where we are intervening. by and large what they want is they want clear rule of law so they understand what the rules of the game marked. they want to be able to feed their kids, build a house, build the business. they want to be able to make decisions about their lives and political future. it's not so different from people everywhere.
the way they do that is going to be different because of their history, because of their culture, because of their religion. ls we get on the ground and understand these people on their own terms, unless we hear their stories from the field we're never going to have an appreciation of the impact that our policies, the impact on our platforms and instance a policy have in these environments. .. kick
would you like to take that? >> i'm not aware of -- and you and i are not aware of any of the air force or other military agencies that are studying the drones to have them be automated from the terminator or something like that. what i see is quite the contrary in my interactions with military leaders and others there is a very strong emphasis on preserving a the war fighter making the decision, having the pile wet drone and a human being make the decision as to whether to pull the trigger. as i said before, the war is a human endeavor and if we got down the road towards automation, then i think we would have a major legal problem but also fundamentally a moral problem and something that we should -- that is something we should stay away from. >> that is a technological question which is i completely agree every air force attack about said the same thing, but you know, if there is a law in
the drones' which there is, you know, the day instead of hiring a hit man you have your personal drone do the operation for you is pretty close. it's not science fiction anymore. and quite how you prevent that i have no idea. i don't feel you can because i don't think that technology is going to move faster than the ability to constrain it from a moral perspective. >> let me come back to that and look at a different kind of targeted within. a suicide bomber is a highly targeted what then. we have a bunch of rules that we have created. we think it is illegitimate. we basically frown upon this particular delivery mechanism. and the particular target set they know the target set is
before. it's a legitimate and we are going to morally push it down to say this is not something we're going to tolerate. we are granted target id and engage in it. so, we do respond to these things and we are granted a while to go from the level of tactics to the doctrine and policy and rolled into the law so there are platforms something human beings have been doing the last 10,000 years. they fundamentally changed the land warfare in europe and try to outlaw for a long time. we eventually figured out if you build bigger castles and change the armor and the structure of society, then it's not so much of a threat anymore. but that understands the are important not because it was
just an interesting new technology, it allowed an individual bomber to take out a commanding might come to taken at a distance of 500 yards and the technological change. what happened? society in europe changed. the relationship between the population and the leaders of the population change. the institutions grew up around the technology to keep things in some kind of order and we are seeing that with the technology and the communications technology with cyber warfare. the trick is not to think that that technology is going to define the future. we define the future, human beings make the decision about how we are going to live, what we see as legitimate and what we don't see as legitimate. who has the power to make that choice? >> are we overestimating the impact of drones? clearly the five-year jet and the tank change the nature of
warfare in the 20th century almost completely and all soviet, weapon. if you are the historian and the century looking back on this discussion would it seems sort of overruled that we are saying this is a big change? >> it is a big change for us now in the intensity and extends the of warfare in terms of the personalization as you've noted. it's a big change in terms of as i said earlier increase in the region reducing the transaction cost that is getting involved which is why the legal and political and moral questions we are raising not only with your research but also in the form even more important now and they've ever been because we have less time to make these fundamental decisions about the war and peace and liberty and security. i'm optimistic. i think human beings are pretty clever to adopting new technologies. islamic here is another interesting point. i think that in a sense the boundary between war and peace
have been blurred by the weapons because look at what we are doing in somalia. again it's a code for war that we don't have direct information about, but clearly with the use of u.s. special forces and drones, you know, we are not in a conventional war in somalia that we are not at peace with certain groups in somalia. and the drones allow us to be in that position. >> the 20th century was of conventional warfare large states with large army is lining up against one another we saw in world war i and world war to a similar thing happened in the nuclear standoff of the cold war. but if you look at the history of the war and armed conflict across the heart of human history, what we are seeing is a return to the norm where there is a blending between peace and criminality and terrorism and insurgency and they are all
blended together in very complicated ways. >> we are seeing it back to the norm rather than something fundamentally new common with those institutions we have built laws and a system of government that allowed us to respond to these things. we have done it by making a decision of what the values are and what we are fighting for, what adversaries we simply can't live without and those that we can accommodate, and we are seeing that shakeout not just in terms of the policy on the drones to this effort that's been underway for several years to distinguish between different forms of militance like hard-core al qaeda on the one hand who are localized and how would really is impossible to deal with the ideology versus local groups who are profoundly islamic in terms of their politics but deutsch reza ignite with al qaeda's global agenda. we are seeing efforts to make the distinctions as well. i think our institutions are adaptive but our institutions
are only going to be adopted if we understand the lessons that have been handed to us through the wall from the previous generations and appreciate those lessons and if we touch and to some of these cultures that we are engaging with and understand them and what they see as the idea future on their terms. >> to understand the problems as you mentioned earlier about the signature strike. with that we have raised the bar to a higher level but it's a very useful discussion on the topic that has peter mentioned is not well discussed in washington. yes, i am very pleased to have such distinguished speakers with us today and thank you, the audience, for your questions. thank you very much. [applause]
>> which we see live where the members of the obama and romney campaign will talk to reporters after the date. we are going to leave the camera into the media center here in a couple of minutes. hundreds of volunteers have been behind the scenes in the media center testing the digital network capacity preparing to cover the debate. >> [inaudible conversations]
and vice presidential debate, the c-span debate from the house, senate and governor's races from across the country. senator scott brown and his democratic challenger elizabeth warren meet tonight for the third floor debates in the massachusetts senate race. you can hear that live on the companion network c-span at seven eastern tonight. we spoke with a political reporter of the massachusetts senate race. >> we are joined by national journal julie sobel. this is in the first time the candidates for the seat will be squaring off. they have two debates. >> the first to debates have been pretty nasty debates and it's actually pretty positive up until september on the group's
ads in the massachusetts senate race that both candidates agree to. there were no negative ads and in september there were no negative ads from either candidate as well. over the last month or so they taken a turn towards the - and we have seen in the first two debates, scott brown, the republican from massachusetts has gone after his democratic opponent elizabeth warren and her claims of native american ancestry trying to imply that she may be benefit it and got teaching jobs and based on her claims of being a minority she prevented the victims from getting money and the forum has also been hitting scott brown on
basically massachusetts voters want a democratic controlled senate. people consider him an independent but still a vote for scott brown is a vote for the republican controlled set. what should they be watching for. >> well, i think it is scott brown will continue to attack elizabeth warren on the travelers insurance than. she's fighting for the middle class and for the little guy. her work presented victims of the present and in that yeltsin is certain. she disputes that claim and says that her work was actually to
benefit the victims, but it certainly muddied the water on that and when you have to do is really try to defend that work and i would assume that he will attack on it again which they would come up as well, and you know, from elizabeth warren's perspective, i think that tying him to mitt romney to support mitt romney he's unpopular in massachusetts to remind viewers that he does not support president obama. scott brown wouldn't commit to voting for mitch mcconnell for the senate majority leader if reelected, but i think that she will try to again tie him to the national republican party. another thing that happened in the last date is scott brown saying that as a model for the supreme court justice that
justice scalia is other conservative justice as a model for him and elizabeth warren campaigned hard on that to bring up some time but important job as a senator to the supreme court justice nominee is and they've said that the conservative is an ideal justice for him. >> julie sobel to touch on this a little bit but why are people paying attention to this race? >> guest: >> this is one of the closest in the country. scott brown is one of two amenable republican incumbent senators who is up for reelection this year and the letter is dean heller in nevada. it's been very tight in the polls over the last year and then scott brown has been ahead in some of them over the last one or several weeks. moran has gotten a little bit of an advantage in the polls and was kind of seen consistently
being a few points over scott brown. there was one poll this week to be considered encouraging for brown that showed him up again as a result of romney's debate performance. mitt romney as a former governor of massachusetts is very unpopular in the state and virtually short of losing the race there, but most have showed him lagging obama by a huge margin and this shows he's made ground against obama and then also showed scott brown against elizabeth warren so we can expect it to be one of the closest races in the country. it's been a leader on the program we will talk about the arizona senate race. thank you very much. >> the massachusetts senate debate is live tonight on the companion network c-span.
congressional hearings and congressional deliberations on a policy and also information that is put out by the various think tanks in washington, d.c.. i like to watch brian lamb on sundays where he hosts different authors and in the discussion about the book and to get information that are in those books about the veto without having to read the book. the british conservative party met today and in the wind. michael bloomberg address to the party conference and he says
british prime minister david cameron has made it difficult decisions about the country's budget. we have remarks for just over ten minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen please welcome michael bloomberg. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] thank you. thank you. [applause] thank you very much. i will say i have a great position to be speaking between some olympic medal winners and a gold medal prime minister
sebastian i hope he's still here. i wasn't thrilled the last time i saw sebastian in singapore when he led the london did over new york. but i will say that he and the people of great britain and london deserve an enormous amount of credit. they have staged one of the most magnificent olympic and paralympic events and all of the world as a beneficiary. [applause] >> it really is a pleasure to be here. thank you for letting a yank crash the party. [laughter] i was actually thinking about jumping out of a helicopter and parachuting in which him but the last time he was suspended in the air it didn't work out.
it's great to be that the conservative party difference in 2007. my former wife grew up not far from york shire although she would say it is very far. her father was an old wing commander and during the war my mother-in-law was a radar operator for the raf. i'm not sure she could tell the difference between a german plan and a goose but she didn't manage to win the war but all is well that ends well. over the years mai tais to the u.k. have remained strong. my two daughters have british passports, and my company, which currently employs 2600 people across great britain is building a new headquarters designed by a foster right in the city of boston so that special relationship that has always existed between the u.k. and the
u.s. is something that i have experienced in a very personal way to the band of one of my political heroes has always been i am very proud to say the son of a new york city native. so, winston churchill. [applause] churchill belonged to two parties in his lifetime while is being an independent and having been a republican i can relate to that. putting the common good ahead of the party politics in the next election really was at the core of his approach to leadership. it was an approach that i have always believed we need more of and every level of government all around the world especially now. we know these are difficult times in the shift in the economy presented leaders with tough choices on spending and taxes managing deficit and
unleashing the forces of innovation. the u.k.'s first government since churchill is meeting these challenges head on. in the face of the most challenging economic times, we experienced in decades this is a government that is clearly not afraid to lead. in a 2010 when david cameron intered downing street, the british economy and the entire european union was in dire straits. since then, as we keep reading, and most national governments have tried to ride the storm buy simply bedding down the hatches and hoping the size will return quickly. but very few governments have charted new courses that will lead them to clear skies and i think the united kingdom has been an exhibition and the conservative party has been the reason. [applause]
prime minister can run together with his chancellor of george osborne are creating a new course for britain. it's not easy work and i can appreciate how hard it is to step in to the crisis and make the tough decisions to overcome it. i first took office in the three months after the attacks of 9/11. we lost people that day for more than 90 countries including 67 citizens of the u.k., and we will always be grateful for the supporyou gave us in the weeks and the months that followed. it's easy now to forget but back then, people said new york city is best days were behind us but we didn't accept that. we believe we could build a stronger future and we made the tough decisions we knew were necessary to do it. that meant raising taxes and cutting spending and let me tell you that didn't make me the most popular man in new york but those who confuse popularity
with leaderships of for the progress for power. we see that all too often in politics. but fortunately for britain, not with prime minister david cameron. [applause] he understands that if you do what you believe is right, over time, even if people don't support a particular policy, they will respect you and they will support you. it's like a former mayor of new york city used to say if you agree with me on eight out of 12 issues, vote for me. if you agree with me on 12 out of 12, go see a psychiatrist. [laughter] leadership is not about a check list of issues. it's about taking on big challenges and pushing ideas that in the end mixed society stronger, safer and more economically secure. you don't have to agree with every idea to recognize that
cameron is taking on those big challenges and he is providing the leadership in three areas that i see clearly even from the other side of the pond. first, he refused to take no for an answer when it comes to government reform and accountability. i am talking especially about his educational reform, his nhs and welfare reforms and his police reforms. for too long the government threw money at these areas and when they didn't work, the answer was always more money. but we have learned from experience the governments must focus on the products that come out of the agency, not on the tax revenue that goes into the agency. [applause] in new york city we have seen how accountability and innovation has led to the transformations. in public safety, public education and public assistance.
new york city is down more than 30% compared to a decade ago. high school and attrition rates are up 40%, and the welfare rolls are down 25%. and that didn't just happen because we spend more money. it happened because accountability and innovation have become an enjoyable part of the work. come implementing those reforms was not easy. i don't know reforms that have been easy here either. never is. they will always be doubted, detractors, and doomsayers. but also the tough problems are not solved by waving a magic wand for and charting the right course rather than of the easy course takes courage and i don't have any doubt that david cameron has the courage of his convictions, and i believe that he is charging the right course for britain to a [applause]
the second area where his leadership has been especially strong is in making the government more business friendly. here again, simply spending more money is not the answer. the best way to spur economic growth is by ramping, not ramping up government spending on its by knocking down barriers to private sector investment and the conservative party's work to simplify regulations will create job at no cost to the taxpayers and the same is true to expand opportunities for investment. both of these strategies have been important priorities for the new york city and the part of the world we have been out paste in the rest of the job growth. in a new york city we are also working to attract more investment in technology and science and your plan to expand tax credit for r&d is a smart investment in the future.
[applause] of course the first rule of economic management is the same as medicine. do no harm so i couldn't agree with your opposition to the tax on financial transactions. if you want to send financial firms out of the country, the attacks on the transactions is as good as a way as i know to do it. that may not be a popular thing to say. but we live in a global economy. it's the reality. and you are right for standing and saying it. [applause] third and final yet maybe most importantly, david cameron has been a leader in creating the government that lives by values it preaches and that is all too rare. too often we hear those in government and around the world preach fiscal responsibility but then run up huge deficits.
we hear them preach of personal responsibilities the but then blame everybody but themselves. we hear them preach of making hard decisions when it comes time to spell out the details they then kick the can down the road. not david cameron. he has governed with integrity. he's not just promised changed but he has delivered it and he's been a conservative in the very best sense of the word. [applause] david cameron has refused to buy into the something for nothing philosophy that is common in the world politics and he's refused to settle the next generation with a debt they cannot afford. as a result, we are making real progress on the very tough issues, determined hard-earned progress and you should all be very proud of that. the united kingdom and the
united states have a storm in our strong history and we will vote whether the current economic crisis. we are rooting for this coalition government to succeed because america succeeds when britain succeeds and vice versa. we may be economic competitors, that we are in this together and we will always be allies first through thick and thin and war and peace. the tough decisions you are making honoring churchill's legacy of putting national interest ahead of the party politics and i believe that you will lead to a better and a brighter tomorrow. thank you and good luck. you are lucky to have david cameron. [applause]
on the threshold of power for the first time in more than a decade. we knew then it wasn't just the jitters in the office that we were assuming. we were entering into the government as a brief moment in the modern history of britain. at that time when people felt uncertainty, even if you're coming here was the challenge to make the nation solvent again. to set our country back on the path to prosperity, to bring home our troops from danger while keeping our citizens safe from terror, to mend a broken society. two and half years later, of course i can't tell you that all is well, but i can say this. britain is on the right track. [applause]
as prime minister, it is important to me to face some hard things and help our country face some hard truths. whatever the difficulties, the british people have at least in confident about one thing. we thought we could pay our way. we could earn our living as a major industrial country and we will always remain one. it's on to us to say that we cannot assume that any longer. unless we act. unless we take difficult and painful decisions and show determination and imagination, britain may not be in the future but it has been in the past. because the truth is this we are in a global increase in today, and that means the reckoning for countries like ours, or swim, do
or decline. to take office in the government is such a duty and in honor and we will rise to the challenge. and today a serious argument in this country that's how we do that, how we compete in this world. how can we make sure that in this century like the ones before britain is on the rise. nothing matters more. every battle we fight and of the plan we make and every decision we take is to achieve that end. britain and the rise. those are challenges that are daunting. i of confidence in the country. why? because britain can do big things. we saw it this summer the
olympics, the paralympics, the best country in the world the finest head of state on earth. [applause] i was recently trying to think of my favorite moment of that extraordinary summer. was it telling the president that no, we hadn't achieved, we just peddled faster than the french. [laughter] it was seeing that young woman that swam her heart out for years for two hours at a time with my best moment was putting the gold medal and around the
neck. [applause] you know something, i am so grateful for what they did. when i used to push my son around in his wheelchair, i used to think that too many people saw the wheelchair and not the boy. i think today more people would see the boy and not the wheelchair and that is because of what happened in britain this summer. [applause] and they show us something else, something important. whether our athletes were scottish, english or from northern ireland they draped
themselves in a flag. [applause] there was one person who didn't like that. [laughter] i'm going to go to see him on monday for the referendum on independence by the end of 2014. because there are many things i want this coalition government to do. what could be more important than saving our united kingdom? so let's say we are better together. we will rise together and fight the referendum with everything we've got to the [applause] there are so many people to thank this summer, those on the bridge, those that build the stadium that ran the games.
but conservative area that you just heard from. [applause] there's also the man that put a smile on all of our faces, the conservative mayor of london. [applause] and the games makers come those extraordinary games makers. i spent three years trying to explain to the society and they did it beautifully in just three weeks and i want to thank them for that as well. [applause] now there is another group of people who stepped in the summer, and we in this party
never forget them. our forces have been on the ground in afghanistan now for over ten years. 443 men and women have paid the ultimate price and made the ultimate sacrifice. just last weekend there was a service for one of the fallen and the eulogy said this. all that they had it, they gave. all that they might have had come all that they had ever men, although they might have ever become, beautiful words to be the words we should never forget when we send our young men and women into harm's way to work on our behalf. and for all of those that serve and for their families, i repeat the commitment i made when the government came to office. by the end of 2014, all u.k. combat operations in afghanistan would have come to an end.
[applause] >> to meet the challenges our country faces, we must have confidence in ourselves. confidence as a party. we have been at this for two and a half years now and we have done some big life changing things. just ask stone. i met him years ago when we were in opposition. he had cancer and he said to me the drug - needed is out there but they won't give it to me because it is too expensive. please come if you get and please do something about it and we have. a new cancer drug fund that got the latest drugs to more than 21,000 people and counting and there is a reason. there is a reason we could do that. it's because we made a big decision to protect them from spending cuts. no other party made that
commitment, just us, the conservatives. and to all of those people who said we bring it down, i would say this, you've got a point. i will tell you what's down, the number of managers, bureaucratic target's, hospital inspections, and what is up? the num and dentists and midwives and operations carried out, so let no one be in any doubt. this is the part and that is the way that it's going to stay. [applause] we made another big decision, too in these difficult times and that is to go on saving lives abroad.
some are skeptical about the budget. but picture the scene. you are in the center and see the child with a needle in her arm being injected with a yellow vaccine that is the difference between living and dying mccotter -- how can anyone tell me that is a waste of money. since we gathered the money has vaccinated 130,000 children are around the world. 130,000 children. you, the conservative party helped to do that and you should be proud of what you have done. [applause] here's something else this party has done in the government. last december i was at the european council in brussels. it was three in the morning and
there was a treaty on the table that was not in britain's interest. and there were 25 people around that table telling me to sign it. but i did something that none other has done before. i said no. britain comes first and i veto that treaty. [applause] so my friends, we are doing big conservative things. people said you will never reform public sector tensions because they won't stand for it and it's going to cut the cost of the taxpayers almost in half. the benefits are out of control. there is nothing you can do about it. but because no family will be getting more benefits than the average family. for years people said -- [applause]
people asked why can't we get rid of the radical preachers that spark a trend which a great secretary has done it she has her hands out of the country to face justice. [applause] to many of the workers being taken out of income tax altogether. 18 million households as with the freeze in their tax and we are freezing it all over again next year, too these are conservative things. the government made possible by this process. we can deliver and do big things. the olympics reminded us how great it feels to be successful
but we must not but that gives us a false sense of security. all of the world countries are on the rise. yes, we have been hearing about india and china, but it's hard to believe what is happening in brazil and indonesia and nigeria, too. they are on the slide. what do the countries on the rise have in common? they are lean, fit, enterprise is spending money in the future, on education, and credible infrastructure and technology. and with the countries on the slide have in common, the rf fat, spending money on the systems, pension bills come unreformed public service. i sit in those meetings where we talk forever about increased
while on the other side of the world china is growing so fast they are creating another economy the size of greece every three months. i am not plan to stand here as the prime minister and allow the country to join the side. my job, our job is to make sure that in this 21st century as those that came before, our country, britain is on the rise, and here we know how that is done. it is the collective result of individual efforts investigations, the ideas you have, the hours that you put into my aspiration is the engine of progress. countries rise when they allow our people to rise. and in this world where technology shapes our lives for the powerful resource we have is our people not just the scientists and the engineers, not just the teachers, the
nurses, but all of our people including reporters, those who never have a chance, never had hoped, that is why the mission for the government is to build an aspiration nation to unleash promise and all of our people. and for us, conservatives. this is not just an economic mission. it is moral. it's not just about the growth in gdp. it is what has always made our heart beat faster. aspiration, people rising from the bottom to the top. line one, rule one. it's not where you come from that counts. it's where you are going. [applause] we have been led for so many
years before by those persecuted , when men sidelined. we look at the legal on the to and we look at what is in it. let me put that another way. we don't preach about one nation that practiced the war. [applause] >> that's why they're risk takers, the young people that the dream of their first paycheck, the first car and home, those people are ready to work hard to get those things. one of the other intellectuals the party might swear people want to get in life we salute you. they call it the party of the
better. no, they are the party of the one to be better off and who strive to make a better life for themselves. [applause] >> this party when our party it has a great part but we don't like wearing it on our sleeve. conservatives tend to think let's get on with the job. it's not our style. but there is a problem with that. it leaves a space for others to crestor ideas and distort who we are. the conservatives who don't care. my mission from the day that i became the leader of the party boss to change that. to show that the conservative party is for everyone, north or south, black or white, straight
or gay but it was to show that the conservative members are not just the way that we grew a strong economy. they are the way to build a big society. that conservative messages not just good for the strong and the successful but the best way to help the poor, the week, the development because it is not enough. it's not enough to know our ideas are right. we've got to explain where they are compassionate, too. they say we've got to get the private sector bigger and public-sector smaller. our opponents kept flashing the state. no, it is the best way to create a sustainable jobs people need. [applause] we say help people become independent from welfare. the opponent's call what leading people to fend for themselves.
no, there is only one and that is work. of course you've got to insist on the discipline and the rigorous education with your children. our opponents say it's old-fashioned and out of touch. no, a decent education is the only way to get our children the chance the need to stop. [applause] >> the reason we ought to reform schools and reduce government spending is not because we are the same tories come it's because we are whose ideas helped everyone, the polls the most. a strong private sector, schools that teach. these three things are central to helping our people rise and
to our success in the world. and you know what? they fight each and every one of them every step of the way. so, these things, these three things are not just the battleground for written's future the dollar also the battle for the next election and it is a fight we have got to win for our party and country but above all for the nation's future. [applause] so, to help our people, the number one, we need an economy that creates good job. we need businesses of every size and every industry and every part of the country investing in taking people on. there are some basic things they need in order to do that. the need of low interest rates so they can afford to take out a
loan. the need confidence that it's worth investing because the customers will be there whether at home or abroad. bye getting the deficit down is the essential to both of those things. that is why our deficit reduction is not an alternative, it is the very foundation of the great plan. it's the only way that we will get britain on the rise. now i know that you are asking whether our plan is working and here is the truth. the damage was worse than we thought and its taking more than we hoped. the world economy especially in the ye rose zone has been more and expected in the past two years and the big trading partners like spain, ireland, italy it makes it harder for us to pay off our debt. but here is the crucial thing
you need to know. yes it is worse than we thought and it's taking longer but we are making progress. thanks to the group and the result, we've cut a quarter of the deficit in the past two years. 25%. that's helped to keep our interest rates at low levels. keeping mortgages low, leaving more money in your pockets and giving businesses more confidence to invest, creating more jobs. and if you don't believe me, just look at the job creation figures. since the government took office, over 1 million new jobs have been created in the private sector. that is met in the last two years than the lieberman edged in ten years. [applause]
the politicians that got us into this mess say they call that plan b, and it goes like this. we should stop worrying about deficit reduction and spending it to boost the economy. it sounds reasonable when you put it like that. let me tell you why it's not. right now while we have got the deficit, the people we are borrowing money from believe we pay it back because we have cut spending and liquidate our needs. that's why our interest rates are not the lowest in there for all the even though the deficit is left by a later one of the highest in the world. if we did what they want the risk is the people the we borrow money from start to question our ability of resolve to pay off the debt. some might actually refuse to lend us any money at all.
only the crothers only when that high interest rates. that would hurt the economy and what hit people hard. any other mortgage of 100,000 pounds, just a 1% increase in interest rates would mean an extra thousand pounds to pay each year. so it is actually a massive gamble with our economy and with our future. it would sendoff all of the sacrifices. and let me put it like this. we are here because we spent too much and borrowed too much. how on earth can the answer be more spending and more borrowing? [applause] i honestly think that they haven't learned a single thing.
in office it was always borrow more money. now they are right about this. it's borrow more money. whatever the day and the question and the weather, borrowed more money. later, the party of borrowing. [applause] >> there are times i wonder if they know anything about the economy at all. last week with ed miller band set about taxes he described the tax-cut debate could gap as the government writing people a check. i hope you don't mind, i just want to explain for him. this is how it works. when people earned money it is their money, not the government money, it's their money.
ruined our reputation come restore future, who did this, labor did this. our country should never forget it. [applause] and to get our country on the rise, to get britain on the rise we need a whole new economy, more enterprising, more aspirational, and it is taking shape already. we are getting back our entrepreneurial streak.
last year the rate of new business creation much faster than any other year in our history. let me repeat that. the rate at which new businesses started to was faster last year than ever before. we are making things again. we had at trade circus for the first time in almost 40 years. and it's not just the old industries that are going, it is the new ones. we are number one in the world for offshore wind, number one in the world title, number one in the world for the first green investment bank. written on the rise was showing that we can do it. look at the new investment that is coming in. in the last two years in kugel, intel, cisco, the big tech firms have all set of new bases. we are selling to the world again. when i became prime minister has said does in this tip of those embassies, turn them into showrooms, department stores
the diplomats. the best diplomats in the. you also need to be our country's sales force. [applause] and when we looked at what is happening, in just two years exports to brazil up 25%, up 40%, russia up 80% to. there are so many opportunities in this world. and i want to tell you briefly about just one business that is really seizing on the. it is run by a guy. he and his partner saw world with almost 6 billion mobile phones, just 2 billion bank accounts. they saw this huge gap in the market and they started a mobile banking firm helping people in the poorest parts of the world menace their money and start new
companies using the mobile phones. now, been with me on trade missions all over the world. his business is booming. back in 2010 when we came to office the employed 100 people. back then there were no where in africa, nowhere in asia. the global player with 1 million new users every month. britain can make in this world. the most engineering bucking created a michele norris. [applause] and said those who question whether it is right for me to load up a plan with business people, whether we are fine to africa, indonesia, the gulf, or china. energy, finance, technology, or
defense i say their is a global battle. i believe in leading from the flood. [applause] to get our economy on a rise there's a lot more that we need to do. frankly, there's a lot more fight to be had. the yes the know. our businesses need to expand but we cannot perform planning. for business to expand it needs places to build. if it just takes too long they will just build elsewhere. but wanted to open a big fat draft. but the council was going to take so long to approve the decision that they're building the factory on the continent and taking hundreds of jobs.
if you're going to be a winner in this global race we have to be off this suffocating bureaucracy once and for all. [applause] and then there are those who say yes of course we need more housing but no to every development. house building is that just of vital engine of our economy. it does much wider and bigger than that. it's okay for my generation. many of us got on the latter. but the average age, someone buys their own today without help from the parents. thirty-three years old. we are the party of home ownership. so we are doubling the discount,
helping first-time buyers with 95 percent mortgages. there is something else we need to do, and that is except that we need to build a lot more houses in britain. there are people, young people who work hard year after year, but there are still living at home. they sit in their childhood bedroom looking out the window trimming of a place of their own. i want us to say, you are our people. we are on your side. we will help you achieve your dreams. [applause] now, if you want our people to rise so that britain can rise we must tackle welfare. fact one, we spend 80 billion pounds a year on the welfare for working age people. pensions and welfare for working
age people. that is one in eight of every pound the government spends. in fact to, more of our children live in households where nobody works and almost any other nation in your. let me put it simply. welfare is not working, and this is a tragedy. now, our reforms are just as profound as those six years ago. "squalor, and ignorance, warmth, analysts, and disease. first hard-working people who travel long distances to get into work and pay their taxes. 60,000 pounds to live in homes that hard-working people could never afford themselves. we are ending it by capping
housing benefits. [applause] the second legal and justice. here is a choice we give our young people today. work hard. go to college. choice to comment don't get a job, sign-on. don't even need to produce when you do. good housing benefit and then don't ever get a job or you will lose the housing benefits. we must be crazy. now you have to a sign the contract that says you do your bit and we will do ours. it requires you to have a real cv and makes clear you have to seek work, you have to take work or you will lose a benefit.
automatic access to housing benefits for people under 25. let me put it like this. if hard-working young people have to live that, while they worked and saved, why should it be any different for those who don't? [applause] the next you will, bureaucracy. sinon, here, come back in a fortnight. out of work for years, even a decade. play computer games all the living in some fantasy because he hates his real-life. we have tear find something new and we are.
getting people off and uses it today to get into work. proper training. get them into work and already 700,000 people have got not the work program. it has to be clear. british politics today it is this part, no one is a right off. no one is hopeless. leading this revolution. the party that shows their visibility and promise in each and every one of our citizens. [applause] in just one more thing on welfare. our work experience program of
tourists and the courthouse. what a snobbish appalling outdated it wrong headed attitude to the idea of work. we are not sending in people of chimneys. we're giving them a chance. not asking something of people but asking nothing of them. work is not slavery. it's poverty. poverty in britain. [applause] help the people rise, there is a
crucial thing we have to do to educate all our children. i mean really educate them. don't just pop up each year. on mass, science, reading, we have fallen behind. not just behind germany and canada but behind us chilly and. this is britain's real school report, and it reads must do better. you heard of pushy parents, elbowing their way to a better education for their children. this is a pushy devilment. this very, very simple approach, i have two children in primary school, and the one for your children what i want for my. discipline is strict, expectations are high, and no excuses are accepted for failure i don't want preschools to be the preserve of those that can pay the fees or be open to every
child in every neighborhood. the reason i know that every child can go to a school like this is because with this government more and more new ones are opening. you have heard from some of them this week, not just the 79 new schools with over 100 more to come, but you heard from some of the more than two dozen academies' we have helped to create. city schools given all the freedoms and carrying all the high expectations of private schools. that is my plan. millions of children sent to independent schools, independent schools in the state sector. [applause] it is a genuine revolution that is under way. the academy has increased the
number of students getting five good t cs he's photo% under local authority control its almost 90 percent. spar uniforms, teachers and suits, not soft auctions to let children set by ability with excellence applauded the extra resources for those in need, but no excuses. and when you see as the parents schools like that it prompts one question, why can't every school be the way? i can all our children have mischances? it's not because parents aren't ambitious enough. most of these schools are massively oversubscribed. it is because the old educational establishment, the left-wing local authority, the leaders of the teacher unions,
labor party ferris standaway. when we saw how badly failing school and wanted to turn it into an academy the labor party, the labor mp and the teacher unions also know. the inspiration, teachers and parents, norris, bristol, wiggin, when they were ordered to open preschools the left-wing establishment said no. when we proposed more pay for good teachers, getting rid of bad teachers, longer school days tell children learn, flexible school hours to help parents work, more stretching exams for those who are really able. the left will establishment has said just one thing. no. when you ask why a school is failing, why the children aren't succeeding, you hear the same thing over and over again. what can you expect with children like these?
these children are disadvantaged of course we want to tackle every disadvantage, but isn't the greatest disadvantage of all being written off by those to a culture of low expectations were there for done with it to be ambitious in a trance and your background, overcome circumstances and succeed and around. it is that toxic culture of low expectations, lack of ambition for every child which has held the country back. i can tell you. [applause] and let me tell you that things are to about michael gulf and night. we are not waiting for an outbreak of sanity at the headquarters of the npt. bear not wait to -- waiting for some aspiration or when people
say please slow down your education reform so somehow adults can learn to adjust the my say no. i want more free schools, more academies to more rigorous exams, more expected of every child in every school. to those who say, and some do, he once children to have the kind of education he had in his posh school, do you know what i say? you're absolutely right. i went to a grade school and i want everyone to have that certification. [applause] >> i'm not here to defend. i'm here to spread it.
i don't have a hard luck story. my dad was a stockbroker. if. [laughter] it's only when your dad is done it you realize just how much miss them where much of his love them. how much you really of the. my dad influenced me much more than i ever taught. he was born with no heels and is he, with legs that are about a foot shorter than they were meant to be, but he never complained, even when he lost those legs later in life. because disability in the 1930's was such a stigma. he was an only child, probably a lonely child. but my dad was the eternal optimist. to him the glass was always the fault of the use of the u.s. something fairly a
college i remember going for a long walk with him. you walked past the church past the village of. he told me what he was most proud of. it was simple. working hard from the moment he left school and providing a good start in life for is family. not just all of us, but helping his mom when his father ran off. not a hard luck story, but of hard work story. work hard. family comes first. put that into the community. there is nothing complicated about me. i believe in working hard, caring for my family, serving my country. and there is nothing complicated about what we need today. this is still the greatest country on earth. we showed that again this summer.
twenty-second in world population, third. but it is tough. these are difficult times. we are being tested. how will we come through it? again, it is not complicated. hard work, strong family, taking responsibility, serving others. as i said on the steps before walking through that door as 210 should, those who can't we will always sell. the job of this party and government is to help bring up the best in this country because at our best we are unbeatable. reno prison can deliver because we have seen it time and time again. this is the country that invented, start of the nazis, unravel dna, fought off every in better for a thousand years am persuaded the queen to jump of a helicopter to make the world smile. there's nothing we can't do.
[applause] we make britain the best place in the world to start a business, to grow a business got to hope that this is take on the world and when? yes. can we the people who invented the welfare state in the first place turn it into something that rewards efforts, helps keep families together, really helps the poorest of the new start in life and can we take the schools and turn out students that will take on the brightest in the world? of course rican. let us here in this government together in this country make this pledge. let us build an aspiration nation. let us get burden on the rise. deficit paid down, tough decisions taken, growth, aspiration. we don't -- we know what it takes to win, to win with all our people, to win for britain. let us get out there and do it. [applause]
>> live tonight on c-span and debate for the arizona senate seat returning senator john kyl. congressman jeff blake is the republican nominee and the democratic nominee is former you in surgeon general. also debating tonight, the libertarian party. we spoke with a political reporter of the arizona race. >> check back in with julie of national journal to give us an update on the senate race in arizona. wait a thing stand? >> this is a race that most people are not paying attention to until very recently. it has been assumed that a republican with hold the seat and congressman jeff blake, the
republican candid in the state, but recently polls have started to show a tight race between he and the democratic candidate, richard, and a cause of people are kind of trading and realizing that arizona could actually be a close senate race. despite. both sides acknowledge he is a great record for the democrats. he won purple hearts in vietnam, us what team leader, and he served as surgeon general under george w. bush. so it is pretty hard for republicans to paint him with the partisan brush that they want to. basically the argument is that he was recruited by obama and, you know, that he will run with the democrats which and arizona as a state with the fundamentals for republicans, and that is going to be the argument against throughout this race. >> what should yours be watching for tonight? >> additionally going to see
that, you know, obama called personally to recruit him, to run and that he is obama's man in arizona. you will also probably see him want to talk about immigration. you know, he used the support comprehensive immigration reform . now he does not anymore, and they have been pushing the issue, doing a lot of the scene of region talking about his support for comprehensive immigration reform and also referencing george bush and how he respected his efforts on the front. medicare will probably come up. in painting, as supportive of the president's health care bill. , sort of said that both sides got certain things wrong when it comes to health care and that he would not vote for a repeal but there are things that need to
change, and he has hit on support for the ryan budget. so basically you will see medicare, up emigration, command you will probably see flake working to paint carmona as a rubber-stamp for obama and carmona taught his independence in bipartisanship. >> the far president will be campaigning today in arizona. what will be the impact of that? >> you know, bringing in the big guns. this is a state where obama is not expected to win the presidential race clearly. in he would not come to arizona to -- as a surrogate for carmona. he's just not popular enough there. bill clinton is. so, you know, this is the kind of place where clinton can be helpful. he's doing the same thing later in the week.
>> what about republicans? high-profile republicans for flake. >> yes. mccain supports flake. kyle, competing for support. he is basically the entire republican establishment. the club for growth has supported him. his big thing as being anti earmark, and he has been in tight end mark for a very long time. and the club for growth supports him and his primaries. he had a tough primary challenge of the summer for myself under which she had to deal with, and the club has also just poured money into state. the democrats kind of went in first on this, the advertising. and now they're apparently going to and respond. the nrc is up, so there are a lot of high-profile supporters. >> all right. thank you very much. appreciate your time.
>> and arizona senate debate is at 8:00 eastern tonight. >> so, that arizona senate debate will be live tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. and the campaign debates coming upon c-span. next week on tuesday, president obama and mitt romney participate in a town hall debate. this looks back at some of the past presidential town hall debates. saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern barack obama and john mccain's town of from four years ago. a 35 george w. bush and al gore in 2000 and then at 1010 saturday night the first presidential tone of debate in 1992 with bill clinton, george bush, and ross perot.