tv U.S. Senate CSPAN October 2, 2014 10:00am-2:01pm EDT
it is much more expensive, more difficult, more time consuming. i mean, when i first started this business we did volunteer survey research at the republican national committee in the late 1970s. i ran these phone banks, and for every interview we wanted to complete, we polled five telephone numbers. it's probably up to 150 numbers for every interview you want to complete. it's extraordinary. that's why, you know, it costs so much. that's why these media outlets are unwilling to kind of spend the kind of money that they should be spending on this to do it right. there's also, you can do polling by internet, but you know what? in the stuff that stan and i do, we're testing messages. we're testing tough messages pro and against candidates. that allows people -- if we test that over the internet, people take screen shots of that. you don't want your message on front page of the louisville courier journal.
i think the tough advice is on the economy. the president spoke at the united nations where america stands in the world, but the economy has fundamentally changed and people know it's structurally in fundamental ways. there's not been a mature discussion from democratic leaders about the economy and what you have to do to end the conversation needs to start. >> i think i read that in the book. your advice? >> we have a demographic that we
need to address among the african-americans and latinos. unless we address that, we are going to have a tough time winning the presidency. >> i've treasured my relationship with the national journal since 1998 and it's been great collaboration of the technology to be able to have a helicopter in my backyard. [laughter] [laughter] i am teasing. this has been great. we had a standing room only crowd. thank you all for coming. [applause]
[inaudible conversations] you can wash the national journal program in the november elections later today on the website c-span.org. our campaign 2014 coverage continues at 8 p.m. eastern as we bring in oklahoma debate between incumbent mary fallin and joe dorman that takes place in stillwater. here are some of the ads running in the governor's race. >> in my hometown my mom lives close by. we talk every day.
i learned to stretch every dollar. >> as governor i will improve schools by taking the franchise revenue out of the hands of legislators and using all the funds for classroom instruction. no exceptions and that no tax increase. i am joe dorman and i will be a fiscally responsibly, pro-gun, pro- education governor. >> we were challenged in ways we never imagined. we are stronger, tougher, better. with the leadership of governor mary fallin it's changed for the better. she made the economy her top priority and today attracting new business opportunity. she promised to make the government smaller, more efficient. and she has. about one thing the budget while cutting taxes she's up against
an intrusive federal government fighting obamacare. she was there to lend a hand, lead a prayer, share a hug. it's who she is, a leader, a friend, our governor mary fallin because no one cares more about oklahoma, no one. >> i am joey dorman. as governor i will always put oklahoma first. mary fallin is out of touch. she cited with common core and when she vetoed the second amendment bills i worked with leaders on both parties to override her veto. >> an a+ rating and a champion for the schools. joe dorman for governor. >> i am joey dorman. we need a governor who doesn't care what washington thinks and puts oklahoma first. >> on c-span at 8 p.m. eastern on other governors debate this
one from nebraska where democrat chuck hassebrook needs ricketts. here's a look at the ads in the nebraska race. >> all across the state i see people facing the same challenges. they want a fair shot and that's why i'm running for governor. i stood up for the family farmers and ranchers and we have 10,000 small businesses. as governor i will invest in the education by expanding early childhood education, training the workers for good jobs. i am running for governor because when raskin's worked together, we succeed. >> typical politicians are at it again. they are losing so they are falsely attacking pete ricketts. but he is a proud nebraska businessman and worst with a plan that cut property taxes. >> typical politicians don't get
it. when i started with a family business we had 150 people working in the law and now there are 2,000 nebraska. i know how to create jobs, set priorities and get results and that's what i will do as governor. >> pete ricketts is making false attacks but try to avoid paying his own taxes, but his organization proposed a plan that would raise taxes for family farmers and 80% of nebraska and. ricketts would lower taxes for corporations like the one owned by him and his family. she wants higher taxes for us but we'll were taxes for rich people like him. nebraska needs a governor that fights for the middle-class and middle class and that is just not pete ricketts. >> at the nebraska but i grew up and expects people to treasure cave and family. those are nebraska values. >> pete ricketts. >> from raising my family to running in his us. i believe god gave fundamental
rights and constitution to protect them that we have to be a culture that protects life and inspires responsibility. as your governor i will work to make you proud and beat nebraska with our shared values. most of the debates along with other candidate events and and candidate related programs are on the website c-span.org. next up the illinois senate candidates in the interview between incumbent democrat at durban the majority leader and jim oberweis. both candidates took questions from several members and reporters on issues like gun control, taxes and healthcare. the race is considered a safe seat for democrats.
>> [inaudible] we look forward to a great conversation. keep things moving along during the discussion. if you knocked on my door and i said you have 90 seconds watch what you say? >> i would tell the voters that this is very important and exercise your right to vote. people die for that right. look at the issues in this election between the candidates. the working families need some
help. the best way to get help is to focus on the basics. let's make sure people get up and go to work every single day. second let's pay for your kids college education. so that you can go to college and not end up with a mountain of debt they can't take care of in a short period of time. whether you are rich or poor you have access to quality insurance. before the passage of the affordable care act they have no access at all so those basics, jobs, education and children and making sure you have health care are essential and it's a stark contrast. my opponent opposes raising the minimum wage and i don't know that he's taken the position of a position on renegotiating the college student loads.
-- student loans. when your son or daughter graduates from college they want to be scoble have health insurance because he would repeal it. >> he's been in washington for 32 years and that's too long when you have career politicians there is a tendency for them to vote in ways that will help them get reelected. citizen legislators like myself and the framers of the constitution you have people that are going to be interested in voting in ways that are good for the state. 32 years is too fun for anyone. when we also look at the economics and how have poor and middle-class families been served just last year when my opponent ran the average income
of the illinois family has declined by $5,053 it is time for a change. >> [inaudible] two dot if the bipartisan bill that has been at the senate by the bipartisan organization and to jobs some people say kerry read would start with any other leader in the past protect your members. >> we are facing something we've never seen before in the senate. filibusters by the republicans have broken all records. it used to be there were two or three a year now there are 135 filibusters every year.
it brings it to a stop as the republicans demand 60 votes on measure after measure. occasionally we break through the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform is a good example. i sat across the table from my colleague john mccain that eight senators, for senators, for democrats and republicans created the bill and we send it to the house of representatives controlled by the speaker and he never called it for a year and a half. it took him three years to finally pass the bipartisan farm bill. the marketplace farm bill may be the most single important for the the small-business and retailers in the state and around the nation have a bipartisan rollcall over a year and a half ago. he has an obligation as we do to
consider bipartisan legislation and most of the things whether it is 50 votes to repeal the affordable care act tend to be too close. >> certainly there are bills that we could call if we could reach an agreement on the floor and i hope he do but the point is we sent him bipartisan legislation, significant that the president supports and faith that year and a half and never calls the measure even on the floor of the house of representatives. >> if you look at the ratio the that house has called for more bills and i think they are waiting on the 50 bills the senate has passed so how do you get to 350 bipartisan bills? >> if you look at the bill sent to us over and over again they really don't address the key
issues. the issues are basic as well as whether or not it is a broken system. we put a lot of time into that. six months of negotiation. >> i'm questioning the building then that would have given them more authority. >> they would send an individual bill when we had the crisis we passed the bill that included that. >> if they are not willing to accept any responsibilities. the measures i've talked about are all bipartisan measures. alexander and michael lindsay of republican senators working now so that when we get back in session to bring a bill to the floor for consideration. i think that is the key.
it may not be a top-down solution. it's a bottom-up solution. two of the most unlikely allies joe manchin and patrick toomey after troubleshooting in connecticut came forward with bipartisan legislation for universal background checks so that we can keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and people people that are mentally unstable. at that was a bipartisan bill. most people, 92% think universal background checks are a good idea. two conservative members in the house wouldn't even vote. >> [inaudible] >> i would say i've been very successful working with the
other side i would take the example of ronald reagan and tip o'neill who had a very different political philosophies and managed to work together to help solve legislation. in springfield i worked with the senator who is quite distant from me in some political philosophies we become friends and we are known as the odd couple because we have been able to work together to solve legislative problems. i don't believe we have to be totally partisan as the senator has been on so many instances. i will look at the legislation and listen to the other side and try to incorporate that and come up with bipartisan solutions. >> it's hard to gauge the level of bipartisanship because you were there for such a short time before you announced he wanted a different seat. we talked about this before in
the fire run for office. why jump so quickly into another race before you fulfilled the obligation for the senate term? >> it doesn't take two years to learn your way around springfield. it does take a few months there is a learning process no question about it. it's difficult to get things done in springfield when you are in the minority 19 out of 59 obviously but i have worked on the other side and we did get legislation passed that had been defeated to increase the limit on interstates in illinois. the reason iran for this is a number of people encouraged me and asked me to do so because as the senator said himself this is a very important election that will help change the direction of the country and i believe we need more balance in springfield which the republican governor would bring to balance the democrat legislature.
i believe that if i'm elected to the senate seat likely republicans will take control of the senate so you then have a republican legislature and a democratic president giving balance to allow the logjam of legislation to be moved forward and to be discussed and voted on and then the president can make the decision whether he agrees or likes it or chooses to veto. also republicans might sit down, listened to his view and incorporated the bill. the president would have to listen to what the congress is saying. >> the senate is blocking the vote on authorizing the president is doing in iraq and syria. is there a vote on war and peace before we go to the more quick >> it allows a president to take action and notify congress industry period of time the
congress has a responsibility in the constitution and the statute to respond. here's the state of play there was a vote as to whether or not the president could train and equip the army in this case to fight the islamic state in syria. it was overwhelming with three fourths of the members of the house and senate supported it and i supported that indicates the president the authority to work with them. he beliefs and i think it is arguable that the original authorization for the invasion of iraq covers what we are doing to fight the islamic state. i feel and others share this feeling that it's time for us to revisit what they they called the authorization for the use of military force. it is ten or 12-years-old depending on which one you refer to and it's time to put it in the context of the modern-day. it was a broad mandate to protect us from al qaeda and its associates responsible for 9/11.
we are facing today is a stretch to connect the dots to al qaeda that the threats are just as real. i remember the senate foreign relations committee the first thing we take up in november is the authorization use of military force. before the end of the year i want to go to before we go further. this will not be over by the end of the year so we have to speak and take a decision as it is required by the constitution to give the president or not give the president the authority to move forward. >> did you see that it's a stretch to connect isis to al qaeda? >> the authorization of military force connects extremism to the al qaeda group that we know is responsible for 9/11. we know there's a connection that there is a connection but what i'm saying is there are other threats to america beyond al al qaeda and every president ought to have the authority to
protect us from those threats wherever they come from someone saying is we did in as we did in authorization that defines it in broader terms. the islamic state is just as dangerous if not more so in terms of its potential but the language was written to go after those responsible for 9/11 and it is much broader today >> senator mccain's bill -- >> i worked with him on this. he sent me a copy of the bill. i think that it's appropriate to sunset of this authority. things tend to change and evil and we ought to be mindful. i agree with the president's premise and he said it over and over we should send ground troops into the situation.
that is what al qaeda hopes that we will do. but revisiting this on the basis of that it is one year or two years i think it's a good policy. >> do you think the senate should have voted before they undertook the military operation and do you think he should have done it without congressional authorization? >> i would agree it is authorized and allowable and we know this is a very serious threat so i do think bringing it to congress to get further authorization makes sense but he did have the authority to do that. >> while the u.s. eventually have to use ground troops and said the veto should the senate co should the senator the ruling that out as an option? >> i do not think they should move it out. we should tell our enemies with
your going to do. let them guess and worry about it. i don't know if we will end up having to use ground troops but it seems to me that we want to pay attention to what our experts into generals are telling us and some of them are saying that may be the case. is it possible that it could be ground troops from saudi arabia and other countries? that's possible but it is likely there are going to be some ground troops involved. >> if the mission is critical like what you will about any options? >> it started with the deposition that was the launch of radical extreme islam that has manifested itself in countries all over the world with various groups flying the flag and we are in for the long haul. it turned out we were going
after the al qaeda forces responsible for 9/11 and it turned out to be the longest war in the history of the united states. none of us knew that when we were going after the perpetrators of 9/11. here's what we know when we send ground troops into the middle east we are easily bog down. when we went to walter reed hospital and saw the first casualty i can remember he was a member of the national guard from ohio and was in the more sophisticated equipment well-trained and into that ended being the victim of a roadside bomb and lost his leg and i thought if a weapon like that can stop a military pilots like the united states we ought to think twice so what i would say is if we are going to have a role in the middle east the president is properly defining and we will use the iraq era, trained and counteract them and support them with air and logistics and intelligence that the iraq use have to be the ones to fight for iraq.
we are not going to send american soldiers to be bogged down in another war. at the end he lost 4,476 americans, 30,000 came home with serious injuries and we added he added a trillion dollars to the national debt and the country was still in chaos. it has to be driven by the forces in the middle east. the president's international coalition includes arab and muslim countries as the right move. they have to care about stability and peace in the middle east and we shouldn't be sending the men and women to die without their commitment. >> contrary to what you said it did in the presidency that iraq was no longer in chaos and things had been accomplished and we made great strides and that's why we could pull over them? we have to accept the responsibility here. >> when we try to keep some
forces on the ground, the iraqi government wouldn't agree. the basic rule is here if we are going to have american forces they are not going to be dragged into the courts to be tried for their actions and the iraqi government wouldn't agree and it was president george w. bush that negotiated the end date in iraq. >> they would be subject to the military duties. president bush thought that was a bad idea. president obama for publicly bad idea except for my opponent. >> it was a bad idea to withdraw the troops and left this country fall. i believe we could have negotiated into what is necessarily have allowed them to be subject to the iraqi courts and i believe we didn't do a
satisfactory job in getting that agreement when we should have. >> 10,000 would have been a reasonable number. for how long i don't know. we have troops in germany and south korea that have become major stations for the troops now unless it provides a military advantage to do so. >> senator durbin, you urged the lawmakers to enable the special election to fill the senate seat and you said they couldn't produce the criminal replacement. but they played a role and do
you advocate to fill any future vacancies click >> ibb that the time and still do that it was a blow to the body politics in illinois by the arrest of the same governor that in order to have a credible replacement that the people needed to speak. i got a phone call shortly thereafter and they started talking about the possibilities and at the end of the phone call they said they don't do that. you don't want to be associated with him at this moment in history and after the service in public office it was such a dangerous time in terms of the credibility with the public and the involvement that i felt would be the right way to let the people be a successor.
it's really in doubt as i understand it. there is a statutory method of procedure for filling such a vacancy until the next election but the courts at least one court in illinois has ruled that that doesn't stand. so the current situation is in doubt. i think in that case it was warranted. i think it the right way to do it. >> i haven't thought seriously about that issue. my first reaction would make sense but i would like to understand the arguments on both sides. >> this is a recurring theme. first the bill of rights provision in the effort to
examine the efforts in particular affidavit is absolutely unacceptable. you speak about the danger of the money and politics by the 30 million or so so far. is it in the hands of people that disagree black suspect that an analysis isn't even close. in my last election cycle that coke brothers spent $250 million to the democrats in the committees, the democratic national committee. what we have done with citizens united as a businessman in the
suburbs of chicago who's personally spent $700,000 in negative advertising. how can you do this under the rules but in citizens united they said we are going to treat corporations like they are human beings. i will believe that the first time they send one to prison for embezzlement but that hasn't happened. the role of a page additionally played it will probably break all records and spending. we are in the range of 40 million. i don't think that it's healthy to discourage them from getting into politics when they see that they are up against big money. it amazes me that the board believes in secrecy when it
comes to the government. alec is a group that comes up with model legislation that they proposed to the legislatures. who sponsors and finances alec? its secret. they left a list of 300 corporations that support them. what measures were they pushing for across america? stand your ground was one of the provisions. why would corporations be interested in stand your ground? it turned out that alec was pushing them in states and they are also interested in voter suppression, voter id. when did that limits the right of people to vote so in the hearing on and your ground and what was a group of supporters they said what do you think of stand your ground? twelve patients had the support
it and the other said we are opposed to it. for most words to say what to look into this organization and find out who is behind it if they have such a profound in fact on the politics. they seem to think the people debate the biggest issue is defending karl rove. i don't think it is. i wrote the irs four years ago and released the letter publicly nothing to hide i said i think the way that you are interpreting the law in the secrecy of campaign contributions is flat out wrong. i said look into all groups and i did name karl rove. they were the biggest and most active but i the most active but i said in the letter book at all the groups right and left and i think they should have because it was wrong and it gave secrecy to the campaign contributions at the time most have disclosure. >> can you explain how it's different from organized labor?
>> you really don't know what the organized labor is? >> you have to disclose who your members are. do you not think that any of the democrats are using it the same way? >> they are now. here's the difference. if i ask corporate supporters to give the names of all their stockholders, ridiculous. i think it's responsible to say what corporation corporation is supporting the organization that is lobbying for the passage of stand your ground in florida and beyond. why is that such an outlandish request? >> senator durbin has gone through so many things it is hard to catch up on those. it's certainly unfair. this is a clear case of
intimidation. in the case of outlook for heaven sakes as you pointed out they generally don't support stand your ground and i'm sure people that supported you voted for something they didn't support as well so that's not the issue. here's an organization attempting to provide the model legislation different states can look at and i think that is a very worthy goal to pick out one particular issue and try to make political points against the organization that is his conservative leaning i think it's totally unfair and to suddenly try to get the corporations involved and connect them with stand your ground and say send us your response and we are going to make them public that is the perfect case of intimidation. it was wrong when richard nixon thought about doing it and when
you do it. if i go to washington i will do everything i can to get a special prosecutor to investigate what was going on and stop it from continuing in the future. >> the full disclosure of those that contribute to the political candidates, full disclosure. do you >> of of course it's required by law. >> in that case they are able to collect the money in secret. they get a tax exempt status while they do it and that is unacceptable. full disclosure is the only way they know who's paying for the ads on television. >> you talk about the 501 (c)4. so collecting the money going forward for candidates.
so you see the 501(c)4 as the candidate organization? >> the ads they are buying are not good for the body politic. they are in favor of a political party and a political candidate and that's what it is about. full disclosure. i've been the sponsor of the legislation called the fair elections that would reduce the number of the campaigns and make public the contributions and provide a matching source funds so that individuals can consider getting a public life. i think that is healthy for america and its political future. the situation is out of control. right and left massive amounts of money coming in and it is not a good thing to do. >> says -- citizens and it's my understanding it is the majority
of the funds must be used for the issue as opposed to individual candidates. when you have the politicians like senator durbin who's been here for 32 years -- i found out in two years being the senate what a phenomenal adventure i have over anybody competing because i get credit for what my staff does. it should be the staff but i get credit. in the news all the time because i am invited to events that have been in my district the same thing happens in the senate and congress incumbents have an incredible advantage something like 92 or 94% up front for the election gets reelected and it isn't always because they did a great job but people recognize the name. if you stop the ability of people to support the candidate they believe in, who wins?
naturally incumbents, career politicians are going to support that. >> i think that if i sold ice cream people would recognize my name. >> play do you oppose universal [inaudible] spirit what they say first of all i was one of the sponsors of the bill that passed in springfield for the conceal and carry. anytime you get to the city of chicago to agree with the nra on legislation we need to take a look at it. i suppose a great tribute to the people that worked on it and got that kind of agreement. illinois does have some of the most restrictive gun laws, and we also had some of the highest crime rates using the guns. if i believe that a universal background check would reduce
crime or homicide, i would want to look at that carefully but the evidence is that it hasn't made a difference. a lot of people are afraid that if we had universal background checks it creates a database for the federal government and as we know we are seeing concerns about that in other areas, cell phone messages, locations and so on. people don't believe the government should have access to too much information. that's an area that has concerned. but i would look at it. >> we've written about it in the news pages that because indiana doesn't have a stretch of ground check policy how can you sit in the midwest where this is happening in the book at all of the guns toters and closing the
gun show loophole. >> i believe that would stop people from buying guns illegally. >> [inaudible] >> i'm not convinced of that and decide where i might might look at it differently. >> in the city of chicago last year crime guns confiscated compared to new york and los angeles we had six times the number of per capita confiscated in chicago as the city of new york and twice as many as los angeles. there are several things that need to be done. we need to close the gun loophole. it ranks third or fourth. if a driver's license on the counter and they will sell you as any to does he want to put in the trunk of your car.
i believe we have to have good laws >> first the most responsible gun owners and sportsmen are not opposed to keeping it out of the hands of the mentally unstable people. i found that they accept that because these are the weapons that can kill innocent people. second, we have to make sure that the purchasing comes to the end whether it is a shop on the border of indiana, the notion that the girlfriend goes goes and buys the gun for the boyfriend to go and kill someone tonight i want to stiffen the penalties for that and also the trace guns. what difference does it make? you trace it to connecting up
the solution of crimes by going after gun tracing. that scares some people who think my goodness. they don't want any more gun violence. my opponent clearly is in a minority of 8% of americans who say the government shouldn't do more. >> the tragedy in newtown did that cause you to rethink your position? >> it certainly did make me think. i met in springfield with the parents of some of the people that were involved. we certainly want to do it, but my concern is i want to understand what more attempt or regulation isn't going to be. perhaps strengthening the penalties for the purchases would think since.
neither are the universal background checks going to stop the purchases which is a problem. >> senator oberweis, where is your primary residence? >> three buckingham dr.. i've been in the same home for 37 years. >> said you have primary residences? >> i do. we bought a condominium in florida about four years ago and she has made that her primary and spent a little more than six months a year. >> how much time do you spend? >> i was planning on spending some time but having been elected to the senate i spent a few weeks. >> do you think the voters can trust you are going to be
illinois. >> i have five children who live in illinois and two stepchildren that lived in chicago. i've been in the rural area my entire life as i said i've been in the same home for 37 years. my business i started with a mutual family are in illinois and oberweis dairy is headquartered in illinois. i am as tied to illinois as anybody can be. >> do you find that to make sense? >> i never moved to washington. i've been back to springfield, back to chicago. my wife and i were spending so much time here in this new
responsibility we bought a condo my primary residence is springfield illinois. it was when i entered public service and it is today. let me clarify with my opponent has put here because he told almost half the story. until 2010, joe oberweis declared his permanent residency was at the home he just mentioned in sugar grove. in 2010, things changed. as of 2010 her wife declared her primary residence he florida. he was interviewed by another newspaper back in november saying what is this about, it's a tax advantages in florida because we know they don't have a state income tax, he told the reporter. so here's what's going on. in order for his wife to claim her status in florida, he cannot claim a permanent residence in another state. he has to get out of that business, gave up the permanent
tax residences for now he is viewed when it comes to taxes in some capacities as a resident of florida. this may be the first time in history you have a senator that declared at his home to run for office but declared his tax home to be in florida. what's the advantage? he may not be paying in illinois state income tax. i brought myself here so you could see it. >> should i let him keep going down the wrong path because he's totally wrong i just might interrupt you and give you the truth. >> these are my income tax returns i make them public every year. the state can income tax returns. i've done them every year. he refuses to disclose his own returns. the question is are you paying
illinois state income tax on your income. the senator has attempted to mislead people again as he's done on several other instances. what he said is clearly not the case. buckingham dr. is and has been for 37 years my permanent address however he seems to be asking me to violate and break the law because under the law if my wife claims a residence in florida for the homestead exemption i cannot claim a residence in illinois as my exemption. the florida homestead exemption is a larger exemption in the one in illinois so i allowed her to claim the exemption. i don't get the exemption which means i pay more than i normally would. this is complete nonsense that he's talking about and never did i say to anybody at any time in my life but i'm not in illinois resident. you get your chance to ask one question later on.
>> will you disclose your income tax returns? >> i already have disclosed by federal income tax returns. if it's an important issue i will provide you the state income tax. spec you have income in illinois. do you pay as an individual? >> absolutely. that's another lie he threw out. i pay more than i've ever paid before. i'm a great customer in illinois and they don't respect us. >> [inaudible] about the deficits and the debt. they see the changes are not made the u.s. government event is expected to total 110%. i would like to know what extent this keeps you up at night and
-- >> that is one of the main reasons i'm running for the seat. spending has been absolutely out of control. since senator durbin went our debt has gone from 1 trillion to now approaching $18 trillion. it won't be easy to correct this. it will take time but we need to get started. i'm very concerned and my background is in the financial services us. i realized i realize that what really affects our economy frequently are the unexpected things that happen if we know this is what's happening it gets a built in but it's a surprise. and what can happen is all of a sudden something causes complete concern for the markets. suddenly the government cannot do so they would get to pay off its own. interest rates are skyrocketing which are incredibly low at about 2.5% from a suddenly it's 4%, 6%, 8% and the government has difficulty enrolling over
those. as the interest rates grow up to the these cocoa up more pressure on the federal budget. huge costs and we get into a downward spiral in the economic standpoint. ideally they need to change direction and simplify the tax code not just throw out one more special lobbyist break. the senator right away has received in excess of $9 million from lobbyists and special-interest groups. if you add the campaign account it exceeds my campaign in my network. this is the problem. he talks about spending on political campaigns. here's the man who's got to seven, the seven, eight, $9 million in the campaign account. >> [inaudible] >> yes, we need to begin to look at every program and begin to bring the spending under control
instead of keeping on adding new programs. as we all know, it's -- >> what is the biggest opportunity to reduce the spending including the entitlement. which target? >> medicare, excuse me, obamacare is a huge cost. we need to pass the legislation on may by partisan basis and have both sides working to come up with plans that make sense. i would repeal and replace with a plan that would be available to more people and -- >> there would be 50 to 100 billion. i would have to go back to look at the proposals that have been out there this is an increasing cost that's going to get worse
over time. >> one >> one-way ticket for medicare for instance would be to coordinate retirement age for medicare with social security which for now all practical purposes is 67. that would be a significant savings as well. we need to look at these and understand what the cost of the programs are going to be and bring them in line with revenues. >> are you willing to meet the medicare going forward? >> i think that is something that should be considered. i will go to washington and listen to the other side and work together to agree on something that will make sense but i think that's something that -- >> you would favor raising the eligibility age to 67? >> i don't think that is the only solution that yes it should be considered. >> lots of questions.
where do you want to start? start on the deficit and then get into entitlements? >> we have added trillions of new data during the last term and applauded you for your efforts but it didn't get done. where is the failure and have we reached the point when the deficit falls under the trillion? >> let's take two snapshots. it is the end of the eight years in office. he left having had four straight years of surpluses. hadn't happened in 40 years. the 23 million new jobs created and he said to the incoming president here is next next years budget with a $120 billion surplus and the debt accumulated over that. co. of time was $5 trillion. fast forward eight years later now george w. bush is turning over to barack obama the economy
and the budget. at that point in time we projected deficit for the next year dot the surplus, to be $1.2 trillion. we were bruising 800,000 per month. the mutual funds have taken a beating in 2008 and the last 50 to 60% of the value as president bush was leading leaving the office and at was no longer fight trillion. it was 12 trillion. how did we get into that mass? we had a president that said to cut the taxes on the wealthy people. my opponent supported. he was for the tax cuts. it was an upside down approach. the president inherited a recession. the second worst in modern memory. he puts together a stimulus package which includes some tax
cuts, safety net and infrastructure. where are we today? the deficit he has inherited has been cut by two thirds. at the time that he took office, 14% was coming in as revenue and a 24% as outlays. it equaled about $1.5 trillion deficit and a year. that year. now it is down to 18% in revenue and 21.6%. >> can we ask the senator specifically to get a prescription to deal with this. >> let me link them. 60% is driven by health-care cost. what we have done in the affordable care act is expand the health to 7 million americans who otherwise didn't have insurance, showed up sick and were a burden on the system and on everybody else with health insurance. what we see now for five
straight years is the decline in the rise i'm not saying an overall decline but in the projected rise in healthcare costs because two things are happening. second the providers are thinking under the affordable care this doesn't spend as much money. the new administrator came in and said when they pulled every person in the region and didn't know anybody they didn't know anybody it was a financial disaster. now they are in regular hospital move that we have to compete. he said our people are coming and even low income are expecting better quality service when it comes to to entitlement breeds they are untouched and unchanged. social security makes every payment but then falls off the table, 30% cut.
what can we do today that the small things, that played out like interest rates played out but i will that will give us more solvency and social security? we have to expand the reach of the taxes beyond the current limitations and 90% of the income is subject to the tax so that more money is coming into the social security. second, my opponent and i have to qualify for social security. we paid into it all our lives. ..
i think that something should be considered. i haven't really thought about that a whole lot. i have thought about other alternatives. >> that's a quickie -- a pretty weak response. are you for or against it? >> i think his comment about means testing c.o.l.a. isn't going to solve a lot of our problem. >> let me also add, raising from age to 67, you ought to meet the people who are counting the days until they qualify for medicare, who otherwise couldn't get affordable health insurance. the idea of adding two more years of vulnerability --
>> day -- >> some can but ultimately under medicare people frankly can't afford otherwise have an opportunity with medicare having taken the lives and i wants to lead to more years of vulnerability before they qualify. >> aren't that eligible for medicaid? >> they could people what i'm saying to you -- >> if they can't afford it they must be eligible for medicaid. >> go out and talk to some of these people and you'll have a better idea of what i'm talking about. >> i bet on the southside of chicago listening to problems and spending time there. they tell me you haven't been in their community. >> i'm sure they welcome you. >> they have. >> you mentioned the bill you health authorize. [inaudible] now the president through
executive action takes steps for the immigration system. my question to you, senator durbin, have you encouraged him to do something on this? if so how far do you think you should go? >> there's a transfer facility in broadview, and you ought to go and take a look on friday mornings. the are a couple of nuns, wonderful ladies who get up there at 7:30 a.m. every morning, pray the rosary. and stand round accounts with folks that are about to be deported. i've gone inside there. i went inside with the director of the office of homeland security. folks who are about to be deported. some of them should be deported. they have committed crimes. they should be gone. others have been swept up. we are breaking up families. families that have been here a long time. the people remaining here are just heartbroken and don't know where they will turn next. let's fix this immigration system over all. until it is fixed let's be thoughtful in deportations.
let's not break up families when they have been there for long periods of time. let's try to make sure that we applied the law and thoughtful way to keep america safe but not to destroy these families. >> that didn't really answer my question. what do you think the president should do? >> when it comes to the deportation standards i've encouraged the president to make sure that we don't deport all those swept up in the dragnet, but only those are truly a danger to us. and i think many of these folks are not. they are technically in violation of immigration law. they have never done anything wrong. i believe they should be brought in the system, register with the government, pay their taxes and be part of our economy. but until then i think the deportation standards should be changed. >> deferred action, the virtual? >> i was the first to the present for that and i think it's a good idea. what we said was either going to qualify for the d.r.e.a.m. act we will not deport you.
currently 600,000 across the nation have signed up for daca. illinois is third or fourth in the nation of applicants. i have met them. these are great young people, they only know this country. they've only been aware of this country. they can make a real contribution to this country. deporting them would be a tragedy. [inaudible] >> i wish we didn't have to, john. >> evidently that -- >> we may be forced to. we waited on speaker boehner for month after month. >> that sounds like a yes? >> it is a yes. [inaudible] >> i wish he could have ended move earlier. i understood the political circumstances. [inaudible] >> it was a calculation based on reality. the last vote of the republican-controlled u.s. house of representatives before they went on august recess was to call for the deportation of 2 million eligible dreamers. after the vote, they stood up
and gave themselves a standing ovation. they were so proud of themselves. that is so poisoned the well is now on the issue of immigration. some hateful and divisive things have been said about this. i think the president measured that and said i'd wait until after the elections. >> i think executive action in something so important as this would be totally wrong for the country. i think that's part of the problem with obamacare is it was done without one single republican vote without compromise to solve those problems. i believe if voters send me to washington i will, in fact, have an opportunity to bring people on the left and right together to finally solve this problem. the senator has been washington for 32 years and he hasn't fixed the problem yet. to think if we send them back somehow he will magically do the next time around, that's the definition of insanity. i believe that the are reasonable compromises that can be made. i believe blanket amnesty for people o who broken our laws is wrong because it will encourage
or people who break our laws. [inaudible] >> can't i just -- yes. [inaudible] >> yes, it had blanket amnesty in there because everybody -- be brought in made a citizen but i believe people ought to apply for citizenship just like anybody else. they should not be moved to that of the line. they shouldn't get a special deal. they do have the same legal requirements anybody who hasn't broken the law. if our laws are welcome if we don't have the right immigration policy let's go back and debate that and change that. but then let's follow our law whatever the law happens to be. [inaudible] >> i believe if kids have grown up here, brought here by their parents at a young age, they consider america to be their home country, no, i believe we should not. i believe we should give them a path to citizenship. however, the parents who broke the law, i think it's different if they did it knowingly as parents.
they should apply for citizenship just like anybody else and go to the back of the line. if they go to the front of the line -- simek. >> of also offered a solution to that and that is to provide those parents that you don't break up the family with a non-immigrant visa, but not automatic government entitlement. government entitlements would be huge additional burden on our current taxpayers. again not get the benefit by having broken our laws. >> you have apologize for your initial political approach on immigration issues. how was your thinking changed? why did you apologize? >> because i think it did not communicate the right message. my message has always been, we have immigration laws. we cannot reward people who break those laws. and if the law is wrong let's change the law. that wasn't the message they came across. the ad was not well done. that message i think is still true. the one i have changed on is led to believe if kids have grown a. they should be given a path to citizenship because in this
country we don't punish kids for mistakes or errors of their parents. >> three cheers for my opponent. i introduced the dream act 13 years ago and i'm glad he is supporting it. if more republicans would take the position we could pass the. mcclure for one thing. there is no blanket amnesty in this law. if you happen to be in the united states undocumented that is what the comprehensive immigration reform bill says. you ought to read. is what it says. you have to register with a government. the government will do a background check on you. if you have committed a serious crime you're gone. you don't have any future in this country. if you have a clear criminal record, registered, get ready to pay a fine, a substantial fine. and then get ready to pay your taxes and then learn english. at the end of the 10 years, 10 years going through this, virtually qualifying for no government benefits during that period of time you can apply for green card and go to the back of the line. the only way these people can become -- the earliest these
people can become citizens is 13 years. to call that blanket amnesty is to tribalized an important policy issue. >> there are other people and other countries -- >> if you read the bill it says i can't update was two years before the passage of the bill in the senate. read it. when you read it you'll realize -- >> what about the people who come after that? will there be a new amnesty bill that follows up frying years, 10 years from now? >> what john mccain and your fellow republicans insisted on, more voters agree that ever enter -- border security. that commitment of federal law enforcement is greater than the combined total of all law enforcement of all other federal agencies and we doubled in the bill. we will have these people holding hands at the border. our federal law enforcement officials. there will be plenty of policing it comes to the border. that's an important part of this. >> let ask a question going back
on taxes, corporate inversion. moving headquarters overseas primarily for tax reasons. senator, you know the question. you are not just a critic, you are a vocal critic and you use strong language including something that basically they are a major audit for following the law, to follow their own judiciary responsibilities to it's a global economy. isn't this about tax reform? why such a strong stand? >> when corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes, other companies have to pay more, and individuals have to pay for. that's the bottom line. what these companies are trying to do is to avoid tax responsibility. they told me as much. i've talked to the ceo of walgreens. we all know that. i know what is at stake.
looking for the stock price to get pumped up so they can make a killing and get out. i think it is shortsighted for the companies and shortsighted for our nation. take a look at a pharmaceutical company. how does a pharmaceutical company make money? who did the research on the drug in most cases? taxpayer supported national institutes of health. then the drug has to be tested to be safe. who does that? taxpayers supported food and drug administration. then their lawyers have to do the patent. who does that? tax supported u.s. -- taxpayer support institution and say now we are leaving. we are taking these profits and leaving and we are passing a tax liability to someone else. when walgreens make that decision it was a terrible decision. people came up to me in the street every walk of life that i will never set foot in a walgreens again.
i said to greg greg wasserman yu made the right decision to stay. if they nurture stock initial but the longer you want to be america's pharmacy, stay with america. tax reform -- >> look, the companies have been following the tax credits senator durbin help you get past. he said 32 years to try to reform it, try to improve, try to make us more competitive. certainly that has not been happening. then the question the patriotism. nobody in this room or anywhere in the state of the look is more concerned about wanting to get companies in illinois and keep copies in the united states. that's been my whole background. he has questioned the patriotism of companies that are following his loss and his tax-cut. i want to reduce something that he said here in this room six years ago. quote i'm going to question a lot of things about my opponent, his positions. i will never question your
patriotism. i think that is the refuge of scoundrels. i think what you have done your to raise the question as to whether i love this country is the lowest form of politics, the lowest. senator kyl are you stupid with your words speak with i don't question your patriotism. >> not my. how about walgreens? other countries were falling your tax code that you've been a part of keeping to consider doing the right thing and going back for tax reform, to make this a country where companies want to be here. once again your bullying companies who try to make him stay here instead of doing the right thing to have a competitive worldwide tax code that will make sense for those companies. >> i don't know if becky is in the room. one of your writers. no? you ought to read this article she wrote in the "chicago tribune" about what corporations actually pay in their corporate income tax rates.
we talk about 35%. very few get anywhere near 35%. [inaudible] >> okay, let me finish. [inaudible] the republicans run for the hills as well. >> let me explain to why it hasn't been fixed. when my opponent runs for office, he makes this pilgrimage to washington. to walk into the office of grover norquist. designed and grover norquist tax pledge. to do what it says? [inaudible] spent i'm asking you to be in the majority part innocent and, therefore, so long, where is your tax reform -- >> filibusters. it takes 60 votes. when we have senators who've taken the grover norquist tax pledge, they have pledged that they will never reduce any deduction or credit in the tax code. you cannot write tax code reform with that premise. he has gone and made this announcement, signed another
oath to grover norquist. >> do you support the use of nuclear option? >> i will tell you, they are being abused and you ought to know that. we will go back -- it should be limited to those cases where it's a rare and it's necessary on the policy items. i favor tax code reform. when was last time we had it? the last time we had it was 30 years ago. it is a tough, tough job. made doubly tough if you have a split in the party between the house and the senate. made nearly impossible when you had people signed the grover norquist tax pledge. if we will sit at a look at this tax cut, and i favor tax code reform, put everything on the table. >> i do want to give each one opportunity to ask the question of each other. senator, if you like to go first. >> you said you think the republican party of illinois should become the tea party.
you been to the rallies to give accepted their endorsement. when i look at the tea party in washington i don't see the republican party that i have known. the tea party and washington opposes federal highway construction. i'm not making that up. ♪ on want to eliminate a mass transit subsidy, they want to get the federal government out of the basis for federal highway construction. 75% of the construction in our state comes to the federal government sending fund. the people -- the tea party opposes it. they also oppose we authorizing the ex-im bank. critical for businesses like boeing and smaller business. do you support the tea party positions that will cost us jobs here in illinois? >> senator, i'm not a tea party number. i don't know where you got we started with. with. again you tend to throw these things out as those their factual when in many cases they are not. my understanding of the tea party is this is a group of individuals who have not been politically involved in the past
have gotten very concerned about the direction that you been taking this country and they would like to change that direction. they believe in limited government. they believe in lower taxes and those of the main directions that they would like to see the country go. so i don't know what more i can say. >> on the whole issue of the tea party hasn't been a positive or negative influence on the country's? >> i think they called attention to the fact the government has gotten too big, that we have too many regulations. [inaudible] generally positive or joe negative? >> i think generally positive. >> your question. >> senator, during this campaign we have noted that you at a few of the democrat senators played an integral role in targeting conservative americans free speech right by asking the irs to investigate them. in addition to the infamous october 10, 2010 let her asking congress to investigate conservative crossroads organizations, we've asked several times for you to reveal any other communications you or
your office have had with the irs during this scandal to give mostly refuse to answer this question but her campaign sent out a statement recently that included the following assertion. quote, senator durbin has posted all communications he had with the irs on a senate website, and it has been there for four years. do you stand by your campaign's assertion that you and your office had only that one communication with the irs during the scandal's? >> yes. >> welcome in that case -- >> let me -- >> let me refute that. i have a copywriter of correspondence between you and the commissioner of the irs. this was revealed, it is available. will make it available to the tribune and you have just obviously not told the truth there. so we would like to know what else is available.
we would like to ask you to go back through your records, unfortunate under foia we can require you to make those public. we would ask you to make those public and jeff so far refused to do so. i hope you will change that position. >> in that letter and today i made it clear where i stand on this. why i did it and why believe that whether your organization is democrat, republican, right, left -- [inaudible] >> please let it finish to my position is clear and i disclose this letter publicly. i wasn't hiding anything edible by anything on this issue. my position hasn't changed. i veggie chili that you forgot on april 16, 2014 in addressing the local tea party meeting he said takeover the eleanor republican party. spent sure. let me explain what that was about. people asking how they can get involved. does the repugnant party welcomed and? i suggest. if you want to be more involved, come in, get elected to become
members of the republican party. >> the aston irs question but are disgusted with and to speak was i'm satisfied that he did not tell the truth. once again. we would like you can now tell the truth and own up to the fact that he has other correspondence that we want to know what other additional correspondence -- >> i have made public a letter we sent to irs for four years. >> why did you just like? >> i will to you this -- >> tell the truth. for heaven's sake tell us what other correspondence -- >> asked the first 100 how many of them thank the senator from coming onto the focus on protecting karl rove and the crossroads back. only one that i know. >> is there any more correspondent? >> no. not that i know of. i've given everything i have. if there is anything else, it will be disclosed. >> we want to be respectful of your time. [inaudible] tell us what you like on your
tombstone. >> i plan on being cremated. >> what would you like your legacy to be? >> he was honest and help the helpless but those are the two things paul simon sitting about -- said to me about public service. >> here lies jenny over, cared about his family, his family, his faith and cared most about the people in need. >> thank you. it's been a great conversation. we really appreciate the time. thank you. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]
>> her campaign 2014 coverage continues live tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. we bring you an oakland governors debate between mary fallin and joe dorman. it takes place at oakland state university in stillwater. both candidates are a loans. on c-span2 also at eight eastern a nebraska governors debate. how >> tell us about this interview and how you got it tattooed it was my college the interview. is the author about the secret service response to the shooting of president reagan. w is a long stimulation ship with the service and was able to get. ms. pearson on the phone yesterday for the exclusive ream
interview. >> host: what are some of we things we learned. how did she react from the resignation and everything that we saw in the news yesterday? >> guest: she decided that it was time to go, that the noise was getting to a level where it was too much was going to be a distraction if she stayed. so she figured it was the right thing to do at that time given the mounting criticism that it really ashamed of after her testimony two days ago. >> host: what she said about her tenure and are oversight of the agency? >> guest: she is very proud of our service. she's heard for 31 years with the service. while she was only the director for 18 months she broke the glass ceiling by being the first female director of the service, and that's a big deal in a service that is extreme in male-dominated. >> host: she talked about her time, 31 years with that one agency, a rarity i guess as far as that line of work is concerned. what else did she express? >> guest: she is hopeful for the future of the agency.
there of course is an independent review that's going to be conducted by the department of homeland security which houses the secret service. they will be looking at the fence jumper and other incidents, and to be clear, the problems with the agency predated her becoming the director. the agency had already been under criticism. she was the one that was supposed to clean it up and the challenges made were a bit too much for one person to fix in a year and a half. >> host: now that she's out, who is overseeing? >> guest: the temporary replacement is a man named joseph clancy, a retired agent. he's returning to government service coming out of retirement, and he is not thought to be a permanent next director of the secret service, but he's someone who will hide it over and yesterday and the white house briefing, press secretary josh earnest made it clear that mr. clancy does have authority to make changes during the time he is in the role if he sees that the. >> host: what does the white house say about its trust in the agency itself?
you heard one story from josh earnest, but from what you may be look at talking to other people, what's the level of trust treachery what josh suggestion was really telling. through yesterday morning the white house, including josh earnest, had been saying they had confidence. it went from full conference to confidence that they were still using the word confidence in the agency. yesterday afternoon obviously things were completely different. and the white house obviously has great trust in the agency worked very hard to protect the president and his family, but the overall agency i think is where the problems are, the organization. and individuals work hard. josh even yesterday afternoon was careful to praise the men and women of the secret service for doing their jobs well and protecting the president and scores of other heads of state at the u.n. general assembly just a couple weeks ago in new york. but there have been these lapses that led the president to lose confidence in the director and
to obviously be upset at the lack of communication between the service and the executive. >> host: there are a couple lines in the paper this morning that there's a possibility that the next head of the secret service not come from outside its walls. >> guest: certainly could. the most recent director came from within, sometimes winning agency needs wholesale change which it sounds like what is being asked for here, they bring in someone from the outside. we certainly saw that with the veterans administration earlier this year where eric shinseki left as director after a more prolonged debate over whether he was the right person to reform that agency, and president obama brought in somebody from the private sector, from the business world, to lead the va. we could see similar sort of outsider replacement. >> host: do you notice differences in security? >> guest: yes.
there are extra temporary barriers. this would look like bike racks that are set up 10 feet or so outside of the permanent white house since, and they have signs on them that say police line, do not cross. so that's the very temporary solution to the fence jumping incident. one more barrier, but it's sort of like a large hurdle to cross before you would get onto the white house grounds. but it's not a terribly attractive solution, and it's critically important that the service balance access, not only for the press and for people that go to the white house regularly but more importantly for all the ordinary people that come and visit washington and want to see the white house. balance that with security of the president and everyone else inside the complex. >> host: what about points of victory doors, d.c. more security presence around those? >> guest: i had an opportunity yesterday to walk through the door with the fence jumper got in the day that he breached the
white house, and i did note that there is a lock on the door so they can certainly like it if they want to, and i don't have first hand knowledge but i would assume the alarm system that was apparently turned off that night won't be turned off like it used to be. so the doors of the white house it's not different because to get to the doors you go through several layers of security already. but there is always measures of security with the secret service that are not obvious to the naked eye either. >> host: angela greiling keane on the phone with us to talk about the resignation of the secret service director and other related things. before we let you go, a little bit about the president's speech today on the economy. what to expect to hear? where does it take place because today the president is in chicago. you be speaking at northwestern university and he'll be talking about the economy in that speech. we've got just about a month to go until the election so one of the messages that the president is sounding as he tries to democrats hold onto the senate is that the u.s. economy is
good. there's some lines in his speech that we've heard before and we will likely again today about how the auto industry has recovered. there's less unemployment. one of the things were expected today is a message that the u.s. economic progress is better than that of other nations. for sure the economy is a preeminent concern of voters. so we can expect to hear this message between now and election as a. >> host: angela greiling keane joining us on the phone. she is with limburger news. thanks for your time. >> guest: thank you. >> next on c-span2 we turn to politics. british politics this time where primus should david cameron outlines his party's economic agenda. and congratulates scotland for staying in the uk, telling the conservative party conference that the referendum was the quote most nerve-racking time of his like again also talked about the uk's decision to conduct airstrikes against isis and warned that any british national
who joined isis would be treated as an enemy of the uk. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. i am so proud to standard today as prime minister of the four nations in oneunited kingdom. [applause] i was always clear about why we called that referendum. our union could've been taken apart bit by bit. take it on, and we have the chance to settle the question. this party has always confronted the big issues for the sake of our country. and now, england, scotland, wales, northern ireland, we are one people in one union, and
everyone here can be proud of that. [applause] and i think we can all agree that during that campaign, a new start, a new conservative star was born. someone who's going to take our message to every corner of scotland, our very own bruce davidson. [applause] the lead up to that referendum was the most nerve-racking week of my life. but i can tell you the best moments of my year. it was june 6, the 70th
anniversary of d-day. sam and i were in france with my constituent patrick churchill. no relation to the great man, but a great man himself. patrick is 91, and seven years ago he was there fighting fascism come helping to liberate that town. and i will never forget seeing the tears in his eyes, and he talked about the comrades he left behind. but also the pride they all felt in the job they have done. as we walked along the street, he pointed out where yet driven his tank, and all along the roadside there were french children waving flags. union jacks, the grandchildren of the people he liberated. patrick is here today with his wife, and i know like me you want to give them the warmest conservative well,.
[applause] -- welcome. when people have seen our flag in some of the most desperate times in history, they have known what it stands for. freedom, justice. stand up for what is right. they have known that this isn't any old country. this is a special country. june 6, this summer, normandy. i was so proud of great britain
that day. and here today i want to set out how in this generation we can build a country whose future we can all be proud of. how we can secure a better future for all. how we can build a britain that everyone is proud to call home. the heirs to those who fought on the beaches of normandy are those fighting in afghanistan today. for 13 years, young men and women have been serving our country there. this year, alas of our combat troops come home, and i know that everyone here will want to show how grateful and how proud we are of everyone who served. [applause]
but the end of the afghan mission does not mean the end of the threat. the threat is islamist extremist terrorists, and it has found a new hellish crucible with isil in iraq and syria. these people, they are evil, pure and simple. they kill children, rape women, threat nonbelievers with genocide, behead journalists and aid workers. now, some people seem to think we can opt out of this. we can't. as i speak british servicemen and women are flying in the skies over iran. they saw action yesterday. and there will be troops on the front line, but they will be iraqis, kurds and assyrians fighting for the safe and democratic future that they deserve. we are acting in partnership with a range of countries including those from the region. and let us be clear. there is no option.
unless we deal with isil, they will deal with us bringing care and murder to our streets. and as always with this party we will do whatever it takes to keep our country safe. and to those, to those who have had all the advantages of being brought up in britain but you want to go and fight for isil, let me say this. if you try and travel to syria or iraq, we will use everything at our disposal to stop you. taking away her passport, prosecuting, convicting, imprisoning you. and even if you're there already we may even prevent you from coming back. you have declared your allegiance. you are an enemy of the uk and you should expect to be treated as such. [applause]
when it comes to keeping britain save, i've had one man and one side for the last or years. we all remember those miracle tones and haul like this all those years ago. some of you won't be here in 13 years time -- [laughter] all right. all right. i won't give up my day job. [laughter] now, when he was a teenager he didn't only address the tory party conference, he read and sort in bed and had a record collection that apparently consisted of one album by dire strait, and dozens of speeches by winston churchill. his dad said he was just a normal, happy boy.
[laughter] well all i can say is this. that boy became an amazing parliamentarian, a brilliant foreign secretary, our greatest living yorkshireman and some of whom i owe an enormous debt of gratitude, william hague. [applause] now, william, there is one more task i want you to carry out. bringing fairness to our constitution. during the referendum campaign we made a vow to the scottish people, that they would get more powers, and we will keep -- but here is my vow to the people of england, wales and northern
ireland. i know the system is unfair. i know that you are asking if scotland can vote several things like tax and spend and welfare, like england, wales and northern ireland do the same? and i know you want is answered. so this is my vow your english votes for english laws. the conservatives will deliver it. [applause] now, we have delivered a lot these past four years. but we've had to do it all in a coalition government. and believe me, coalition was not what i wanted to do. it's what i had to do. and i know not just what i want next, but what the country needs next. i want to be back year and a to
over 2015 delivering conservative policies based on conservative values, leaving a majority conservative government -- leading. [applause] so where do we want to take our country? where do i want to take our country? during these four years i hope that the bush people have come to know me a little. i'm not a complicated than -- british people. i believe in some simple things. families come first. they are the way you make a nation strong from the inside out. i care deeply about those who struggle to get by, but i believe the best thing to do is to help them stand on their own two feet, and no, that is not saying you're on your own, but we are on your side helping you
to do all you can. and i believe in something for something. not something for nothing. those who do the right things and put the effort in, the work and build communities, these are the people who should be rewarded. and all of this, all of this is underpinned by deep patriotism. i love this country. and my goal is this, to make britain a country that everyone is proud to call home. that doesn't just mean having the fastest growing economy or climbing some international table. i didn't come into politics to make the lines on the grass go in the right direction. i want to help you live a better life, and it comes back to those things that i believe. a britain that ever is proud to call home is a britain where hard work is really rewarded. not a free for all but a charge for. the chance of a job, helm, a
good start in life, whoever you are, whatever you're from. and by the way, you never pull one person by polling another down. so this -- [applause] this party doesn't do the politics of envy and class war. we leave tha that to others bute believe in aspiration and helping people get on in life, and what's more, we are proud of it. [applause] now, the past four years has been about laying the foundations for britain. the next five will be about finishing the job. put another way, if our economic plan for the past four years has been about our country and
significant economic riddle, our plan for the next five years will be about you and your family, and helping you to get on. but conservatives know this. nothing comes easy. there's no reward without effort, no wealth without work, no success without sacrifice. and we credit the british people who know these things, too. other parties, they will preach to you about a brave new world. we understand that you have to start with the real world and make it better or so let other politicians stand on stages like this one and promise an easy life. not me. i am here today to say that our conservative commitments for the next five years. if you want to provide for yourself and your family, you have the security of a job, but only if we stick to our long-term economic plan.
if you work hard, we will cut your taxes, but only if you keep cutting the deficit so we can afford to do that. for those wanting to buy a home, yes, we will help you get on the housing ladder, but only if we take on the vested interests and build more homes, however hard that maybe. we will make sure your children get a great education, the best education, but only if we keep on taking on everybody who gets in the way of high standards. and for those retiring, we will make sure you get a decent pension and real rewards for your life and work, but only if we as a country except we all have to work a bit longer and save a bit more. it's pretty simple really. a good job, a nice home, more money at the end of the month, a decent education for your children, a safe and secure
retirement. a country where if you put in, you get out. a britain everyone is proud to call home. and above all, a proper, real, long-term plan to get there. and it starts with more decent jobs. look how far we have come. today there are 1,800,000 more jobs in our country than they were in 2010. we are creating more jobs here in britain than the whole of europe put together. 1.8 million jobs. you know what? when britain is getting back to work it can only mean one thing. the conservatives are back in government. [applause]
so here is our commitment for the next five years. what the economist would call the highest unemployment rate of any major economy. what i would call full employment in britain. just think of what that would mean. those who can work are able to work. standing on their own two feet looking after children thinking, i am providing for you. we can get there, but only if we stick to our plan. companies from all over the world are coming here to invest and create jobs. and that hasn't happened by accident. it's because they see a government that is rolling out the red carpet for them, cutting the red tape, cutting their taxes. here is a commitment. for the next conservative government, we will always have the most competitive corporate taxes in the g20. lower than germany, our than japan, lower than the united states. that is our commitment.
[applause] but, george, george said something really important in the absolutely brilliant speech on monday. a message to those global companies. we have cut your taxes, now you must pay what you owe. [applause] we must stick to the plan on welfare as well. with us if you're out of work you will get unemployment benefits, but only if you go to the job center, update your cv, attend interviews and accept the work you are offered. as i said, no more something for nothing. and just look at the results of what we have achieved so far. 800,000 fewer people on the many
out of work benefit. and in the next five years we are going to go further. you heard it this week. we won't just aim to lower youth unemployment. we aim to abolish it, and we have made clear decisions. we will reduce the benefit cap and we will say to those 21 and under, no longer will you the option of leaving school and going straight into a life on benefits. you must earn or learn. and we will help by sending 3 million of printer ships. let us say to our young people, a life on welfare, that is no life at all. instead, here's some hope, here's a chance to get on and make something of your life. that is our message to young people in britain today. [applause] and and what do our opponents
have to say? they have opposed every change to welfare that we have made, and i expect they will oppose this one, too. they sit there pontificating about poverty, yet they are the ones who left a generation to run on welfare. and while we're at it, while we are at it let us compare our records. under labour, unemployment rose. with us, unemployment is falling faster than any time for 25 years. under labour, inequality widened. with us it is near. those are the facts. so let us say it proudly and loudly, with britain, getting off welfare and back to work the real party of compassion and social justice today is not the labour party, it's the party here in this hall, we conservatives. [applause]
and you know what, it is not just the job numbers that matter. it is the reality of working life for people in our country. especially the lowest paid. anyone, anyone in our country should be free to take on different jobs so they can get on. but when companies employ staff on zero our contracts and stop them from getting work elsewhere, that is not a free market. that is a fixed market. in a britain that is what is proud to call home, people are employed. they are not used. so those exclusive zero hours contract that lets people on able to build a decent life for themselves, we will scrap them. [applause]
but as iain duncan smith and others have pointed out, there is still more in justice when it comes to work, and it is even more shocking. criminal gangs, trafficking people halfway across the world and making them work in the most disgusting conditions. i've been to see these. houses built for families of four by cramming and 15 people like animals. and to those crime lord who think they can get away with it, i say no, not in this country, not with this party. our modern slavery bill means we are coming after you and we'll put a stop to it once and for all. [applause] now, once you have a job, i want you to take home more of your own money. if you put in, you should get out and not have so much of it
to the taxpayer. that's why these past four years, despite everything, i've made sure we provide some relief to taxpayers in our country, especially the poorest. no income tax until you earn 10,000 pounds a year. and next april, 10,500 pounds a year. that is 3 million people taken out of income tax altogether. it's been a tax cut for 25 million people. and our commitment to you for the next five years, we want to cut more of your taxes. but we can only do that if we keep on cutting the deficit. this is commonsense. tax cuts need to be paid for. so here is our plan. we're going to balance the books by 2018 and start putting aside money for the future. to do it we will need to find 25 billion pounds worth of savings in the first two years of the next parliament.
that is a lot of money, but it is doable. 25 billion as i could just 3% of what government spends each year. it's one quarter of the savings that we found in this parliament. so i'm confident we will find the savings that we need through spending cuts alone. we will see the job through, and we will get back into the black. but as we do that i am clear about something else. we need tax cuts for hard-working people. [applause] and here and now i have a specific commitment. today, right here today, the minimum wage reaches six pounds 50 an hour, and before long we were reached our next goal of seven pounds an hour. and i can show you now that a
future conservative government will raise a tax-free personal allowance from 10,500 pounds to 12,500 pounds. [applause] that will take 1 million more of the lowest paid workers out of income tax, ma and they will get a tax cut to 30 million more. so with us, if you work 30 hours a week on minimum wage, you will pay no income tax at all. nothing, zero, zilch. [applause]
lower taxes for hard-working people, that is what i call a britain that everyone is proud to call home. [applause] we will also do something else. the 40 p. tax rate was only supposed to be paid i the most well-off people in our country. but in the past decade far too many people have been dragged into it, teachers, police officers. so let me tell you this today. i want to take action that is long overdue and bring back some fairness to tax. with a conservative government we will raise the threshold of which people pay the 40 p. rate. it is currently 41,900 pounds. in the next parliament we will raise it to 50,000 pounds. [applause]
so here is our commitment to the british people. no income tax if you were on minimum wage, a 12 and have thousand pound personal loans for millions of hard-working people, and you only pay 40 p. tax when you earn 50,000 pounds. so let the message go out there with a conservative issue work hard and do the right thing, we say you should keep more of your own money to spend as you choose. that is what our long-term economic plan means for you. [applause]
and while i'm on the subject of big economic questions our country faces on spending, on tax, did you hear that mel in last week? he spoke for over an hour -- ed miliband. but didn't mention the budget not once. he said he forgot to mention it. [laughter] look, ed, people sometimes forget that parties. i once forgot i left nancy down the pipe. [laughter] sorry. it won't happen again. but let me say this. you cannot be prime minister of this country at forget the most important issue that we face. [applause]
now, a few weeks ago ed balls said something interesting. [laughter] he said in 13 years of government, labour had made some mistakes. some mistakes? excuse me. you were the people who left a britain with the biggest peacetime deficit in history, who gave us the deepest recession since the war, who destroyed our pension system, bus our banking system, who left 1 million young people out of work, 5 million on out of work benefits and hundreds of billions in debt. some mistake. labour was just one big mistake. [applause] and five years on as michael said in that brilliant speech, they still want to spend more, borrow more and tax were.
it is the same old labour. and do you know what? they say that madness is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. what i say, madness is voting for this high spending, high taxing, deficit ballooning, shower of an opposition and expect anything other than an economic disaster. [applause] ..
94% of buyers outside of the capital said that it would help people with houses already before the first time first-time buyers they said they would cause the house bubble so here is our renewed commitment to first time buyers. if you are prepared to work and save the will help you get a place of your own. at this conference we have
announced a landmark new policy. we are going to build 100,000 new homes and they will be at least 20 cents cheaper than normal. but here's the part by for rent landlords won't be able to come a wealthy foreigners won't be able to bite them debate -- buy them. [inaudible] [applause] in britain that everyone is proud to call home, you wouldn't be able to tell a child by their postcode or by what their parents do. there must be a great education for every child. a month ago i had a wonderful
moment. all three of my children aren't the same primary school and it's a joy to take them there together. until she saw her friend and watched greatcoat rushed into the classroom, something that dads have to get used to and it's a relief as a parent to find a decent school for your child but it shouldn't be a moderate. what we have in our state primary in london we are getting there. more children in the standing schools and to study sciences, language and history and the new curriculum you are probably finding the home the homework harder and harder every night but it comes back. but the biggest change that the
team is bringing back is the culture. we have teachers that feel like leaders again who say this is our school. we are proud of it and we will not tolerate failure within. we have come so far. make no mistake the biggest risk is labor. you know what drives me the most mad about them is the hypocrisy. they have one of the best education money can buy. but you won't allow it for your children. he went to an independent school set up by the local authority but he doesn't want them to set up schools. he has the benefit of world-class teachers that he
wants to stop people like that from teaching your children. they've had in education at some of the best schools in the country but here's the difference. like the rest of labor they want to restrict those advantages. i want to spread them to every child in the country. [applause] we know the problem on education. every move they make they have to take a the cue from the unions. that is who they really represent. i have news for you. it's something we've never really said before. in this party we are a trade union, too and i tell you who we
represent we are the union for hard-working parents, for the father that reads his children stories at night so they can learn and to give their children the best start. this is the trade union from the poorest estates and this is the union into the teenagers who want to make something of their lives. the people we are fighting for and that is why on education we will not let lieber track us back to square number one. we are going to finish what we have begun. [applause] a real education is not just about exams. young people must know this is a country where if you put in you will get out.
i've gotten in trouble before for talking about twitter, in fact for talking about quite a lot of things recently. [laughter] that i want a country that young people are not endlessly thinking what can i say in 140 characters, the what does my character say about me. that's why i'm proud of the national citizens national citizen service. thousands of young people are coming together to volunteer and serve their community. people come up to me on the street and see all sorts of things. but one thing i hear a waltz is lot is parents say about national citizen service thank you for what this has done to my child. i want this to become a right of passage for all teenagers in the country so i can tell you this, the next conservative government
will guarantee a place on the surface for every teenager in our country. [applause] the tool but if you put in you should get out more than anywhere it should apply to those that are dignity and security in retirement. but for years it didn't. there were i think three great wrongs. number one, the pension credit that the more you saved the less you got. rule number two, you couldn't spend your own money as he wished. world number three, when people pass away the pension said it was taxed at 55% before it went to the families.
free wrongs and we are putting each one right. that means it is going and it is placing the pension of 142 pounds a week every penny that you save during your life, you will keep. they are giving you complete control of the private pension. as for that tax on the pension you heard this week we have cut it to 0%. conservative values in action. [applause] for that there is perhaps one thing that matters about everything and that is knowing that the nhs is there for you. from lieber last week, we heard the same rubbish about the conservatives. they were spreading complete and
utter lies. i just think how dare you. begging for water and dying of neglect. this is personal. i'm someone that has relied on the nhs and whose family knows more than most how important it is. when you go to the hospital night after night with a sick child in your arms and after you get their people will love this child and care for that child like it was their own. how dare they suggest i would put that at risk for other people's children. [applause]
[applause] be in this party i believe we can be proud of what we've done. we came in and we protected the budget. we funded 6.5000 more doctors from the 3,300 more nurses, the drugs to save lives as more people hearing those two magic words, all clear. think of the amazing things from the country that unravel it dna. it's caused the genome and a half hour model -- i have a model on my desk. it could mean curing diseases and saving lives. our nhs is leading the world on
this incredible technology. and i understand it very personally the differences that could make. when you have a child that says the doctors can't work out in the u.s. give anything to know the investment we are making means more parents would have those answers and secure that goes with them but let's be clear all of this is only possible because we have managed our economy responsibly and that is why i can tell you this today we will do it again. the next government will protect the budget and continue to invest more. it's something that labor will never understand and we will never forget. you can only have a strong nhs if you have a strong economy. [applause]
britain that everyone is proud to call home where the reward follows effort and if you put a new get out but it also means a country that is strong in the world and in control of its own destiny. and guess that means controlling immigration. to me this is all about working on the storefront. it's about getting our own people fit for work, fixing welfare so life on the dollar is not an option, fixing education so we turn out young people with skills to do the jobs we are creating and we need controlled borders and the immigration system that puts the british people first. that is why we kept the economic migration from outside, shuts down 700 policies that were basically visa factories. we kicked out people that don't
belong here. and let's hear it for the woman that made that happen. [applause] that we know the biggest issue today is migration from within the eu. immediate access to our welfare system, paying benefits to families back home, employment agencies from overseas not recruiting here come the numbers that have increased faster than in the country we wanted and at a level that was too much for the communities and for that labor markets. all of this has to change and they will be at the heart of my renegotiating strategy. britain, i know you want this sort of so i will go to brussels and i will not take no for an
answer and i will get with britain needs. i will say judge me by my record. i'm the first minister to veto the treaty and cut the budget and the bailout schemes as well. i say what i mean and i mean what i say so we are going to go in as a country and to get the powers back to fight for the national interest and fight for the referendum and let the message go out. it's only for the conservatives that you will get that choice.
it's not just of the european union. it's the european court of human rights. when that charter was the charter was written in the aftermath of the second world war it to set out the basic rights that we should respect but since then some interpretations have led to a hold of things that are frankly wrong. the suggestion that you have to comply the human rights convention on the battle of helm and and now they want to get prisoners to vote. no, i'm sorry but i just don't agree. our parliament and the british parliament decided they shouldn't have that right. this is the country wrote magna carter and time and again stood up for human rights.
[applause] the conservative government after the next election this country would have the new british bill of rights to be passed in the parliament rooted in our values and as for the human rights act we will scrap it once and for all. [applause] so that is what we offer britain that everyone is proud to call home and a clear plan to get that. over the next five years we will deliver the following things. 3 million apprenticeships, the
most competitive corporate taxes in the g. 20, eliminating the budget deficit through spending cuts dot tax rises. building 100,000 starter homes but then you pass and not a spending kenny is cut. renegotiating europe delivering that referendum, scrapping the human rights act. no income tax until you've earned 12,500 pounds and they continue in the 50,000 pounds. vote for me and if you don't, vote for the other guy and let us be clear this is a street fight. it doesn't matter whether the parliament is hung, drawn or corded by conservatives or labor
that is a vote for labor and here is a thought for you. [applause] on the seventh of may you could wake up with ed miller band. i don't know about you but not one bit if of that works for me. [laughter] so here is the big question for that. of the things that matter in your life, who do you really trust. when it comes to your job do they direct the conservatives that needed is one of the fastest growing economies in the west, when it comes to the
future who do you trust, labor under the banner of human rights or the conservatives that belief in something every board for hard work? do you trust the party of the big spending and borrowing or the party of the first paycheck the first in more hope that is making the country great again, yes our party the conservative party. that is the choice of the next election. [applause] we are making britain proud again. not just the country paying down its debt going down from the fastest growing economy in the world but at the same time a
country that's kept its promises to the poorest in the world that's leaving, not following and saved the united kingdom and one of the most amazing shows the world has ever seen. we are making britain proud again. our exports to china double into the car industry is booming. the manufacturing is growing and making britain proud again. car engines not imported from germany but down the road. not always made in china but that's built on the tide. record numbers of apprenticeships regaining its pride and confidence. we are where all the hard work is paying off and the light is coming off after some dark days.
that's the question do you want to go back to square number one. i don't claim to be a perfect the perfect leader but i'm your servant standing here wanting to make our country so much better for your children and mine. i love this country and i will do my duty. we have to track the right team to turn it into a plan for you. i think as the millions of people that go to work into the wind stream on the winters morning raising their children as well as they can to make a good life for them and their families that is the british spirit. this is a great country but we
shoulder some of the responsibility in backing the coalition's targeted airstrikes against isis. we will show you as much of this as we can unfold a discussion of the council on foreign relations gets underway at 12:30 eastern. [applause] thank you kevin. it is a privilege to address the conference as the foreign secretary of the united kingdom. [applause] to be frank with you everything else that is going on the foreign office is rather relieved. let me start by introducing my fantastic foreign office ministerial. and our indispensable damian
collins. please give them a big round of applause. [applause] i have inherited a foreign office in great shape with new missions flying the flag across the world the ministers visiting countries from australia to somalia that labour had forgotten labor had forgotten even existed, the language school that we opened and the culture of the mediocrity replaced once again by systematic excellence. and all of that -- [applause] all of that is due in no small part to the commitment and determination of the man who will go down as one of the truly great british foreign secretary's william hague.
[applause] >> people rightly credit william with many exceptional qualities, and i have to say looking back over what's happened this summer i'm beginning to wonder if it is clairvoyant, too. [laughter] he is a hard act to follow and i take some small comfort in the knowledge that there is one thing i have that william doesn't. [laughter] [applause] he has left our country a fantastic legacy and i am determined that we will build on it. it might be called to the foreign office, but i want him to think of it as the british office because their job is to
back for britain, protecting security, standing up for our values and pursuing our prosperity playing a vital role in the conservative plan to secure a better future for britain. and by the way, by the way that includes securing the future of britain's overseas territory. because with a conservative government, there will be no sellouts, no backroom deals, no betrayal. [applause] we will defend their right to remain proudly british for as long as that is their wish. in this uncertain and dangerous world, the conservatives never forget that the first duty of government is securing the
nation from external threats. and over the course of the summer we have seen our national security challenge on multiple fronts. russia aggression in the ukraine, the civil war in syria, the crisis in libya, conflict in gaza and ebola in west africa. we know that we cannot simply wish these away -- independent pass force report time for a new focus. we have the cochairs here, robert zoellick of course. last time i interviewed you we were both in sudan so thank you very much. ..
not other countries or regions of the world. we are enjoying the extraordinary opportunities as a result of the u.s. energy revolution, which very likely will be replicated in some scale in mexico and already producing a great deal of energy in canada. the fact is a couple of months ago i was in london for a conference of us asked the question after america, what do we think expectation was? i would despond chinese, whatever. actually north american decades.
and, in fact, i teach a course on this. i'm in the third semester of having done that. actually with each passing semester i more convinced of the power of north america 20 years after bob helped negotiate the north american free trade agreement. you see the level of integration of these economies and you see the complementary strengths that each of these countries present in a region that we doesn't have the kind of security issues that you find in most of the other parts of the world. again, mexico is not asking to china to balance them against us. we are allied with canada and the biggest allied since world war ii. so the opportunities are enormous any region that has shared values, democracy, generally a free market, economics. and this enormously integrated market, albeit we also say we're not looking for the eu of north
america either. >> when you look at the point in the point you make on energy, just a staggering fact that the united states has now surpassed saudi arabia as producer of natural gas -- >> russia. >> but other too weird now surpassed -- >> and oil liquids we are the number one producer in the world. we will probably surpass saudi arabia, in crude oil that subcategory and a couple of years as well. the fact is brent crude would not betray what it is today, and by the way, sam just dropped another -- sands dropped another $2 today. the reason it has gone, stayed stable actually in recent years despite a million barrels coming off the market because of sanctions on a rant which is what for started getting into this being asked as director of the cia what will the pric price after the speech with the assumption that would be a spike. >> yes, but what happened in fact because we have added a
million barrels per day in additional of the last three years we have more than compensated for what came off in iran from what came off from libya because of the violence there. and some other disturbances elsewhere. you see an extraordinary development in the oil market, in the energy markets writ large, and again that is the foundation for the whole north american decades thesis. >> first, we have a number of the task force members are so want to thank them, and in addition to enjoy work with david and china, also the canadians and mexicans were really kind. we went to ottawa and mexico city and had great meetings. i want to pick up exactly started off talking about sedan and whatever you -- sudan -- >> iraq. >> it is any sense what distinguishes this report and the approach we took it is that
our experience has really been both global. we both worked with canada and mexico but work with a lot of other regions in the world. rather than look at this as a question instead of regional policy, the heart of this idea is how to think about north america as a continental base to deal exide did with the question tradition with, future power and strength or energy, whether it be economy, security. rethink what's been missing in u.s. policy is the recognition that rather than deal with north america after you deal with all the crises, which never ends, we have to start with north america in the process. the big difference here, david alluded to this with the european union, is european union has a lot of us shared sovereign and try to do with issues of globalization. the history and culture of canada and mexico in the united states certainly heightens it can't each one very sensitive to independence, sovereignty. so you're the challenges. how do you deepen integration, build off what we did 20 years
ago in nafta to try to take advantage of integration, with developing developed economies but at the same time respecting sovereignty? that's a different angle we try to take through each of these. >> the report seems, if anything was taken a step backward on this. nafta remains much of it unfulfilled, and steps that were move forward towards immigration in the last administration seem to have been -- give us a state of play. >> i don't know if we've taken a step backward but we have stagnated. is almost 10 years after nafta sense to those when you saw huge explosion of trade, three, four times about a trade. a huge amount of investment within the region, within the three countries. after 2001 in part because of china coming into the wto and in part because of 9/11 and changes on the border, we start see slowing down of trade, movement of people and goods.
so as we look at this report we thought how can, we know the benefits of this. we know that the other countries, makes them more competitive. you think about automotive, aerospace come increasingly electronics, technology, computers and the like that are produced between the countries. those we are able to compete and expand in terms of production, benefiting companies but workers on both sides of the border. so how do we move forward? so in that we thought about for big areas. one is energy that we start you talk about. all of the countries are changing. there's more production here, more production in canada. and mexico they just reform the system so that potentia potentiw for production to happen there. how to take advantage of that, not just as individual countries but as the north american region to provide stability, supply, resilience he? and integrate are not worth.
we look at economic competitiveness. nafta did a lot of great things. one of the biggest things was lower tariffs. but after lowering tariffs utah there are other berries that were not part of nafta. the our regulatory differences. some important in some trivial. there is weaker or outdated infrastructure at the board that slows the flow of goods back and forth. how do we 20 years out deal with those things that stop or slow the speed of trade which is part of the reason we're economically competitive? than we also look at security. we have seen a change in security obviously after 9/11 for lots of good reasons. but how do we work with our partners not just bilaterally but together to improve making sure everybody is safe but also of the economic benefits to trade back and forth. the final 30 we looked at was community. this has to deal with people in the region. so part of it is immigration from how can we facilitate movement. part of it is more than that. what it is a thinking about a
regional workforce and labor force. as we have seen a deepening of economic integration, companies with a plan in every set of the border where production happens going back and forth across the border, workers depend on each other. what happens if they play in mexico and the productivity affects the very jobs of the people on the u.s. side of the border because of this. how can we think about upgrading the regional workforce and allowing the movement back and forth to enhance north america? >> i want to focus on two of the recommendations you make. to hot button political issues right now. one, you come out in favor of approving a keystone pipeline. the other you come out in favor of immigration reform. so first let's take keystone. you spent some time at the state department as deputy secretary of state, undersecretary of state. the exclamation i get whenever i ask the question of the white house is this is just over at the state department and we're waiting for them to go through the process.
[laughter] so can you tell me, why is this decision taken so long, really? >> it's a very -- [laughter] i should remind everybody we are on the record. that's why we have cameras back there. >> the courteous answer is is that i think the administration has some local priorities. and that really goes to the heart of what we're trying to -- when we went up to canada, the xl pipeline is much more than a question of infrastructure and the pipeline. frankly, canadians across the spectrum, even people you might suspect would not support the pipeline, were really a fronted by how they were treated by the united states. and having been in diplomacy for some 25 or 30 years, frankly you don't treat your friends and partners that way. if you want to build a long-term partnership, particularly if it the biggest country in the united states, the point is the
state department, he referred to, has also made the case that environmentally you are not doing anything for climate change or frankly for safety or for potential dangers from airways or the otherwise. the oil will move anyway. maybe people have a different conclusion but that would be my answer. but in terms of what's held at a. i think, however, the bigger point here is that both shannon and dave talked about sort of how energy is one of the countless. there are other factors. the reforms in mexico, demographics, wage rates are going up more in asia and elsewhere. and frankie i think technology innovation in the united states and candida. so you could combine the best of develop market innovation of the best the developing country, a new growth market. want of issues to make this work is if got to create the infrastructure. it's partly pipeline, but it's also partly electricity grid.
we actually have electricity grid connections with canada in the west and the north. it's a modest in terms of amounts, 2% of the flow but we start do this a little bit with mexico but when we went to mexico city one of the things one of the mexican border it out, look, these energy reforms, these are politically tough. don't surprise her so. there'll be a lot of opponents out there that going to try to say this doesn't benefit things. and, frankly, the oil reforms will take years to show up in jobs and other things. they said if we could expand the approval process to extend the electricity grid across the southern border, then we could get lower electricity prices which are quite high in mexico they saw lower natural gas prices. we could produce more, they said about 40% of everything export has u.s. about the content. so that's another example of where you connect the xl pipeline with the overall question of infrastructure for energy. there's parts on u.s. side. you talk about slightly
controversial recommendations but we talk about lifting the ban on the crude oil exports because frank if you want this engine revolution to continue in the united states, you've got to be able to price but that's what signals investment. if we don't export we will not get the benefits of it. a lot of these parts, another point is natural gas line but everybody is concerned about the poor children coming from central america. as you know part of that region is countries are fragile states. they have high energy costs. they don't have development. so we can extend the pipeline that go down to central america. part of this idea is how can we think about north america, not only among the three of us, but with the western hemisphere and our global heart and economic competitiveness. >> one thing i didn't see much on here was alternative energy, and not a lot of discussion of climate change. you do mention it as a concerned and you do talk creating a
market-based solution for carbon. >> which is a fairly big deal. >> also controversial. >> again, we -- >> but how big of a concern is climate change? >> it is a big concern. >> the downside is -- >> it's represented in here. but the fact is that again, our industry to meet energy. the united states has been going about this in a way that is actually pretty responsible. our missions -- emissions have been going down. our consumption speed we picked up this year, right? >> i vaguely saw that china does more than the eu and the u.s. together. and by the way, we are actually consuming less because of efficiency in the united states as well. so when you look at the overall aggregate demand throughout the world for oil and so forth, you actually see that argument has actually gone down a bit. by the way, so as europe's again
as result, a large measure of efficiency. but again, this is going to be the foundation for an awful lot of our economic progress. it already is. if you are in an industry that requires natural gas as a raw material or requires cheap electricity, you are going to build your plant here in the united states. just ask dow chemical and all the other global firms that do the petrochemical industry. but all have construction on point in the united states. but certainly we should, we say that there should be a support for the sustainable energy industries, and, indeed, that that should be promoted. but in the meantime and tell that is competitive, you've got to continue to do what it is that we've done and to do it in a responsible and as climate from a way as is possible. >> let me add one other dimension. in the first bush admission, administration, i was in charge
of the rio treaty which was the last climate change treaty u.s. senate has confirmed. acted on. and the key point is, this is only going to be dealt with at a global level. certain countries have to play a leadership role, no doubt. what we saw after the copenhagen, was a mexican president, calderón, takes the lead and have a successful climate change summit in cancun. and he took apart the problem by looking at different pieces. some alternative technologies, some energy efficiency which there's huge potential savings global if you look at the energy subsidies. you look at deforestation, existing technologies. our point here is if we're going to lead effectively, we will be much more effective, in this case at the climate change agenda as a developing country and developed country working together. and tricky dick this is of course people don't have
low-cost energy sources to start the you will have a hard time pushing this agenda i. it's a good example across the border of how as a star to think about north america and issues, how we can leverage them for global influence. >> is there a national security application? one of the things interest, you've had the oil and natural gas boom here in the united states. you've had a similar both in canada. mexico production is down i should point out. >> but is going to go up. again, among the 16, that's a historic number, constitutional reforms that were approved in president peña nieto, just in the first year, more than all three of his predecessors in all 18 years. among those very prominent is the reform of the energy industry in mexico. and it's not just, by the way, the oil and gas production. it also has to do with the electricity production. >> what other broad implications in terms, the concerns for so many years, u.s. dependence on
oil imports from the middle east? >> a huge issue. in fact, it is conceivable that north america as a continent could be self-sufficient in energy, a certain number of years. there's no question we are more independent in terms of our energy. doesn't mean by the way we are not still going to have a vital national interest in the free flow of oil and gas through the gulf and to our trading partners. mideast oil still feels our trading partners economies. so we will still have a vital national interest in that, but we will not, at the risk of a time, we're not going to be over a bit of the way we used to be on this issue. [laughter] >> a horrible pun. >> sorry. >> the other kind of hot button are one of the other hot button is on immigration reform. the way you described your
recommendation is the task force strongly recommends the passage of comprehend the federal immigration reform to secure u.s. borders, prevent illegal entry, or by jesus on the basis of economic need, invite talented and skilled people to settle in the united states and offer a pathway to legalization for undocumented immigrants in the united states. were you talking about the senate to build? is that essentially what you're talking about? >> i don't think so. these are very carefully chosen words, legalization. and again the task force members contributed enormously. but look, i think everybody in washington agrees, however fractious of the city maybe, that there is a need for immigration reform. and that does include border security in various measures. but we have to have the low skilled or unskilled workers for a number of the industries in the united states, and we need a legal pathway for them to come to our country. and would also need the h. one
b. visa limit. we have a picture situation where you educate the world's bright, best and brightest and then we don't keep all of them even though our industries need to because you limit on the number of visas that can be given for that particular category. >> you are right. we tried to work out what we think is a pretty definite position on immigration reform. there's different ways you can get to it. that's not kind of, we are not making a tactical judges about how windows do. i want to come to point that shannon touched on which is where we're trying to look beyond immigration reform. one of the strengths of north america is not just energy and natural resources but it's the 500 million people here. if you look about the future of the economy or society, it's what they do with the human capital. part of the peña nieto reform is immigration. a big part is help implement a.
part of what is drawing some of the discussion we had, for example, when we were in canada, with all the energy boom they were describing how they need petroleum engineers but they can't get u.s. trained petroleum engineers because they don't meet certain certifications. when we were in mexico mx said because, frankly, have been developing a lot of these resources, we need petroleum engineers. you can start to see in north america wide you can start identify skills that frankly our own systems prevent the mobility of people based on professional certification and the overall mobility. we introduced this idea of a mobility. this was way from citizenship, the i.t. people could work across countries, maintain their citizenship. this has been discussed at some of the areas that are kind of less skilled jobs but also sort of higher skilled jobs. one of the areas shanon researched is coming coming out of nafta, a special visa program called -- frankly it has not
been used very much because it has a whole series of restrictions compared to h-1b. we talk about if you want, after 20 years, the educational and skills and certification area, the future of all our countries compared to europe, japan, russia, china is better because her demographics are better. we don't have the same aging workforce overall but that only works if you have some of the supply in the training. and, frankly, i think in all three countries you're on the edge of a transformation, public and private with use of technology, perhaps different types of degree programs, different types of hybrid and sort of use of other issues. you can see this in the private-public sector, while there is a need to focus always in all three countries on local control of education. we missed a big opportunity if we don't interconnect the three countries. the core resources are the people. >> this task force, very nice it
provides, it's a very convincing case. but there is the question of how it gets done. immigration reform, we've seen stalled by the fact so many major interests involve to push for it. we mentioned the market-based solution, carbon. that might, pushing that might across the democrats in the house and 2010 or help cost than that. and i wonder if today nafta company, could nafta passed today? could it get through, you, the political -- >> we will find out with tpp. >> version a tpa which another thing. trade promotion authority. to be on the some of these things come back to political leadership. there's no way around it. but to go to the issue about the politics of these issues. i'm shocked you think the three
of us alone will be able to move the agenda. [laughter] >> assuming that you are right -- [laughter] one of the points of this report on what we're trying to do is kind of to stir the pot of the debate and that's why we've made some positions. we hope the administration will act on some of these things in its last two years, a part of this is to set up to 2016 debate. so look, you know, i talk to people, i visited primarily the republican side but i know some of the want of the democratic side as well, the standpoint if a candidate to go off to europe or may reduce and stop the major. you are now starting to get people to go to mexico and i hope canada first, recognizing this is good policy africa i think there's some good politics to this that people look at the hispanic american community as well. there's a political base to go forward with some of these issues. we have to get people to
understand that foreign policy is not just, you are reporting daily instead of a hot story but it's this story. >> with congress i have to say, again with both democrats and republicans i try to stay in touch on some of the trade issues. when you present these and you make the point about how this can help our economic competitiveness compared to other regions in the world, there's an audience for this. you are a number of people who said when you get the task force report would like to follow it up in different context. like anything else i think we have now provided -- now the question is can we get some political attention. >> let me add into this. we lay out a big vision for north america. and what it could be 10, 20 years. some of things to get us pretty long way there are you don't have to be a huge comprehensive immigration reform. there are things that take we summon a little bumps in the road. six-figure industries, the rate for differences, that would make a huge difference. improve the infrastructure at the border.
the department of transportation study said it will cost between six and $10 billion which as we all know is not really a lot of money. it can make a huge difference in the flows back and forth. start working with our counterparts on the other side. one of the main themes will that in the task force is that in all these areas, economic, energy, security, we can start thinking trilateral where we can and bilateral. i think some of that change can we can start doing those things now and later on if there is more of a political will or cooperation to try to go for some of the bigger things. you could make a lot of progress with smaller issues. >> you have the chance of commerce here. i belong to a ceo task force that using this as put together, and these are major companies going back to some of, look, we are applying information technology in ways you couldn't conceive of a much of our business. why can't we apply this to get
stuff across the border safer and quicker? >> mexico is in the midst of a manufacturing boom. it's now the number four car exporter in the world. i was just in tokyo last week. they mention toyota's new plant is not in japan to its actual in mexico. by the way, production facilities are just about every of the make and model of car in the world. what's going on there is quite extraordinary. and then now as you see the 16 reforms actually start to become governor. you see them get the benefit of our cheap natural gas. there are two big pipelines being built that will help them lower their electricity costs some 75% more than ours. so this will actually provide even greater opportunities for integrating our markets, noting that bob mentioned, a car that is produced in mexico actually is 40% american. and the same if you do that up in the north. so the are really historic opportunities here.
and the question is can we take full advantage of the? >> let me give you two examples. shannon mentioned that tpp. so this is a united states negotiate with 11 other countries. we have free trade agreement with six of those, including canada and mexico. it took a while to agree to include canada and mexico as part of those negotiations. and yet even that there are 20 year-old aspects of nafta, why not use the tpp to be able to try to clean up some of those things? also in the process start to think about a north american market. we have a trade negotiatio negos with the european union, the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. i have been a trade negotiator. i know it's not easy with more people at the table but, frankly, it's a big strategic mistake not to include canada and mexico at the table. you go exact what david said one of the key areas of record for aninstead is can for example, fr the odd industry which is trans-atlantic. we were in candidate they
conducted a have an audit into. they have an auto parts industry. a lot of the industry in mexico is based on assembly. so frankly we are being shortsighted in terms of our future competitiveness not to include them. those are for practical things. you don't need to pass a lot to do that. >> i want to get to questions next but before we don't want to ask about another issue which we haven't touched on much which is security. general petraeus, what is the greatest security for this region? is at the whole issue of foreign fighters? is it violence in central america? isn't a criminal cartel? what do you see going forward as the central security concern? >> i think it is elements of all of the above, certainly. so there is an emphasis in the report on improving border security, but there's also a suggestion to try to move beyond the borders with her neighbors and actually look at the overall
regional borders, if it could be in a sense the defense. you would have a better chance of ensuring that some of the security threats don't actually materialize. beyond that though we also want, while improving security, as shannon mentioned, improve the flow of people, goods and vehicles across the border, which is actually slowed as result of measures taken, understandably since 9/11. and yet the are all these technologtechnolog ies out there, pre-inspection programs, a host of different initiatives that could be pursued. we are not yet really pursue those to the extent that we should. again, to make the most of these three highly integrated economies. time is money at the border and there's lots of wasting of that that goes on. >> the disconnect is what people have seen in the newspapers. the terrible example of the poor children coming up from central america. they didn't apply here. they came across mexico. support of this is if we develop
a deeper cooperation on some of those issues from mexico, frankly you're going to do well with an earlier point and we need to go beyond that. we talked about looking at the plan colombia example has seen whether mexico, panama, domestic and candor can try to go to some of the root issues in central america where you have fragile states do with organized crime, networks and goes to the energy issue and it goes to a large development issue. i don't both of the bank and state department elsewhere. but when we be much more effective if we're doing that in concert with the mexicans as well as the colombians as we did with central america 20 years ago? part of this is to stretch people's thinking. david mentioned this. you will help me issues like cybersecurity. you've got the bold issues and so other disease issues as we've had in the area. part of this is to get people to recognize that for our own security, not out of my system
we need to try to create a unified security logic from the arctic, another set of issues for central america. >> get to some questions. remind you what i call on you wait for the microphone to get to you, and stand up, stay jenin and your affiliation. and, of course, remember to keep the question short. do we have a first question? that's never happened. >> thank you very much. davis robinson, a member of the executive committee of the canada-u.s. law institute. i've been struck by the fact that none of you has even mentioned water or the affect of the inability of the national governments of these three nations to act upon the states and the provinces. province as. just as one single example.
the great lakes are losing an enormous amount of water. neither washington nor ottawa has been able to do anything about it. so now the two provinces and the six states, they have gotten together and they're going to do what ottawa and washington should have done. what they may be doing it may violate the constitution of the two countries but at least they are doing something. >> well, there's a good opening because they're certainly a discussion of water in this report. >> there is. and interestingly, it came in large measure as result of the encouragement initially by the canadian ambassador. we both ambassadors were quite involved in this in addition to the trips that we all made to ottawa and mexico city. so water is in the better. if you go through that you will see that there is again a strong recommendation that we do need to confront these kinds of
issues. these are the issues of the future by the weight in many respects. >> one, as you undoubtedly know there's a country long history with u.s. and mexico and with canada. at least from our examination of that, boundary waters commission said work relatively well in part because they involve a lot of stakeholders outside the capital. your second point, i just would want to draw attention to. one of the challenges for north american policy is a lot of it is not made in washington, ottawa, mexico city. a lot of it is made in states, provinces, local and private sectors. portable we're trying to address is how to think about foreign policy in a different way when you're do with this set of transnational actors. we talk about the role of governors and provincial authorities and now you can connect with them. all countries have to be respectful of federalism or in the case of candidate, and federalism. and the limits of that.
it led us to do something which i was a little skeptical about at first. i'm not one who believes sort of government reorganization tends to solve problems but i think you need to go with the problem. what we did say is look, because of this challenge by giving attention to north america, you need to change frankly we talked about a north american director come in the state department, high level champion among various officials, and part of this is not only to bring attention to these issues in the u.s. government but part is to try to work on this challenge of how do you work more closely with the states, local and other authorities, capture the energy, knowledge and activity of those bodies? i'm glad you raised it. >> one of the points shannon made repeatedly, political leadership and focus to move an agenda like this forward.
but that's a perennial problem with regard to the united states and latin america. deep involvement with the crises in the region becomes political issues here and then they go off and do other things. so are their structural changes we need -- just one of the parenthetical point. it also makes a difference to the personnel are, you know, bush 41 administration which bob and i both served, president and sector a state of texas, and secretary commerce, and the vice president wanted to be involved in that. he wanted to be a texan. >> even though we didn't let him. >> he was for a short period of time. [laughter] but that's all quixotic and we can't depend on where the president was raised and suggested was raised, commerce secretary. are their structural changes we need to make sure that the north american agenda is at a higher level than it is currently at?
>> yes. bernie, thanks for that. thanks also for your contribution to the task force. but clearly that's what bob was just getting at, the idea that you have someone to focus on north america, not just the entire hemisphere. same as the state department. interestingly the department of defense already does that because you have northern command which encompasses those three countries and is focused on the security aspects of those berries relationships. so indeed structural change would help, as would again, as does personality. the fact that penny pritzker, secretary of commerce, has been as active in action with mexico in particular but also canada, has been a real plus interview over the course of the year or so as you know that we have done this report. so certainly there does need to be that. the reason for that is that you do have to have champions in our government for different regions initiative, activity.
and if you don't and never get on the table until you are a week away from the years summit. summaries of what i'm going to talk about next week? you know, the principals committee is dominated by the crises of the day, and are deeply right now we have really more crises and you ca didn't en funnel through the situation room on a daily basis. it would be a tough time to be a deputy cabinet secretary right now. in fact, you would look down at the white house i would imagine the how do you get north america onto an agenda that is already overcrowded? you get people that are invested in it and constantly push back into the table. >> let me compliment this big the problem about living down at the white house. we talk about champions, and i want to draw it out a little bit because you got a lot of people in the artist who serve in government. the danger of course that each of your credit agency kind of sticks in its rut, with north
america it's compounded because as we know everything from social security to transportation becomes part of quote foreign policy with north america. what we try to capture with this notion that i personally think it takes a very senior post, state, treasure, maybe vice president. and it can be one of these deals where that office gets 100 of these assignments because then they are all deluded. is probably less important the exact feet, the person sort of leaves it. and, frankly, as you know, bernie, you have to push the system. you have to have a sense of how to break through some of the restrictions win bureaucratic issues come up. that's a champion id. but the offices is also as you've experienced is that it helps to have, right now with u.s. government has come into the western hemisphere. that's very important but they tend to think latin america. and beat canada has been moved back and forth from the european
go to the western hemisphere bureau, reflecting innocents different attitudes of the could and other topics. a few great a american bureau you create an intro advocate so that when people talk about negotiating with the european union summit says what about our north american logic works are we missing this set of issues? we try to drive with a point and, frankly, a bit of a discussion that also said where should central america fit in? my own sense is that central america is a key part of our security as you see with children, and our comics or other issues. that's a debatable point but, frankly, i think if we're ever going to avoid this pendulum of kind of ignoring some of these regions and tell fires break out, then burning our fingers, we need to add central america and think of north american a more strategic way. this is a government to mexico. when i was working with augustine carstens is now the central bank had, by the become a good example of the three central bankers in north america our world-class, he was finance
minister. he was the first mexican finance minister that i met would meet with his central american finance ministers because as you know mexico often treated central america with some of the distance which we treated mexico. that won't work if you would want to try to do with these underlying problems. and friendly as i mentioned before, it helps to of latin americans deal with central america as well as gringos from the north. >> one of the very, on the gradual level, a sample you cite on nafta is the issue of the mexican truckers. a mexican trucks were, correct me if i'm wrong, but by 2000 were able to go to all come everywhere in the united states and right now is at 45, 45 mexican trucks are permitted -- >> individual trucks. >> we are talking about trucks. >> and 14,000 across. >> the rest are limited to the
states around the border. question? >> thank you. i am an i.t. and information security professional, and i noticed you had a few paragraphs into about cybersecurity. my interest is, what did you learn in terms of your work, in terms of best practices at canada and mexico may be employing that we could benefit from? and then the other question is, in terms of, i will call the joint unified cybersecurity on the north american continent, how do you envision it working? can you talk about that the? >> i think the cell will have to link to dhs as a result. one of the fallouts, items from the snowden unfair, obviously nsa is going, we're going to be up to draw on that less i think for homeland activities and the
other ones might have. eventually it will have to link to the growing expertise that is being developed in dhs without question. having said that, yet another areas in which there is a need for legislation of course is cyber legislature to we were close a couple years ago when the chairman and vice chairman of the house intelligence committee were moving forward. would've been a good solid step forward, and even that couldn't get through unfortunately. so again this is an issue that we do need to deal with right here in washington very much, even as our own domestic cybersecurity authorities are working more closely with those of canada and mexico. >> let me add on the infrastructure side, especially on the canadian side but also beginning on the mexican side. since we share infrastructure, electricity grid, pipelines and the like, a cyber attack on one side would affect presumably the whole northeastern electricity grid even if it happened in
canada. working a bit more closely to establish common protocols and also if there is an attack on the post-attack evaluation sharing, the expenses we could do much more closer bad in the long run would be quite useful for us. >> let me add one thing. david is much were expert on this in terms of the policy and security. but your question is particularly interesting because like david i work with a lot of different financial audiences. i often gets would've asked what's going to be the next crisis, what's going to create the next and liquidity event? the first answer is it's always the one you don't foresee. but, frankly, if i would give one, i would pick something in a cyber area because i could see, what created, for example, it ends in 2008 is that markets will not clear, you can get a price. so that can happen through financial terms to they can also happen the breakdown of the
system. i was with mike rogers earlier this week and i was trying come with a group of chief financial officers. .. >> so it gives you an idea of what it is that we need to do there even though, you know, without getting into details, there's quite a bit of cooperation there. >> just to pick up on a strategic point again, particularly for our audience,
and bernie and others in the room have seen this. david talked about depth of the relationship with canada a -- as opposed to mexico. if i needed to nomex coe's foreign -- know mexico's foreign policy, i could find it because in the old income, in the old pri in those days, the foreign ministry in mexico was partly an intellectual prism while the pri did its business the united states. when i came back into the government and also with the world bank, that totally transformed particularly in the economic area. my closest partners on international trade issues were my mexican and canadian counterparts, and we worked hand in glove not only on american issues, but then basically going back and trying to play a role globally. and i guess my hope is that, you know, a group like this 25 years
from now might be able to sit and talk about deeper cooperation with all three countries on these other security issues. so that's a little bit of the vision we're pushing for. >> christina. >> thank you. i'm christina long from "the hill." my question's for general petraeus. sir, you've had great experience and expertise in iraq, and i'd be remisif i didn't ask whether there's some doubt in washington whether or not this strategy against isis will be successful. what are your views of whether the strategy will work, how it will end, what are your views on that? >> yeah. i don't want to turn this into an isil q&a, but i think that i can see how it can end in iraq. i think there's a strategy on which we're embarked which has a reasonable chance of success. it really comes down, as the president has been very clear, it comes down to prime minister abadly performing tasks and the
iraqi curt forces perform -- security forces performing tasks that we had to do in 2007 because the place was literally on fire and about to burst into civil war flames had we not done that. we should not underestimate given all the challenges that they have had, we should not underestimate the ability of new government to reach out to the sunni-arab community and to make them part of the fabric of society of iraq again and also to accommodate some very legitimate demands, requests from the kurdish regional government as well. i think that's all doable. those are critical political components to what will go forward, and if that becomes a townation for iraq, then i -- foundation for iraq, then i think you can reconstitute in some cases the iraqi security forces. and with help from us in terms of the intelligence picture, assistance with planning and then the provision of close air support and fires, i think that those forces and must, again, if this is to be sustainable, this must be a result of actions by
iraqi security forces noting that that term is inclusive of what will undoubtedly stand back up the former sons of iraq that will now be part of the iraqi national guard and certainly encompassing the actions of the kurdish peshmerga and other militias as well. >> if i could just do a quick follow up, can you do this by promising from the start no boots on the ground? [laughter] north american boots on the ground? [laughter] >> if we look to the north american wave of the future here, i think general dempsey has been appropriate and forthright in noting that if it comes to it, he would ask for certain capabilities as required to assist the iraqi security forces on the ground. but by and large, again, my point is that this and must be done by iraqi security forces,
and that includes not just their army, but also the police elements and, indeed, even the air components if they're gradually developing as well. >> yes. >> [inaudible] the german marshall fund of the united states. i would like to ask our speakers regarding the current trade negotiations between the united states and europe and how those negotiations would affect the north american partnership. >> why don't i start. those trade negotiations are in trouble. they've been drifting. it goes a little bit to jonathan's political question, until you get trade promotion authority which is the ability for executive agreement for congress for an p up or down vote without amendment it's going to be hard to make people face up to the toughest decisions. the the trans-pacific partnership is a little bit ahead of negotiations, and you're seeing that with japan.
the japanese are not going to take sensitive decisions on agriculture unless they know the executive is willing to really carry out his side, and this -- of the pacific and, frankly, push it with congress. i'm actually hopeful, but i'm an optimistic person, that from talking with members of congress that there's strong interest on the republican side on moving this as there was with senator baucus, the democratic chairman of the finance committee, and dave camp, the republican chairman of the house ways and means committee earlier in the year until senator reid said he didn't want this issue, and the administration backed off. if they're going to have prospects for either transatlantic or tpp, they're going to have to move that forward. speaker boehner said he would do it if he got 50 democratic votes, even tough deals that i did with only 30 democratic votes, i think that's a doable number. frankly, if you get a republican senate, you'll be in a stronger position to move this forward. but i had urged senator wyden, i went up and talked to him, i
urged him to start the markup earlier because i think it's good to have democratic interest in this. so, frankly, this is a key question going back to bernie's point. there's a lot of talk in washington, you've got to decide whether you're going to push this stuff or close the deal. now, it comes back on the transatlantic side, the reason i feel so strongly about this is that in trade if the bicycle isn't moving forward, it falls down. and whatting see in europe is there's an increasing crescendo of this element, that element, so on and so forth, and there's not a forward momentum going forward. so i see that agreement in definitely difficulty. that's terrible given the fact that probably the most important partner in europe going forward is germany, and chancellor merkle has a very strong interest in this. so coming back to the north american point, i would just say we support the tpa and also we say we ought to look at this in a north american context. europe has actually done a free trade agreement with canada. and they took, there was sort of
back and forth about the closing aspects of that. so i congratulate the canadians and the europeans. i think the united states needs to get its act together. >> if i could, by the way, just on the note of canada, we actually have the canadian ambassador here, and we're grateful to him, again, for what he did, and i failed to see him earlier. yesterday we had the mexican ambassador for the segment that we had at the council to release this there. so there's been very, very good involvement in this. to cast the answer that bob was just giving, the task force strongly looks forward to confirming the excellence of our legislative and executive branches in the wake of the upcoming elections in passing tpa and then getting ttp done and moving op to ttip. i was out in hong kong and tokyo last week, and i can assure you our asian partners -- obviously,
hong kong not being part of that -- but our asian partners are very keen to get this done as well. and it will help not just the united states, ttp will help all of north america because they're all three involved, as bob mentioned earlier. >> and one last point, this is partly -- people often look at these as narrow trade agreements. this is bigtime strategy. dave spent a lot of time in asia, i was just there last week. economics is the coin of the realm in asia. and, frankly, if you're not moving forward with your economic relationships, then they kind of wonder what's the pivot and rebalance? 2500 marines in darwin? that doesn't look serious to them. very serious questions here. and frankly, on the transatlantic side too it fits in with the types of challenges you see mario draghi talking about. whether his new monetary policy will come forward, the french just came out with their budget about the fiscal side. none of this is going to work unless europe takes the structural reforms. so if you want to create a
global economic strength and you want the united states to play a leadership role, get tpa done and close the two deals. >> yes. >> i'm louis -- [inaudible] just wanted to ask how out of the box, perhaps, did the task force consider creating new, multi-national -- [inaudible] so, for example, things that would provide investment funds for infrastructure, rule of law investments, education, all those types of things in the -- and i know you started by saying we're thinking about this in a sovereignty context as opposed to perhaps the way the europeans did it where there were such cost investment funds s. that part of the thinking now, or is that a bridge too far? >> go ahead, bob. >> well, we started with what exists. so one of the items we went back and looked at was the north american development bank which is part of the and a half the process -- nafta process.
it was part of the political vote trading, but it also had an interesting mission somewhat constrained. and we talk about given some of the infrastructure and other issues whether that could have its mandate expanded and be used more effectively. but, frankly -- and this is some of the things dave and i work on frequently -- the question is how can you connect the private and public sector, for example, infrastructure funds. so we also talk about the role of the american development bank, possibly the world bank, ifc, the private sector arm. so i think we're biased more towards how you can upgrade and use existing structures as opposed to create new ones that's a little bit on your water question as well. and just to give you a sense of the possibility here again, when i was -- about a week ago i was struck by, i was talking to some of my former colleagues from the ifc, the private sector, and one
of the things they told me was fascinating we created a management asset company which allowed sovereign funds and pension funds to, in a sense, join with our equity investments. it's a way of bringing more capital in without raising capital for the ifc. and we started this with africa, latin america, some other funds. one of the things they told me was china had gone to the asset management company of ifc and said, look, we'd like to do some more investment in mexico. but rather than do it bilaterally, maybe we could do it with the mexicans and with ifc so that it's got a different shape to it. that's a rather creative use of multilateral institutions. doesn't require a new one although this asset management company's quite interesting. it's the first subsidiary of a multi-national i think that's ever been created. no one paid attention to it, it's working quite well. so at least my sense is we were looking towards evolutionary models in a ragmatic way. pragmatic way. >> yes,s,s in back.
>> thank you. i want to get to something that was touched on a bit here and there -- >> your name, ma'am? >> oh, sorry. lawr -- laura kern with cnn. we talked about the threat posed by foreign fighters particularly going to and possibly returning from syria. there are, it's estimated, about a hundred foreign fighters from the united states, about the same amount from canada. what can be done between north american allies to, first of all, keep people from going there, monitor them as they return and then, also, even before that, i guess, prevent the kind of radicalization that can happen so easily on a computer that could lead to an attack within any of those three countries. thank you. >> this really comes down to, basically, to intelligence sharing. and as i mentioned earlier, we've long had a very, very close relationship with canada
and so there's an extraordinary amount that already goes on there. but there is, actually, a good deal more perhaps than people realize that goes on with our mexican colleagues as well. but it's all about, again, creating access to common databases, sharing threat streams and also sharing tactics, techniques and procedures, if you will, of a variety of different methods of collecting information that then becomes intelligence on the flow to and from these areas of conflict. >> one other point that david mentioned yesterday in new york, and i want the americans and certainly the canadians to know this, but david was in command with central command, he had canadian soldiers that were fighting for the united states in afghanistan when we were attacked at 9/11 and lost about 150 lives there or more. so it's a good example of the canadian partnership people often don't fully recognize.
>> we actually, in fact, during my time as the commander of central command, we actually had canadians to the actual staff at the headquarters as we did with the other members of the five is. we had this in iraq, we had a multi-national force iraq headquarters that included all of the members of that coalition, several dozen countries. in afghanistan we had some 50 countries, actually, in that headquarters. but in between that when i was at central command, i said, jeez, this worked really quite well in iraq, why can't we replicate that right here in tampa with our headquarters, and we did. and then even had some, a number of other countries that had very robust liaison elements there against several dozen of -- [inaudible] as well. >> the canadians are making the ultimate commitment to go down from canada in the winter. [laughter] >> very much so. that's exactly right. all right. >> they added to number of canadian license plates that have already -- [laughter] but, actually, to come back on a very serious note, canadians, i
think, were the highest, had the highest loss rate per capita of any of the coalition contingents in afghanistan. they did some very, very heavy fighting and, indeed, during the surge in afghanistan the canadian contingent in kandahar was part of some very important offensive gains that helped not only hold the taliban where they were, but, indeed, to push them back in some very key districts to enable the time and space for the accelerated development of the afghan security forces, certain institutions of its governance. and then even to start the transition process to our afghan partners. >> so you need to tell the cnn audience on the 200th anniversary at the end of the war on 1812, we're glad the canadians are now on the right side. [laughter] >> and i still remember seeing the signs "thank you, canada," after the iranian hostage -- >> yeah. >> -- mission became known. >> you bet.
argo. thank you very much. we are out of time, general david petraeus, shannon o'neill and bob zoellick, thank you very much for joining us. [applause] >> thanks, gary. [inaudible conversations] >> and a reminder that you can see this event on north american relations later on our web site, c-span.org. our campaign 20. >> coverage -- 2014 coverage continues tonight live at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span as we bring you an oklahoma governor's debate between incumbent republican mary fallin and joe dorman, her democratic challenge
kerr, at oklahoma state university where both candidates are alums. here's some of the candidate ads running in that race. >> i'm joe dorr match, and my hometown my mom livers close by. we talk every day. here i learned to stretch every dollar, to support the second amendment and to value my public education. >> joe dorman -- >> as governor i'll improve schools by taking franchise tax revenue out of the hands of legislators and using all of those funds for classroom instruction. no exceptions and no tax increase. i'm joe dorman. i'll be a fiscally responsible, pro-gun, pro-education governor. >> the last four years have challenged us in ways we never imagined. we've come through stronger, tougher, better. under the leadership of governor mary fallin, oklahoma has changed for the better. she made the economy her top priority, and today we are the leader in job growth, at attracting new business and opportunity. she promised to make government
smaller, smarter, more efficient, and she has, closing a half a billion dollar budget shortfall and balancing the budget. she stood up an -- [inaudible] fighting obamacare and an out of control -- [inaudible] she was there. to lend a hand, lead a prayer, share a hug. it's what makes her special, a leader, a friend, our governor, mary fallin. because no one cares more about oklahoma, no one. >> i'm joe dorr match. as governor, i will always put oklahoma first. mary fall lip is just out of touch. she sided with washington bureaucrats on common core, and when she beat up three second amendment bills, i worked with leaders in both parties to override her veto. >> an a+ nra rating.
>> i'm joe dorman. we need a governor who doesn't care what washington thinks and who puts oklahoma first. >> here on c-span2 at 8 p.m. eastern, we'll bring you another golf's debate, this one -- governor's debate, this one from nebraska. two-term republican governor dave heineman is term limited and cannot run again. here's a look at some of the ads in the nebraska race. >> you know, all across our state i see people facing the same tough challenges. nebraska conditions just want a fair shot. >> i stood up for family farmers and ranchers, and we helped 10,000 small businesses and secured tuition. as governor, i'll invest in our future like expanding early childhood education and training nebraska workers for good paying jobs. i'm running for governor because when north carolina conditions work together -- nebraska cans work together, we can succeed. >> falsely attacking pete
ricketts, but pete, he's staying positive. a proud nebraska businessman endorsed by sarah palin with a plan to cut property taxes. >> i'm pete ricketts. when i started with the family wiz, we had saw 0 people working in -- 150 people working in omaha, and now there's more than 2,000 here in nebraska. that's what i'll do as governor. >> pete ricketts is making false attacks, but rickets, tried to avoid paying his own taxes. but his organization proposed a plan that would raise taxes for family farmers and 80% of nebraskaens. ricketts wants higher taxes for us but lower taxes for rich people like him. nebraska needs a governor who fights for the middle class x that's just -- and that's just not pete ricketts. >> the nebraska i grew up in expects people to treasure faith and family. those are nebraska values.
>> pete ricketts. >> my faith guides me. from raising my family to running our business. i believe god gave us fundamental rights and our constitution protects them, that we have to be a culture that protects life and inspires responsibility. i'm pete ricketts. as your governor, i'll work to make you proud and lead nebraska with our shared values. >> and the nebraska and oklahoma governors' debates are just two of the more than 100 house, senate and governors' races we're covering this campaign season. most of the debates, along with campaign-related programs, you'll find on our web site, c-span.org. >> c-span2, providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. and every weekend, booktv. now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on
facebook and follow us on twitter. >> next, former members of the military criticize president obama for his handling of foreign policy. this was part of the family research council's values voter summit held in washington last friday. [applause] ♪ >> good morning! [applause] ♪ >> thank you very much. good morning. good morning. well, on behalf of the family research council and all our sponsors and partners, we welcome you to the ninth annual values voter summit. and we welcome folks from across the country who are tuning in by television and the web. now, one might be tempted to think that this is a going-away
party for eric holder, but it's not. [laughter] the next three days are designed to challenge you, encourage you and equip you to return home and redouble your efforts to take our country back. [applause] now, i'm happy to announce this morning that we have a strategy. [laughter] we will continue building a conservative coalition, a winning team that despite occasional setbacks like the last six years -- [laughter] we will never, never surrender to the forces of statism and political correctness. [applause] now, we hear almost every day
conservatives are on the wrong side of history. that we want to turn back the clock. you know, i see it differently. we stand for what the clock cannot measure; for that which is timeless and eternal. you know, today's left has developed a genius for division masquerading as unity. they are heralding an age of diversity while championing a stark uniformity of opinion in politics. and so bold are they in this strategy that in order to stifle their opponents in the political arena, they are even ready to rewrite and limit the first amendment of our constitution. what they propose to do in this area of campaign finance goes hand in hand with what they have been willing to do and have succeeded in doing in the civic sector. they have attacked gifted individuals in the communications industries and universities and silicon valley,
everywhere from chick fill ato gallaudet -- chick-fil-a to gallaudet university and dozens of others, tarring and feathering them just for daring to disagree with them. in fact, there was a senatorring of -- smattering of leftist groups, many of them funded by george soros, who took out an ad in "the washington post" this week calling on elected officials to refuse to speak to you, the values voters. why? well, remember, these are the same groups that support harry reid and his efforts to rewrite the first amendment, but it's real simple. the truth stands in their way as they seek to fundamentally transform america. so they went to silence you -- they want to silence you and millions of americans like you. but here's the difference: we welcome the debate. we support their right to speak. we believe in the first amendment. in fact, many in this room have put on the uniform of our
nation's military to defend their right to speak. i submit to you that it is not time to rethink our principles or shrink back from the conflict. no, now is the time to reaffirm our beliefs and redouble our efforts and to stand for the values that made america an exceptional nation. yes, mr. president, america has been an exceptional nation but in so doing, we must renew our mutual respect and reaffirm the necessity that each component of conservativism -- a national defense that is second to none and traditional values are indispensable and mutually reinforcing. what unites us as conservatives is that we understand the meaning of liberty and the price that generation after generation has paid for it.
we understand the irreplaceable role of character in the human drama. we understand the dangers of government that grows ever larger while becoming ever hungrier and even more jealous of any institution that rivals or diminishes its influence. we are here today as the value voters. we will defend the american dream, and we will define the future. thank you for being here and for being a part of the values voter summit and for being part of taking our nation back. america is worth fighting for, and we will stand for the truth. [applause] well, i am so excited to introduce to you our first speaker of the 2014 values voter summit. this is a guy who keeps me flewed to c-span every -- glued to c-span every time he's on. maybe it's because he is a two-time ncaa division i
wrestling champion, because he knows a few moves. i've watched him. he puts it on those bureaucrats. congressman jim jordan represents ohio's fourth congressional district, and he sits on the house oversight and government reform committee. as a member of that committee, you've probably seen him several times grill the irs commissioner on the disappearance of lois lerner's e-mails. and last week as a member of the important select committee on benghazi, he asked, quote: what's it going to take for the state department to put in place the practices that are going to save american lives? [applause] i am so glad that we have men and women like him on capitol hill working hard to get answers and to get justice for the american people. please welcome my good friend, congressman jim jordan of ohio. [applause] ♪ ♪
>> thank you. [applause] >> good to be with you this morning. you've had to reason to me a new -- listen to me a few times at this wonderful event. i learned a long time ago that good things don't just happen. if you want to accomplish anything of meaning, anything of significance, it takes work, it takes effort, it takes sacrifice, and most importantly, it takes a willingness to get off the sidelines and get in the game. so i want to thank you for doing just that and, frankly, for accepting the risk that's associated with getting in the game. you're always going to be criticized when you do this. get called all kinds of nice things by the mainstream elite national press. just par for the course, just part of the deal. i love the line that cal thomas has when he talked about the way normal people see things and the way the new york times sees things. he says i get up every morning,
i read my bible and the new york times so i can see what each side's up to. [laughter] there's a lot of truth to that. so thank for what you do, and thank you for supporting an organization as fine as the family research council. when you think about the institutions that the good lord put together, the very first institution wasn't the church, it wasn't the state, it was moms and dads and kids. and the strength of that institution ultimately -- [applause] the strength of that institution ultimately determines the strength of your entire culture, your entire society and then our great country. and so it is a special organization near and dear to my heart, and tony's been doing an outstanding job leading that as you all know, and that's why you support it. in fact, when i get done with this speech, i'm getting on a plane, flying to dayton, ohio, polly's picking me up at the airport, and we start the drive to georgia to see our second grandchild, katherine grace -- [applause]
who is four weeks old today, and we're looking forward to spending the weekend with them down there. i got some good news and bad news, i'm going to do the bad news first, get to the good news, and we'll move along with the program here. tell me if i'm wrong. i'm convinced that today the average family, the average middle class family thinks this town is completely rigged against them. they see bailouts for corporations, handouts for people who are able but unwilling to work, and they're stuck paying the bill. and they are fed up with it. they see companies cozy up to government, get special deals, special loans at the ex-im bank, companies cozy up to government and get special tax treatment and all kinds of -- if you're in the favorite industry of the administration, the green energy industry, you get all kinds of loan guarantees and special breaks from the government. seven of the ten wealthiest counties are, guess where? right here in the washington, d.c. area. so the average family thinks the whole game is rigged against them, and they're stuck paying the tab.
and i would agree with them. and they're looking for folks in washington to stand up and represent their value values, the values that made our country special in the first place. [applause] one of my favorite, one of my favorite lines is a baseball player,erer schweizer, pitcher for the dodgers. won the world series. he has a great line. he says great things can happen to ordinary people who are willing to work hard and never give up. and i like that statement mostly because of one word, the word "ordinary." we stop and think about it, we're all just regular, ordinary people. nobody's any better than anybody else. in fact, one of the things that bugs me in life is when someone thinks they're special, better than the rest of us. we're all just ordinary people, all in need of god's grace. but the amazing thing about this nation is ordinary people have been able to do extraordinary things if they're willing to work hard and never quit. but today for the first time in american history lots of middle
class families are doubting the accuracy of that statement. and they're looking for people to stand up and fight for them. now, the good news is there are folks in the house of representatives doing that. hopefully, we're going to have a few more folks in the senate when this election's over. i think it's going to happen. i think the party i belong to -- [applause] the party i belong to, i think we're going to take back those six seats. and then that will help us begin to frame things. but it's worse than what i just described. it's not just that your money gets used for things you don't like, it's also your fundamental values and the liberties that you cherish, your freedoms are under attack. i mean, think about, think about your first amendment liberty. religious freedom. i mean, thank goodness the decision was 5-4, but it was only 5-4, right? the hobby lobby decision. your second amendment rights are under attack. respect for human life, respect for the institution of marriage and family. all those things are under attack from this administration. but probably no better example, and tony referred to this in his
introduction, probably no better example of your freedoms being attacked than what the internal revenue service did for a sustained period of time where it systematically targeted people just like us for exercising your most fundamental rights, your right to free speech. you think about the first amendment, this is why i've been so focused on this issue, because it cuts to what america's about. you think about the first amendment, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, but your most fundamental right is your right to speak. and to speak in a political nature against your government. to petition your government. and that is what this administration set out to systematically and sustained period of time target and harass people for. and it is as wrong as it gets. i just want to walk you through how serious this was and how it all started. remember in 2010 when the president at the state of the union address called out the supreme court right after the citizens united decision? called out judge alito in the court right there?
that's when, that's when it began. that whole year the president week after week would say things about shadowy tea party groups, right? remember, folks just like you. this strange group of innocuous-sounding, with great sounding names who are doing all kinds of dangerous things. and it was not just the president, it was all kinds of democrat leaders -- durbin and schumer and all these folks were saying things like, irs, you've got to do something about these groups. remember, this is 2010. this is where we were building for -- you know what happened in that election, right? we said the heck with nancy pelosi, and we changed who was running the house of representatives. so this goes on for that entire year. lois lerner gives a speech at duke university in october of 2010, weeks before election. and in that speech she says everybody is after us to do something now. now think about that sentence. this is a direct quote from her speech. who's the everybody in that sentence? not everybody. everybody is the president and
her political heroes, democrat senators who are calling the irs and calling on the irs to do something. everybody is after us to do something now, what's the now, before the election? same time frame, we get one of the e-mails we do have from ms. lerner, she writes in an e-mail and says we can't fix it now, but next year we're going to launch a c4 project. we have to be careful and make sure it doesn't look "per se political." which is a fan i way of saying we're just going to try to hide the fact, right? and that's what they did. and they denied it all along. we started hearing from conservative groups who were being targeted. we actually brought lois lerner in. people from our personal staff sat down with her in 2012 after this had been going on for a while but hadn't yet become public. and we confronted her. and she said, no, no, this is just the normal course of doing business and, frankly, we didn't believe her, so we called for the inspector general to do an information which they did. about that same time doug shulman, then-commissioner said,
no, no, he can give assurances there's no targeting going on. but the inspector general did his investigation and found that wasn't the case. and they got a draft report, the irs got a draft profit before -- report before it went public, and three days before that lois lerner gives a speech to bar association meeting here in town and has a friend, planted question, ask her about this situation, and she blames -- doesn't take responsibility for it -- blames people in cincinnati. remember this? right? lying agents in cincinnati. two rogue agents in cincinnati. i mean, this whole pattern's as old as the hills. the fact is they got caught with hair hands in the cookie -- their hands in the cookie jar, and we're trying to hold them accountable. they've tried every excuse, blaming other people and then going after the inspector general saying his report was not accurate. the truth a is, they did it. and it's so egregious what took place, and they know they can not really getting a real
investigation from the justice department that lois lerner even this week was willing to talk to the press. now think about this, she can talk to the press, the justice department, but she can't answer congress' questions and the questions the american people have. unbelievable. and is reason why she's willing to do an exclusive with politico is because she knows what the justice department, their investigation's a sham. january 13th of this week -- excuse me, of this year, fbi leaks to the wall street journal no one's going to be prosecuted. president made his famous statement super bowl sunday, think about it. the head of the executive branch prejudges the entire case, says there's no corruption, not even a smidgen. and the lead attorney assigned to the case, thousands of lawyers at the justice department, the lead attorney is a maxed-out contributor to the president's campaign, and we're supposed to believe this is a real investigation. so i'm like tony, you know, eric holder can't go fast enough, right? [applause]
now here's some good news. we did pass a resolution calling for a special prosecutor. and i don't think eric holder's going to do it. maybe the next guy or next lady will, whoever the next ag is. but every single republican in the house of representatives voted for it, more importantly, 26 democrats went against their president, their attorney general, their administration and said, yeah, this is so egregious, so wrong -- [applause] so i think things are starting to move in the right direction, i think we're going to see it in a few weeks when the party i belong the takes back the united states senate. and then we set the context for what's going to happen in '16. [applause] let me finish with this, let me just finish with this, and i speak all over our district can, all over the state, frankly, all over the country, and one of the things i sense is the left always wants you to think you're in the minority. there are millions of people just like you all over the country who are doing what i said earlier, getting off the sidelines and getting in the
game because they care about this country. and our nation has always risen to the occasion. polly and i were traveling, we have a daughter who goes to school in iowa city, a friend in madison and some friends in chicago, and we were driving that triangle over easter weekend, and we're coming across route 88 across illinois, and polly's driving, i'm kind of half asleep in the passenger seat, and as we're driving along, she sees this sign that says dixon, illinois, hometown of ronald reagan. and she just whips the car, whips the car off the road, and i say what are we doing? she said we're going to reagan's boyhood home. it's kind of like where we live in rural ohio, you pull in this little town, and just one street off the main drag is reagan's street, and you saw what made this guy such a great leader. his humble beginnings and the values he possessed and how he was able to articulate what made our country special. and it was just a neat -- if you're ever driving, do it.
two little old ladies, you give them $5, and they take you on a tour with the local historical society. it's well worth it. but it took you back to what made this guy so special and what's truly great about this country. we were, i may have shared this with you last time, but it's a story that has stuck with me. a couple years ago we had some friends -- again, capturing the kind of leadership reagan had and what this country's about and the makeup of its people. we had some friends a few years ago, summertime, two summers ago call us up and say we want to go to dinner, and they're down in the dayton, ohio, area. we had the evening free so polly and i said, yeah, we'll go down. we were going to -- they said before we go to dinner, we're going to tour the wright brothers' home. sure, we'd like that, you know? the house we live in is built in 1837, so we like that kind of stuff. yeah, we'd love to do that. and you go down, you go through the tour and, again, it's the same kind of thing, historical society, and you go all the way through it.
the last room they take you to, it's one of the brothers' bedroom, i can't recall which brother. they show you two pictures. the first picture is that first flight, kitty hawk 1903 and this contraption they called an airplane flew like 101 feet. you were like how did they get the thing off the ground, but it's, you know, first flight. okay, i remember that, you know, from whatever grade in school you learn those kind of things. they put that down. the next picture they hold up, 44 years later, 1947, chuck yeager breaking the sound barrier. now think about that. this country with people just like you in 44 years two guys flying 100 feet in a contraption they called a plane to chuck yeager breaking the sound barrier. it's an amazing place. it is an amazing place. [applause] they put that down, they put that picture on down, and i'm walking out the door, and literally it hit me, i'm like,
we're in ohio. i represent new knoxville, ohio. why in the heck did they stop there? they should have had the third picture, right? because 22 years later, 1969, another american -- another ohioan, stepped on the moon. so you think about this country in 66 years two guys flying a hundred feet to putting a man on the moon. it is true hi the greatest nation -- it is truly the greatest nation ever, and there is nothing -- [applause] there is no policy, no crazy, goofy thing that this administration can do that we can't overcome if we're willing to remember the values that made us special in the first place. and there is an attitude that has always characterized this nation. i think it's best summed up in my favorite scripture book, second timothy 4:7. paul's writing to timothy, it's like the older guy giving advice to the younger guy. fight the good fight, finish the course and keep the faith. it's a verse of action, it is a
verse associated with america. we have always been a nation of action. when it looks tough, when the obstacle's big, we rise to the occasion because we fight, we finish and we keep faith and the values that made this country special. that's why this day so important, this organization is so important and what you're doing so critical to our great country remaining the greatest nation in history. god bless ya, have a great day. [applause] ..