tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 9, 2014 2:00am-4:01am EDT
caller: i don't see nothing happening in washington. i'm going to vote. i'm probably going to vote mostlyemoc think theycaller: i carry little bit more about the people. but even they are financed by the billionaires. guest: that is an interesting take away. democrats of not been doing well with working-class voters. a generation ago, they used to dominate among the demographic. iowa has a lot of middle-class voters that are feeling the economic squeeze. these voters usually trend democratic. are plenty of signs in iowa that president obama is very unpopular. that the democrats are not anymore caring about the working
class than the republicans are. the republican nominee has run a very personality centric campaign. she has talked about her career as a farmer, her career as a military veteran, someone engaging, someone using her personal biography in a very significant way. that is an advantage she has. host: steve in pennsylvania. independent caller. isler: the media in general not keeping up to speed and neither are the candidates for the democratic or the republican parties, keeping up to speed with what is going on with the silent majority of the independent voters which is considered one third of the voting electorate. a very bigsue is thing in pennsylvania and a couple of other key states for the senate races.
the opinion is being thrown out on the television by the media, they have not even affected the people on the streets. the street talk with neighbors and stuff like that is that the obamacare is also killing the middle class, especially in our area. i know of seven neighbors they cannot get insurance and it is like, ok, they went to the government exchanges and they got screwed. host: ok. the aca. guest: it has not got as much attention in recent weeks. there was a very fascinating analysis in the ads. republican ads in the big senate races overwhelmingly focus on the health care law. it is still a tribe or four --ublican boaters -- voters it is still a focus for the republican voters.
care is the sleeper. people think it has faded away. but it is one of the dominant issues tied to the economy, as the caller suggested. if republicans take the senate, it would be the top reason. host: let's go back to iowa. bob is there. caller: a couple of comments to my fellow iowa colleague. i'm going to vote for joni ernst. carolina saidorth that he wants to debate and they never answered the questions. i have been watching all the debates. the democrats and the republicans never answer the questions. their canned speeches, they go into their talking points. it is just like, why even have a debate? it is just interesting. back to iowa. your response on joni
ernst winning this race? also on the congressional districts. the one that most back -- mosbeck has. , it is one of the few open seats where you do not have an incumbent on the ballot. if it is a good republican year, that generally favors republicans. joni ernst has run a good campaign and has raised more money than bruce braley. i would give a small advantage to joni ernst. she leads by 2-6 points in most public polls. host: what about senator tom harkin? is he helping out bruce braley? guest: he is very popular and has a lot of clout. facesoblem bruce braley -- a lot of it is fundamentally he is a member of congress, he is someone who is an attorney,
it has been hard for him to connect to your average middle-class voter. he is not politically charismatic as ernst. in a close race ended environment that favors republicans, that is a challenge to overcome. changednvironment has and ernst has run a strong campaign, she has started to pull ahead. i would expect it would take a for loebsack to lose. it should be a democratic old. is third district in iowa one of the best democratic pickup opportunities in the country. young and you have stacy appel. woman tobe the first
recognize -- represent iowa in congress, joni ernst or stacy appel. those are historic on other sides. host: ray is an independent caller. caller: i'm interested in the governor's race in maryland. host: did you what's the debate last night? caller: yes, i did. i thought of this great and i hope hogan wins. he at least has some common for the budget of maryland. host: civic issue for you. caller: yes. guest: that is one of the surprising governor raises. . lot closer anthony brown so has the lead, but the republican'sand is much more competitive than anyone ever expected.
the democratic governors association has put more money in maryland. affluent voters in some of these big governors races. there are a lot in montgomery county, baltimore county, wealthy voters. they are not a fan of the tax proposals by governor o'malley. pat quinn has hit on taxes. daniel malloy has been surprisingly notable. because of some of the tax and spend policies in connecticut. has become a sleeper issue in the governor's races. that is the headline from "the washington times."
brown duals over the economy. be airing some of the debates that we did not get to last night later in the week. georgia. we will be airing the arkansas senate debate. let's go to north carolina. fayetteville. republican caller. brian, did you watch the debate? caller: i did. my response is jibber jabber. i got a choice of the lesser of two evils. a political scientist and an attorney. i still feel like i need to decide by flipping a coin. them weree neither of
responsive to the questions. they are always canned answers. tillis is from the republican run party. it is a terrible party. i have been a republican for 20 years and i hate the north carolina state republican party currently. i don't mind the national party. that is why i am a member still. d.c. gan is always up in i might as well just flip a coin. i can't decide which is the lesser evil. host: can i ask you how you feel about president obama? caller: mixed emotions. i felt like he got handed a bad deal in the beginning, but he has had six years and there have been some serious problems. they could have been handled much better.
everybody knows about benghazi, the cia, the irs. there are tons of issues that have happened and every president has them. he has serious, sincere issues in the beginning. monopoly andmplete control in the beginning to pass the aca. i voted for obama in 2008. i'm partially a swing voter. i hated sarah palin. i liked john mccain, but i could not stomach stare a palin. -- sarah palin. guest: that caller reflects the challenges that tom tillis is facing in north carolina. north carolina voted for mitt romney in 2012. votedou have a caller who as a swing conservative voter who does not like tom tillis and does not think he answered the
issues at the debate. tom tillis has underperformed among republicans. he is getting fewer republican votes than most of the other republican senate candidates. that is a big problem with tom tillis and why the race is so close. host: the front page of the wall street journal this morning has this headline. voters are excited about nobody. bill is a democratic caller. morning.ood i have a couple of comments and the question. i just moved to florida two years ago. i have never seen such negative campaigns in my life. i have been around. it seems like every commercial down here is a negative campaign. the two guys running for governor are awful and their negative campaigning. absolutely --ople accidentally hit the libertarian
button. the negative campaigning is absolutely terrible. these people running for state ,epresentative, state auditor they are all on this anti-president obama campaign. even they are running negative campaigns. there are not a lot of excited voters. have an intensity advantage. as there is a lot of anti-obama sentiment. you look at a lot of the third-party candidates. you have the independent candidate in kansas who is leading pat roberts, who has not ever since he was elected in 1980 into the house. this is a race where he has never had a race in his life. you have this independent running who is five or six points ahead. there is a very anti-washington, antiestablishment sentiment.
i think it will translate more to the gop side. the senate and the white house hold both of those branches, the democrat side. eric cantor was out this spring. what will you be watching for in kansas in the coming weeks? republicans are belatedly trying to nationalize this race by portraying the independent candidate as a democrat in disguise who is getting support from harry reid and democratic donors. that has the potential to have a significant impact, given that they do not know who greg gorman is. because this is such an anti-washington environment and pat roberts has so much trouble on his right flank and his middle flank, that is a really serious challenge.
host: let's go to new jersey. james is an independent collar. caller: hello, c-span. hey josh. [indiscernible] minimum wage, $7.25 per hour. most of the states. stampshave to get food to survive on seven a list on a five cents per hour. -- $7.25 per hour. [indiscernible] raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour for the poor people. host: is minimum wage an issue?
guest: democrats are hoping it is to mobilize their base to the polls. it has not mentioned been all that much in advertisements. trouble speaking about the economy more broadly. there are so many issues in the news. whether it is a terror threat in the middle east or immigration or the fear that a lot of americans face about economic comfort. just saying you are going to raise the minimum wage. it helps get the base out there, but it does not persuade a lot of people. host: we are talking with josh kraushaar, the political editor for "national journal." watch is our discussion. let's go to bedford hills, new york. michael is a republican. caller: good morning, everyone. good morning, josh.
trendingn is [indiscernible] it is trending among the students and teachers and going across the university. [indiscernible] asking theampaign people to not enter this because the congress did not do anything for our country. in thee just interfering domestic issues of the country. here is my question for josh. did the government feedback abouts holdingnd opening and
this page on the facebook which is against congress and both sides? maybe this will translate to other countries and develop in other countries because there is no limitation for facebook. host: josh. guest: not quite sure what the question was. it sounds like social media. and otherfacebook tools to drive voter turnout. candidates from both parties are utilizing it. host: it is that a prominent tool in the toolbox? guest: this is nothing new. the big challenge for republicans, they still have had problems with getting the voter identification, getting the tools to micro target voters with the same precision levels the democrats have. tools make, these
about a pointer to of difference , but if it is a decisive outcome, it will not change the results. host: which groups come which people are going to be making the difference in some of these races? guest: outside money is the story of the senate landscape. on the republican side, you have a hold host of groups like american crossroads. tens of millions of dollars in big battleground states. of if theyquestion have the same amount of money as 2010 or 2012. they are going to have quite enough money to play in the big battleground states that we are all talking about. americans for prosperity and some affiliated groups associated with the koch roleers have played a huge
in getting people paying attention to the races early on in the election cycle. people were engaging as early as february and march of this year attacking each other. issues came up months ago. the first groups to get involved against obamacare and it really crystallized these races. afp has come up with a new ground game that they are displaying in iowa and other races. guest: they claim they have a sophisticated operations that is going to be crucial. they also cut back on the advertising. they spent a ton of money early on in the cycle. they have cut back and little bit. a have not spent quite at the same level as they were earlier in the year. might be concerned
that they are getting outspent in a state like north carolina or colorado. host: are there democratic groups to watch? the democratic side is a more coordinated effort. run byate majority pac former staffers to harry reid spend more money than any other single super pac. most of the democratic outside money is through senate majority pac. they have kept them a craddick incumbent in the game and some e difficult states. states where republicans look like a national -- natural political edge. helpedate pac money has tremendously. are they coordinating with groups like planned parenthood, moveon? guest: there is much more
coordination, much more to the same messages. they know a lot of the same people that are involved in the campaigns. on the republican side, you have folks like the koch brothers that are much more oriented to anti-obamacare message and you have the more republican outside groups who may want to help a campaign in a different way. some of the messages have been differentcolleges to our audien. we will go to kingsland georgia -- apologies to our audience. we will go to kingsland, georgia. an.er: i'm a veteran for -- i am a vietnam veteran.
the last time a motive for george bush. was for george bush. the republican candidates seem to have a very low iq. what are their issues? criticismsof the from a lot of democrats and republicans is that republicans are running to prevent defense. they are running against obama and his policies. are not advancing their own policies because they think that it is so favorable to them that they do not want the democrats to criticize what they would offer on certain issues. it is pretty clear where republicans stand. they are against the health care law. issuess a broad array of where all republican candidates stand. one of the
you are challenges is that you don't really have an agenda with specific policies that s are running on. you've seen mostly anti-obama or anti-democratic ads rather than a pro sort of policy. host: good morning. caller: good morning. will be a tsunami of young republicans that are really concerned about our nation and where it's headed. straight to vote republican ticket in hopes to get the country back on track again. it's been a mess the last few years. everybody will agree on that. for rick scott, and
not for charlie crist. i'm going to vote did -- straight republican and i think we will take the house and in 2016, we will take the white house back. what about her prediction? guest: the governors race will be pretty telling. you have a lot of money. the florida's governor's race will be really -- usually, governors races do not track with as much attention, but florida's race, i think most will watch it pretty closely. and marco rubio was talked about a little bit, but he will be a surrogate for rick scott, someone who has presidential ambitions of his own. he will be watching his own state numbers very closely. host: lori clark on twitter says
this -- let's be honest, does and when the beast elections will matter? were still going to get gridlock, right? gett: we will still gridlock in all likelihood. there are areas where a democratic or republican senator , judgese a difference most likely. democrats change the filibuster level earlier in the year. but if republicans retake the senate, that is on the neck up come back to haunt them. we are not expecting any retirement in the next couple of years, but if that were to happen, that would give republicans a lot more leverage. view, strategic point of if they get control of the congress, they could pass legislation and get -- put pressure on the president politically. they could hypothetically pass an immigration bill that is more to their party's liking, more
border security for example. it might give president obama less leverage or less ability to say that these republicans aren't passing anything and that there to saying that -- what they are against. if they play their cards right, they could put pressure on the white house. host: millman, democratic caller. i'mer: i'm a democrat and trying to find out what these democrats, they have set down their policies to help people, but now they are running away from their own policies. host: are they? you seen a lot of democrats distancing themselves from president obama. using this in the kentucky senate race -- you have seen this in the kentucky senate race.
is the veteran senate minority leader, but she's in kentucky. and she's having a lot of trouble explaining -- she was asked whether she voted for president obama in 2012 and she just ignored the question at a recent press conference. there are other challenges. we have about 10 minutes left. i want to get more of your phone calls and foes of the lines are open for republicans. we will go to marion potomac -- more of your phone calls in. the lines are open for republicans. we will go to marion in atomic. -- i'm wondering why anyone who makes less than 250,000 dollars year would want to vote for a republican. they are sending our jobs abroad. the chinese are now buying homes in atomic and all over canada for -- in potomac and all over canada for cash.
300 million people around the world are in poverty. and they refuse to give benefits to people who have been looking for jobs for more than two years, but they keep making the rich richer. and now they are thinking again of giving tax cuts to the super wealthy. as an independent, who are you more inclined to vote for? caller: i'm not come through with everything mr. obama has done, but i think he's the lesser of two evils. guest: that is the hope that democratic senate rates as a senate race in maryland, but like are many who don't obama, but don't like obama either or -- or don't like republicans either.
, anda tough challenge especially given how polarized our country is right now. but it is the name of the game for the democratic party. ohio.cincinnati democratic caller. that ini'm concerned two years, if are public and get both houses, was going to happen? how will they fix social security? social security, medicare, they are called the third rail in politics for good reason. when the issue comes up, even conservative republicans talk about how they want to protect social security, how they want to make sure it is sustained for another generation. republicans were talking more
about social security, trying to you would expect in some of these bluish or purple districts. somean you would expect in of these bluish or purple districts. it is not a politically popular thing to say that you're going to cut benefits or reform the program. but that is a political vulnerability with republicans that they are trying to inoculate themselves with. host: jacob, democratic caller in new york. you're on the air. caller: hello. can i say my question? host: yes, please. caller: i want to talk about congress. congress has done nothing for the american people. does the new congress want to continue that way?
what about the people, the 5 million that are below the poverty line? i think congress should discontinue its action. thank you. one thing i've really seen is that since 2006, wave election after wave election. democrats swept seats indeed conservative territory that year, and then republicans got all back in 2010. 2012 was a status quo election, but 2014 was again shaken up. a very good republican year is taking place right now. i don't think we realize how volatile and dissatisfied our country's voters are. it's a very turbulent time. see a lot of new votes of no confidence on both sides in the last decade.
in 2016, you could see a senate, but there's a good chance for public and could take it back. host: why is that? upst: some of the seats are and there is the competitive landscape. but also because the republicans have power. and if approval ratings are as low as they are today, they will take more outrage out with republicans, i would imagine. host: and they will have to defend more seats. it's favorable for republicans in 2014. it's about as favorable for the crack in 2016. host: alex, you're on the air. i was viewing your channel and i saw some previous
a remarkying to make about boycotting elections. congress has made a very -- according to some polls from gallup, the american of thedo not approve congress. the congressmen are not doing in focusing on american problems. they are focused on international issues rather than caring about domestic problem's. guest: the latter point, the fact that we are talking about social issues and economic big concern. in colorado, almost 50% of the arecratic ads in colorado
relating to abortion or contraception. it's a way to mobilize the base and try to paint the republican nominee as extreme. it may be effective. it certainly had an impact. it's remarkable how the issues mentioned in a lot of the ads don't match with the issues that most americans say are their top economy, health care. they need to mobilize their bases rather than appealing to the 5% or 6% of the middle. the ads don't really connect to what the voters are talking about. host: sandy in new york. we lost her. we will go on to lyle in plainfield, illinois. republican caller. caller: i think people misunderstand what is happening in the world.
talk about the republicans representing the rich, but obama flies across the country and has all these meetings at a rate of $50,000 per plate. that sure is in the middle class or the poor people going to the dinners financing obama. has athe washington times story about that this morning, obama was the wealthy while knocking the billionaires. guest: that has been the democrats a gridded banished that they've had. i think it -- secret advantage that they've had. i think as cost obama this year. politically.
you hear senate majority leader harry reid talk about the secret money on the republican side and all of the outside groups, but democrats have just as much financial firepower. perhaps more so, when you compare the outside groups money and the room -- and the presidential fundraisers. when you look at the fact -- the fat cats, they are a lot more democratic than you would expect. story in thee is a new york times. bloomberg tries to help centrist with tv ads. that is, michael bloomberg. will he be a factor? guest: that will be one to watch. rick snyder is in a very tentative campaign. michael bloomberg has tended to support more vulnerable democrats. helping out rick snyder, he's in
a very tough race. and i can make a difference. host: four rick snyder? guest: four rick snyder. michael bloomberg is saying that --is a bad economic steward some are saying he is a bad economic steward. for michael bloomberg to come in and say he supports him, that could make a difference. host: good morning, next caller. caller: good morning. i watched c-span all the time. i love the program. i was not active most of my life in politics. i voted. two things that spoke to me. at this point, i am what my children called a radical progressive democrat. if you look at history, which i do now, and you see what the republican party has represented
over the last 30 years or 40 ands since president reagan you realize what they've done to who votesry, anyone republican doesn't know what they're doing. they have not researched. they have not checked facts. they have put fear into the american people. they have created the hate for .resident obama, not mr. obama president obama. wrap up your,e what are you watching for in the coming days and weeks? battlegrounds that are worth watching closely -- california, iowa, colorado. is a wave election, and
if republicans win two of these states, and you could even throw new hampshire into this mix in the close race with scott brown. it's a good time for the republicans to take the senate. these are 2016 battlegrounds that the republicans have made inroads into. colorado, iowa, north carolina. in colorado, this is the first election that they have voted all by mail. that could speed things up in an ironic sense. the other thing is, the are asr's race, there many 12 -- as many as 12 sitting governors. there could be a lot of governors thrown out in some unusual state. like the maryland race. i don't think anthony brown is going to lose of lieutenant governor. but a surprisingly close race, dan malloy in connecticut.
ukraine conflict, and the military response to militants in syria and iraq. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone. i'm very privileged to be here with foreign secretary philip hammond. here at the state department. i am even more privilege to work with him and perform a partnership that gives full gusto to the meaning of the special relationship that great britain and the united states share. so it is important to us to continue and i think as philip mentioned, they have probably met a times already in the
course of a few weeks of his being on this job. and i think it shifted from the defense secretary. we share a lot in this effort and in the fight against eisel, the people have ardley bore this heavy burden and it's a pain felt heavily by both countries. we have seen barbaric acts that have shocked the conscience of the world. but the response of both of our countries is not to wilt away but to fight. to push back against this barbarity. we are doing so. i want to thank the foreign secretary philip hammond for the commitment that the united kingdom has made to the international coalition that will degrade and feet isil over the next months and the period
ahead. the royal air force is now conducting airstrikes on isil. the united kingdom and has provided some of the strongest humanitarian support in iraq, more than $76 million in food and shelter and medicine to save the lives of the people. the united states and the united kingdom are standing together as we battle ebola in west africa. we are monitoring is particularly and we are very grateful for the way that great britain has wrapped up its efforts in sierra leone, including deploying a civil military task force and constructing more than 700 beds in an ebola treatment unit and providing essential supplies and personnel. president obama has made it crystal clear that ebola is an
urgent and global crisis that demands an urgent and global response. the united states has intensified every aspect of our engagement which includes providing ebola treatment units and recruiting first responders and supplying a critical set of medical equipment. just 48 hours ago president obama reconvened another strategy meeting at the white house to discuss where we are and where we need to get to and i would like to discuss that in a moment. in addition to that i have been in daily contact with roger shah and the usaid director and the deputy secretary of state, heather higginbotham and are ebola coordinator nancy powell to make sure that we are bringing all of our resources to this effort to rid and i'm here
this morning to make an urgent plea to countries in the world to step up even further. while we are making progress, we are not where we can say that we need to be. and there is additional needs that have to be met in order for the global community to be able to properly respond to this challenge and to make sure that we protect people in all of our countries. and there are specific needs and i would like to emphasize those needs by showing a few slides if i can. as you can see in the first slide, to my left we need more countries to move resources of specific kinds. it is not just a question of sending people although it is vital to send people. we need ebola treatment units
and medevac capacity. mobile laboratory and staff. we need nonmedical support and telecommunications, generators and incinerators. public medications capacity, training and construction. we also need large assistance of health systems strengthening and cash that countries can contribute, food, other humanitarian efforts, and we need ways of getting that equipment to people. all of these things are frankly urgent in order to be able to quickly move to contain the spread of ebola. we need airlines to continue to operate and we need to strengthen the medevac capacity. we need countries to continue more ebola treatment centers and others to send responders to join the effort and to make sure
that the health care workers are properly trained and properly equipped and supported in order to prevent additional infections. as you can see in the next slide to my left ear, this gives you a sense of who has contributed in what they have contributed. the fact is that the united kingdom and the united states between them have contributed $120 million to the united nations responds and there are also smaller countries that have stepped up to the point. some quite remarkably, some are contributing way above their per capita population compared to other countries. but the fact is that more countries can and must step up in order to make their contributions felt. this chart tells the story. they are not enough countries to make the difference to be able to deal with this crisis and we need more nations.
every nation has the ability to do something. and next we will show, as you see, we have a shortfall of some $300 million. the united nations has identified $1 billion in urgent needs, which is reflected in the pie chart. the world and has put in 22%, the usa has been 11%, private or 10% and others, as you can see. this being unfunded is a critical component to be able to meet this challenge and we need people to step up now. now is the time for action and not words. frankly there is not a moment to waste in this effort. foreign secretary philip hammond and i remain deeply committed on another issue and that is the question of europe which is
whole and free and at peace. together with our partners of european union, the united states and the united kingdom are supporting ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and the ukrainian government efforts to implement important democratic reforms. we agree on the need for russia to withdraw its forces immediately from the ukraine and to end its material support for separatist and two meet amendments under the cease-fire which they have agreed to. as well as put in place the peace plan agreements. bush's actions over the past month have challenged the most basic principles of our international system. borders cannot and should not be redrawn at the barrel of a gun. and people have a right in their own country with in their sovereign borders to determine their own future. so together with the g-7, our
european partners and are a layer and trent other allies, we are making it clear that we are prepared to do more to make sure this international order prevails and that with one voice we can prove that we mean what we say and we say what we mean. until finally i would like to mention that tomorrow morning foreign secretary hammond and i will travel to boston to focus on an issue that animates president obama and prime minister cameron -- both of them who have also demanded our urgent attention and that is our shared responsibility confront climate change. i appreciate the foreign secretary personal leadership on this issue. we can conclude a new international agreement that is ambitious and effective and inclusive of all countries, particularly the largest greenhouse gas initiatives of which we are one.
but we will also only get there in the end, even if one were to eliminate this, that will not do the job, we will only get there in the end if we make it clear that all countries must join in this effort and that inaction is not an option. mr. foreign secretary, i am delighted to welcome you here at this time of obvious significant global challenge and we greatly appreciate, as i have said, your partnership and leadership and i look forward to working with you. thank you. sumac thank you very much, john. it's a great pleasure to be back here in washington in my new role as foreign secretary. when i came here the defense secretary, i was always clear that the u.s. is our most important military partner. the equally clear that the united states is our greatest foreign-policy ally and the
range of issues that we have discussed today reflects how we work together on this huge range of issues in foreign affairs. that relationship is based on our shared history and our shared values and our long-standing cooperation on a range of global issues from the threat of extremism, promoting stability in countries such as libya and dealing with the challenge to the established order in ukraine, addressing crises like ebola and promoting an ambitious free-trade agreement. as i want to begin, if i may, by paying tribute to secretary john kerry for his energy and reserve in dealing with some of the most challenging foreign-policy issues that the world has faced for a while. i have only been in this job for three months and as john has said, we have already met several times every week and we
seem to be in a different city somewhere discussing these challenging issues that we are having to deal with. and so i have seen his commitment with inexhaustible in the csm which is the personification of u.s. leadership on these many leadership issues that we deal together with around the world. it comes today will in a pivotal moment addressing the situation in iraq and syria and responding to the atrocities that are being committed. atrocities that have been visited in the uk and the u.s. and also being felt by ordinary muslim iraq and syria individuals every day of every week. it's clear that isil acquires a strong military response from the international community and that has to be combined with a
clear diplomatic plan to support the new iraqi government and hampered isis and their resources and political strategy to combat the poisonous ideology and stop those trying to spread hatred across the region and beyond. we now have those elements in place and i am pleased that britain is playing a key role in that response, leading efforts to cut the funding and a counter radicalization program and now raf combat jets contributing to the military response. britain will continue to work closely with coalition partners on further actions that we can face across the international community to ensure that we tackle isil not just through military action but through
other actions which are essential to ensure our long-term success. and also as secretary john kerry has discussed, the situation in the ukraine has crucial importance of implement and 12-point peace plan. and it is a sovereign country, they are trying to make their decisions about their country's future and there can be no rush and the veto on the ukrainian democracy. and president at your parish and go will meet to ensure stability within the country we have spent some time discussing about how we can work with international partners particularly in the european union to continue to support president petro poroshenko.
and of course we spoke with the appalling situation in west africa where the spread of the virus is a real cause for concern. last week i chaired a conference in london on defeating ebola. and i said then that the disease is an unprecedented threat knows no borders and we have to get ahead of this. but if we get ahead of it and if we rise to the challenge, we can contain it and we know how to do this. it is not obligated to do but it only requires a large focus of resources and efforts to deliver it. secretary john kerry and i have discussed the measures that we are leaving in liberia and that the uk is reading in sierra leone. we now need is a secretary has said, the wider international community to step up to the plate and to deliver that additional resource.
but trained medical personnel to lead that effort on the ground and we all have to do more if we are going to prevent what is currently a crisis from becoming a catastrophe. the uk has committed over $200 million to the program in sierra leone and we have military and civilian teams on the ground and the construction program to deliver 700 ebola treatments. i joined a cobra emergency meeting the this morning thinking it from the british embassy here and we decided at the meeting to deploy this with as the helicopters embarked to provide capabilities on the ground. we are conducting trials in sierra leone of a new model of
the care unit, a primary care triage system for those with early-stage symptoms. and so it's also important that we remember that our national security is dependent upon our economic security. we cannot have a strong defense without a strong economy. we did this afternoon i will be holding a discussion at the atlantic council here in washington on the benefit of the trans-atlantic trade and investment partnership between the united states and the eu. the uk remains committed to this ambitious field and will be a cheerleader for it within the european union. if we achieve it, it will create the largest free-trade zone in the world, bringing more jobs and more growth to both europe and the united states. as well as setting the standards for trade deals for many years to come, allowing us to
establish our international standards as the standard for trade has occurred in the coming decades. tomorrow i look forward to our visit to massachusetts and the clean energy centers clean when energy tomorrow. we represent a strategic threat to global prosperity and to global security. innovation and investment in clean energy technology must be at the heart of our response and can help us turn threats into an economic opportunity. the uk and the u.s. will work together to ensure that the world response to this threat before it's too late, including to the conclusion of an effective global climate deal through the end of next year.
once again, gentlemen, i am delighted to be here and i thank you again for your leadership on these multiple challenges that we face and i look forward to working with you across all of these areas of activity to preserve and strengthen this very special relationship. i thank you. >> the first question will be from the moderator of cnn's. >> thank you, mr. secretary. has there been a decision now, others suggested that you had larger strategic priorities than saving the than other cities and towns. soldiers of at the ready, this nato ally has not done really much to say this town inches from the border. what did you ask the prime minister to do in recent conversations? the president has said that
unless you have to get rid of the shellmac, is this an excuse? are you deferring to turkey here? have you not been partnering with the kurds who have been battling them for a year and the foreign secretary, you spoke a lot about what you are doing for the coalition, particularly in iraq. and i'm wondering whether you see britain furthering that action into syria or is there a kind of disagreement on whether the british to take part in air strikes and what the goals are in syria? thank you. >> thank you. well, we are deeply concerned about the people of kobani who are battling against isil terrorists. and indeed we have talked with
those and i talk to them twice yesterday and the day before and we have conducted strikes both monday and tuesday and also now. and as horrific as it is for us to watch it in real time, what is happening here is also important to remember that you must step back and understand the strategic objective as well as where we have begun over the last weeks. we are literally just coming out of the u.n. meeting at which we announced the coalition and we have just been deploying the first efforts to liberate, as you know, sanchar mountain and the siege on this and we are very successful in those
efforts. iraqi forces within iraq are standing up and it had some successes over the course and general allen is literally on his first trip right now in the region. he will be going to turkey tomorrow is going to have long meetings through tomorrow and also friday in which we hope to determine exactly how turkey will enter this having resolved their hostage crisis. and they recognize that. these things must be done in a thoughtful and careful way so everyone can understand who is doing white and what the implications are that they are doing it and where you go as a result. i am absolutely confident that tomorrow the discussions will take place directly with the
ambassador and general allen and they are very much involved in directing those strikes now and doing what he can within the framework of the current structure. but this is a structure that is evolving on a daily basis and notwithstanding the crisis in kobani, the original targets of our efforts have been the command and control centers and the infrastructure as well as trying to deprive isis of the overall ability to wage this throughout syria and in iraq. so i think that you will see over the next hours and days the fullness of that strategy involving and the decisions being made about the turks and others as to exactly what role they are going to play.
>> following on from that you asked about the uk position and we were asked by the iraqi government to provide support in iraq and we attained parliamentary approval for that support and we are already in action. we absolutely have not ruled out playing a role in syria. but we will wire further parliamentary approval if we decide that that is the right thing for us to do. as secretary john kerry said, this is a coalition and there are many different tasks to be carried out. with some division of labor here and specialization of roles. so we wait to see exactly how turkey will make its contribution to the coalition so the uk is still considering the right way for us to make a contribution and the way in which we can most usefully add value and extend our military permissions to operations in syria if we concluded is the right thing to do and we will
ask the british parliament for approval of those decisions. >> the second question is from peter foster. >> thank you. my first question relates to kobani in syria. the french president has supported his call for a buffer zone. do you have any comment on that or what purpose it might serve. just to follow up on iraq and serious situation, the foreign secretary indicated that britain would be receptive to an american request if there was a specific military role that we could play. so do you see a useful role they could play in syria, particularly where they could have a role in these closed urban environments.
dc america and the role for britain in syria? >> this is very new territory and we are only in the first week or two of the coalition existence of operation. the idea of this is one that has been floated and we have to explore with other allies and partners how such this would work. but i certainly don't want to rule it out at this stage. in terms of the uk's potential military contribution in syria, we would see this as a militarily useful role that we could play and the secretary may want to say something about that. but the question is where the military people and general allen will be in the lead on
this. with a specific role and i'm sure that they will not be slow in a statement. >> in broad generic terms can great britain be useful two yes, in so many different ways. but as philip has said, a specific determination that has to be made with respect to a specific mission and the top two, it's up to the general to make that when he does so with his counterparts and with the president in respect to the overall mission. and there's no question that we are very happy to have our friend and ally as part of this and there are all kinds of things that we can do together in this endeavor. >> the buffer zone, as philip said, it's been out there and
it's worth examining and looking at closely. there are a million plus refugees who have crossed the border and another hundred 80,000 or so driven out from kobani. this should not be a problem that is rest upon turkey were jordan where they bear an incredible burden with respect to their society. if syrian citizens can return to syria. and be protected in an area across the border, there is a lot that would commend that and at the same time you have to guarantee safety and guarantee that there wouldn't be this or other things would have happened. so thorough examination, all in favor of looking at this closely, that will clearly be one of the things that general allen will be having discussions on and subsequently we will have discussions on this over the
[laughter] i want to welcome you all here and say thank you for helping us and thank you for those personal words that you gave. if you would allow me, i joined the foreign service as a young officer and i can remember being given a job at one point to take a piece of paper and it was urgent and i was told to get this piece of paper over there. i got up on the seventh floor and i ran down the court order towards the deputy secretary's office and finally someone stepped down and grab me by the arm and said, don't ever run in the scoreboard again. [laughter] and i can tell you that 25 years later when general powell gave me the opportunity, i ran down a quart or all the time.
and i want to join in thanking the sponsors. my plan for today is to engage the journal and i in a conversation and there are certain number of things that were true at the state department, one with bad general powell needs no introduction and i would say that a long list of things that you read in your program, he is also a great teacher. what he taught us was you can do great things and still be a good human being and that the people matter and that optimism is a force multiplier. those are lessons that i've taken with it a rest my life. i also want to say that i had the good fortune to watch a program. the director of the foreign institute here, i was struck by the reception the general powell was given at that event by
people who recognize what he had done for the state department and the foreign service and the civil service and another we have here the two winners from the leadership awards and i thank you very much for being here with us. that came from general powell and i appreciate it very much. we will get to today's event, i am sure and we will take questions from the audience. i thought we might think about the larger questions of america and also going forward not necessarily looking back. first i must ask this question. which was after four years at the state department when he went back to private life, i have asked this. >> the reason is simple because it is protocol.
you never become a former general. [laughter] most people remembered me has from my military career and at the department of department of state summit he came in late in the afternoon and i said as long as i'm here, it is mr. secretary and that is how we will operate for the next four years however long it is. >> there were a lot that came in and my legislative affairs guy was a marine and it looked like the pentagon had finally
succeeded in its ultimate wish to take over the state department. but i think that we demonstrated to the department that we were here to do the best we could for the department and we were here to be partners. >> thank you very much. one of the things that always struck me in our conversations and in our writings and other things you have said is the importance that you gave to diplomacy and it's just sort of walk and walking around without force. and so i've always felt strongly that you should try to prove negotiations due to this and anytime we can solve the problem that way and not use voice and satisfy her objectives, let's push for that. the voice always has to be available and in the corner and i don't think we need to advertise it. everyone knows what we can do and it's also part of my
experience that when it does not achieve the political purpose, that we do it in a decisive manner and make sure that we understood what we are getting into and the political objective that we are trying to achieve and that we tried to bring the conflict to a resolution as quickly as we possibly could using decisive force and then get back to peacemaking and get back to diplomacy. >> you think that those linkages are well made today and as you are in front of a group here that is interested in this, but is that a link to something that is well understood? >> i think the american people understand instinctively because it's commonsensical. it's not always the history of the united states in my experience, i have had a couple of operations that clearly were meeting that standard when we
invaded panama in 1979, there was a particular reason to do it in the original plan was to remove general noriega. when the incident came to do that, i recommendation to secretary cheney supported was not just remove him but the entire defense force to start fresh and we had a president in hiding and we went in with the 28,000 to take out noriega but it did the trick and we have now seen multiple peaceful democratic elections take place in panama over the last 25 years and the same thing with desert storm. we were criticized at one point for why didn't you go to baghdad. supported by the congress, endorsed by the united nations and supported by almost everyone
in the world was to kick the iraqis out of kuwait. clear mission, define precisely, president bush said we could use the force we felt was necessary for the mission and it was a mission where we were also to go. i was able to say to the president but i guarantee the outcome. we saw the iraqi army essentially trapped in the desert not voting and we knew how to go around them and we were going to make sure that we had a decisive amount or is. you don't always get that set up and things can become much more difficult as they are now and we deal with situations in afghanistan and iraq and the new element of isil coming in and also having a very strong presence greeting from struck the region. it's a little bit harder will it
solve all the problems and it's a little difficult to figure out how to apply force in a way that is supported by the american people and the support of our congress and we are trying to find a way through this. the president has decided that airpower is the weapon of choice for the moment and he has put together a coalition to do that and sooner or later if you want to prevail and apply decisive force, you have to go in on the ground and the brown has to be a partisan the enemy has to know that you have lost and that forces you have to be iraqi army. and it includes the will to fight giving them the means to fight and also the diplomacy to try to bring together the different elements of iraqi society behind this effort to prevail and it can be well-equipped and well-trained
because it doesn't believe in the government central to the war, you have a problem that's the principal thing that has to be fixed right now. we store the capability and make sure they have the will to fight from the political leadership of the authorities in baghdad. >> i'm also interested in another application of force and you have laid out your criteria thing about how to use the army and military force. how do you feel about the decision to send troops and now dealing with ebola? >> dealing with the joint chiefs of staff, we have found issues like that that pop up frequently. arrive in los angeles, suddenly the army is called upon to do something about that, a hurricane in florida wiping out huge sections of south florida and the military is called upon
to deal with that. so it's not out of the usual run of things that the military has to do. this one's a little different because it is in a faraway place and it's a disease that we really don't have a handle on yet. what's wonderful about our military says is that they are so adaptable and they are so successful at organizing the logistics and no one could move like we move logistically and move the forces around. so i don't think that this is an unreasonable mission as long as they are working with health organizations from around the world and especially from the united nations. because we have to make sure his we send these young people over there that we are protecting them from the very disease that they are going over to help others stay away from and be removed from future harm and be put in isolation. that's going to take time and it's going to take a long while
before this disease runs its course. but it is the kind of mission that comes along and it has nothing to do with using oars per se, it has nothing to do what political objective but it is a humanitarian objective and the same thing that we started to do when we left the bush 41 administration we stopped and stayed too long, we got caught up in another one of these lets make this a democracy and the mission did not turn out the way we would hopefully now somalia is in a better place, but that is 20 years later. >> this morning when we were communicating a little bit, we noted very interesting special section today about energy. one of the things i know that interest me as well is the united states is having a revolution in energy and it's in a completely different place than it was 10 years ago or 15
years ago. and as this piece of paper talked about, not to become an energy power in this world again. so if you think about your time as secretary of state. the people that hold those jobs now when they say, mr. president, you have options to your immediate predecessors and have, how do you think it will affect our foreign policy imax. >> i think it will affect us very significantly and we will now become a major exporter of the fossil-based energy and there are a lot of discussions taking place as to whether we should remove restrictions as to moving this out of the country. especially when we were going through the arab oil crisis and it's not really relevant. it needs to be we studied and i don't see why we shouldn't be supporting a commodity that we have a demand we can supply. a lot of debate about the xl
pipeline and that whole project, all of that will be worked out because it is important for us that our northern neighbors including canada and mexico be seen as an energy exporter to the rest of the world. but we must be very careful that we don't think it's a weapon of some kind to use against our middle eastern friends. they will still be exporting and oil goes all around the world in different ways and we have to see it that way. the last thing i want to do to see that we are using energy in a way that is not in the interest of our friends who have been with us for all of these years providing us oil. and the whole thing is going to change. i also think based upon other activities i'm involved in that while we are in him and our ability to use natural gas and oil and other dimensions, let's continue working on clean energy and let's continue to work on
solar and wind and i'm part of a country club bloom energy, one can fit on this platform right now and he put natural gas on one end and electricity comes out the other end and there's absolutely no missions coming out and very little noise coming out, very clean energy and so we need to find ways to have clean energy. also they believe that nuclear power has a role to play in solving the energy problem. so when you're thinking about this, you also have to think about all of these options and you also have to think about what is it going to do to the environment. don't talk about what's going on with the environment. at places like china need energy and they have to have it. so they are building coal-fired plants, nuclear, wind, using everything and one thing about this that will change our economy, our relations with
other countries, the demand for energy is also increasingly rapid rate. china has 800 million people but have not yet benefited from the economic miracle that has been in china for the last four years and they want to know what is their turn and their turn will come when the chinese find new industries to put the men and as china develops new factories and continues to go through an industrial revolution, guess what they need to do that energy imax so we have to make sure with the resources that we have and the opportunities that we have, where the demand is and how can we satisfy the demand in the quickest possible way. >> a segue to my next topic. this certainly my early memory at the time that we were dominated by china as you'll recall even better than i will. i was interested in where you
got this tidbit or rebalance of asia was going on because here we are in a fight what is going on in the middle east and all of that is important. this time out there. i want to rebalance and also very importantly is your experience that tells you about how the united states has seen as credibly. >> i hate the term rebalance and reset. i have always objected to these one-word clichés that are supposed to capture very sophisticated relationship between a couple of nations. my own experience with china goes back 42 years when i was a young lieutenant colonel in the white house fellow and i was allowed to travel in china for three weeks and one of the first american military officers allowed in china since the 19 benign revolution and it was right after the coastal revolution that i was there and
saw these people. and i saw how desperate they were to get ahead and to join the world that was moving forward and i watched the last 40 years as china has come of them become the second-largest economy in the world with a totalitarian form of government and they haven't changed and they're not going to change that. for what i have tried to do his national security adviser and secretary of state has said, is to deal with the chinese respect this and it is not unreasonable. and that includes what we have on paper. it's a great deal for everybody. china makes products, based on the products to wal-mart, wal-mart sends a lot of stuff back to china and then china loans us the money they just got
from wal-mart. these guys are good. but that is the nature of the international economic system that we are in. so when you say you're going to pivot, it means you're turning toward something and it also means are turning away from something. so when we committed to asia, the chinese immediately saw this as pivoting towards us, coming towards us and all of our other friends said of. america doesn't care as much about us as they used to. so some of those don't seem to be very useful. but i think what we need is a mature relationship. we have to speak with them candidly about human rights and speak with them candidly about hacking and other problems we have with them. and at the same time they need us and we need them in good and economic relationship that is also a good local relationship, even if we disagree with a lot of the policies. one of the things we have to learn in this new world is
post-world is that not everyone is ready to follow our lead just because we asked them to or want them to what we might have been able to do in the cold war. we have to realize that most important thing we can do for foreign policy interest is to fix things that are wrong in the united states of america and work hard in our infrastructure and our education, to do something about a congress that is totally constipated, if i can use an odd term. it's getting nothing done and people are watching. people are saying, okay, is that the democracy they keep telling us about imax or are they going to do more about the fact that we have more people in jail than any other nations on earth. what are they going to do about wonton among that has been pushing closer the last 12 years. not that these folks are good. but it turns out that the federal courts are putting more terrorists in jail than we ever got thrown in jail from
guantánamo bay. and so there's a way around us that we try to make it a moral cause about our country to the rest of the world. so we truly have to focus on our economy and or education in our infrastructure and our economic base. we are coming out of a bad situation that began in 2008 economically and at the same time all of our fellow citizens are sharing in the recovery and that has to be a priority. everyone in the room is doing well. if i could take you one block your control show you people that are not doing as well, we also have to make sure that we have a health care system that benefits everyone. i'm not supporting any particular health care system because i don't know enough about it. but i know that i've had nice socialized medicine for the last 56 years and works fine and i'm not suggesting everyone get military health care. but i'm saying with all the money that we spend on health
care and the needs of our citizens, we should have universal health care for everyone and i would wish that our congress in due course would start to make whatever fixes they want and realize that we have people desperately in this, including 6 million children that are uninsured to get this kind of health care. sinnott drifting too far off the subject, i feel that there is a lot that we can do with respect reassuring our allies and there's a lot we can do with fixing our own economy so we can be a light that shines before the rest of the world. i don't use terms like we are indispensable or we are number one. it means that somebody is in indispensable and they are lesser. so sometimes i think you have to
speak with a little bit more humility. people know who we are and in our strength and our economic strength politicals things and i know our military strength. so we don't have to advertise it as strongly as we sometimes do. let your light shine before you before we slip into these references. >> you have been kind of kind enough to send information on that, it speaks exactly to these questions, diversity, who is the next round of leaders in the united states. i think people would benefit from hearing about this. >> by the year 2040 or so, the next set of leaders [inaudible] and then the majority of those will be who we call minorities now. hispanic, asian americans, and african-americans. and so the passion in my life
now, what i am doing in different schools and especially in my school, i graduated from city college in new york which is about a mile from where i was born and it's been amusing to have people say well, or chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, when did you graduate from west point. and -- and they couldn't have gotten. so above my possibilities who aspire to get into west point. and they're like, did you go to this at a dell or other places and i'm like no, they went allow black folks go to the school. so i went to city college in new york and i got eight all of the education. and that became a career path going into the military because my academics and records and suggested i was going anywhere
else. they finally decided to roll this into my grade point average, earning up to 2.0 and get me out of here. [laughter] and they did it with great fanfare, get him into the army and we will never see him again. [laughter] but now i'm back. [laughter] and when i left the state department and i sat down a few weeks later, i knew that there was a small center that had been named after me and i went up there to see what was going on. i sat in the president conference room and they weren't all minority and most were immigrants and most were from somewhere else and they started telling me their stories and it was the american story repeated over and over again.
these kids came from poor families, there were no legacy students in my school because none of their parents went to college we're going to go and educate the kids who are most in need and i said i am home again, back in harlem and after a few years school decided to -- the college decided to make a school of the college named after me the colin powell school for civic and global leadership. i focus on leadership training and service so that what they study and their academic department is with a also do in the community as they perform service in these individuals are going to be leaders. what's so fascinating about them is they're not fooling around. they come from good families, they are poor, some of them have families and they are hungry and they come to school and we don't fool around. so i'm very proud of that as he
gives me the chance not just to stay here in the president and talk about present issues that allows me to participate in the future. and i get asked all the time how are we doing. simone perez said to me that after the cold war was over, a great friend of us and we were kind of talking about the situation in the post-soviet world and he said we lost all our enemies and now we have our problems. [laughter] well, we found some enemies. [laughter] we had to go find them as well. but what he is saying is that the world that you are looking at now is a world of lots of
>> >> i felt if we were going to be a team so the third thing that i did that caused a controversy is my staff said one senior we bring in all the foreign services officers to hear what is going on. i said that the civil service day but there isn't one. then there will be one. tincal of foreign affairs state and bring everybody. why should we? people said nobody will show
up than everybody showed up. the room was full. what timing and they said foreign service to do leadership training and just to create an environment where everybody trusted everybody else seeking equal to the success of foreign policy. i used to talk to mark he was my undersecretary and we will only be here a few years. it will be continued with the trading with the
department with the blending of the to and it will only work if we convince you this is the way to go. one of the greatest sources said if we go around from foreign service in civil service not a credit to the foreign service leaders every major was a value system and it has continued. >> thank you very much. the questions from my midshipmen are forward-looking. they are a band -- about advancing technology how the united states of america and
whether the military is ready and especially interesting we may be ready bayou ready to take on the challenges around the globe? but that is the last question. >>. >> with the commitment to the academy and the marine corps thank you. [applause] >> i have police believe the armed forces of the united states needs balanced capability you cannot just plan on a major war of peacekeeping we need a balanced force to make sure
the senior leadership of the armed forces has a careful assessment of what that requires then they have to go fight for it one of the most challenging things ever faced as chairman was sitting there with 2.1 million people and the russians have left the theater. i have 100 attack submarines but no more russian ships for them to attack. how do you bring that down? and the four chiefs of service sat down and made a judgment how far down we should bring the armed forces to make sure we still have a terrific armed forces with the astonishing number
i leaked that to a reporter one day and they are not happy with me. [laughter] anyway. [laughter] that is what we did. we took it down 25% bid in a way that was sensible that became of, but of course, just a few years afterwards say you have to come up with a plan that is achievable for prospective and if you don't come up with a plan from the pentagon then congress will figure out how to do it. you have to give congress for your supporters to defend and make your opponent's attack your plan. right now we are in a.d. it landed sequestration is one of the dumbest financial fiscal think i have ever seen come out of the united states congress but there it is. there really will hurt the pentagon when it kicks in again this year hopefully
congress will see in their wisdom to change that. it hurts the whole government not just the military. but we have a congress that seems incapable to do the compromising and planning and structuring that they are expected to do once they're elected to office. so i tell the young officers to be up there as it is your job to take care of the sailors and marines entrusted to your cater let us worry about what the country will look like the start of your careers with those jong americans intrusted to your care. as a young lieutenant 60 years ago if you take those in germany guard between the two trees lt. col.
when the russian army comes, you stop them. [laughter] no problem. but that was it. a very precise mission and they will do the same for the sailors and marines then it was 70,000 soldiers at the same place. and life was good. it was the same across the iron curtain i knew the commander i knew them all. then it all went away it all went away. and never forget the day gorbachev looked at me across the table he was mad at me he with shouting and me as reagan's national security adviser then he called down his face got
soft in his eyes set. bit ages said general you don't have to do anything. i thought i don't want to. [laughter] we have a good deal going your. why do i have to change? the whole world changed for me then i told my generals and admirals it is over. fate will join nato. but what also happened that pressure cooker of containment kept the world pretty stable when that came off then all kinds of things
came popping up and nobody expected. then technology expedited. we are in a wonderful world now with a cellular telephony, the internet has changed the world mostly for the better but there is some down sides as well. to the youngsters of the eye patch generation have to teach us how to use this icy what is coming next in silicon valley to show was so many steps i don't know why i care. [laughter] but i am watching that. and also keeping it from infecting our society and that is my charge to you. technology the best ever
made. [laughter] thank you. [applause] >> how do you feel? as we think about the word respect is that what you teach us general? is it humility or sense of humor? servant leadership? now i will read your formal black. you have touched our lives as you have touched the world as you have touched said kids with america's promise. can we start with prayer?
[applause] so general powell on behalf of the world affairs council of washington d.c. to the international affairs award is presented today to the honorable colin powell in recognition for upstanding service of the united states and distinguished copal diplomatic leadership on october 8, 2014, washington d.c.. and it exemplifies that nobody more than general powell. [applause]