tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 5, 2015 5:00am-7:01am EDT
rk.>> is there any one spot where you see cost increasing more than any other area? dr. collins: the clinical trial is the most expensive part. if you have to do a clinical trial of thousands of people and follow them over a period of time that is going to be very expensive. we have to come up with ways to do smaller trials. to have biomarkers to let you know if the drug is working without waiting four or five years to see what happens. those are really high priority. >> thank you. >> dr. collins, i wanted to ask you about your opinion about some work i've been doing to drive this senate appropriations committee to have one unified federal electronic health record between d.o.d. and v.a. my hope is to make sure that using the 25 million patients that the v.a. has and the 2 million patients that d.o.d. has we have one unified record.
my hope, we have this all with open code and open source to repeat the success that motorola had with the android system where they had 70,000 aps from the industry that was written to the open code of android. could you give me a comment on that? i will be coming to you with a stroke net consortium that we're putting together across illinois with five hospitals including barnes jewish, which is particularly good at working with n.i.h. dr. collins: well, i am really -- my hat is off to you for what you're doing with d.o.d. and v.a. to try to make this into a seamless health record because i know all people in the service are anxious to see that happen. it's been difficult i think with those transitions. this fits together with a broader effort to try to see if electronic health records that
are being collected on all of us can be made more interoperable so that you can walk around from one state to the next and have your health records accessible when you need them. there is in our precision medicine initiative a great need for this electronic health record to be useable in the best way. we're working with the office of the national coordinator for health i.t. on that very issue of meaningful use. the white house has a new chief data scientist who is working with us on precision medicine but i believe also is involved in the d.o.d.-v.a. to get electronic records to talk to each other. you would think this would be easier than it is. it is quite a challenge because of the way health records are not standardized, where the information in them is often text based and therefore difficult to do easy melding. >> i will interrupt you that i have put forward kirk's pretty
good plan that all imagery be jpeg and all documents be ms word. because those outcomes could advantage certain providers out there. my vision thing is because of -- the v.a. represents about ten times the patients that d.o.d. has that would go with v.a.'s standard if d.o.d. tries to cut its own rug. mr. collins: i really appreciate your idea of a pretty good plan because right now i think the perfect could actually be the enemy of the good. and what we need right now is something that's good enough as opposed to what we have. this whole idea of the blue button where individuals can get their own records would be enormously beneficial if it was actually seamlessly reduced to practice. >> thank you, senator. on two or three points then we will go to senator murray. on the stewardship discussion
the strategic plan, i want to be very supportive of that. i think that is a major announcement on your part. as i understood the announcement, the 27 centers you currently have have their plans but this would be the first time you evaluate and prioritize where you want to go as you look at all of those 27 centers to come up with an overall strategic plan. do i understand that correctly? dr. collins: that's absolutely right. >> and you hope to have that available by the end of this year? dr. collins: by december. yes, sir. >> to be very helpful. i want to be encouraging to do that. i'm very supportive of it. the questions are better asked by you, frankly to start with. , you've got those 27 plans to look at. you've got the forum to hash that out and have the internal arguments you need to have about why this is maybe a bigger priority than that.
and clearly i see this as responsive to the discussion that is you and i and you've had with many other members of this committee about let's sit down and hear from you about how to really prioritizing this. on the alzheimer's discussion, i think in the bill last year the objective was for you to have a plan that would reach a goal by 2025 and that goal was what -- to have a cure for alzheimer's? dr. collins: or a delay in the onset. a major advance in terms of preventing or delaying the onset. >> and we should expect that report by when? i think you've already said and i am sorry i did not -- dr. collins: in terms of what we were asked for specifically in the new piece of the omnibus is not only a plan but a bypass budget of what it would take to get there. the plan itself gets refreshed every year and there will be a new version of the research plan
tomorrow. but we are also then going to attach that to an estimate of what it would take to accomplish that because we have been asked to do so by the omnibus language. >> we will be seeing something tomorrow? dr. collins tomorrow you will : see the outcome of the summit on research that was held in february, bringing people from the u.s. and outside the u.s. to nail down what are the highest priorities right now for research in this space. this will be a second time we have had such a summit and this is a major refresh of what the research agenda is. >> i think the precision medicine discussion, the brain discussion and the strategic plan discussion probably make enough news for today or i would press you a little bit on why can't you tell us today on what you are going to tell people tomorrow. but i look forward to that tomorrow. doctor, as you know, i've been very interested in how we prioritize mental health or bring it to the same level of all other behavioral health to all other health issues.
the statistic that i believe is generally used now and always n.i.h. is sort of the source is one out of four adult americans have a behavioral health problem -- a diagnoseable behavioral health problem that is almost always treatable. is that number still a good number or do you have a better number we should be using? insel: i think in this case we tend to focus more on those who have the most disabling or what we now call serious mental illnesses. that's more like one in seven or one in nine something like that the total number runs to about 17 million adults. but what's critical to remember in contrast to what we talked about for alzheimer's' disease these are diseases, chronic diseases, young people. so 75% of that number have onset before age 25. so that makes this a particularly challenging public health issue.
>> we all heard of senator mikulski's story earlier today about how when talking to people at schools what's the single biggest thing we could do to help. and obviously right in the area that you're working. what about the other number? if one out of nine is debilitating or serious, what would be the biggest contextual number of behavioral health that is diagnosable and treatable? dr. insel: across the board about one in four is the number that we think about across the life span in terms of people being affected. >> now, in the defense, the armed services committee that i was on last year, armed services as opposed to defense appropes but i may have asked this. i asked the surgeon generals in the military if they thought that one in four statistic was -- how to apply to people in the military. the answer i got was we don't have any reason to believe it's not about the same. that we recruit from the general population about the same. what's been happening in military as it relates to how we
deal with behavioral health problems? dr. insel: well, as you know senator, the suicide rate in the military particularly in active duty has gone up significantly --doubled -- it's actually surpassed the civilian rate for people in the same age bracket. it's beginning to come down slightly in the last three years but we've gotten new numbers in the last couple of days and it's still up there. it's still high. and d.o.d. and especially the department of army have been very, very focused on how to bend the curve there. we've been working with them through this stars project with over 100,000 soldiers over the past five years and that project has given us a much better sense on how to focus their efforts on those who are at highest risk. >> thank you. >> thank you. dr. collins, i wanted to ask you. i was -- noticed a very exciting announcement by n.i.h. to me exciting last week that one of your researchers or some of your
researchers were able to use f.d.a.-approved drugs to activate stem cells in the brain to actually repair damage caused by multiple sclerosis. that is really exciting because as we all know up until now we haven't been able to repair damage after it's occurred. i want to ask you, what's the next steps on that? dr. collins: so that was an exciting finding. basically, the national center for advancing translational sciences has this ability to take any kind of an asay that you've developed and screen it against all the drugs very quickly. if you could find a circumstance where you have a disease like multiple sclerosis where there's a drug already out there that's been used to other thing that is has activity here you could quickly jump across many different hurdles to get to a clinical outcome which we desperately need to see happening for multiple sclerosis. so the investigators supported by the neurology institute did
that screen using the kinds of of cells that use mylan which is the stuff that provides the insulation for nerves. we've been able to show that in a petri dish that there were two drugs in that f.d.a. collection that seemed to show benefit in terms of stimulating those cells to make that. and then they tried that in the mouse model and both appeared to have activity in the best animal we have to. that means the next step would be to think about how to move this into a human clinical trial. one of the drugs is antifungal the other is steroid. but neither of those had ever been thought of in this circumstance. so we're excited about that.
i might say there's another exciting finding in multiple sclerosis research only in the last month dr. fauci's institute supported an effort. maybe say something about that. dr. fauci: thank you. the study that dr. collins is referring to that we funded the allergy and infectious disease because it was a study was from our immune tolerance network which was very exciting. we took 25 individuals who had multiple relapsing multiple sclerosis and performed autolgoss stem cell transplantation proceeded by immunosuppression. by the same way you would give a transplant with someone with a neoplastic disease. to our great surprise and gratification the numbers were extraordinary. 80% of the 25 people in the trial went into a remission in the sense of none of that multiple relapse. and that has been followed now for three years, which is really quite impressive. and although we always have a caveat that the end is relatively small 25 but 80% of 25 is really impressive. so we're going to very aggressively pursue that approach. >> i am very excited about that. >> national institute of health
director francis collins is on capitol hill to testify about precision methods. he'll discuss treatments of diseases like cancer and leukemia for the taylor of cash -- by tailoring individual treatments. see it live on cspan. >> former arkansas governor mike huckabee announces his candidacy for the 2016 presidential nomination. he will make the announcement from his hometown from hope. live at 11:00 eastern on c-span. today, 2016 democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton hosts a roundtable discussion in las vegas parish she will discuss immigration policy and efforts to strengthen
families and communities. live coverage at 5:45 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> remarkable partnerships, iconic women. "first ladies" the book. >> cheated the portrait of washington, one of the things that endeared her to the nation. >> whoever could find out what she was doing, who she was seeing. >> she takes over a radio station. how do you do that? >> she exerted influence. she would move a mountain to mix for her husband was protected. >> "first ladies" now a book. looking inside the personal life of every first lady in american history. based on original interviews from c-span's first ladies series.
learn about their lives ambitions, families and partnerships with their spouses. presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women. filled with stories of fascinating women had survived the scrutiny of the white house often changing history. often illuminating, entertaining and inspiring read. now available as a hardcover or e-book. >> next, south carolina senator lindsey graham and former british prime minister tony blair are part of a discussion on global risk from the annual milken institute global conference in beverly hills. it one hour.
>> thank you for joining a really interesting panel on global risk. we will cover as much as we can end the hour we have. i suspect we could take three times that time that i will dive right in. brief introductions for people who do not really need them. starting on the end to my left general wesley clark, former supreme allied commander of nato. 2004 democratic candidate for president and now chairman of an investment bank and senator lindsey graham, republican from south carolina. a member of the armed services committee. you said there was a 91% chance you would seek the republican nomination for president. senator graham: 92%. >> we will see if that goes up.
to my right is tony blair, former prime minister of great britain and northern ireland. who needs no farther introduction. to his right is yasuhide nakayama state representative for foreign affairs in japan representing the liberal democratic party. mr. blair, looking at the middle east and north africa, by my count we have three failed states -- syria, yemen and libya . all of them, arguably, are in a state of civil war. in every case we see radicalism -- isis and al qaeda. it looks to me like the region is in worse shape than it was a decade ago. is it going to get worse before it gets better? what can the outside world constructively do to preventable disaster in the region? mr. blair: thank you very much indeed to having me back. good morning.
it's always a slightly had a conversation. i think it is going to remain challenging for a long period of time. let's take a step that. what is happening across the middle east and north africa is that a combination of a toxic mix of bad politics and that religion has created a situation in which as dictatorships are being cast off there's not the institutional capacity in states to be able to govern themselves and reach a new position for government. as a result, the people of these countries, which is probably a wish for a decent government, real based economies. -- rule based economies --
does have been squashed under the pressure of extremism borne ourt t of perversion of religion and combining with the fact that there are situations of instability and insufficient capacity to govern. i think there are three things that are relevant in the big picture for us to consider. the first is this. each one of them requires a decision about where we go. when you are facing groups like isis al nusra, al al qaeda al shabaab, boko haram none of these groups are capable of being negotiated with. you have to defeat them. we have to have the capacity from a military standpoint. neutralizing the -- utilizing
the lessons we have learned to defeat them. there are a series of questions that come from that that we ought to be prepared to answer and we have got to have the commitment to fight these people where they exist. that will sometimes be done in alliance with others and sometimes we will have to do it on our own. the second thing is this, my view is that the problem is not simply countering violent extremism, it is countering extremism. the violence is born out of an ideology. you can see this ideology represented by theocracy in iran on the shia side by various groups on the sunnyside. this ideology that is an ideology that seeks to suborn the whole of society to a particular view of religion, that has to be countered. what my foundation does an countering extremism targets
specifically this issue. we have to understand around the world today, not just in the middle east and north africa, that in asia, central asia, the far east, even in our own societies within europe there is an ideology of extremism that is being taught and promulgated to millions of young people day in and day out. my point is important, if we want to deal with the extremism issue, you have to tackle the root cause, which is the education of millions of young people. what in my mind is crazy about the world today is that we spend billions of dollars on security relationships when inside the education system of some of these countries we are incubating the problems we end up having to defeat. we should have, in my view, a global compact on education which all countries agree to.
where they accept as part of your global responsibly as a nation to promote religious tolerance within your education system and root out religious precious. the world today belongs to the people -- religious pr prejudice. the world today belongs to the people who can traverse barriers of cultures. that is what we need at the heart of our policy long-term. the third element is what should the west do? here's the one piece of good news. in each of these countries there are people who want the same things that we want. as i said earlier, i think they are a majority. i would like to see us in the west, we should learn all the lessons of the last 10 or 15 years. we have to recognize this is a struggle in which our own interests are intimately connected and we need decent and open-minded people to succeed. they will not succeed unless we are prepared to stand alongside
them. [applause] >> thank you. keeping with the theme of dealing with radicalism, i want to turn to the state minister. you had the extraordinary experience of negotiating are trying to negotiate. you learned in a very difficult way that mr. blair just said these are people you cannot negotiate with. you were negotiating with isis in jordan representing the japanese government during the crisis when japanese hostages were held by isis. unfortunately, both of them were executed. teaching is a hard lesson about how to deal with isis. what did you learn about this new form of terrorism? tell us very briefly who are you communicating with and what was that like? mr. nakayama: first of all, i would like to thank you and the milken institute.
thank you can much for inviting me here. and my friends the professor who introduced me here. one thing i would like to tell you, i learned english myself -- from hollywood movies. [laughter] my english skills are not so good. so excuse me. i say i am sorry first. >> no need to apologize. mr. nakayama: arigato. so i do my best efforts here. first of all, 2001 we had a very big event of terrorism called 911 osama bin laden did horrible things. after some of bin laden's
terrorism, the difference compared to isis terrorists need high technology. isis, using internet communication as a tool. for example, one of the hostages was a journalist. i.s. killed the journalist. now it is different compared to 70 years ago's type of war. we had a war, u.s., japan, britain. if i make sounds of the 70 years ago war, sounds like this -- [imitating gunfire] now, one click can destroy everything. what is the difference? the speed, no limit.
even one terrorist can fight against eight nations. 70 years ago, the west, it was nation versus nation. this is a difference between the types compared to the old one. so we japan, negotiated with i.s. this time. it was very difficult. i have nothing -- the big countries, we decided we would never pay the ransom for the victim. we would never negotiate with terrorists directly. so with these rules it is
difficult to negotiate with no rules people. we play chess. if you are a terrorist and i'm a good guy, play chests -- i have rules and you have no rules. you can take king and queen immediately. this is a game against the terrorists right now. i really think king abdulla -- i really thank king abdullah of the drubbing in government. the jordanian government cooperated with us really strongly. including an intelligence group. in the middle east, israeli mossad and other intelligence the most cooperative agency at the time was the gid. one thing i can tell you is the
jordanian king said yes, other people said yes to me. it is negotiating between the king abdullah and i was the most important meeting at the time. and through the government of jordan, we can talk like a brother country. and so we stand each other. i really express my condolences to moath al-kasasbeh, the pilot captured the 24th of december. >> unfortunately it seems the lesson was proven you cannot negotiate with the terrorist in the end. mr. nakayama: they are only killers. they are not human beings. >> because we have so much to
cover in a short time i want to change gears. thank you, state minister. senator lindsey graham, the u.s. senate will consider legislation regarding the president's negotiations with iran over the nuclear program. i know you have strong feelings about this. tell us what you expect the senate to do. but more broadly, the subject here is global risk. the president says if we don't do a deal with iran and there is no deal, and negotiations break down, that could lead us to war. i understand your position to be that the deal itself is risky. talk about that. mr. graham: the first thing to our japanese friend i understand you better the prime minister. [laughing] mr. nakayama: thank you. mr. graham: is it just me or does he talk funny? [laughter] so, what were we
talking about? iran. number one, the senate will overwhelmingly approve the corker legislation this week that says for the president to lift congressional sanctions we created he is going to have to come to congress to get permission, which makes sense and i think there will be lot of bipartisan support. as to a deal versus no deal. the president says if we don't get a deal it is the best chance of avoiding war. the consequences of a bad deal worry me more. i do not think that is your choice. if you liken a bad deal, and a bad deal is if the sunni arabs felt like they needed nuclear ability to counter shia persian s, the worst outcome is censoring the middle east into a nuclear arms race. i'm convinced that if we give the iranians too much capacity and how many people believe they have been trying to build a nuclear weapons program not a nuclear power plant? those that didn't raise your hand you should not be allowed to drive in california. [laughter] so you have to know who you are
dealing with. these guys lie and cheat and they really want a nuclear weapon to maintain their regime because they believe no one will bother them in the future. and that will be a trump card. they are probably right about that. but the sunni arabs, unlike friends in japan and south korea will not tolerate in nuclear armed iran. north korea went nuclear but japan and south korea thus far have felt like they do not need to go down that road. the sunni arabs will. what is a good deal? a good deal is one to end the nuclear ambition of the iranians so they can have a small enrichment program, and have a nuclear power program that can never be used to make a nuclear weapon. a bad deal will be too much capacity in the hands of the iranians so the arabs feel loch -- like they need to match it. and then some. at the end of the day, i think a good deal is understood by israel and the arabs, and if the arabs and israelis say this
is too much capacity then it will be hard to get it through the senate. and so i would love a good deal. and i will outline very quickly what i think a good deal will look like. any time, anywhere inspections including military facilities. if you do lift the inspection regime 10-15 years from now, whatever the date might be there is a certification the regime at the time and place is no longer a state-sponsor of terrorism. i don't think that is an unreasonable request. and they don't get a dime under sanctions relief until they start complying with the inspection regime. here is my biggest fear. there will not take the $50 billion to $100 billion and build hospitals and schools but they will put it in their war machines. bottom line, congress will insist on reviewing the deal. a bad deal will be one that leads to a nuclear arm race in the middle east and i hope that is not the kind of deal we get.
the truth is if you take a country like egypt, where the muslim brotherhood came to power , like it or don't come on 20 million people come out in the street and put them out. the new president is having to try to sign a way forward for the future. the only recourse for a country like egypt is an economy performance education system, to open up to the world and encourage a good relationship with all of his neighbors including israel. and the end, what has to happen in the middle east if there is to be any future, because you will remain with sunni and shia
and different groups within those religions, people are going to have to take an open-minded view of the world. into that comes the israeli-palestinian issue. it is important because for the obvious reasons, it is important for another reason. at the heart of the israeli-palestinian issue in my view is not a debate of where you put the borders. how you make the territories. have you do with the issues in jerusalem. and also a fundamental issue of cultural acceptance. a tiny strip of land has two people prepared to live side-by-side in peace.
people are prepared to stand up and say we have to go in a different direction for the future. if you could resolve the issue think of the huge boost to do with cultural acceptance. 1 you think th peace process is dead and how you top about it? there is a conservative view that the obama administration pressured israel more than as appropriate, to reach some kind of a deal. do you agree? do you think the peace process is a priority? or do some of the other conflict that arisen take higher priority? graham: they worked really hard to get them in a good spot. you have a divided palestinian community, hamas, the gaza
strip. some areas the economy is doing better. i don't you put the palestinian people back together again but they'll be a good start. you have three negotiations going on with a group of palestinians you could live in peace with, the other group that want to drive them into the sea. if you had a president about 5-7, there is a historic moment shaping up in the middle east for the arabs and israelis in the life like -- being aligned like i have never seen. all of these leaders in the middle east are in harms way from radical islamic groups. the king of jordan, saudi
arabia, all of the arab states isil hates them as much as you do. they realize they have been feeding the beast. the idea that shia persian marched through the middle east scares the heck out of these guys. you have two common enemies to the arabs and israelis. radical islamists, won shia, one persian, with the capability to take down the region. to come together and start in syria. our president, we drew the red line and nothing happened. it emboldened putin. you will never have army going to syria just to fight isis. you're not going to give syria
over to aside who is your own stop it. -- you're not going to give syria over to assad who is iran's puppet. i think there is a unique opportunity to have a israeli engagement to contain radical islam that could translate to a meaningful dialogue that one day could translate to restarting the peace process. lcc has an interesting cat. all of my friends on the republican side who yearned for said him to come back, you have to remember we are americans. i never asked a young muslim arab to live in a dictatorship for my convenience anymore. i won't ask your kids to live in a dictatorship for my convenience. there are two things going in the middle east. there is a fight for the heart and soul in islam and i will take sides with those who won't
kill us. there's the fight for how you govern the middle east. i am taking sides with young people who are upset over the fact they're living in a country where if you get everything on the day are born, they face determined. in the middle there is a vacuum created by a lack of american leadership that radicals have sealed. we'll be with you in syria, we will integrate our forces, we will give the capability to supplement your forces so i take i sell and aside down -- isil and assad down. by the way, let women drive. sit down with israelis and see if we can pass this up. they've done a good job in closing the titles so every mistake has a consequence.
we have made plenty on the democratic and republican sides. there is a historic opportunity to create an alliance between former foes there could be transformational and jumpstart the peace process unlike anytime i've seen. tell hamas knock it off, no more arab support. >> i want to change gears and go to europe. i just want to give the state minister an opportunity to add concluding thoughts on the question of what more we can be doing to fight extremists you have had a first-hand encounter with. you have use of information technology, do you think the world has got to that? has a strategy to deal with it? do you have any recommendations? >> i think we have to -- we have strong ties.
we have to fight strong against isis and extremism. the important thing is that, how do you say sorry, i forget english. >> a strong alliance. does japan have a role to play? >> you're talking about iran, right? i saw one day on the news, a drone, i'm unmanned vehicle above the sky. they took the body and copied it and made many high-tech drones.
one thing i worry about, i have a neighbor called north korea. north korea, with uranium, and pakistan. this triangle has the same ring of technology. it provides a lot of fear. i've seen in osaka city, even as i sleep and eat, only seven minutes it would take for kim jong-il to push the button. now the prime minister abe visits washington dc. >> i would like you to hold that thought for a minute. we will come to it. general clark, i would like to
ask you one of the hardest foreign-policy questions right now. it is how to think about the nato article files of the selkir -- self-defense provision of the nato alliance in the context of what vladimir putin has been doing in ukraine. i've seen this question first-hand stump a few foreign-policy advisers to republican candidates. i have not gotten an answer -- i could summarize something for you. if there is a plausibly deniable russian intervention and the baltic countries which are nato members. you have, in essence, a replay of what has been happening in ukraine. maybe not a full invasion but it is pretty clear anyone who could drive a car, that vladimir putin is staging something like an invasion. is that trigger article five of
the nato treaty? is that drag the united states and? can you see a plausible scenario where there is a conflict between american and russian versus? -- forces? >> if there is an attack on one nation that is a member of nato it is viewed as an attack on all. that is the treaty application. we brought these baltic nations in 2002. i was happy we did that. it was a big swoop. it was done without a lot of debate. they wanted to be and because they see the movies. they know us will come back. russia is already in there. very likely could start as you suggest, a demonstration, a statue taken down and lobby a -- in latvia. russian citizens of lot via --
latvia protest this. they say let's take over the administration building. some of the people are in camouflage and they are carrying>> little green men. senator graham: they actually belong to russian special forces. when you evict them, they do not get evicted. ordinary police do not do well against delta force. you've got to have not a bunch of armored calvary guys to take over europe. although i'm all in favor of that right now. you need some special forces people on the sort of two-hour alert who can handle this backed up by the equivalent of the italian military police. and you need have rehearsed and gone through a nato exercises the kind of automatic triggers that will let our political
leaders quickly come to terms with the legal issues that will bring this forward. if we don't have this rehearsed, if it's not done in nato planning and so forth, there will be lots of confusion and questioning, are these really russians and can't we do something? when i listen to people talk about ukraine today, and i hear this from my -- many of my european friends, feel like i'm sitting at the league of nations in 1935, when if where are a -- the leader of ethiopia was asking for assistance, and people couldn't make up their mind and did nothing. today i hear people talking about president poroshenko trying to hold ukraine together in the face of russian aggression, with 9,000 russian troops inside ukraine, 55,000 on the border. it's 21st century warfare with three levels of uavs, massive jamming, tanks we don't have any comparable equipment for.
antiarmor equipment doesn't go through their armor, and we need a real wakeup call to get us back to 21st century warfare where the russians are today. i hear people talk about this as, we have to give vladimir putin a way out. he is such a nice man, and he really just got trapped into this by the evil people behind him and if he doesn't look really tough, maybe he'll be overthrown. no. vladimir putin is right today and russia is right where someone like adolph hitler was in 1936. hitler reoccupied the rhineland and if britain and france had followed the dictates of the versailles treaty he wouldn't have gotten away with it and maybe world war ii would have averted. putin crossed the greatest red line in post world war ii international diplomatics. he has invaded another country
and and seized its territory by force, and even though ukraine is not a member of nato, this has enormous implications for nato and nato security. we in this business community are not understanding geostrategic risk. right now, angela merkel and the president of france, mr. hollande, are standing up for the minsk 2 agreement. but that is not being implemented. the russian forces have the densest air defense array ever seen in modern europe deployed in eastern ukraine. they are training and organizing the so-called separatist units which are 85% russian anyway. they are building up the capacity for a third wave of russian attack.
currently it is not economically successful without a land bridge connecting through ukraine. so, we have major forces moving. this is so urgent for nato to come to terms with this. >> well, another really hard question is not just for nato at large but for washington, right now for president obama, senator graham i want to ask you about , another interesting policy debate. should we be sending lethal arms to the ukraine? there's a school of thought that you can send javelin antitank missiles which you could call defensive, but putin would see them as offensive. i have had people in the obama administration tell me -- and i think you understand the argument -- those missiles would raise the cost for putin and you would have to put it bluntly, as they say, more dead russian soldiers coming back across the border. my sense is that the president thinks that putin will escalate, the conflict will get worse,
spill over, cross borders, and the germans are adamantly opposed to -- how do you think about that and where do you come down? senator graham there's : bipartisan support overwhelming in nature for arming ukrainians. remember the budapest protocol even though they're not a member of nato, in the '90s we said if you'll give up your 2,000 plus nuclear weapons we and russia and everybody else will guarantee your sovereignty. for the rule of law to be meaning anything, it has been trampled on. the consequence of letting someone do this, history tells you eventually where this goes. i'm not saying putin is hitler but your put in a motion a dangerous moment. yes, i'd arm the ukrainians and create a cost benefit equation that putin doesn't have today. but let's get right to the heart of the matter. without american leadership all of this won't get fixed. i love our friends in britain, but we have to lead. and nato's response to a world
on fire is to reduce our budgets. so here's one thing you need to understand, for us to be effective against putin, against china, against isil, against iran, we're going to have to have the capability, the capacity and the will, under sequestration, by 2021, we're going to have the smallest army since 1940. the smallest navy since 1915. we're going to gut our intelligence community, the fbi the cia are losing people as i speak. this is insane. nato nations who spend over 2% on gdp on defense is down to 5%. our best friends in the world, the british, are debating how big their army and how capable their military should be. why in the hell should putin take anybody seriously? so here's what i would suggest. buy back sequestration. don't forgive the $540 billion. put it back into defense and nondefense programs like the cdc and the nih, which help us all and go to the plan to keep america from becoming greece. a strong america means it has to
have a sound economy. 80 million baby-boomers will retire in the next 25 years and we are going to wipe out social security and medicare. if you don't do what ronald reagan and tip o'neill did, then our best days are behind us. if you can't do what reagan and simpson-bowles calls for you're not going to have the capability to defend this country. here's my advice about putin. rebuild your military. get republicans and democrats acting like adults, not teenagers, and put this country on a sound economic footing and let the enemies of this world know america is back and to our friends, you can count on us starting with the ukraine. michael: thank you. [applause] michael: i like that. good job. michael: mr. blair. tony blair: i reckon i just come to 95%. [laughter] look, first of all, have to be very clear
about this, what happened in ukraine is the first time that territory has been taken like that since the end of the second world war, in europe, and i think there are whole series of things that have just been talked about that need to be done in order to demonstrate our will and commitment and the fact that we have alliances we're going to adhere to and all of that i agree with. i just want to make one point about europe. europe has also got to understand that it's got a responsibility to deal with this issue properly and seriously and strongly. the fact is, one of the things that always troubles me about the world is when america and europe are not standing together, clearly and firmly, in defense of the values they believe in. the world then becomes a less safe place, and you feel this wherever you go. and the truth of the matter is
we know what the strategy of president putin is. i will say it's not very complicated. it's very simple. there is a desire, when he says he thought that the collapse of the soviet union is the worst thing that happened, that is what he meant. that is what he said. that is what he believes. now, what is necessary -- this is why i feel deep -- american -- let me talk -- someone who is british, but someone who also believes in a strong europe. europe's job is to be standing alongside america and facing up to this threat, and if we do not do that now and today and with urgency, it is going to get a lot worse than the time to come and we will endanger a world order that we have put in place painfully with much sacrifice over many decades. this is a moment to be strong, to be determined, and to recognize what our values are and be prepared to stand up for them.
sen. graham: can i just say one thing? michael: please. sen. graham: what would the world be like if putin had no gas? or we didn't need his gas? what would the world be like if fossil fuels were less influential than they are today? a rational energy policy where we find more here at home, buy oil from canada because it makes sense, but eventually go to a lower carbon economy, could do more to reset our foreign policy than almost anything. so, the reason the germans and the french are being at best indifferent and naive is because they're locked into having to get their gas supply from a really bad guy, and putin has a pair of twos. and we got a full house. and i would make the purpose of my presidency, if i ran, to get an energy economy started in this country and throughout the
world that would be less rewarding to thugs, dictators, and killers. michael: you wanted to add? tony blair: there are measures we can take of the next few years with an immediate impact around energy supply that would relieve some of that dependence on russian energy and that is undoubtedly the big guy mention -- big guy mention -- guy -- dimension into this whole issue. michael: sure. gen. clark: i want to follow something senator graham said. i really think you're absolutely on the right track on this thing. we've got all the hydrocarbon resources we need to be totally energy independent and to export and lead the world forward, and take over these energy market that exist right now. we also have the technology to move away from hydrocarbons as we have to do in the future. and we desperately need a national energy strategy. it is not about the oil industry. it's really about the future of the united states of america.
when president eisenhower created the national defense complex, and everyone quotes and -- and him saying, beware of the military industrial complex, but it gave us the technology we needed to be safe during the cold war. we need a military industrial energy complex that will make us safe in the 21st century. the greatest commodity traded in the world is oil. it's done more to build civilization and conversely destabilize civilization over the last 40 years than any other single factor, and if we could get our democrats and republicans to work together and put together a sensible policy that would let us exploit hydrocarbons now, all else, take over these markets, $50, $60 oil, still making money on fracking. do it. and then put the benchmarks in in the ten-year, 15-year 20-year period to move us
entirely away from hydrocarbons. we would make the 21st century a whole lot safer for everyone. michael: if we have time at the end, we'll come back to climate change and i want to talk about asia where there's less violence and extremism then we see and -- in some of these other regions, but a whole lot of risk. it may be the place where there's the most potential for mayhem, but fortunately so far not realized. state minister, your prime minister will be addressing the u.s. congress on wednesday. we're at the 70th anniversary of world war ii. clearly what looms large in the japan-washington relationship, the tokyo-washington relationship right now is china and uncertainties about china's ambitions. its territorial claims, the tensions it's had with japan over disputed territories, the air exclusion zone that really raised tensions a couple of years ago.
talk about, if you would, what is your assessment of china's intentions right now? what is the threat that you think it poses to stability and security in the region? minister nakayama: i think -- thank you very much. i think, in fact, prime minister abe visiting d.c. right now, but also he met with xi jinping. michael: the chinese president. minister nakayama: exactly. we talked a lot, and it was very steady meeting. and really kind of like very peaceful meeting compared to military issue. michael: compared to a couple years ago, the relationship is better. minister nakayama: exactly. and we also focus on their budget, for military budget, defense budget, for them.
the increasing 30 times the budget of -- michael: 30 times. minister nakayama: of armament and the budgets of defense, of the pla, and also they are maybe -- you already know, but they launched their satellite to space base and then they also destroy the satellite. it's already done. they already made the technology. even we in the japan, and the u.s., the strong alliance, and we a lot of rely on the space field, using satellites, without using satellites we cannot launch a missile or move the soldiers. if the china pla missiles to our satellite, then what is happening? michael: china is already preparing for space war. minister nakayama: i think. also, we have to create the technology, maybe we can launch the -- not the big satellite but the small satellite within three
days. not using a rocket but using aviation, and then fly through -- over the space, and also even china doing cyberattack to all the world. so, even the nation using a country using a cyber technology to attacking the other states. so, not just isis, not other terrorists. so in that sense we have to reset our minds, ourselves there is a new type of war or there is a semi war already begin. and i attend the meeting of the netherlands, which is cyber conference, and i heard there is a new type of cold war in cyber space.
in 1970's, 1980's, we had the cold war against soviet union and the u.s., and we western countryside. but now in the cyber space there is another cold war beginning. one is our side. the internet field is free and it is very convenient to our marketing, economy, everything. but china and russia, they want to control more precisely as a human or citizen level. and that is a freedom, world of internet, or it's a communist again. so -- michael: they're clamping down on their own societies and also threatening other countries through cyber war. pardon me for interrupting, but we are running out of time. i want to transition to north korea, which has according to the u.s. government, conducted one of the most dramatic cyber attacks we have seen against the sony corporation and
all the e-mails that came out. very briefly because we're running out of time, what is your assessment of north korea's intentions? some days, it seems that kim jong un is throwing tantrums for attention. and there are days where it seems like he is capable of cataclysmic tensions in the region. what do you think? minister nakayama: we had an abduction issue. they take our citizens, they kidnapped, and we get them to release our hostages to north korea. and also, i told about the missile issue, and also the korean peninsula is still cold war is going on. even 1989, the berlin wall has destroyed, but not 38-degree line. there still exists. so, i personally want the great britain or the united states or
have six party talks with the big countries to have more focus on 38-degree line, how to make real peace in korea peninsula, and also -- michael: you think real peace is possible? minister nakayama: i hope so. i hope so. and we have to ask the north korea, would you like -- if you like to open your door, which side are you going through? u.s. side, democratic side, or the china, communist side? which way you going to choose? we need to -- candy stick and carrot. ask the real answer. because we don't know what kim jong un is thinking. and we just worked through the media, what is -- michael: guessing at his intentions. forgive me for interrupting. we have three minutes for two subjects. you could spend an hour each on. very briefly mr. blair, you said in 2013 there's no longer any
serious doubts in the mind of serious people that global warming is a serious problem. are there any serious solutions or serious action being taken in your view? are we doing enough? tony blair: there is an immense amount being done, and the solution, very simply, is the development of the science and technology for the future that allows us to consume sustainably. there's no way that these hundreds of millions of people who are emerging from poverty in africa and india and china are not going to consume. they want a high standard of living, the same standard of living as us. the only answer to doing that is to be able to devise a solution through science and technology that allow us to consume sustainably. my view is the single most important thing of the paris negotiations that are taking place later this year is that instead of trying to make the best enemy of the good, we get together the best possible deal we can at the moment, given the obligations the countries like the u.s., like china and others are entering into, voluntarily
get that and put that together and set a clear framework for the future where business and industry are able then to develop the science and technology that is going to allow us to consume in a different way. this issue is a long-term issue and it remains absolutely fundamental and important for the future of the world. michael: a quick question for each of you. senator, do you agree with the assessment that there is no longer any serious doubt that global warming is a serious problem? sen. graham: our friends in britain are backing off the cap and trade. it is driving up energy costs. i think greenhouse gas effect is real. i don't think it is the biggest threat to mankind. a newuke in the hands of the ayatollah trumps global warming. but having said that, would like as a republican, to come up with an environmental policy that does what basically general clark talked about, find as much fossil fuels within our reach from friendly sources as possible, but over time set emission standards that are
pro-business in nature to move the economy one day from fossil fuel dependency to more cleaner sources of fuel. there's the place for coal there's a place for gas. but from a republican point of view, we're -- this is -- we need to be better stewards of god's planet and need to have a rational and environmental policy that is pro-business. from a republican point of view, young people buy into the fact that the planet is heating up and manmade emissions are causing harm to the planet. to the american young people, if you're worried about the environment, count me in. my goal is to pass on to you a stronger economy, clean air and clean water, and create jobs in the process. michael: thank you. forgive me for turning this into a lightning round. but general clark, we talked beforehand about systemic financial risk. i wish we had five minutes to devote to this. we're basically out of time, but you talked about a book you wrote that discuss this and maybe you can give us the kind
of elevator version of it. gen. clark: don't wait for the next war. we create an awful lot of debt in the financial system and we fully haven't addressed the systemic issues. there are still hundreds of trillions of dollars of derivatives based on interest rate and if you ask the inside banking crowd, when are we going really raise interest rates? when are we going to get away from quantitative easing? the answer is never. and it's only a matter of time before some smart young hedge fund guy says, you know what? this debt is not sustainable and it will spread like wildfire through the financial community and we'll be back in some trouble again. we have to take our financial resources and invest in real projects. we need petrochemical projects. we need energy projects. we need infrastructure projects and highway, high-speed rail aviation. these are things that create jobs. derivative trading is great and you make a lot of money if you're a banker. i'm a banker.
i know something about it. but it is not creating jobs and wealth in a real economy. if we are going to do what prime minister blair says, we have to use the financial system to fund and drive the economy, not the opposite. and what has happened is there's too much of the opposite right now. it takes from the real economy and plays the financial games. so don't wait for in the next war. it's my book. please read it. michael: ok, great. thank you for that. thank you for coming. we have to wrap up. [applause] the state minister would like to make a concluding remark, very briefly. we are over time. please. minister nakayama: last word from me, yes. and i am general for parliamentary friendship league between japan and israel and i went to simon center yesterday and i really touched by anne frank, by what she said. she cannot say anything right
now, so through me i will send a message. she said, how wonderful it is that no one has to wait but can start right now to gradually change the world. this is what she told me to us. michael: a great note to close on. thank you, minister. thank you everyone for coming. we appreciate it. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> today, the senate energy and national resources committee is holding a hearing about wildfire management. thomas tidwell testifies about the impact of these fires on affected communities and what is ahead for western states this fire season. see it live at 10 a.m. eastern
on c-span3. -- 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. national institutes of health director is on capitol hill today to test before the senate health committee about precision medicine. he will discuss the president's initiative to improve treatments for diseases like cancer and leukemia and treatments for individual patients. see it live at 2:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every senator and house member, plus bio and contact information and twitter handles. also, district maps, a foldout map of capitol hill, and a look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet federal and state governors. order your copy today. it is $13.95 through c-span's
online store at c-span.org. >> monday, author and retired neurosurgeon announced his decision to seek the presidential nomination from his hometown of detroit. he talked about his commitment to the constitution in his role in the economy. this is c-span's white house coverage. this is 35 minutes. ♪ dr. ben carson: thank you. winky. thank you, very much -- thank you. thank you very much. thank you. all right. we have limited time.
thank you. thank you so much for that. this, of course, is my wonderful wife who is also a detroiter. [applause] even though we are both from detroit, we both had to go to meet each other, but kandi has been by my side for four years. -- 14 years. [applause] and as my best friend and we do everything together. she even let how to play pool because i was a good pool player. she actually when sometimes, but most time, i beat her. >> you know i let him. [laughter] dr. ben carson: i should be careful because there is media and here and the headline would be "carson eat his wife -- beats
his wife." if you would not mind sitting down so i could introduce my son. he is my oldest son, murray, and his wife and they are right here. stand up please. [applause] murray is an engineer and she is an analyst for a polling company. my middle son and his wife are right here. [applause] and he is an entrepreneur and she owns a company that has placements and they do a lot of things. a lot of stuff. it is very cool. my youngest son royce, is right here.
his wife is at home with the baby. [applause] royce is a cpa and they all three got married in 2011. [applause] dr. ben carson: now i have introduced my family. you say, who are you? i will tell you. i am ben carson and i'm a candidate for president of the united states. [cheers and applause] dr. ben carson: thank you. thank you.
america remains a place of dreams. and a lot of people are down on a nation. they want to point out all the bad things that have happened here. but have you view a notice that -- have you ever noticed that there are a lot of hype people trying to get in here and not a lot of people trying to escape? it says something. it was a place of dreams for my mother. she came from a large rural family in tennessee. she was shuffled from home to home. she always had a desire for education. but she was never able to get beyond the third grade. she married at age 13 with the hope of escaping a desperate situation. she and my father moved here from detroit -- to detroit. he worked in a factory.
in fact, i remember one christmas being right here in this auditorium, sitting right over there. it was for gm employees. they had a christmas program for the kids. but some years later, my mother discovered that he was a bigamist and had another family. that occasion to the force -- the divorce. she only had a third grade education. consequently we were thrown into a situation of dire property. -- poverty. she still maintains that dream of education. but now, it was for us. more so than for herself. we moved in with her older sister and brother-in-law in boston. the couple temperament -- typical tenant -- large multi-family dwelling. sirens, gangs, murders. both of our older cousins, who we adored, were killed.
i remember when a favorite jugular was killed. -- drug dealer was killed. [laughter] he drove a blue cadillac. they would bring his candy, so we will like to see the drug dealers. the rats and the roaches. in the more upscale areas, they call them water bugs, but we knew what they were. [laughter] but my mother was out working extraordinarily hard. two, sometimes three jobs at a time. china to stay off of welfare. the reason for that was that she noticed that most the people she saw go on welfare never came off of it. she did not want to be dependent. she wanted us also to be independent. she decided that she would work as long and as hard as
necessary, leaving at 5:00 in the morning and getting back after midnight day after day after day, doing what people did not want to do to try to maintain her independence. and she was very thrifty. she woodrow drive a car until it would not make a sound. then, she would go and collect all of her dives and nickels and quarters and buy a new car. it would say, how does that woman afford a new car? she knew how to manage money. i am fond of saying this. if my mother was secretary of the treasury, we would not be in a deficit situation. [laughter] [applause] dr. ben carson: and you know, there are many people who are critical of me because they say carson wants to get rid of all the safety nets and welfare programs, even though he must have benefited from them. this is a blatant lie.
i've no desire to get rid of safety nets for people need them. i have a strong desire to get rid of programs that create dependency in able-bodied people. [applause] dr. ben carson: we are not doing people a favor when we pat them on the head and say there there, you poor little thing, we are going to take care of all your needs. you don't have to worry about anything. you know who else has stuff like that? socialists. their programs always end up looking the same. they want to take care of people from cradle to grave. that they want to be involved in every aspect of their lives and they want most of their earnings. but they say it will be a utopia
in nobody will have to worry. the problem is that although societies and up looking the same. with a small group of elites at the top controlling everything a rapidly diminishing middle class, and a vastly expanded dependent class. that was not the attention for this country. -- intention for this country. this country was envisioneedd by individuals wanted everything to be surrounding the people. of for and by the people. not of, for and by the government. the government was to respond to the will of the people, not the people to the wealthy government
and i'm not an antigovernment person by any stretch of the imagination. i think the government i think it is time for the people to rise up and take the government back. [applause] dr. carson: the political class won't like me saying stuff like that. [laughter] dr. carson: i will to you a secret. the political class comes from both parties and all over the place. [applause] dr. carson: it includes, unfortunately, even the media now. the press is the only business in america that is protected by our constitution.
you have to ask yourself a question. why were they the only ones protected? it was because our founders envisioned a press that was on the side of the people, not a press that was on the side of the democrats or the republicans or the federalists or the antifederalists. [applause] dr. carson: this is a direct appeal to media. you guys have an almost sacred position in a true democracy. please don't abuse it. [applause]
dr. carson: my mother's dream was for us to move back to detroit and we were eventually able to do that. i was a terrible student. my brother was a terrible student. she did not know what to do. so she prayed. she asked god for wisdom. you know what? you don't have to have a phd to talk to god. you just have to have faith. god gave her the wisdom. my brother and i did not think it was that wise. [laughter] dr. carson: turning off the tv and making us read books and turn into her written book reports which she could not read. but it worked. i started reading about people
of accomplishment. i started to recognize that the person who has to do the most with what happens in your life is you. it is not somebody else. you do not have to be dependent on the good graces of somebody else. you can do it on your round if you have a normal brain and you are willing to work and you are willing to have that can-do attitude. it was the can-do attitude that allowed this nation to rise so quickly. we had people who did not stop when there was an obstacle. that is how those early settlers were able to move from one seat to the other seat across a rugged and hostile terrain. they knew how to do things. there were many communities that were separated from other communities by hundreds of miles, but they thrived. why did they thrive?
because people were willing to work together, to work with each other. if a farmer got injured, everybody else harvested his crops. if somebody got killed everybody else pitched in to take care of their families. that is who we are. we, americans, we take care of each other. that is why we are called the united states of america. what we have done is we have allowed the purveyors of division to become rampant in our society and to create friction and fear in our society. people are afraid to stand up for what they believe in because they do not want to be called a name. they do not want an irs audit. they do not want their jobs messed with or their families messed with. but isn't it time for us to think about the people who came before us? and what they were willing to do? so that we could be free. nathan hale, a teenage rebel
caught by the british, ready to be executed -- he said my only regret is that i have but one life to give my country. a couple of nights ago, i was in mobile, alabama. there were several world war ii veterans there in uniform. i took pictures with all of them. they were thanking me for being courageous enough to do what i am doing now. i said, no, it is you who we must thank. [applause]
dr. carson: we think about all of those brave men and women who sacrificed life and limb over the years so that we could be free. we dare not soil their efforts by being timid now and not standing up for what we believe. to recognize that one of the rules for radicals is that you make the majority believe that what they believe is no longer relevant and no intelligent person thinks that way and the way you believe is the only way intelligent people believe. and that way they will keep silent. i will tell you something. they don't care if you don't believe what they believe, as long as you keep your mouth shut. that is what we have to start doing. we have to start opening our
mouths for the values and principles of america. [applause] dr. carson: i have got to tell you something. i am not politically correct. [cheers and applause] dr. carson: i am probably never going to be politically correct because i am not a politician. i don't want to be a politician. [applause] dr. carson: politicians do what is politically expedient and i am going to do what is right.
[applause] dr. carson: we have to think about that once again in our country. this past couple of weeks, there has been a great deal of turmoil in baltimore. i spent 36 years of my life there. and we see the turmoil in our cities all over our nation. we need to start thinking about how do we get to the bottom of this issue? i believe that the real issue here is that people are losing hope and they don't feel that life is going to be good for them no matter what happens. when an opportunity comes to loot, to riot, to get mine, they take it -- not believing that there is a much better way to get the things that they desire. interestingly enough, many of these people buy hook, line, and
sinker, the idea that our economy is getting much better and that the unemployment rate is down to 5.5%. you know what? if the unemployment rate was down to 5.5%, our economy would be humming. it is not. our freedom and our way of life is dependent upon a well-informed and educated populace. what you have to know is that you can make the unemployment rate anything you want it to be based on what numbers you include and what numbers you exclude. you have to look at the labor force participation rate. that number has been steadily going down since 2009 and is now at a 37-year low. unless you understand those
things, it is possible for slick politicians and biased media to convince you that everything is wonderful when your eyes tell you something different. i am saying to people around this nation right now, stop being loyal to a party or to a man and use your brain to think for yourself. [applause] dr. carson: that is the key to us as a nation becoming successful again. not allowing ourselves to be manipulated by people who think that they are the kingmakers. who think that they are the rulers of thought. they are not the rulers of
thought. we, the people are the rulers of thought in this nation. other people cannot dictate it for us. we never allow anybody to take the right away from us. we do that when we submit to silliness. the majority of americans were opposed to the so-called "affordable care act." they just rammed it down our throats and said, this is the way it is going to be. if you don't like it, too bad. that was never supposed to be the way that this country was designed. if we accept it, it will continue that way and it will get worse. we have to get the right people in place. we need, not only to take the executive branch in 2016, and when i say we, i'm not talking republicans -- i'm talking
anybody who has common sense. [applause] dr. carson: we have to have another wave election and bring in people with common sense, who actually love our nation and are willing to work for our nation and are more concerned about the next generation than the next election. that is what is going to help us. [applause] dr. carson: we also are going to have to concentrate on fixing the broken economy. $18 trillion plus in national debt. and we have representatives who applaud themselves if the deficit does not go up as much this quarter as it did last quarter. they are completely out to lunch. [laughter]
dr. carson: we have got to drive that thing back down. it is our responsibility. you need to know who your representatives are. you need to know how they voted. not how they said they voted. if they voted to keep raising the debt ceiling, to keep compromising the future of our children and our grandchildren you need to throw them out of office. [applause] dr. carson: $18 trillion. think about what that means. if you try to pay that back in a rate of $10 million per day, it would take you over 5000 years. we are putting that on the backs of people coming behind us. this will be the first year that the national debt exceeds the gdp.
economists will tell you that when the debt to gdp ratio reaches 90%, at that point from 1850 through 2000, our economy grew at a rate of 3.3% at least, even during wars. from 2001 through 2014, it grew at a rate of 1.8%. that seems to be the new norm. you probably saw the headlines recently in the last quarter. it grew at like 0.2%. this is not good. i don't care how anybody tries to spin it. this is what happens when you have a gdp-debt ratio of 103%. this is what we have got to fix. we have got to fix it immediately. we cannot continue along that pathway.
it will have dire consequences in the long run. i will be giving an in-depth economic speech in weeks and months to come with a lot of details about things that have to be done. we need to fix it. we cannot just talk about it. how do we fix it? we have the most dynamic economic engine the world has ever known right here in america. we cannot work it when we wrap it in chains in fetters of regulations that come out all the time. it does not work when you have high taxation rates. which are absurd. we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world. and yet some of our officials sit there and wonder why people do work overseas. they obviously do not understand
business. people do not go into business to support the government. they go into business to make money. [applause] dr. carson: we obviously have to create an environment that is conducive to them making money. that means lowering the corporate tax rate, making it competitive. if we were really smart, we would do another big stimulus. you are saying, what? what did he just say? remember that big stimulus that we were supposed to have at the beginning of the obama administration? whatever happened to that? i know where we could get a big stimulus. there is $2 trillion of offshore money because they will not bring it back because it will be taxed at 35%. what if we give them a tax
holiday and let them bring it back, repatriate that money? it won't cost us a dime. [applause] dr. carson: that is the kind of thing we have to start thinking about. if you go to the financial advisor and you are in trouble they will ask you four questions. what do you own? what do you owe? well, we owe a lot. what do we own? we own a lot, also. just in terms of land and the mineral rights for it, we are probably at least $50 trillion. we own dams. we own levees. we own railroads.
the government owns 900,000 buildings. 77,000 of which are being not utilized or underutilized. think about that. at the same time, the government is leasing over 500 million square feet from the private sector, using your taxpayer money. it is totally horrendous when you look under the hood. you just want to shut it back down. [laughter] dr. carson: it is that bad. i want to tell you what we are going to do. if god ordains that we end up in the white house. i will to you what we are going to do. we are going to change the government into something that looks more like a well-run business than a behemoth of inefficiency. [applause] dr. carson: when i say we, i am
talking about our team. when i started this endeavor, i am familiar with a man who has started over 30 companies, is extraordinarily successful. i asked him to put together the rest of the team in order to be able to do this. his name is terry giles. where are you? [applause] dr. carson: now that we are transitioning from, you know, an exploratory committee, i have asked terry if he would take the lead in helping to select the people who will be able, who have had enormous experience with business and with making things work, so that we can transition our government from this inefficient thing that we have into something that really works and something that works the way it is supposed to,
according to our constitution. [applause] dr. carson: we also have a great team. we have our --we have, what do we have? [laughter] we have our chairman. which is very then it who never wears -- very -- barry bennet, who never wears a tie. we also have our director of communications. who does wear a tie. [applause] we have our treasurer and finance director, logan delaney.
[applause] we have our national spokesperson, dana bet. [applause] we are going to be doing different things, then you have seen before, because it is not political, as i have said before. they are people that have said -- you cannot do this, you do not have any experience? let me tell you something. i do not have a lot of experience, busting budgets and doing the kinds of things that have gotten us into the trouble we are in now, but i do have a lot of experience in solving problems. complex surgical problems. i do have -- [applause] dr. carson: i do have corporate
board experience with 18 years at kellogg, and 16 years at cosco, as well as at a biotech company. i do have experience starting a national nonprofit scholars fund. nine out of 10 of those fail but hours is thriving -- ours is arriving and has won several national awards. the point being that you can gain experience in other ways, it does not have to be just in politics. i can name a lot of people in politics, who have been there all of their lives, and you probably do not want them to polish your shoes. we need to be smart enough to think for ourselves and listen for ourselves and and in terms of a pedigree, that we need, and you know something, i have to tell you -- everyone has been telling me, are you ready for
this? they will be coming at you with everything under the sun. they will try and say you are a horrible doctor. anything you can imagine. i know that. that is the way they are. i expect that. it is ok. don't worry, just listen to what is being said. i am not even asking everyone to vote for me, i am asking them to listen to what i am saying, and listen to what politicians are saying, and make an intelligent decision based on your intellect. the pedigree that we need to help to heal this country and revive this country is someone who believes in our constitution. and is willing to put it on the top shelf. [applause] someone who believes in their fellow man and loves this nation and is compassionate. someone who believes in what we
carly fiorina: i am running for president. carly fiorina: our founders never planned on us having a professional political class. they needed leaders to step forward. the only way to reimagine our government is to reimagine who is running it. i am carly fiorina, and i am running for president. if you are tired of the soundbites, the egos, the corruption, if you believe that it is time to declare the end of identity politics, if you believe it is time to end lowered expectations, if you believe it is time for citizens to stand up to the political class and say -- enough. then join us. it is time for us to empower our citizens. give them a voice in our government.
to come together and fix what is broken about our politics and our government. we can do this. together. >> live at 10:00 eastern on c-span3. >> a new congressional directory as a guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every sender and house member plus bio and contact information. there are district maps and a map of capitol hill and look at congressional committees.
order your copy today, it is $13.95 plus shipping and handling. >> live on c-span, "washington journal" is next. we join mike huckabee for his presidential campaign announcement. nih director francis collins testifies about precision medicine. hillary clinton holds a roundtable at rancho high school in las vegas. >> coming up, they discussed the latest developments in the presidential race and the expanding field on both democratic and republican sides. robert bixby looks at the house
and senate budget agreement that was passed last week and is expected to be debated in the senate this week. host: good morning, it is tuesday, may 5. 2015. the senate will be in today at 10:00 a.m. while the house will meet at 11:30 during this district work week. during the three-hour washington journal we will talk about the rapidly expanding 2016 gop presidential field and the budget that the house agreed to last week in the senate will take up today. we begin today on the topic of broken windo