strategic choices before us as we think about different defense budget levels because otherwise it just seems like -- doctor a lot of numbers, right. >> right. and there is, obviously to, room for debate even within a given size military or defense budget because it's not all the wars come in the same size and shape, as we know. nonetheless, the basic logic as you've been saying is for a long time we thought maybe we'd have to fight iraq and north korea at the same time. it turned out to be iraq and afghanistan. you can debate whether we had to do them both, but we did. ultimately, our military was a little too small even though we'd been trying to have the capacity for two at the same time, we were a little off in our calculations, and that's part of why secretary gates ultimately had to increase the size of the army and marine corps in the last decade. then in the 2010 quadrennial defense review that mackenzie referred to a minute ago, the administration began to soften a little bit the requirement for that second war to be quite as definitive immediately.

and, in fact, there had been -- this is a 20-year-old debate if not more in terms of whether these two wars have sob exactly simultaneous and both lead to the overthrow of the enemy government and the occupation of its territory, whether there's room for the second one to be a little less definitive in its war aims. but in 2010 president obama started to move a little bit away from that robust rhetorical emphasis on two wars, and i think he was correct to do that because saddam hussein was gone. and even though iraq is obviously still very turbulent, it's much less likely to be an overland invasion threat to its neighbors. iran's still there in the middle east, obviously, but it's also relatively unlikely to be an invasion threat. it could be a lot of other kinds of threat, but probably not an invasion threat. so that was 2010. then in 2012 in this famous defense strategic guidance that we're referring to, the january guidance, the administration softened a little further and talked about that second war perhaps not really needing to

be, you know, thought of as an all-out war at all. although there was still the notion that you might have to punish a second aggressor and maybe wait for the first war to be concluded before we could really deal with it properly. so there's some semantics here. >> it's like playing with reality. >> a little bit. but still i would have supported the logic through that point because we did have to shift more of our focus towards the rise of china -- not that i expect war with china, but we have to worry about deterring china -- and also towards iran. and these are both unlikely to be classic, big land wars. they could be more maritime, air, cyber, special forces-oriented conflicts. so softening the sort of ground war requirement from a two-war to a one-and-a-half capability or something like that, i think, was okay. but now what we're seeing with the strategic choices and management review in the sequestration specter that's motivating the whole thing is

the possibility of going down to something like maybe a one war and nothing else. so maybe you can still do korea, maybe, provided that your entire army is available for it. unfortunately, that's often not how the world works, and, you know, we all know that our good friend martin indyk left brookings to try to go negotiate palestinian/israeli peace n. the relatively unlikely event that he succeeds, there could be an implementation force to make that acceptable to the israelis. that's one example. i awe lewded to a couple of others. if we wind up preventing iran from developing a nuclear weapon and have to use military power, the idea that this is a one-off, we bomb, they hit one of our embassies and we all call a truce, i think, is pretty optimistic. and there's a decent chance we're going to have to reinforce some of our allies in the gulf with some american ground presence to remind lan -- iran that we have an interest in these countries. you better be able to do one

all-out war like korea, heaven forbid, but also two simultaneous smaller missions, but they could be long lasting. and hopefully they're multilateral, but they could be long lasting, and that's where i come up with an army that, to me, should be around 450,000 active duty soldierings. the scmr venn -- envisions 400,000 or less, and to me that's too small. >> mackenzie, in your view, what is the part of the world that the united states military must be focused on more than any other? >> in this moment it's the middle east. strategically, you know, the defense department has to do both, right? they have to think about the world as it is in this very moment in reality and what is happening and things simmering and brewing and conflict breaking out and crises everywhere and then think about five and ten and twenty years. they really do need to do both -- >> but presumably they are doing

that. >> they are. >> yeah, okay. >> they are. so if you look at, for example, you know, the budget request from last year and the reprogramming requests that have come to capitol hill, their focus and immediate concern is the middle east, period. and that's exactly -- >> the middle east means what? break that down, because mike spoke about iran, but one could think about the syria, one could think now about a building, huge problem in egypt, there is everything going on in north africa. what does the middle east mean to us now? where? what? >> well, what it means to us is probably debatable meaning the proverbial -- >> no, but i mean -- >> right. >> -- you military experts. >> well, so let me start off quickly to say for dod right now it's the wolf closest to the sled, which is iran. looking at a lot of the capabilities and countercapabilities that might be required to deter conflict

from breaking out or somebody miscalculating in some international waters or actually prevailing in some type of military effort whether we're supporting somebody else or undertaking our own. and there are many other things happening in north africa with special forces and counterterror missions, etc., but that's certainly not what we're limited to. there's, obviously, ongoing planning for syria and egypt -- as there should be. i don't know that there's, tsa just a sample. >> see, what i'm trying to get at here is this: i have a feeling that we're talking theory, not necessarily reality. think about it. you both have spoken of iran. if the united states in the next year or two or three decides that it must take on iran and its nuclear program and korea e as a

erupts, it's not a matter of a small operation. korea is big time. and we already have 20,000 troops in south korea. so the idea of one plus two, the idea of whittling down two sounds to me as if it is not related to reality, and the united states has to be in a position whether it's two or two plus one -- one plus two of taking on any combination of military challenges. but account united states do -- can the united states do that in light of what is happening in the american economy, in light of what is happening in american politics, in light of the fact of sequestration? we are at this particular point having strategy being determined by people up on the hill who might have a clue as to what strategy is all about. is that not right? >> the way i would -- i'm glad you're framing these choices

very starkly because it is our national security, after all, and we have to get away from a theoretical discussion and just throwing around numbers. and i, you know, i threw around numbers with my one plus two. but again, if you ask me why do we have to be able to do two smaller missions at the same time, i would say typically that's the number we're doing. afghanistan's moving from a war to one of these smaller mission, and the expect is we'll keep 10-15,000 u.s. troops there for a few years even after next year. middle east peace is president obama's goal, rightly so, and i don't know what kind of u.s. force might be needed to backstop it, but probably one to two brigades. the likelihood of war against iran probably in the 30 be % range. hopefully not 50%. but if we do wind up in that kind of a strike which we hope will be limited at first, we should remember from history you don't get to always decide when wars end. you may get to decide sometimes when you start them, you don't usually get to decide exactly

when they're over. so the idea of having to sure end defenses along the persian gulf countries is a plausible notion and might involve some ground forces. so when you think through the smaller missions, we're likely to do two and maybe even three at a time. and i haven't even talked about my preference which would be for an ultimate bosnia-style solution in syria where the u.s. deploys forces there as part of a peace deal. not as an invasion. probably not this year, it's probably not within reach this year, but maybe in a year or two. so if anything, i've understated the requirement, and 450,000 troops in the active duty u.s. army and roughly 160-170,000 in the u.s. marine corps, i think, is a small economical way to design a ground force for the world that we're facing today. it's not throwing um teen piles of cash at an already bloated pentagon. >> okay. now, mackenzie, mike earlier on talked about the army and its

effect. what about the navy? what about the air force? can you give us some sense of what if these cuts take place will happen to the u.s. navy and the u.s. air force? >> sure. the consequences are pretty stark for both of these services and, of course, the marine corps as well. it was framed to us as part of the pentagon presentation that the marine corps is one of our hedge present forces globally. they're out there ready to respond. of course, that's leaving out the air force which just evacuated personnel last night from u.s. citizens from yemen and other places. so we're forgetting the air force, but the marine corps does have that significant role. and when we talk navy cuts, i'll include them as well. it's pretty consequential. let me start with the air force however. after discussing the marine corps briefly.

the air force is the second biggest loser under these budget debates -- they're not strategic as you've already clearly outlined for the audience, and i think that's exactly why everyone's frustrated in washington. this is not strategic-driven, okay? and we can just say that up front. i don't think anybody disputes it anymore. the army is getting a lot of attention, understandably and rightly so. michael so eloquent in talking about why that's a problem. but the secretary of defense outlined in the his remarks last week that he's going to change the so-called golden ratios of the service budget shares, the recently historical amounts that the services have received, roughly one-third, one-third, one-third equation, and the implication is that the navy's a relative winner but nobody's a winner because everybody's coming down less than the others. and the army is the most significant, the air force is a close second. >> in what way? >> so the emphasis in this briefing anyway is on tactical fighter forces and some lift

forces, c-130 in particular. but there's certainly more that was not mentioned as part of the briefing, retire a significant chunk, over half of our bomber force. most of these are old, and this should be considered anyway. but when you need numbers, when you need bombers and you really do need them, that would be -- that could become a really worrisome outcome. so, you know, if you consider your air force your service of -- [inaudible] your hedging force, your swing force, your global force, for example, which i do, this is very concerning. these are the kinds of things you will gulf up. the -- give up. the navy, and maybe michael wants to talk a little more aside from some of the marine corps cuts and the amphibious capabilities and others and airlift -- excuse me, air power capabilities in the marine corps. so the secretary talked about 3-3 carrier -- 2-3 carrier strike groups which, of course, is not just a carrier, it's all of the people and aircraft on

top of it, all -- >> two or three cut down? >> cut down. >> from where we are now? >> correct. >> which is what? >> technically, it's an 11-carrier force with a waver of one. >> and we would come down to eight if the sequestration went through. >> that's the prediction right now. >> and what -- so tell me in a practical way how that may end up hurting the united states. >> well, i'll talk until 11:30 if you want on this question alone. but we use -- our carriers are u.s. sovereign territory that we can take virtually anyone that's water. >> okay. >> and use it to do whatever we need it to do. but primarily, thairs a presence force, they're a reassuring force. they're not just to support, you know, no-fly zones in libya or close air support in afghanistan. >> okay. >> they certainly are a force

multiplier in that regard. the reason their being targeted is because the navy doesn't have a choice. i was at a recent think tank discussion, and i can't recall who mentioned it, but basically if you look at the u.s. navy's budget and composition, 60% of the navy touched something that has to do with an aircraft carrier. whether that's on top of it, who's staffed and supports it, what goes into it, the ships that sail with it, etc. and so you can see the damage that would be done to, basically, our worldwide global presence force, some of our first responding force. again, i reference here the marine corps. we would be giving up a lot. we saw this partly in iraq. the inability for us to negotiate any, you know, sort of u.s. military presence there for the long term which would have been primarily been land based, but it would have been a lot of intelligence and other capabilities, and in the region we would have had neighbor support as well.

we gave up our eyes to see into iran as part of that deal. and so these are the kinds of things that are the unintended consequences of cuts across these services that aren't often thought of as a first order effect. >> mike, help us out a bit. on the navy and the air force, would you like to add to what mackenzie's already given us? >> yeah, thank you, marvin, and great points. i would just add a couple more to illustrate that people really are trying to wreak a little china -- break a little china. i'll give you my own sense of where i think we can make some changes in the navy but why the kind of cuts that mackenzie alluded to going down to an eight-carrier force, for example, would be too extreme. last spring you may recall the navy decided not to send a second carrier to the gulf, and a lot was made of that. and this was, you know, for the sailors who were about to go it was certainly unfortunate that they were asked to gin up and then told to stand town do. but -- stand down. frankly, i don't worry that much

about what it did to the country because i don't think it was important to have two carriers in the gulf all the time at that moment. if we wind up fighting iran, it will be. but as a deterrent, i could live with that. another example and an idea that i'm trying to promote and bruce riedel and i have written about this is since we have now this rising threat of iran in the broader middle east and a lot of other countries in that region agree with us that it's a threat, i think we can be a little less skittish about putting combat aircraft on land in the middle east. historically, we haven't wanted to associate ourselves with the autocracies of the gulf cooperation council in the arabian peninsula, they haven't always wanted to associate themselves with the great champion of israel, so we've all agreed and we also didn't like it when our air bases got attacked, and so we agreed after the iraq invasion in particular just to scale back. we still have some air bases in the region, for example, in qatar, but we don't have a lot

of combat aircraft there on most days. we could change that policy if we could get two or three of those regional countries to host, let's say, 50 fighter jets each, and that way you don't put all your eggs in any one basket since the politics may not be predictable. but i think it's sound policy. and if you do that, you don't need quite as many carriers at least in the short term. it's more efficient to deal with it by land-based power because the carriers need to be cycle led in and out, they've got to work out back home, and you wind up needing five carriers to sustain one on station. so it's an inefficient way to maintain combat air power if you know where you're going to have to operate. it's a great way to have combat air power if you don't know where you're going to have to operate and you need flexibility. but that's an example of where i'd be willing to see a cut in the carrier fleet maybe of one ship, maybe even two. but on the other hand, you know, china's adding $10 billion a year to its military budget each

and every year right now. i don't expect us to fight china, but i do think we have to sustain a pretty robust presence in that region, so if anything, i'd like us to ramp up our carrier presence in the pacific. and as you know, that's been a focus of secretary panetta ask now secretary hagel, president obama, we're trying to put 60% of our naval assets in the pacific. it used to be 50%. if it's 60% of a rapidly-shrinking pie, you're not going to achieve the desired effect. i think the navy can shrink a little, and there's one other idea i won't burden you with on how to do that, but even if you put these kinds of ideas on the table, and you're breaking a lot of china, this is the way you get to maybe $200 billion in additional ten year savings. questionsation, to me -- sequestration, to me, is just a bridge too far.

>> that come to my mind immediately. one is what about the rest of the american budget, not just the military side of the budget? we seem to be absorbed more with the military side of the budget and complaining about cuts there than we are about the rest of the budget. and i appreciate military needs and all of that. but is there somebody in your experience at the military side who is saying we're only part of this problem, we've got to be aware of everything else in american society that's going to

be affected by sequestration? do you guys even hear that in your discussions? >> i have heard it from this ec tear and the last secretary of defense a lot. and even the predecessor before that, secretary gates, talked a lot about whole of government and other security efforts that are being harmed beyond dod; foreign aid, state department, diplomacy, other capabilities we have outside of the defense department, intelligence as well that are being hurt. there is a great concern at a senior political level about this. but to be fair, the reason so much i think of the discussion is on defense cuts in particular is because it has been a disproportionate bill payer in these efforts. dod is putting in more dollars per relative to its own size at the federal agency -- and it is the largest -- than all of the rest. so it's only fair in my mind. and it's certainly a unique department in terms of its

constitutional mandate. so it's not that the rest aren't important by any sense, and i agree with you. but i think it is, it's reasonable to have an emphasis on the defense department in particular. as i already mentioned, this is the fourth year of budget cuts. for many of these other federal agencies, in fact, almost all of them, they're coming off a budget wave of good news where we had, basically, $787 billion stimulus bill you'll recall in the first year of this administration. that was a plus up of every agency but defense. and that's the year the defense budget started going down. so, i mean, i just will defend the defense department for a moment. >> i'm not in asking the question seeking to criticize the pentagon, i'm trying to put it into a context involving the entire budget and all of the needs of the united states, not just the military needs. but if you turned it around now and say that we live in an extremely turbulent world and

maybe we would like after afghanistan -- and that is not yet over -- after iraq to pull back and as the president says do nation building at home, are we capable of doing nation building at home in a world that remains as turbulent as it is? >> i'm going to, if you don't mind, cite the opportunity i had recently to write an op-ed with david petraeus on this point, actually two we've written this year, one this week in "usa today" and one earlier this year in washington post. and what we try to argue is that, sure, these big deficit deals that have been proposed would be wonderful to have in ways, but they're not essential. what you need to do given that america's economy has so much promise right now, what you need to do is just sort of tip the curve on how we're increasing the debt. and if we lower our, maybe lower our expectations a little, we can wind up in a reasonable

place, at least for the next five or ten years. now, long term it's a big challenge and, of course, alice rivlin and others have written eloquently about this, and petraeus and i aren't going to solve that problem. but in the short term, if you had a modest increase in income tax rates or a modest cap on reductions the way mitt romney was proposing last year and you had a couple of tenths a percent change in the cost of living for social security recipients that would accumulate over time, you could achieve, essentially, and a couple of other -- let's say half the cuts, a third to half the cuts in the discretionary accounts that sequestration would impose, if you do that, you've basically at least prevented the debt from getting bigger relative to the size of the economy. and then all the things we have going for us -- our energy revolution, our cyber possibilities, our advanced manufacturing, the gradual recovery of the real estate market -- all of these things

can kick in. so washington doesn't necessarily need to see itself as the location of this great showdown of the forces of bloated government versus liberty and the tea party and here on the stage of capitol hill is where the future of the country will be determined. we don't have to be quite that melodramatic about our role in washington. it's an important role, but the private economy and the american people are going to do a lot of the heavy lifting based on forces that are already out there in the private sector if we can just get the darn debt to stop growing relative to the size of the economy. so you could actually live with deficits in the range of $300 billion, $400 billion a year and achieve this goal. i'm not saying that would be a perfect end state. but we sometimes make the problem seem so impossibly hard. it's not impossibly hard. with reforms that are well within the mainstream on all these different accounts, we can actually tip that debt curve to the point where relative to the size of the economy it's no longer growing, maybe shrinking a little. and then let these other positive things happening in our

country take over. >> good. well, i have no objection. [laughter] okay, let's turn to you all. if you have questions, please, raise your hand. i will recognize you. ask a question, please, no speechings. and i see a number of people in uniform, and i will try to get to them as well. i'll start over here, please. give us your name, please. >> yes, bill courtney with computer sciences corporation. several years ago the department of state added a second deputy secretary of state for management and resources. the department of state is a relatively small cabinet department. secretary hagel has spoken of an enforcer to help make sure the efficiency cuts and and other things are done. would it make sense for the defense department to establish a second deputy secretary to deal with management and resources? >> mackenzie, you have a smile on your face. you know the answer. >> well, there have been --

>> her. it's going to be her. >> no, no thank you. [laughter] life on the outside is very good. well, a couple of problems. yes and no. i mean, one i'm always loathe to grow bureaucracy and add new positions without taking away somewhere especially or figuring -- somewhere else or a way to figure out to keep the work force stagnant at the defense department particularly. this senior and appointed class. the department of defense has made some changes in the recent years to bring in a management officer, not at the deputy level. my colleagues at other think tanks have big thoughts on that question. and larry corbett makes an eloquent case that there have been times when we've had two deputies, and it's worked very well. i would argue if your current -- and there's no way to argue this without sounding like a create similar of the man in the job now -- but if the current deputy

secretary is capable and committed, i think that it can be executed pretty well from his office as it is. maybe with some tweaks and expanded roles and responsibilities elsewhere. what we've seen before now, in the last decade plus -- and i'm talking about one of my colleagues at aei -- we've seen a lot of policy-heavy and emphasis, people with policy background in the deputy job. i don't like that. that's what i don't like. i prefer somebody who's coming in from the outside, somebody who's been in industry or who's run a business successfully or has overseen management decisions, large organizations, etc. some of the best secretaries and deputy secretaries have had that model for the defense department in the past. like packard, for example, and others. that model has proven that it works. i'm not knocking the guy doing the job.

it was a two-wartime and perhaps that was the right way to do it. but where we are right now you need a strong deputy. i'd argue that's probably more important than the secretary of defense position right now. >> like this idea of the pentagon being a bloated place, all kinds of dough is being spent unnecessarily. do you think that that suggestion would actually help? >> i can't tell. i'm intrigued by it, but i think i come down where mackenzie does, that the deputy secretary position is sort of supposed to do this. i think ash carter is doing a pretty good job. he's, unfortunately, living in an environment where we can't really get any clear guidance from the, you know, policy lords because there's no clear budget path ahead. and also congress, you know, is frankly not doing as good of a job as past congresses at biting the bullet and making tough choices on defense policy. we've had five base closure rounds approved in the last 25 years.

this congress has been unwilling to do it, for example. and so i think it's time to ask congress to step up its game too. >> okay, thank you. this gentleman right here in the front, please. >> i am dr -- [inaudible] with pakistan-american league. we subscribe in -- [inaudible] enduring pakistan/u.s. relations. my question is as mike said before that virtually sequestration has become the law of the land. my question is that across the board there are multiple fires in the globe now, not one or two. afghanistan and iraq, forget about that, there are so many. right now in 19 muslim countries the american embassies are closed, and in yemen americans have been asked to evacuate by air, airlifted. in presence of so many problems, usa is world leader, legitimate world leader with the mightiest

military machines and cutting technology and the biggest economy. a true leader. and -- >> get to the question, please. >> yes. without defining or redefining the foreign policy -- [inaudible] because in case of al-qaeda are we making more friends or more enemies in the world? all across the globe from afghanistan. what is usa missing and not doing? ..

>> in the world itself, plus the uncertainty, and the governance of this country, that you have a conflict that is obvious and not easily resolved. because want to throw something else in? >> a power structure, i agree with the premise of your question. defense policy as a child of the parent called foreign policy. that's how it is supposed to work. it hasn't worked that way. what we are seeing now is this coalescing of the debate about defense policy. the white house, congress, people like us. what we're really talking about often our foreign policy issues. so what we're doing is de facto changing foreign policy. we're not having a meaningful debate about that. so through the backdoor and it's

what is being done so poorly in efficiently and dangerously. >> from the back. >> yes, please. right here. not in the back. thank you very much. >> i guess it's important to note that scammer is not something the administration necessarily wanted to do. mackenzie, you're right, it is like he was a factor is having a real impact and it is sequestration that is the problem now. so if you look at force structure levels below 450,000 for the army, or cuts in the navy below nine carriers, not something the administration is interested in doing. when secretary hagel made his presentation the other day, he had this interesting strategic

choice between capacity and capability. i would like for you to talk about that it. capacity is about force structure, about numbers. capability is about modernization, technology being at the cutting edge. and, obviously, not going to choose told one path or the other, but given the question that marvin kalb asked about strategy, could you look at capacity and capability in that choice and tells i think it would affect strategy? >> thank you. thank you for an excellent question, and also for the good reminder which i agree with that the administration is not enthusiastic about these cuts. as i mentioned earlier, the police where i was having a slight difference with them was almost more tone. because they suggested that cutting the army down into the low four hundreds would follow the logic of the defense strategic guidance from last year. i do want to challenge that guidance a little bit. i think the notion that we can

conclude that the air of large-scale counterinsurgency be over. that's a little bit of the ahistorical way of thinking about war. but beyond that i agree with your point. on issue of modernization and capacity versus capability, i'm glad you raised that. there so many different angles today. let me take one specific which is our friend the joint strike fighter. i like to say, i'm a fan of the joint strike fighter. it's a program that has had trouble and it still wasn't trouble although it is doing better. but i'm a fan but i'm not sure we need 2500. the joint strike fighter is sized for the three purchases, its size larger to place existing force structure. that's essentially how it was done. i think it should be sizemore to high interest. in other words, to our certain places in the world if we wanted to a no-fly zone and see, i don't need we need a joint strike fighter for that. we flew over iraq for a dozen

years and didn't have any problems with aircraft getting shot down. so sure there's always an extra margin of safety and having the airplane, but is worth $100 billion to the country? what i try to lay out in my own writing, and this is why i think the reasonable room for compromise exist is scaling back the f-35 joint strike fighter, to something that my eyes would be roughly half the plan size. that would be sized for high-end contingency can specifically to terms of china, possibly some strikes against iran or even north korea. been otherwise, you're air force, brinker, navy combat air force structure to the nietzsche need to ge give most of it with greater combination of existing fourth generation plans, you either build more f-16s and f-18s or you refurbish the ones you've already got. you may be leaned towards unmanned systems a little sooner as my colleague has written eloquent over the years.

as you do that you don't say that the budget that the f-35 would've caused as you well know, but you may save 20, 25%. used to wind up with far and away the best fighter combat force that the world is going to see for the next generation. that's the way to strike a balance. unfortunately, when you start doing sequestration level cuts you wind up with this kind of a choice, either zero f-35, or an army of less than 400,000. obviously, there are the way she can do it but that's the kind of choice you're forced towards. i don't think we really should with either those choices. i think we've got to look to bush to rethink. i think we can cut a couple hundred billion dollars in the 10 year defense plan beyond what was in last year's budget, about what obama is proposing now. but i think sequestration is just too deep. >> i love the question because it is the question putting aside the things talked about in the first half of our session which is what we should talk about and continued to oakland the

strategic debate. your question is now, so this is where we are and where to go from here. i have two problems with the capability and capacity choice that the secretary outlined. it ignores the fact that capacity isn't a part of function. putting that aside, a choice to policymakers as if those are the only two. so i have a problem with that. something that has not been debated enough is the department of defense's readiness at all cost of these other to, money if you will, but the thought, part of the defense portfolio. let's put aside right now is that is good or if that is bad. it's just talk about that it is an option. while dod leadership claims there is no sufficiency for readiness, there is in the

budget but there are other options and you can take more. it is very expensive proposition. it's not that is just expensive but it's irrelevant state of being demeaning chairman of joint chiefs said this is the most rating military and modern history. so there is arguably some debate that could be had from capacity, capability and readiness. there's a third, fourth and fifth options that are not being discussed. so the secretary, it's a foregone conclusion will have to take it up, to have a problem with it. the second point is it's an illusion of choice. at the end of the day, it's not smaller and modern or bigger and older. it's going to actually be both. the numbers, we've all heard, ainsley walking through multiple times, it's a question, the readiness, efficiency is never realized. they will take from both and they already are. they already have been. this notion that modernization, the capabilities portfolio will

become a disproportionate a military when it already has been. for the last four years of defense budget cuts. these things are already happening. these will accelerate. so these two choices are really just one, and that's important. >> i love your phrase about the illusion of choice. and i recommend that be the title of your book, the illusion of choice. [laughter] on this site here. right here in the middle. >> greg, arms control. i think in washington it's easy to get a consensus that sequestration is a disaster, it's a terrible way to cut budgets, it's a terrible planning mechanism. if you could imagine yourself at a town hall meeting this month with a member of congress, i wonder how you would explain to the crowd there who is

responsible for sequestration. why can't we just in this? because i'm sure that some people will be asking members of congress that. and what do you think an honest answer to that question would be? >> thank you for that question. >> i'm happy to start. i think that the genesis of the idea, we've all read our "washington post" account, and let's make a quick blog, we hope the washington post will keep doing excellent journalism under its new leadership. the great accounts there and elsewhere, who first talked about the idea two years ago. was a jack lew, wasn't somebody else? i'm not going to criticize anybody because at the time, and marvin is very witty and punchy at the beginning point out at the time it seems better than doing nothing and maybe now we have our doubts. i think it's right now worse than nothing in terms of how it is affecting not only the times that the only -- the other

sequestration. i care about these ideas but even from a national security point of view, just as much as a care about the defense budget. they're being hit by sequestration, entitlements and tax it from a basically getting a free ride more of us. to me that is exactly the wrong way to go. so i was a sequestration worse than nothing. i've having said that, why haven't we been able to move beyond in the last year or so? that's the other part of the question, because i think the origins of it are more or less shared origins. and here i think if i had allocate blame, i would sort of say 65% to the tea party of the republican party come and 35% to the staunch defense of and how the wing of the democratic party. the only reason why, there's plenty of blame to go around, so 35% went to the democrats is not meant to be a past or a soft critique. i made i could go 64.

i think president obama's budget request this past spring was reasonable and looking for a compromise. and he is the top policymaker in his own party. where i would criticize the president, however, is he doesn't like to talk about it very much. he's not trying to rally a spirit of shared sacrifice around the country the way some of my heroes, the paul tsongas and warren rudman and even at his best bob dole, and bill clinton, some the people from the '80s and '90s who worked hard at creating a bipartisan shared sacrifice and were willing to talk about the cuts or the tax reforms they didn't like in order to try to great this spirit of national solidarity. there hasn't been anybody doing that very well including the president, although his budget itself is better than what it was, or better than the tea party budget, in my judgment. i think the presidents move to the good actual intellectual place come his budget is a perfectly reasonable compromise

between the different points of view but he hasn't done enough to sell it. and the tea party has treated any kind of tax or the as it's likely to be the end of our economic growth, failing to recognize that historically tax rates now are lower than it were under reagan and clinton, and you know, failing to recognize that entitlement growth is something that we're all serve collective responsible for actually, ma mitch daniels and a few others have said that. i give them credit by think the tea party has talked about the growth and element as if it's this runaway train took over the next 20, 30, 40 years it is. but in the short term i don't think we need to fundamentally break medicaid and medicare and under -- to make progress. would scale back the rate of cost increase in social security, for example. that's a more palatable near-term mechanism while we continue to have the bigger debates about longer-term reform. i'm getting off my defense specialization so i should stop

there. let's just say there's plenty of blame to go around. i will finish on that note. >> i wonder if i could pick that up. i want -- mica said a moment ago that the president is ready to compromise. and mike has written about this with david petraeus recently. this idea of the advantage of compromise, the need for compromise him and i think mike is right in saying that the president has demonstrated any number of ways a desire to reach out and a desire to compromise. the tea party has not done that, and that is a fact. and i think that we lose the spirit of the madness of washington politics right now, if we forget that one side of the argument does not wish to compromise, and the other side appears to want to compromise. you can get a deal in this city,

effort, and more than 200 years unless the two major factors come together and agreed to do some kind of compromise. my editorial is at an end. next question. yes, sir. right there. >> thank you very much. my question is directed at how the various budget cuts in defense would assess, while% of his military power both in our allies and other countries, thank you. >> well, just this morning i was reading at the secretary carter's remarks to that effect, which is sounds pretty horrified. and he is reflecting reality. everybody is watching the everybody is taking notice. sometimes you get the sense in washington everyone but the people making the decisions here in this town, unfortunately. but what he's referring to is friends and foe and potential

foe alike, right? our allies are worried that we've got a cut and run plan here that we're not telling them about, that we're putting on a happy face or lipstick on a pig. they see numbers shrinking under president shrinking, or you know, capability shrinking. but fear that everything is going to be fine. all is well. they intuitively see things different. and those who would seek to capitalize on a moment of perceived weakness, also watching. and i would argue calculating differently about the timing of accelerated nuclear progress in their programs or any other type of challenge from terrorism to assad in syria. your question summarizes, yes,

everyone is watching anyone is taking a. >> i agree and let me give an example. what we've been trying to do, we refer to our today as the so-called rebalancing towards the asia-pacific. as you know very well, jeffrey, the rebalancing is a multifaceted strategy. i think it was well handled by people like jeff, kirk and hillary clinton in the first obama turn. the president himself deserves primary credit. i it was relatively notable for its modest steps. there's not too much huge change in the rebalancing and i think that's a good thing because we wanted to remind the region and remind china we're still and asia-pacific are without being, or giving the illusion or strategy in the making this i agree with what it amounted to. but if you actually cross out the changes, the changes, in other words, the reapportionment a defense resources from other theaters towards the

asia-pacific, i did sort of a back of the envelope and i think it's about a 10 or $12 billion of that. in terms of how much the annual budget that you were previously spent elsewhere, you are now spinning in the asia-pacific, roughly speaking. this is just a way to think about this question your posting. with sequestration will now cut 50 billion out of the annual budget, and we can try to selectively protect that 10 billion increase to the asia-pacific but it's hard to do so when the asia-pacific that accounts for much of your global defense spending. the overall numbers are coming down 50 billion you still try to claim with a straight face that are oval effort towards the asia-pacific has been increased relative to what it was before. the math just doesn't add up to 10 billion you're trying to protect what you're listening 50 billion out of the overall defense budget. so rebalancing to the extent that i support it, to the extent diving many in washington and both parties have supported it, as a carefully liberated and appropriate way of reasserting

our interest in the broader asia-pacific theater is now being directly challenged, if not undercut, by sequestration but in the short term perhaps it's no big do. in the short term the pilots can take the summer off. we are mistreating our civilians, and i'm frankly a little upset about how we treat our civilians with these furloughs but from an asia-pacific point you are not sure allies and adversaries or neutrals care that much. that sort of our own internal decision-making. we're putting a few more weapons in lines waiting to get repaired down the road. we are not cutting a few bases. in other words, you can try to talk your way out of the short term and maybe affects our temperate our modest or we will be repaired next year. but if you sequester again in 2014, i don't high sustained argument. i think we have to admit the sequester was drunk and essentially, essentially undone the rebalancing. >> thank you, michael. yes, please, right here.

>> frank hoffman, national defense university. he so all a bit of my question so i will try to push making you lived on the illusion of choice. some of our colleagues at another institution, obviously it wasn't prestigious as the director here today, have argued we are over investing in readiness, that there's a strategic choice, a real strategic choice about the detention of the risk that we are currently facing, which i guess is a push by golden on marvin. worst frequency, and cost is statistically perceived by some people as being much less today in berkeley. although we perceive it to be something different. -- empirically. are we over investing? do we have less risk today than we should be smart about and invest in modernization for the future? is the industrial base fragile

and weak? is at risk? should we invest in modernization? and then another question, what should we be investing in? there's an idea that we know we are investing in what kind of force would want to fight. mike wants more balanced and adaptability. enforcing and navy and air-sea battle. is that what we should be doing present tense, readiness, modernization in the future? >> illusion of choice. >> so eloquent. going back to the exercises, i call it a wargame, where we conducted a shadow strategic choice in management review. i know you're familiar, and equally august colleagues at all other think tanks, i will speak for themselves with all -- there was some great points that come out of that and one that is the first one of readiness that it is debatable. that is exactly what i was

thinking is the defense department setting up a binary capacity when there are many other options that could be considered. and one is do we cut readiness. how much, where across what components, across which services, how would you execute it? been what impact would it have? i absolutely think that needs to be open and up for discussion, because it depends on what you want to do. focusing near-term, mortgaging the future for the near-term. so you'll mortgage capability for readiness now or do you want to flip that and take more risk, just as you said. those are the kinds of choices the secretary left out of the management review but i think that's exactly the point of an event like this, to raise that awareness on the industrial base. i think there's no doubt. i do think that there's a potential problem that industrial base is faring relatively well on the large cap

side of the sequester for a variety of reasons, many of which that there are better players in dod and the political class in this town is office come and prepared three, four years ago. leaving that aside, the perception is that everything is fine and manageable. of course, i worry about small and medium-sized suppliers and vendors and companies. actually the concern. i'll give the pentagon credit. there's been a great emphasis on the induction phase review, sector by sector, a portfolio review, et cetera, that has been underway for years now. i'm not sure how much been taken up for action not sure how much. the dollars just are not going to be there to i think take care for the long-term. i let you pick up the third one if you want. >> i was going to come back to readiness, because i'm glad you're raising it, i also would like to put in the work and sort

of defense of the traditional notion of keeping readiness high. we have a lieutenant colonel, retired, is simmering core need him to your looking as fit and trim as ever. you would read to go in three months and i'm sure you'll be a great warfighter. so if you miss a rotation of reserve duty i think it's probably no big deal, and i think sometimes we get into this idea that a lot of our military is working so hard, give them a break, let them rest. the army was trying to do that for much of the last decade. they realized this obsessive focus of being right all the time was actually less important than letting people just see their families and take your other mental health. it sound a little touchy-feely at first by the army was right. however, i know you are equipped understands better than i, frank, let's also remember the recent recruit in the 20 years old who has never properly trained up to the standards that we have come to think ever since tom cruise in top gun taught us about the importance of

training. that never had that standard. and now they're being told okay, you can go shoot ammunition. we so of live ammunition for your rifle, that's good news. you can read as many military history books as you want that to exercise where you drive down the road to the neighboring base where there's a 10 by 10 square mile area for small unit maneuver, we don't necessarily have all the resources for that. and we definitely don't have the resources deployed to one of the national training centers to do the large unit maneuver warfare training that historically has been what made the marine corps and the army so darned good and ready for battle. we just don't have that kind of money right now, because you're going to cut $52 billion out of the fiscal 2014 budget. you have to take a lot of it out of readiness to so your debate which is important and i think we all would agree over the longer-term we have to wrestle with that in the short term, you take the money out of readiness and a new contracts for industry.

those are where you can go from one in the short term. navigator 20 year-old recruit him is potentially on call for korea or somewhere else who has never in his hole, or her whole life done a proper large unit maneuver training exercise. and i think that just, it's not going to immediately take effect but it is, frankly, a little bit of a risky decision potentially very unfair to that recruit. >> thank you, mike, very much. and thank you all. i want to conclude with sort of a small little wargame. we are not even a working so much as a foreign policy exercise, involving military strategy. that has to do with the south china sea. it has to do with our relationship with vietnam and to test it with our relationship with the philippines, with taiwan, and, of course, with china. now, as all of the military people are thinking through how

many planes come how many tanks, this and that, there are things happening right now in the south china sea, some people's regard what is happening as threateni threatening. somethingsome things that are tg on the near horizon, others push it way back 15, 20 years. the people who live in vietnam see it as an immediate danger. people in the philippines, same way. taiwan, same way. the chinese are doing things that you could argue all great powers do. and china is now a great power. it has to be regarded as such. how do we respond intelligently within the constraints that you both have articulated so well, i think, when you see a problem i could south china sea, does that mean you have to send more ships there? more planes? doesn't require a different kind of nonmilitary diplomacy?

when the secretary of defense goes to vietnam and says we are developing a commitment, you and i, that's a loaded word within the context of the u.s. and vietnamese relationship. when the u.s. begins to talk about commitments to the defense of vietnam, against whom? obviously china. vietnam and china have -- many times, a thousand cases. what is the smart thing right now, taking his military review into account for the u.s. to do? and i will start with mike. >> the smart thing is to recognize our asia-pacific strategy has been working. in other words, for all the ways we have to stay vigilant towards the rise of china, and, obviously, towards the real enemy which is north korea, the overall approach that we've had has been successful. we have been present. we've had strong alliances. we vetted perception of great

strength. now, chinese grown to the point where it's not going to be an unrivaled kind of american superiority indefinitely, but i think the last thing we want to do is accelerate the pace of transition. and this is not necessarily -- >> to what? >> to china being equal to the united states and the asia-pacific militarily. and maybe a day when they are, although we're great allies and we have great experience in our armed forces and will be a long ways off before they even get to that point, but i don't want to accelerate the perception of americans relative decline. i'm not even sure decline is the right word to use and i would prefer avoiding that impression. and, therefore, i don't want to see sequestration because it's going to undo the rebalancing. one more point that your question raises, and i will try to make a brief but think it's important. some people say it would cut the military at least we won't have the temptation to go fight as much. if the japanese want to fight over the islands against the chinese, let them do it.

we are better off staying out. if every smaller military will be disinclined to get involved. .. because we built up the budget and we didn't really use the military. this is not a wonderful outcome. i'm not saying it's all ronald reagan's judgment, there were happy circumstances as well but there was no correlation between increasing the budget and increasing intervening militarily.

then in the 90's, for operations i generally supported -- synnott criticizing the administration's -- we cut the budget and increased the overseas activities. george w. bush didn't run for president carried back to the 2008 campaign literature he didn't run promising a defense buildup and he wasn't intending to make foreign policy the center of his foreign policy than he wound up making as we know one of the most hardest decisions in history about the war of choice in iraq. so i don't think that cutting our military is going to be the best way to keep us out of trouble in the south china sea. i want steadiness and results and sustain the balance. that means we can make the economies and defense but not cuts like sequestration. >> mackenzie, you're concluding thoughts? >> i think that was very good. there isn't much to add except i wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket is basically the summary. all i want peace through

strength or a modern day version of it, because i want a military that the tours. talking on the military front i want all those other things, too. i want strong allies, i want our partners capacity to be robust enough to defend themselves if needed and to take care of their own neighborhood so to speak. i want all of our tools to be effected partly through the reinforcement from our high power. i won a lot of things, economic strength, etc.. but the point the edge of this -- the spear is this gets into their mind a little bit. >> in their mind the potential -- >> the front and potential. we are getting into the terms of the defense policy. that's what we call shaping and influencing.

we see it every day. i mean, you want to be the one shaping and influencing your kids when you know they go to school every day and someone else is telling them something. but you always want it to be calculus. and michael said it's not just the defense part. i want all of the eggs and our basket to be strong and they are beginning to weaken as you outlined earlier with the larger budget facing the discretionary side. and so i what second what michael said and of course that's not where we are headed which is a depressing way to end the conversation. >> i just want to say to both of you - it's a terrific and a very interesting which kind of discussion of a very complicated problem. i know i speak for everybody and brookings when i say thank you for coming into being here. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] to meet with vladimir putin next month. the reaction to russia's decision to grant temporary asylum to the national security leaker edward snowden. president obama will obtain the group of 20 economic summit in st. petersburg russia. the president will meet today with families during a stop at california's campus

i am not some sort of antisuburb person who thinks that everyone needs to live in new york city. coming across as a sort of espresso sipping condo dwelling elite is of some kind. that's not why did the book. i know people like the suburbs. i get set up with the daily life of new york city. the trends were so undeniable and the fact there is a shift in the way the suburban america is perceived by the people that live there is too big a story to

ignore. the hand of the air force of quadrennial defense review spoke today about his goals. his legislatively mandated state security strategy and priority. general steven kwast says everything is on the table. this defense, hosted by the center for strategic and international studies is about an hour. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the center for strategic and international studies. i'm david berteau, the director of the international security program. on behalf of the doctor i want to thank you for joining us in the room and the viewers that have joined us on the csis web site and i want to issue a special thanks to our viewers on

c-span. let me remind you as a starting point to turn off your electronic devices. i say that as i'm looking at mine, realizing that i frequently get lost in the command. there are so many options now off is a hard one to find. that will help us as we go through this. i also want to lay out for you how we do this. this is a special discussion series of our military strategy for rahm. we've been holding these military strategy talks for more than a decade now under the generous sponsorship and underwritten support from rolls-royce america. we are grateful for that support this allowed us to continue this ongoing discussion and dialogue through a buildup and a drawdown and we are grateful for that support. this special discussion series is on something called the

quadrennial defense review. we know defense by its initials. we know almost everything by its initials, the qdr. you know you are an insider when you can engage an entire sentence with subjects, verbs, modify years and they are all acronyms and they actually make sense to you if you well. the quadrennial defense review has been around for awhile. i'm going to review that history just briefly with you. and then we will talk with our guests, the major general steven kwast. major kwast was in the air force, actually technically i guess since you enroll first at the air force academy. but he graduated from the air force academy in 1986. he's had quite a number of assignments at all levels in the air force. over 600 hours of combat flying ranging from our original desert storm and desert shield through the southern watch and into the

enduring freedom. he now has the unique distinction of being the director of the air force office of the quadrennial defense review air force qdr office a few well inside the air force under the assistant by the chief of staff. so he has the responsibility for managing this from the air force perspective. the qdr, the quadrennial defense review is a statutory requirement. congress passed it back in 1986, and there has been since then the four qdr, 2007, 20006, 2010. this would be our fit and it is on something that happened before the first qdr. the bottom-up review that was done at the end of the cold war, the beginning of the clinton administration and basically says we are not going to have enough money. let's look at the changing world environment, the changing strategy and look at how the strategies and the resources of line.

but the statute from congress says you need to look at what your resources are. and we all know the basic plan by which the dod does this sort of thing. first you build your strategy then you look at what resources it takes to devotee and then program and budget for those and submit it to congress and if your justification is adequate coming you will get most of it. now, this qdr is in a different circumstance. it's a circumstance where the role of congress is ambiguous than it often is. we are now in the first week of august and we have a fiscal year that ends in seven weeks. as of right now, the defense department does not know what the end of that fiscal year looks like. we still have reprogramming actions that are out and contract that have not been awarded. we have decisions on how many furlough days are being reduced in the defense department from

11 to six. i suppose that's good news unless you felt your vacation planner around the four day furlough weekend. so we will see how that plays out if you will. we have no idea where we are going for fiscal year 14 that starts october 1st. we may be operating under the continuing resolution. there may be some flexibility on that or not. we may be looking at a government come october 1st. we have a debt ceiling crisis that will hit somewhere around veterans day or thanksgiving or something like that and congress is going to have to deal with that. and of course if we don't have a resolution of the overall caps from the budget control act of 2011, we have other sequester in as late as january 15th of next year. so that is a lot of uncertainty in the budget arena. but the qdr itself, the quadrennial defense review, is by far and by the interest of the department in some ways independent of those resources. there is value in doing the qdr

regardless of the resource implications are. they are useful when you are building up and drawing down and we have done them in both cases if you will. so what we are going to do is welcome general kwast. he will make some remarks and i will engage in a little bit of a discussion with him here on the stage. i suspect i will pick up a couple questions from his comments and then we are going to open up to questions from the floor. yuval had the opportunity to cut as you came and note cards. you can hold them up and the staff are there to come around and pick up from you. if you run out of those cards or you don't have one, raise your hand and they will bring you some of those cards. i don't think we have number two pencils that we can find them if we need to read it they will bring the cards up. we have to of our senior folks, the adviser and stephanie is here to assimilate them and get as many questions as we can and we will see if we can get some

answers or at least some commentary. the whole point is to engage in a dialogue and discussion and we are grateful to general kwast for joining us today. let me turn the stage over to the major general steven kwast. [applause] >> first of all thank you for being here today. i know there are many other things you could be doing on a fine summer day. it isn't quite as hot as the dog days of summer so i appreciate you are here. i know you are here because you care about the future of the nation just as i do and those that are part of the crowd that make sure the dialogue is rich and deep and so i will come contentious conversations because that way we make sure we get it right just taking the easy road come easy answer because it usually fails in society and we are not in the

business of failure. let me start by first of all saying from an air force perspective, this cutie are is an opportunity to ask the fundamental questions. so as a team member for the broad a department of defense that we are going to be on i'm going to be articulating those questions for the chief and the secretary and the stakeholders that help the air force play productive role moving our defense department down the road towards some of the things he was alluding to, towards the fact the world has changed and i'm not sure we have done a good job of considering how it's changed and what it means for what we are building and what we are building has with regards to relevance for the international community and our role in this world. some of the questions i think are pretty fundamental that qdr

needs to ask and it plays right into the air force core missions that i will talk to in a second. but the tough questions are what is the nature of the world and what we play in that which is laid out by president and national leaders and then knocking that down to what kind of constructs, concepts and methods do we will get to see if there is a better way of doing things, a way of approaching this business security in a way that is affordable because of our resources are diminishing. it also means looking at the entire relationship. what are we trying to achieve in different places. what is the method we are using to achieve them? our posture and our presence. some of the same theology that grew out of world war ii need to be looked at and asked the question is the technological place that we are at right now

with science and technology mary duff sufficiently with the way the world is changed with the speed of information sharing to transportation to all of the other things that you all know so well, and is it married up with the approach we are taking in order to be players in this world to bring stability come to the disability and peace where possible and allow diplomacy and statesmanship to allow people to collaborate set economic goodness flows from the global commons to america and makes america's national engine of security strong, and that's our economy. so for the air force, this conversation is a rich one, and it plays into the entire purpose and the reason why the air for success. you know, when you talk about economies of force and having the aspirations to be a world leader yet having to do it in an affordable way, the air force is your best bet in many ways and that is why the conversation as french.

it's about that because what we do is go out and bring air and space superiority anywhere in the globe the president and the nation need eight to be so that we can see it here and understand the environment with the isr and all of the other elements to understand the decision, the information so that we are acting with efficiency and prudence. and we are acting in a way that has a cause and effect relationship with bringing peace and stability and not conflict if at all possible. so we can then move things to wherever it is on the globe and that is a point of interest and we can deliver things with its humanitarian or whether it is other things so we can get it there and devotee can stop us if we have that well. and finally, that we can bring to bear the capabilities to drive reassurance to our friends. we can drive deterrents to those that might oppose america's a desire to be a leader for peace

and good in the world and deliver from any environment contested, uncontested, it doesn't matter. we provide our president and the nation options, and those options mean we don't have to say no. in order to do that, and in an affordable way to continue being fetched indispensable role in the nation we have to take a look at those underpining questions about how we are structured and how we fit into the joint fight. finally, we are the commanding control that links it altogether. the air force is the one that provides that level, that command and control that will tie the entire joint and coalition fight together in a harmonized way to make sure that we always maintained a comparative advantage against any potential adversary. and that nobody can do the crowd and the main integration that the air force can provide on the command and control elements and the core mission that we play. scott was kind of describes some

of the questions that i think are out there that we ought to be asking. you know, the qdr needs to ask other questions that go outside of the air force although we benefit from. the need to ask questions about the basics about compensation and efficiency to make sure that we are good stewards of the american tax payers money and that we are doing it for the best return on investment possible. we need to take a look at our sizing construct to make sure that we are sized appropriately and in the right places for the right capacity. we need to take a look at our models and the total force to make sure we have the balance right of how much capacity is in the reserve component, and how much capacity is outside of that for this future depending on how the nation wants to proceed. and we do need to take a look always -- always to give look at our homeland defense. the ability to look at what friends are out there for america that we might have to be ready for. so, i will close with the one statement that i think describes

our charge in uniform, and that is we must be prepared for the unexpected. we will never predict the future will look like. we will always get that wrong. we always have as people on this globe. but we can build things that provide options to our american people, that brings the resiliency, the flexibility and the adaptability so that they can swarm and fuse to any problem out there and bring air and space superiority so you can go there and see what's going on, provide the isr information and move things there, no matter what it is at the time of your choosing, and then finally you can command and control it and you can act with the diplomatic effects, the humanitarian, you name it. you can put the effect on target, and you can do it all at the speed of this world.

and that is the final point that i will make. there is a mentioning to the security element that only the air force provides. and we have to not forget that readiness and our ability to move quickly. the president or the nation have a problem with the south china sea and then the hours or days later you have a problem africa you need to be able to do it immediately otherwise you allow things to cascade out of control and goes back to the old adages such in time will help to prevent spending much more in the future. the air force is that all armed that brings the temporal dimension that really brings us a better future. and so, this qdr is a wonderful place to have those conversations, talk about how the air force plays into the joint community, the coalition community, and those things we provide this nation that have made us indispensable since our inception in world war ii and

that will make us a player in the future that gets stronger and better especially as we go through our financial times where you need good economies of force and good return on investment on your tax payers' dollars. the air force is the service to provide that. thanks for letting me have a few opening comments and i hope the questions i asked precipitate if you questions of your own and i want you to take it anywhere you want. yes i have my limits. i can only talk to the air force or the qer -- qdr but i welcome any questions because this is about a contentious conversation so that we as protectors of the nation collectively are making sure that our policy makers and those with the authority to actually make decisions are being provided counsel, and the nation doesn't regret that we didn't have the right conversations at the inflection

point in our history. >> i think we are going to roll back the podium. i'm going to think out loud what you a little bit on a couple of points while our folks have questions and raise your hand and the staff will pick them up for you. i want to look at three levels if you will. one is the perspective of the air force. the quadrennial defense review is a process that produces a report and there is a document. i haven't checked with my local library to see how often their copy gets checked out and read, but i teach for a number of universities and i know that my students get to read. so it does move ground and up and down the circles but it is a process much more than the document itself. it's the end if you will so i want to look at that process from three perspectives. one is inside the air force.

we are not yet at the point where the process has officially kicked off in terms of reference that's been negotiated in time with guidances', multiple which he well, there's fiscal guidance and then there's guidance from the strategic management review that's completed and a lot of other internal documents as well. and there is an and the date because the documents and converse next winter when the budget goes up. but in the meantime, it seems to me that there are possibly some issues and you touched on some of them in your opening remarks that it's important for the air force to get started thinking about how to rationalize these issues in advance of getting guidance and of the term of reference on schedule if you will. how do you use that time now to position yourself better and taken that vantage of tackling the issue is now? >> i appreciate that question and the answer is we never stop this process.

there is a team that is always there. you have different people rolling in and out and we have to become more public during this tenure where we are going to deliver reports. but we wrestle with these questions each and every day and keep going back to our strategy and our partnership with the navy and marine corps and the partners and the interagency partners looking at opportunities to grapple with these questions so from a process perspective, this skimmer gave in sight and was a process that looked at where the money was and it looked at and helped reveal some of the state of affairs that we are in which can be a platform for some strategic forces and a platform for decisions about where we need to go in order to be affordable and in order to be more effective and more relevant and adaptive to the new world

that we are living in. so the process is ongoing and the way the air force mechanizes that process is there is the team and that is there all the time and out in the public more often in this juncture will be build 18 that mary is out to the secretary defense designed so the design a skimmer for example the designed 18 teams so the air force had 18 teams and we bring our strategists and subject matter experts and they participate in the teams that collaborate on questions. so we will do the same here. once the secretary defense is comfortable and they write the terms of reference and give the schedule we will take a look at that structure and mary up to that structure and then we will contribute. >> the air force has a little bit of a different way institutionally. some of the services the qdr is more closely attached to the

resources or to be an existing set up shops. in some ways you are a bit more independent of that, aren't you? >> in the sense we have the potential of being independent when required but only when the secretary of chief what he liked to use it that way. we are married to our entire corporate process. but we plebeian primarily to our resources and that is important. it's got to be that way. that is our programmer, and that is where this corporate process looks to for its strategic guidance and counsel. but the goal is to uplift the entire corporate air force so that there is no stone unturned when we are looking at the question to find the creative collaborative and harmonized

council that is true to an air force strategy and that contributes to the maximum potential to the joint fight. >> did you work for the same chief and seem to secretary? let me move to the defense department perspective if you will. you've got some interesting elements in the process this time around. you had just a couple of years ago the strategic planning, the defense strategic guidance that was issued january, 2012. they had the involvement of working with the president. he actually went to the pentagon to deliver the guidance on the unprecedented event from the pentagon to point of view. the context is different even in advance of guidance how do you look at that perspective from where you are sitting? that defense strategic guidance is the place where we began.

but that is part of our presidents posture, and that is where we start the conversation. that has been cleared up from day one and it's been unequivocal. so the reality is that this whole conversation about the strategy includes all free elements. it includes what we are trying to achieve and the resources we need to achieve that and it includes the met this week about in achieving that and you have to look at all free. so the defense strategic guidance has to be considered in this conversation and then the conversation with my pay grade to the white house to congress and to others as we have this federated conversation. so the ground rules are there and they are unambiguous and it is a great place to begin the conversation.

>> using the qdr process will allow you to raise questions about what is in the strategic guidance and it is a way of reinforcing it. >> what it does is opens of the conversation to see how we explore the possibility to be are there ways that we can do this that we can achieve this perfectly? are there places that we might have to adjust? if so, that is in our call but at least we can have that conversation. so it is wide open where you can explore and where you can go. but in my humble opinion, there is tremendous room as far as being creative and being innovative. and we as a people that are here defending this nation and using the american people as resources we need to be very creative about going back and questioning our assumptions. are we doing it this way because it has worked for the last 70

years and we think it's going to work again or is there a new approach we might be able to achieve the same results better, cheaper, faster, smarter, and that's where the conversation goes. >> so no possibility of looking at those from a fresh perspective? >> only if the president lets us. >> now let me talk about congressional level because everybody involved works for the president but article 2 of the constitution and the president commander-in-chief they put the congress in charge of providing the resources and the rules and regulations that we operate. congress created this process as a check if you will of hiring the pentagon to explain what you are there for, why we need an air force and the needy and what we need to do and a way of validating that against the resources of congress programs. part of how they do that is most of the times we have done the

qdr there has been an independent panel that takes the dod does and provides their judgment to congress. this time they have done something different. that panel is already in place and ready to go in parallel with the internal process. how do you incorporate the existence of that panel on its role, with a that turns out to be, in your process and thinking? >> that is the call my boss of a mechanized that, or my boss's boss's boss. but the reality is it gets back to the collaborative requirement here. one reason why you hear the voices in congress that are dissatisfied with the past qdr is it gets after this element to be a it wasn't just that they were wanting it to great our homework. it's that they want to be a will to help see and sheep and understand how the strategy is informing where we are going over the next 20 years.

that is a very important thing. i am a firm believer in this balance of power where that kind of collaboration although contentious and sometimes filled with political, you know, deutsch, it is better than not collaborating. and so however the secretary defense what to fight a mechanized this collaborative element of the qdr, the collaboration has to be there to some degree. the more forward it is the better we get to the end result where congress doesn't have regrets and the executive branch doesn't have regrets and that is a good place to be. so mechanized is the call above me but i will work with whatever they give me and make sure that we are collaborating. >> it gives the dod the opportunity to essentially talk about ways in which we are smarter today than we were yesterday, which is what the process will let us come out to be.

of course when you go to congress and say that, their first question is generally why didn't you start being done sooner which is a harder and harder explanation if you will. but i'm kind of monopolizing the conversation here. let me turn to some questions from the floor. >> agreed. thank you. >> thanks, david. i would like to piggyback on what you talked about in the congressional role. it's quite clear in the title ten language regarding qdr that in recent years the added specific language saying it shouldn't be resource constrained yet somewhat inconsistent with that same language is that the qdr must speak with budget plans so we have a couple questions from the audience that talk a little bit about resources. the first one is one that we often hear every time qdr is due and that is talking about how do you and the qdr office for the airport talk about developing a strategy and a force structure without recognizing the resource

constraints? and then the other questions are about the resource constraints, not financial ones, but when you think about the resources it also includes your people and it includes your equipment. so another question is piggybacking on the resource question. how does the air force think about modernizing an air force that is currently the smallest and the oldest in the service history? and then on the people, if you could talk a little bit about the active component, reserve component i understand the skimmer must have a working group on this question and they never really convened or came out with much output much is my understanding of it. but if you could talk about those three how are you approaching the resources in your office, and of the second modernization coming and the third mix. >> great questions, each of them

in order starting with the resource question. all of you that are a part of this work on a strategy understand that you have to take excursions intellectually in order to try to find that sweet harmony point between the end, ways and means. so, the unconstrained portion of that are these excursions where you start with the nature of the world and your place and the unconstrained if i could build anything that is feasible, you know, how would i put that together. it comes down to having a good strategy and taking those intellectual excursions that are resources unconstrained. then rushing across the resources of peace so you start then looking for opportunities to innovate and to be creative about your approach. opportunities for the ways in

which you try to achieve your and states that are informed by the resource constraints that are your reality. this goes back kind of to the same principle. the way that we approach it is the way most people do and that is just as we do with the process of looking at the strategy, looking at the world and looking for alignment, as you do that again and again, you start uncovering opportunities to do things in a different way that allow you to achieve a full degree of your strategy. just like cleaning your house, you have to do it every day. you start by dusting of the things that do not align to your strategy with the same degree or the same levels of others. so this conversation is how we get after a strategy that this resource unconstrained but being practical about the fact that the resources are a part of the

three legged stool of the ways and means and that it's only the innovative process that allows you to start getting some synergy and having something that is firm, solid and dependable. with regard to your second one and third one, there are a number of interesting path of this that you can take with regard to the cutie qdr so i will take that last one first. the the reality in any military is that you want to maintain the keep of the body for a rainy day. it goes back to the comment you have to be prepared for the unexpected. another way of doing that where you can have the capacity that isn't quite as expensive to maintain, so the balance is always there and the fact that the skimmer didn't come out with any tangible solutions or suggestions on that is not a

result of the skimmer was just never scope to to do that but that has to be part of the calculus because that brings into this conversation i was just talking about the balance between active duty guard and reserve and it makes a difference and it's predicator on how you believe to be shaped in order to be responsive for the world. so it could be different because of the readiness model. we have to be ready to go. but with that capacity, how much could we in the research component in the active duty? so that's kind of why it wasn't part skimmer because that work really goes out to the qdr. and then the programmatic part you were talking about, it has to be rooted in the program that checks. so those conversations answer all free. did i miss anything that you wanted to hear? >> we have done a fair amount of work here atcsis andi know

you've gone into even greater depth. the impact on the budget from the rising cost of manpower even if you cap the number of people it's an increasing share of the budget to the health care costs associated with that manpower and cost growth inside the operation and maintenance civilian personnel benefits and the day-to-day operations a few well. those costs are growing fast enough that absent pretty dramatic action they squeeze out any future investment over time. some of those issues were on the table in the snowden but some of them were off the table. are any of these off the table inside of your session or is everything on the table? >> again, the skimmer everything was on the table with a skimmer. it really was. and continues to be on the table. i haven't heard any of my leadership for those above me

talk about anything being off the table. so, my assumption is that everything is still on the table, and it needs to be. and again, this is really much about why is and the hands of congress and they are going to make the decisions. our role in the military is to provide the best military advice so that as i am asked to provide a force that i can recruit, i can train, i can retain and volunteer. i have to make sure that the compensation packages allow me to do those things, and with the efficiencies are prudent and responsible. so i think that it is incumbent on us to continue going back to congress of the department of defense coming and for me within the air force to have proposing suggestions on how the compensation can be adjusted that meets up with this requirement and not break the chemistry of the recruitment and our volunteer force.

it's a very different service. the air force has a different model for that than the army or the navy or the marine corps. so it's hard to find consensus, but there is a consensus. so this will continue in qdr i am convinced. we haven't seen what qdr will look like in terms of reference, but i am convinced that any responsible enterprise to look at strategies and to get the end this, the ways and means including efficiency and compensation. >> general coming to included the contentious question but this may qualify. tell us how the qdr effort is going to look at changing -- there has been recent commentary to this, the qdr needs to move them much more towards the unmanned fleet. can you tell us how that is going to be addressed? >> next question. [laughter] know, again, this question gets

at those presuppositions that we all have to go back and ask and we have to take a look at where technology is at and we have to take a look of the fact is not necessarily our love affair with a certain idea or the buck rogers that you see in the movies. this is a stare straight in the eye of science and technology of what is practical and ready, and making sure that we do not take any steps to branch off into the future that is insufficient before we let go of the branch of today. i was coming back to the fact if you are in corporate america you can take risks as a ceo. you have the authority. depending on your c calder's you may not have as much as people think, and we do not have the authority to take certain risks. we have to be sufficient for the nation, no matter what it and succumb it means this question and questions just like this are

things we have to look at squarely and let the facts by us and look at the places we can be more efficient and effective that our return on investment and deliver a better bank for the buck for the american people and let go of any preconceived ideas. but we also need to not craft after a love affair with a certain preconceived idea of what might be in the conflicts in the movies. so this balance of practicality and clear-eyed fact is the key component of this. we have to be creative but we have to be careful not to be reckless. >> following up on that question, there is a question from the audience. it was mentioned a love affair with technology. part of that love affair is out of necessity. and that is very true in the area of energy. if you could talk a little bit about how your qdr office will

be approaching the issue of the renewable fuel standards and other kind of cutting edge requirements coming down the pike i know the qdr requirement is to look out 20 years where energy is concerned. that is a fall of the areas under the most impossible to predict in terms of the technology with a technological lead but if you could talk a little bit about how you all are looking at that area. >> thank you for the question to the it this goes back to kind of the first principles of how we approach these questions. that dovetails into the last answer as well and that is because we don't know what our future is going to look at, we don't know how the world is going to change or what kind of discovery we might trip upon as human beings that are deemed changers but this first principle of designing things that are adaptable, flexible and resilient and affordable is the key. the affordability part of this

committee of four devotee of resources we have, energy. so, we continually are looking at this. but we are also not the only people that have a voice in this conversation. there are many stakeholders with regard to the energy policy in the country way outside of the the part of defense and we have to be mindful of staying in our place with regard to that but we are going to be advocates for efficient, capable and affordable fragility is that we need in order to be sufficient for the future. the energy plays right into that at the maximum extent possible we want to be the ones that are the smartest about being efficient. >> the pet to asia is the guidance that came out not that long ago tends to be more focused on the distance in terms of the geography that is involved but the requirements tend to be shorter in terms of

distance on target. how do you balance the needs between both of those requirements as this goes forward? >> that is a great question. the geography does matter and it always has. it is the son of the conversation to many of the things we do to read the trick is to strike a balance. there are the requirements in this world that are needed in every typography and every place that we go but no matter where it is in the world from the air force of devotee to bring air and space superiority in a timely manner to bring the ips are vv to -- isr to make the information and move forward with impunity and to act if needed with the power to reassure, to detour and then of course command and control all of that. all of those things are required

with a tierney of distance and require certain attributes to be able to achieve that in state in a timely matter and other places where you need different attributes that may not require the distance or the speed specifically with the asia pacific. so on balance so that you have a spectrum of capability that can apply to either one. now the trick is to make those two problems overlap where you have a capability that can apply its capacity capability to the multiple problems did the trick of the air force is to make sure that geography and the tyranny of distance isn't something that prevents us from providing options to our president and we have to design those things in an affordable way so this goes back to our strategy. what does the air force look like and how do we build into that in light of technology changes as we see them emerge.

>> as i expand on a question a little bit, with respect to whether it is asia pacific or the persian gulf or any of the regions we will have the potential if you will, when we took a hard look at this last year with respect to the posture in the pacific we had a lot of options on this or that and you described a way of treating of the capability you have against those demands but there are some domains that don't yield their name to trade off, space, cyber threats if you will come offense, defense and monitoring to a lesser extent missile defense. how do you fooled those into the same kind of trade-off? >> that is a great question but i would propose some times we get anchored into thinking those are places where you can't have a symbiotic relationship. but the reality is that is a limit of your imagination.

there are ways of providing effects and so let me give an example. we always think f. controlling a certain place with a certain thing but sometimes you can control it with different approaches. you look at nature for example. nature defend its territory in the controls space in many different ways and the scene is true in our business area. we have a certain ideologies that controls and aerospace and of the superiority is mechanized and certain way. having the creativity of thinking outside the box and exploring ways as our technology emerges to do that in cost-effective ways you start discovering that these areas are not as definitive as you might

think. that this is a continuum of the battle space out there under the sea, land, space, cyber, it is a continuum, okay? that's why the joint side is key with that interdependence and interoperable the. where whether it is a coalition nation, and other service and agency that we all focus our efforts towards this continuum in this case so that this nation has options to control things in a unique and clever ways we may not have designed in the past and reminds us many of the structures that we rest upon to provide national security were conceived on the theology of that were born out of world war ii and was a snapshot in time of where we were up with regards to technology and where we were at with regard to our understanding the world of the physics and or strategic environment. all of those things have changed

, yet i would propose we of work to do to reflect on those changes mean and what territory we can go down now to build things that are more effective and that continuation or that continuum of the battle space for less money. and so that question kind of takes you down that journey and what you find or what i find is they are not clear-cut lines where you have to build a spacecraft in order to do this and in space. you don't necessarily have to build an aircraft to do this. there are other ways and we have to be creative and innovative thinking about those things to go back to the core missions. it will be stepping in the past and the methodology becomes irrelevant and if you don't about to this world that we won't be achieving what you're supposed to and that is to prepare the unexpected and never

fail. >> let's go back to some more. >> we know it's early in the qdr in the terms of reference. the skimmer team of recently but there's nothing in writing. can you give some specifics on how your work in terms of the development was changed in terms of timing or strategy or your management approach as a result of the skimmer? >> i don't think there was any change. the skimmer was a journey to explore where we were at and take a look at the kind of sensitivity analysis. if you got a little smaller how much money with you save and with that mean to your ability to achieve what you've been asked to do? but that is a good insight to take a fresh look at every now and cranny in the department of defense to see how the air force

planes in the joint fight and where those opportunities or. that was all the journey provided and so it didn't fundamentally change our approach or the way we are mechanized but it did give the deep insight into how we play and where the money exists and where the points of opportunity are between the service to do this better. >> before answering this prior question, you talked about the core missions and with the military needs to undertake. over the last several years there vanilla of discussions on the hill with the department as a whole about the importance of building the partner capacity. part of that we explored here at csis, but if you could talk a little bit about what they call

bpc about the authority that's been helpful, the qdr have a section on the partnership capacity. but some have trouble with considering that a core mission. so could you talk a little bit about bpc as well as the role of the military sales and other elements of engagement? >> thank you. i think the alliance's we have or an important conversation in the qdr, and i hope that that is part of this qdr as it has been a part of others. what i would say though is i would like it to go back and take a look at how those alliances are brought to bear in this global environment where you want a mechanism or the coalition can come together and in their capabilities harmonize of the point of interest for the national will and that any

nation that chooses to build a capacity can contribute at capacity or capability in a meaningful way that isn't just added that integrated. so this journey we take with our partners to build their own capacity and capability is the key and there will never change. what i hope this will do is what other qdr do and that is a explore other ways of bolstering that, so that when we have an event in this world where the multiple missions see a problem and want to bring diplomacy, statesmanship, some kind of stability and predictability so we can do so in a way where they bring capacity we don't have to bring and we bring capability they don't have to bring and we come together at the point of impact the point of interest in a way that makes us all stronger and all better. so we always have room to grow on that and qdr is the

opportunity to refresh that where we are technically and where we are on our cases, where we are with our approach, how we are approaching this and how are we bolstering those relationships. but i want to leave that conversation with one other element coming and that is the power of trust and then you build that over time. it's not just the stuff we sell into the build. it is the relationship that we build come up with operational the where we exercise together but also with the leadership so that there is trust because you can have all the key devotee that comes to the point of interest to get the right moment in time but if you don't trust each other it's not much use and the relationship that you build a free lifetime is a key component of that alliance conversation that we need to have. >> one more and then i have a final question unless u.s. mine.

>> i suspect by bald because some of your friends in the audience, following the request for the contentious questions asked about whether the jsf strike fighter was the result of a look at reality, and i think a very sensible question that followed that is is there a lesson for the future of the qdr? but its huge programs that get started in an ascending budget but then you have to deliver them as the budget begins to decline as they always do. is there a lesson in the qdr for the future of the acquisition program? >> absolutely. there are lessons all across the front with regard to the acquisition of the programs. and that is for all of the surfaces, not just the air force. we are always learning and growing and it does exist for

the congress and our interagency partners. this is about the nation taking a look at how we structure the symbiotic relationship in the industry and putting america to work in this nation, to the department that uses that industrial base to defend the nation to our congress that appropriates that job at hand, but those lessons are part of ^ but those lessons are part of a journey where we cannot lose track of what we are trying to achieve and what we are trying to achieve is options for our president that has technology corporation rates and make the most benign areas and to contentious and contested areas in the future as we go along and that america can project power anywhere, contested, highly contested, uncontested we can have power anywheres of the journey includes a lot of

different mechanisms to do that. the joint strike fighter is one of them's a yes there are lessons and we need to learn from them that we have to be careful not to boomerang in a way that steers the capacity and the capability to be able to project that power as a constant along the journey of discovery so i embrace those lessons and i look at it, we all do. we have to be a will to project power and in the contested environments, and that joint strike fighter is that machine. ..

>> but maintenance and support in day-to-day life if you will. you have an industrial base as well, and f-35 and the technology that is out there. we are relying on the industrial base. so rely on nearly military and contractor to we rely for modernization and engagement with innovation and the production capacity of industry, both at home and around the world. how do you take into account those elements, the contractor workforce and the industrial base, as you wrestle with these qdr questions? >> you have to keep your eye on those things. that is the lifeblood of this journey of defending the nation. that and boucher base is our saving grace. it is the one that comes to the aid of this country when there are problems. so protecting the industrial base, but protecting it smartly and always looking back at these

relationships of civilian, total force, contractor, industrial base and trying to design it so that you're getting the best bang for your buck. any taxpayer could take a look at the entire business plan, across the entire spectrum and come away saying, that is money well spent. now, we are always in perfect without but i'll tell you what. anybody who's been in this business for any amount of time understands that if you take your eye off the industrial base, you will rue the day when you do that. we must keep that firmly centered as we go forward. because again, when we get into that unexpected event that will happen in our future, oftentimes is that an usher base that is the one that saves our bacon. that's one reason why we want to make sure that the research and development, science and technology, that is part of the industrial base is vibrant, especially in timesausterity, fe

inevitably we will have to take risks here and there. those above us will make the decisions on where the risk is taken, but something will manifest that makes, it will be at the industrial base that would be the one that saves us. i'll be keeping my eye on that ball and investing in that sufficiently. >> we will do all we can help you do that. i want to express our gratitude to you covered a wide range of issues here today. in fact, that's indicative of the whole qdr process because it covers almost everything. i'd like to extend thanks to our viewers on the web and on the network. i would like to thank those of you who are here in the audience with us today, thanks particularly for your questions. i would like to thank general kwast for your support on this ongoing series. but most of all i would like to ask you to join me, please come in thanking general kwast for your participation. [applause]

>> so was there one nagging question after that i didn't get to? okay. thank you all for being here. i do appreciate this partnership. my door is always open, so take advantage of that. [inaudible conversations] >> president obama has canceled his meeting in moscow russian president vladimir putin. this is in response to russia's decision to grant temporary asylum to national security leader edward snowden the the

president still plans to attend the group of 20 economic summit next month in saint petersburg, russia. but a statement from the white house released this morning says quote we believe it would be more constructive to postpone the summit until we have more results were shared agenda. russia this morning decision was also a factor that we considered >> the president was on the tonight show with jay leno last night and mentioned edwardic spn snowden.do have e some >> what we do have our mechanisms where we can track a phone number or an e-mailf address that we no is in some sort terrorist threat. that information is useful, but what i said before, you know, i

want to make sure i repeat, and that is we should be skeptical about the potential encroachment on privacy. none of the regulation showac abused his powers but they're pretty significant powers. i've been talking to congress and civil libertarians and others about are there additional ways that we can make sure that people know, nobody is listening to your phone calls, but we do want to make sure that after the boston common, for example, we've got the phone numbers of those two brothers, we want to be able to make sure that they call anybody else, are their networks in new york, are the networks elsewhere that we have to roll out? and if we can make sure that there's confidence on the part of the american people that there is oversight, and i think we can make sure we are properly balanced and our liberty and our security. >> that was some last night, and the president met today with u.s. troops and their families

during a stop at camp pendleton. it's the final stop on his today west coast trip. c-span live coverage at 3:50 p.m. eastern. each night this week here in c-span to while congress is on break we're showing encore presentations of q&a. today, jody williams won the nobel peace prize in 1970 -- 1997, her efforts on getting a worldwide ban on landmines. then at 8 p.m. eastern, booktv in prime time. the focus is on what booktv viewers are reading this summer. tonight on c-span's town hall, a look at how the media handles war. we'll take your calls, e-mails and suites under in -- tweets. it begins at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> tomorrow night on c-span's encore presentation of first ladies,. >> if you invite a guest of the medicines are part of the intimate circle of family and friends who would be invited

into the dining room from the drawing room. and here, dolly madison would in an unusual setting for the period with said at the head of the table. her husband, james, would sit at the center of the table. dollywood direct the conversation and james would be able to engage in intimate or lively conversation with people to his immediate right and left. this table the day is set for eight people, but there could be as many as 20 people served in the dining room. that was not -- that would not be unusual. the only medicine considered dining at montpelier to be so much more relaxing than entertaining washington but she said she was less worried serving 100 people at montpelier than 25 in washington. >> the encore presentation of original series first ladies continues tomorrow night at nine eastern on c-span.

>> democratic candidates for the new jersey senate seat of the late frank lautenberg faced off monday night. they're buying for the democratic bid in the october 16 special election. coverage of this our nafta debate comes courtesy of new jersey public television. ♪ >> moderator: good evening come and we do indeed welcome you to the dumont television said on the campus of montclair state university. i mike schneider, the managing editor and anchor here at njtv. we welcome you to the first full debate by all four of the candidates seeking the democratic nomination for the u.s. senate seat that had been held by frank lautenberg until his death in june.

in alphabetical order the candidates are the mayor of newark, cory booker. congressman rush holt, the status and the speaker sheila oliver, and congressman frank pallone. joining me with questions for the candidates this evening, alfred, the editorial page editor of the record. here are the rules for tonight's debate. each candidate will have 90 seconds for an opening and closing statement. each will have 60 seconds to answer questions. each will also have up to 60 seconds for rebuttal. there is a timing light that will be used to keep schedule and it is my job to see that light and to use that light. we have no studio audience tonight. we're in this thing alone but if you would like to join the conversation you can be part of it during the broadcast. you can follow us on twitter using hashtag njdecides. mayor cory booker starts the opening statements for us. mr. mayor. booker: good evening, mike. and i want to thank everybody who helped organize this debate.

i begin my career action in newark, new jersey, but i was born in bergen county and raised in bergen county, one of our smallest towns at harrington park. after my education i chose to move to newark, not just in newark but one of our toughest neighborhoods. with the conviction that you bring people together, no matter how difficult the challenges you can make tremendous progress. the heroes are made in those early days, during my time as a person representing people who couldn't afford attorneys, they showed me that that philosophy that ideal could work. now, 15 years later going from a time when newark's headlines were more about crime and corruption, not about progress and possibility, now the city has changed. we have a lot more work to do but the truth is newark, new jersey, is seeing eminence progress. together in the community with along with others with lower crime, ushered in the biggest economic develop. in newark since the 1950s.

brought innovation and resources to our school, and truly in newark, new jersey, hope is on the horizon, a testament to what people can do taking on difficult challenges working together. as a look at washington now we don't see people doing that. i believe it's time for new leadership in washington that can bring people together to make changes, to the do the difficult things to help us out progress. >> moderator: thank you very much. and now for next opening statement, congressman rush holt. tragic thanks to the sponsors and to everyone watching. i should level at the beginning by saying i've never run into a burning building or i'm not friends with mark zuckerberg. i have fewer than 1 million twitter followers. i am well known to many teenagers because i'm the guy who took on the jeopardy computer and one. i'm rush holt. i'm a teacher, i'm a scientist, and i'm a dedicated progressive, through and through. i hope new jerseyans know me as

someone who is a dedicated hard-working public servant in the u.s. congress. someone who fights for new jerseyans and gets things done. when a new jersey soldier committed suicide and his parents came to me and said, don't let that ever happen again, i got $40 million for mental health and suicide prevention for soldiers and veterans. knowing that you're investing in education and research, you create jobs and improve the economy. i got $22 billion in new research money, medical research, environmental research, the national science foundation, the largest increase ever. i longer anyone had heard of edward snowden, i was leading the fight in congress to take the nsa to task on warrant was spying on americans. i wrote the legislation to repeal the patriot act and the fisa amendmentamendment s act.

throughout my career, throughout this campaign, i have been advancing the bold idea that we need to extend the american dream to all americans. bold ideas people be talking about tonight >> moderator: thank you very much. next opening statement, the speaker of the silly, sheila oliver. oliver: i appreciate opportunity to be here this evening to engage in dialogue with my opponents in this quest to fill the seat of the late senator frank lautenberg. it might hope that the voters of new jersey listen intently this evening as we focus on issues that are not just important to capitol hill, but those issues that are important to the people that live in this state. every u.s. senator connie of an obligation to engage in moving the agenda of the nation forward. but you should also use that representation to help move an

agenda forward for the state of new jersey and its citizens. as a legislative leader, i've had the opportunity to visit the length and breadth of this state, engage with communities from tape made up to suffolk and warren. and not just giving a campaign. i think that my 10 years in the state legislature and my four years as the speaker of the new jersey general assembly have equipped me with the ability to best represent the state of new jersey as a u.s. senator. i look forward to the dialogue this evening, and i know that the residents in the state are better served by having the opportunity to see the differences and the similarities between our respective candidacies >> moderator: thank you very much. now for your opening statement, congress and frank pallone. pallone: i also want to thank our host, and you, mike schneider for being here this

evening, as well as alfred godwin. i think it's important that this is the first time that the candidates are getting together, finally for debate as was mentioned is an opportunity for voters to actually see where we stand on the issues, and also to make clear choices. i think they will see clear choices here tonight. i'm frank pallone. i would like to be your united states senator, and the represent you now in congress be the i'm a husband, a father of three children who are raised in the same time, long branch, where we still live. and i really want you to understand that although you may hear often tonight that congress is broken, that i really believe that in congress as a senator i can make a difference. and i've tried over the years in congress where i am now to actually work on problems and come up with solutions. i think you can get things done in congress. when i was first elected to congress, all of the beaches were closed along the north jersey shore. and i worked hard to clean up the ocean and close all the

oceans, oftentimes with senator lautenberg was off at my partner in the senate when i worked in the house but i didn't work with senator lautenberg in order to clean up toxic waste sites in new jersey, with the stupid fun program with brownfield legislation that i've proposed that finally became law. when president obama became president i worked hard to provide essential university health care with the affordable care act, some call obamacare, that is making a difference in peoples lives. i believe that in congress you can make a difference. you can get things done. >> moderator: thank you. that concludes opening statements. let's begin our questions are now. we want to discuss issues that are germane to our state, to our country, and issues that taking the role of the senator which transcends our communities and our state, and takes in a world of you as well. congressman holt, you are of the first. the question i have tonight, first of all, revolves around the terror warning that has been set up announced the lat copof .

information obtained by the nsa resulting in the u.s. issuing travelers warnings overseas, closing a number of indices throughout much of what we call the arab world, and also we're seeing heightened security here at home as well. you have been very critical as it turns out this open question goes to of the role of the nsa and the surveillance program as well. knowing what we know right now, knowing that much of this information has come from intercepts by the nsa, are you at this point changing your mind about the way you view the nsa's surveillance programs and the way to make impact our federal americans? try to know. four years i was on the intelligence community in the congress. i understand how they work. i don't know the details of these. i'm not on the intelligence community now. but we can presume that these were international intercepts, and which we should be doing. but the idea of vacuum cleaner wholesaler collection of

information of personal information about americans has completely unacceptable. it's not simply unconstitutional. it changes the relationships between a citizen and the citizens government. if the government regards people as suspects first and citizens second, that changes the very structure of our nation. it's the reason for being. this has to be put to in income and that's why i have the legislation that would repeal the patriot act, would repeal the fisa amendments act. >> moderator: confident, thank you. met a speaker, your view of the nsa program director i think after we all expense loss of life in benghazi and was learned today about these terrorist activities in yemen and the al qaeda extremists, i believe there has to be a balance. there's no doubt that for national security and for the

security of its citizens of our country, we must engage in the collection of intelligence data. but that must be balanced very properly with the constitutional rights of citizens in this country have. we are in an age of technology. our smartphones can be tracked. red light cameras are on us all day. surveillance happens at every intersection in this country. i think that technolyas placed us in a situation where it is inevitable that data is collected on the. it is imperative for our nation's commander-in-chief and the joint chiefs of staff and the intelligence community to have the ability to protect us. >> moderator: congressman pallone on your take on this, please. pallone: the terrorist warnings don't change my mind we see with nsa surveillance. the bottom line is we have to protect civil liberties in this country, and i've been very

concerned that we're simply going too far with this nsa program. i didn't vote for the fisa amendments. i didn't vote to reauthorize the patriot act because i was concerned about encouragement on civil liberty. and i think that what at a minimum we should say that any kind of information gathering that goes or is obtained through the fisa courts has to be only for a particular investigation. not just a broad brush that should go after anything that you may not use but anything has to be transparency with the fisa court. in other words, their decision should be made public in this case. we have to be worried about how these judges are appointed because they are not appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the senate, which they should be. so again, i think that we have to have a balance, but right now the balance is skewed too much towards surveillance and efficient on civil liberties. and i think we have to change it >> moderator: thank you. mayor booker. drama what's going on overseas

is not an abstract content to me but it is something workin woule with and have dealt with in the city of newark. unfortunate there's been a building an essay that has been targeted by terrorist the we have to every single day work to give our residents safe. that's why set in the situation in house with other mayors having constructive conversation about how we do just that against the face of terrorism. but you've got to balance the urgent need for security with the of the urgent need about what makes us americans which is our privacy rights. and again this is not abstract to me as well. we've had to do. we put up a public safety cameras that the speaker was talking to. we reached out to the aclu first to write our standard operating procedures. so when i look at this balance that we have to do with everyday, in a city that iran can i look at washington and i see they are not imbalance. congress has a job that is not being done right now. they should be doing a lot more to give oversight to the executive, and to some of these things like the fisa courts which, in my opinion, are doing things that are unnecessary

infringement on the privacy rights of americans >> moderator: a one minute rebuttal very. thank you the enemy is not to make things difficult for him forces or intelligence agencies. is to make sure that they do their job. it's to make sure that it's not to preserve some sort of civil liberties nicety, but to make sure that these agencies that have fearsome powers to intrude on people's personal lives demonstrate an independent judge that they know what they are doing. that's what makes us safer. this wholesale vacuum cleaner collection does not make us safer, and it tears at the fabric of our society and our government. and i must say, yeah, i am the one in this campaign who has been talking about this openly and vociferously and repeatedly and strongly. this and the other progressive issues that we need to get our

country going to where it should be going. >> moderator: oxman, think you. madam speaker. oliver: yes, you know, this is no novelty in the united states, the collection of intelligence data on citizens. i think that when we saw the release of the papers of j. edgar hoover, we learned that during his entire tenure as director of our fbi he was collecting intelligence data on some of the most civic minded citizens in this country. martin luther king, the kennedy family. intelligence gathering has been happening in the united states way before we had to deal with terrorism. the issue today is that with our place in the world order, and the importance of the united states and its allies, we know that there are extreme theocracies that operate in the middle east that have as their

main purpose for being the evolving -- thwarting they evolving to markers and relationship we have with allies who watch -- who want to promote democracy as well. pallone: if i can explain what i'm saying in terms of how this should operate versus the way it operates now, you talked about a terrorist warning. if the agency had some inkling that this, for example, there was an al qaeda attack that was about to begin and was coming from pakistan or yemen, right, they could go to the fisa court and they could say, we had this investigation, we have this information and, therefore, we need some surveillance to look at the actual situation, impact -- in pakistan or yemen, potentially planning this attack. so that would be a specific investigation that they would go before the court and ask for that authority. but that's not what is happening now. they're going out and simply asking, you know, for example,

verizon or at&t for anything that they have about anybody. without there being a specific investigation. that's what's wrong, and i don't even know if that was intended with the fisa amendments or the patriot act. i know that in the patriot act it says you have to be specific investigation. that's that's what's happening now my back thank you. mayor. drama this is a point of distinction to make. first of all please understand the security and privacy issues are really care about and i agree with the congressman holt about the people are concerned about that. please don't forget that congressman holt and alone voted for the patriot act. i'm very happy that now they are willing to change that with his right the -- disagree with congress to know. he wants to developing a. there are aspects of that in the need to be changed but in a -- are aspects in the patriot act that allow coordination between

law enforcement that actually empower police like mine to work in better conjunction with our federal authority. these are difficult issues, and the key right now is that we need aggressive oversight and action by congress to do the right thing to keep people safe and a firm be urgently need a privacy rights of american citizens >> moderator: thank you. second question. we will start with you, madam speaker. and its semi-related. just note that -- edward snowden finds himself having granted temporary a son and russia. many people are appalled by that. many are equally appalled by the treatment of the gay community in russia because of a new law that's been adopted by the putin administration. some say it started to feel like the cold war all over again. with that in mind should the united states reify with its relations with russia? oliver: i think that, you know, president obama has certainly pressed in his discussions and his beatings with putin that he

is displeased with his stance that rush has taken. so much so that they really could not engage in a long, lengthy discussion. we know those talks broke off. i think that we do have to re-examine the motives of russia, as you look at eastern europe and to look at the breakup of the soviet union. there's a lot of dissension in that region. we saw it in boston this year, that you have two brothers who emanated from the region, and they came to the united states into boston with the intent and purpose of we can have it, and harming americans. i believe that we do have a re-examine our relationship with russia. we have known for years that rush is the provider of arms and potentially nuclear weapons to a number of different countries that are not necessarily our allies >> moderator: congressman pallone.

pallone: i think that relationships between the united states with russia over 20 united states in any country be primarily based on democracy, rule of law and also a market economy. those are the principles that we espouse. so i think the president has to look at the relationship in that respect. if he feels that the treatment of the gay community or the way that they're granting asylum to snowden is something that goes against those principles, for example, the rule of law, you know, then has to decide what kind of actions to take. that it may very well be that the case is not important enough to wreck our relationship with russia. again, you know, we have to worry about those three principles and everything we do in terms of our foreign policy. and to push russia to become more of a democracy, to recognize the rule of law and move towards a market economy. everything should be looked at in that way and i'm not sure that the snowden case is not of

a problem to weak havoc on our relationship. .. it is in this context i support the president in using very measured, very sober diplomacy, push being for what are to the just american interests, but when it comes to syria and when it comes to gays and lesbians, it comes to human rights interests as well. we need to do what is necessary

to advocate what is right and protect critical american interests like fighting against global terrorism. >> mayor, thank you. congressman holt. holt: russia is always testing and straining the relationship. we should not sacrifice the diplomatic relationship with russia because of the snowden affair. it is, it is, as my colleagues says not that significant right now. we need russia to be working with us on syria as mayor booker says and a number of other things. we certainly need to take them to task on many matters around the world, and, within their country. this, you know, when i mentioned earlier about my background as a teacher, as a scientist, to say that i would bring a unique background for the people of new jersey to the senate, i, it's important to point out that the senate has a lot of international responsibility.

i'm the person here who was actually on the negotiating team, in geneva, representing the united states, across the table from the then soviet union on the abm missile violations that they were, that were underway. and we took them to task and got correction. >> time, sir. madam speaker, time for rebuttal oliver: yes, you know. the issue of snowden, snowden is not the first. it is just that attention has been drawn to his most recent disclosure of sensitive information but our military leaders, dealing with and having to address members of the intelligence community, who have, with frequency, taken measures of national security and provided documents and other things to other nations. so i do believe that snowden is

no anomaly. we have a history of this and we can point to those who have done this in other situations. i think the snowden issue raises a broader issue, when we begin to contract out, to the defense operators the responsible for our national security, we can not control the outcome. >> time. congressman? holt: mike, i think russia, and our relationship with russia is very similar what it has to be with other countries. we believe in democracy. we believe in rule of law. we want to protect human rights and we want to have a market economy wherever, but often times the countries don't live up to that. the arab spring brought that out. that was an example where many people in the arab world were really looking for deepak civil so mixed results because they don't necessarily have a history of democracy. russia is very much the same but i think we have to recognize

russia is an important country. we don't have nuclear weapons. okay they are on the security council. it is not like we can just cut off relations because of the snowden case. i don't think that makes sense. but i think at all times we have to think about what we're doing to push the russians towards democracy and towards rule of law. i'm very much concerned how they have changed their laws in ways that violate human rights. you mentioned the gay community. you know, you saw instances with also with adopted children where they were at that taking the wrong stance. but we have to continue to work towards those guiding principles. >> thank you, congressman. mayor. booker: i want to say very quickly this is example of the very difficult and challenging world we live in. russia is playing important role whether we want to recognize that or not, reality when it comes to nuclear weapons, one of the biggest threats to long-term safety of american allies is nuclear proliferation and we've got to make sure we stand up and work with our partner nations to

insure the problems like that don't get out of hand. we live in a community now. it is not just america's interests. obviously snowden is somebody that should be returned to america and given a fair trial. but there are so many other interests on the table. from nuclear proliferation. terrorism, what is going on in syria right now. this necessitates america acting single-handedly, but acting community of countries to give a call to the consciousness of the globe. begin to human rights and begin to push against nuclear proliferation, not urgency facing america but all the democracy in the globe, pushing against real threat of terrorism. >> thank you, mayor. congressman holt. rebuttal to or expansion. holt: the, i'm sorry. i thought we had been through that. i guess this was a repeat question. >> it's your chance to rebut or expand. holt: thank you. as i was saying i would agree

with the mayor that there are many things that we need to work with the soviet union on and we should not throw away the relationship on the basis of this snowden, the snowden affair. >> all right. ladies and gentlemen, we'll take a trip to the studio next door and alfred doblin is standing by, our colleague from the record with his first question of the evening. alfred? >> congressman pallone, i want to go back to the syria issue. there are many conflicting opinions about what the united states should be doing with regard to syria. after a lengthy wars in iraq and afghanistan, there's really not a lot of appetite in the united states to be engaged in any kind of boots on the ground combat. there is some discussion about whether we should be providing aid to the rebels and there are questions about do we actually know who the good guys are. what do you think we should be

doing in syria? pallone: again, alfred i will say what i said before, the u.s. always needs to be guided by certain principles. those are primarily democracy, rule of law and a market economy. and i think in the aftermath of the arab spring it is clear that the people in these countries would like to see democracy but they're not used to it and there isn't a lot of experience. so right now the problem in syria of course that the president pointed out was the use of chemical and biological weapons which he said would be a mark whereby he would then intervene in some fashion. but he is being very cautious. he doesn't want want to put boon the ground. he is talking about arming some of the rebels but he is obviously concerned as you are whether there are possibly terrorists and there are really democratic oriented. so i think we have to avoided boots on the ground if at all possible and we have to be very careful, constantly guided by same principles of democracy,

rule of law and market economy. but i know how difficult that is. that is easy for me to say in the abstract. >> time, sir. pallone: in terms of reality we have to be cautious. >> mayor? booker: everybody needs to understand why this is serious issue. assad regime who are in league with the iranians the single largest state sponsor of terrorism and the assad regime is in league with hezbollah, who killed hundreds of americans and responsible for a lot of terrorism across the globe. this poses a serious threat. it would be easy to say, we have to do everything we can to oppose them. but on the other side of the equation a group of forces oppose assad, range from pro-democracy like us to people who are terrorists themselves. there is no easy to way to simply arm the opposition. that is why the obama administration is it doing the right thing. we should not commit american troops. that should always be the absolute last issue. secondly we need to support our

allies, jordan, lebanon, turkey who are dealing with a severe humanitarian crisis because of the million plus excuse me, refugees now into their communities, really making it difficult, strains on their infrastructure. so we need to ask thought fully and make sure we do the right thing. >> mayor, time. booker: do the right thing not by american interests but interests of the region as a whole. >> congressman. holt: someone who fought against the iraq war and called for the president to end our involvement in afghanistan sooner, it is clear to me the public indeed has no stomach for military intervention in syria, nor should we. we should apply the lesson that we should have learned in the 1980s in afghanistan when we armed the mujahadeen, now known as al qaeda, osama bin laden and others. that principle that was applied then was the enemy of our enemy

is our friend. that's bad foreign policy. we should not be applying that in syria but we should be engaged in every possible way. i mentioned the russians a little while ago and in every possible way to get this under control. yes, hezbollah is tied up in this. the future of israel is tied up in this. we want israel to survive and prosper for everything it stands for but we also want -- >> time, sir. holt: we want a peaceful solution for palestinians in the area. what is going on in syria affects that. >> thank you, sir. madam speaker. oliver: i believe if the united states is to maintain its position as a world power and to dominate as a world power, it is incumbent upon us to pay attention to what is happening in syria. you know, it was very sad that we did not intervene and save more lives in rwanda and i know that there are many people in the international community who

know that the united states could have done more. the thing we have to recognize is that this is an extremely sensitive region of the world. and what we do in syria, or what we don't do in syria, may potentially be viewed by other nations in that troubled part of the world as lack of u.s. response to save lives. i do believe international lies need to be engaged but the united states should demonstrate leadership, get our allies to -- >> time. oliver: to provide support to the people of syria. >> thank you, madam speaker. congressman pallone, rebuttal. pallone: i believe in president obama's cautious approach but i think assad has to go. i believe we should abide by democracy. he is a dictator. he has to go but we also have the of chemical and biological

weapons being used and human rights violations that to along with that we have to be careful those don't continue to be used against the civilian population. that may require certain action by the united states. but again, i think the president's cautious approach, no ground troops, some arms to rebels and trying to figure out who to arm, who may be pro-democracy. this is very important. act through international organization the way we did with libya and now in the arab league in the case of syria. it would also be great if we act through the united nations. we have to some extent. but we have the problem with the russia potential veto and using the veto in the security council. i say caution. i do respect the president for what he is trying to do because i think he understand what needs to be done. >> thank you. mayor? booker: thank you very much. i think there is a lot of agreement on tonight. but i want to make a couple more points or highlight a couple more points. one is, congressman pallone is absolutely right.

has sad must go. it should be done in sober way, so we don't cause more problems in the long run that we solve in the immediate. we need to make sure we do everything we can to support other nations right there being detablized by ref goo guess and others pouring into their countries. lebanon, turkey, jordan as well as the state of israel. finally i think the point's been made by a number about people tonight is very critical. is that america need not act alone. we learned the hard way in our history that if we go at it alone we put ourselves in more jeopardy and often could undermined our long-term interests. when we act in community of countries that share the same values we often can be a lot more effective taking crises and bringing back stability to a region right now that is way too unstable. >> mayor, thank you. congressman. pallone: an important factor that the public will be considering in choosing the next senator from new jersey is who

has the experience and sophistication to deal with such international questions. i began to talk about the complicated situation there in that part of the world. the threads, if you pull on one thread it pulls through jordan, saudi arabia, egypt, israel, palestine, lebanon, syria and iran. and iraq and turkey. and, it is a, it requires sophistication to deal with this. we, we have now had a new president installed in iran. i have sent a letter to the president saying that he should test rahani to see whether he is good to his word that he will be doing things differently. he appointed zarif, who i know from his time at the united nations as foreign minister. it gives us opportunity. >> time, sir. pallone: to work with iran, one. complicated parties in this

matter. >> final rebuttal? oliver: yes, i believe analytical and critical thinking is required in the senate, not necessarily experience and sophistication. we've seen a congress at work on capitol hill. in the last couple of sessions and certainly we have not seen a great deal of experience or sophistication. i think that new jersey's next u.s. senator should be someone who has the ability to examine a broad range of issues, internationally, to weigh out and judge the sensitivity of these issues, protecting our national interests, understanding that we paid a dear price by not investing in domestic challenges. but at the same time maintain our position as a world leader. this is the challenge and the responsibility of our next u.s. senator. >> thank you very much. time for our next question. i want to start to take the domestic and blend it with tore

rin relations issues and i guess there's no better place to do that than china. a rising power, around the world of course. a true economic superpower as well. there are many who wonder about how the united states should position itself as we go forward. the chinese have shown an inclination to perhaps want to challenge america's military forces around the world in some measured fashion. they have already challenged us on a economic level. is the united states, and i will start with you, mayor booker, is the united states well-positioned now to deal with the realities of a rising and increasingly competitive china should we alter our positions and stands with the chinese? booker: sure, i have a lot of confidence in the american worker and the american economy. we're the number one economy in the globe and frankly i know we can continue to lead the globe in that manner. what we need to make sure though is when americans compete globally we're all playing by the same rules and there is ultimately fairness and that's the issue with china. we, it is not actually a bad

thing they're rising economically, their people, their workers are facing greater and greater opportunity but i'm telling you right now what we've seen with china often they're not willing to play by the same rules whether it is with their currency, whether it's with their copyright infringements into america, their cyber spying. whether it is even about paying their workers a fair rage that reflects really humanitarian interests. so this is an area i feel very strongly about that we can compete and that's why we need to turn our attention as a country to making our domestic economy even stronger. if we invest in research and development, if we invest in manufacturing, there are real things we could be doing, i seen it in newark to grow our economy and make us stronger so we can compete and lead into the future. >> time, sir. congressman? pallone: whenever we set up a trade agreement with another country as china some years back, we should not just ask, well what are the regulations for products entering and

leaving a port and how quickly bank checks will clear and something like that. we also must consider what is acceptable behavior. in workers rights. in human rights, in environmental protection. we did not do that with china. we typically do not do that with trade agreements elsewhere around the world. we have to stand up to china. we have been negotiating with them on, on their currency manipulation and actually making a little bit of headway there. their currency manipulation hurt us badly. our university sourcing to them hurt us badly. not just in lost jobs but in inferior merchandise, actually dangerous merchandise and, dangerous equipment. that we've been getting through the shoddy chinese manufacturer. we've got to stand up to that. we've got to stand stand up to r ad ven you arism and military force projections around the oceans around the world. >> time, sir. madam speaker. oliver: china has emerged as an economic power because senators

and members of the u.s. house of rest enacted laws and influenced the regulatory process to permit our commerce, our manufacturing and our job expansion. it has been decade that we turned product the over in our homes and see, made in china on the bottom. china looks as a threat to the united states but wall street wanting to look places around the world where they could bolster investment, individual investors looking to china as a to grow their wealth, this is how we got to the situation with china. when you look at the pollution that hovers over many of the large cities to the detriment of the people that live there, china's policies as it relates to women and the inhumane treatment of women and the legal

system and its dealings with women we've created that on capitol hill. >> congressman? pallone: mike, we have to be very wary of unfairness china exploits in terms of two economies. first of all, they do not open up their markets to american goods. it is a very unfair trade practice. when we try to sell things to them, they put up barriers in various ways to our exports which makes it difficult to export and sell things to china. on the other hand, they're constantly subsidizing and making it a very easy for their manufacture you ares to produce things and send them to the united states and it probably the best example of that is with renewable resources. i believe very strongly we should be manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines here. that china increasing is cornering the market because they basically subsidize those industries and make them cheaper for export. we've to the to get tough. they're walking all over us frankly when it comes to the economy and i think that, one of

the obligations that we have in the united states senate because we have, you know, jurisdiction over treaty, is to get tough and make sure these treaties are operated in a fairway. >> mayor booker. rebuttal. booker: you hear a lot of the same views. we need to make sure china is playing by the same rules. piracy, copyright issues, fair trade and humane treatment of their workers but we also need to look at home. we are an incredible nation. we've seen in newark, new jersey, where people said it couldn't be done, we could build our local economy is strong. people said manufacture something dead in america. we showed newark by made in newark campaign with 300 manufacturers, with the right strategies those manufacturers could grow jobs and actually grow in exports. we're showing it could be done in newark. that can be done in america if we have congress makes more investments in workforce training and education and research and development. these are investments that

provide huge returns for the american economy. if we focus on growing strong at home, and fair trade abroad, america will continue to thrive and create an economy that works for all of our citizenry. >> mayor, thank you. congressman? holt: let me pick up on that point which is america is a strong nation. it is the strongest nation in the world. it is the wealthiest nation in the world. we are not second in manufacturing. it is true that china has caught up with us but, we can prevail around the world. we don't have to do it through military force. although we must make sure that we check china's projection of military force. but, working with india, working with southeast asia, working with our own strong, workforce and our own strong production capability, we can prevail economically.

all around the world. we still have this strongest, best educated workforce in the world. and a great production capability. we should be aggressive in going around the world and not letting china buy up all the so-called rare earth elements. >> i'm's up. holt: we can be there, we should can do it and we should. >> madam speaker. oliver: i will again point to the decisions made on capitol hill. everyone looked with awe when chinese investors wanted to buy the chrysler building in new york city and we now know that significant amounts of real estate in manhattan are owned by the chinese. it's very difficult for americans to go to countries around the world and acquire some of the most strategic real estate that exists. again, the reason we have the situation with china is because of the back-slapping that goes on capitol hill between and

amongst members of the congress who would rather cut a deal, make some investments, and instead of looking out for the benefit of the citizens that live in this country. i think it is time for the senate to reflect a different kind of a standard. and the only way you do that is by sending people to the united states senate who are going to change the paradigm. >> congressman pallone. pallone: mike, i do believe there are some lessons that can be learned from china terms of our domestic economy. first of all, they're making huge investments. one of the problems now in washington and because of the tea party. the tea party wants to cut government and have the sequester and across-the-board cuts. we have to stop that mentality. we have to make investments in infrastructure, our roads, our bridgings, our mass transit, investments in education. china, i think, i heard a figure that china was educating something like 600,000 engineers to our 30,000, okay? and also in research and

development. and also we have to use our tax structure to bring back jobs from overseas. china again, they use their tax structure and subsidies to encourage manufacturing. manufacturing can come back to the united states. we've got to change our tax code to encourage it so that companies don't take their money and park it overseas. american workers are very productive. companies will stay here and manufacture here because they save transportation costs but we're not doing that now. we have to make a difference. >> thank you. actually you led me exactly where i wanted to go. there are those who say, you mentioned the tea party, there are those who say it is time for america to try to do something to jump-start our economic recovery. the last jobs report, 162,000 jobs, disappointed wall street substantially. many have said we need to do something, perhaps with our tax code, to reflect the needs of a modern day economy. i harken back to the days of the

'80s when i was young reporter covering a senator by the name of bill bradley who came forth with something called fair tax which tremendously modified the tax code that americans were paying back in the '80s, is it time again, i would start with you congressman holt, is it time for america to take the tax code, tear it apart, simplify it perhaps, change it so reflect economic necessities that exist today? holt: we have to begin with the understanding that i was saying a moment ago that we are not a poor nation. we, the mentality in washington has become, well, we can't do this, we can't do that. all we can do is provide ever more privilege to the already fortunate. we have a nation that is wealthy enough that there is no excuse for us to have shabby housing, inequitable education, the high jobless rate that we have, and crumbling infrastructure.

we can't afford to take care of all those things. -- we can afford. in fact we can't afford not to. it does require making sure those who can pay, those who have benefited from our economy, pay their fair share. that's not happening. take the example of social security. we're talking about how social security is going to go bust. i'm saying, if millionaires and billionaires pay the same tax rate that everybody else pays we won't be talking about social security solvency. it will be solid. we can count on it. >> time sir. madam speaker. oliver: yes, we absolutely need to simplify the tax code in this country. it is too complicated and, works class and middle class families bear the brunt of the burden. you know we've done a lot of things through the tax code to provide incentives and writeoffs to large corporations. those corporations in turn do not reinvest back into our economy in the united states.

you know, i have just discussed with a worker yesterday a practice of a company, an international company, national chain, here in the united states, significantly present in new jersey, in order to get around a loophole and claim their tax credit, they hire people. they pay them $8.25 an hour. they retain those workers for 120 days, until they have solidified that tax credit and then those workers are furloughed and laid off. these practices have run rampant because of our tax code. >> congressman. pallone: look, we clearly need to jump-start the economy. as i said before this tea party effort to cut across the federal government through the sequester, it is killing us. it is slowing growth, okay? and the only answer is you have to get rid of the sequester. you can bring in more fund by

basically reforming the tax code. i do believe the wealthy need to pay more and everything shouldn't be on the backs of working families. i do believe corporations need to make more of a contribution. one of the things that president obama suggested this week is that, might actually be able to lower the corporate tax rate for those who want to manufacture here, if you reform the tax code because they didn't end up paying more even though they're paying a lower rate because they wouldn't have all the loopholes. that's the type of thing. take, get these companies that are sending jobs overseas and parking their money overseas to come back by reforming the tax code and giving them encouragement to manufacture here. but i also think that we have to make investments. you talk about the cities, right? a few years ago, after the recession began, we sent money back to the cities to prevent layoffs of police and fire and teachers. we need to do that again. >> thank you. mayor. booker: mike, i used to have hair like you but issues like this made me pull the all out. come on, we're a great economy,

if we make strategic investments congress does something we can have incredible growth. how do i know that? we did it in newark. our port area was a great potential. we put together a strategy. we're booming with pitney bowes, building out our area creating thousands of jobs in newark. we started with the manufacturing sector. we needed strategies to make it grow and stronger and did that even for small businesses. we had to look within and create a access to capital pool that helps 50 to 60 businesses grow. my point is why isn't congress doing the obvious things we know we need to grow our economy? yes, we need to fix the tax code. we need to make it simpler. we need to bring businesses back here with their resources. we need to invest in r&d and do things i know can happen. if newark, new jersey, can grow the way it is growing right now i know the way we can do it in washington to make our state and nation grow even more robustly. .