like al-libi who was not necessarinecessarily a great guy and that gets down to a smaller number than 40 whom you would either have to flat out release and here i come back to my world war ii example which is an interesting one. the u.s. managed apparently to release everyone we held within a few years. the last german p.o.w. not free to germany but written in france were apparently they were still doing manual labor still into the 1950s. there are her for i.d. of clearly legal and were dubious people at different places along the spectrum might find more or less objectional, places that those folks can go if the administration were given a hand to dispose of them without the restrictions and reporting requirements and the overhang from congress. now the likelihood of that happening is not huge so then

you were stuck with the counter problem of do you keep them in the u.s. in some kind of not very legal limbo rather than dispersing them? thank you's going to be a fascinating little problem that congress has taken upon itself that it will have to resolve in the next year. >> by the way should -- beyond the list? >> you what i would say is again i am not in any sense a specialist on any of these groups. >> would the her them on the list? >> what i would say is define your criteria of groups, of what the category, the behavior of groups that you want to authorize force against and then allow the executive to designate groups that meet those criteria subject to congressional. >> i'm asking you a direct question.

>> i mean look i think it is always appropriate to use military force to defend your diplomatic so they so i have no problem with the idea that if a group attacks and american consulate and kills the ambassador you might respond to that and even preemptively respond to that with military force. that doesn't give me a moment's trouble. >> we to be at war with this group or just be responding with military force at this hypothetical diplomatic facility? >> i would not pass a specific authorization for the use of military force designated one group in response to a single attack. on the other hand i would have a statute in place that would allow that groups designation to be covered by an existing authorization. . >> this gentleman here.

>> can admire with world cox. i agree with the young gentleman here that the damaging of the iranian centrifuges through the stuxnet virus was an act of war. was that attack authorized by d. amuf? >> no but he would contend it was. >> you somebody off the rice it and violated the constitution, violated the congress's monopoly on declaring war. shouldn't they be prosecuted? >> and as a follow-up question is there any sign that while the iranians are supposedly, you would expect them to retaliate and there was a case of 32,000 computers being knocked out of saudi arabia that a lot of people think that iran was behind. we get into the situation where we could be at war with iran in the american people don't even know we are at war.

>> you raise a lot of questions there and let me take off a couple of responses. no conflict with iran is covered by the ums. the president has a independent authority under the covert action statute under which i'm fairly certain any such action, and a stuxnet action you are involved with would have been taken. it would then done pursuant to the ms that -- ums but would have done as a covert action. stay think it's worth mentioning to get back to the political aspects of this that the members of congress who you postulate would feel their constitutional place was violated would be if falling over themselves to approve that particular action which leads you to this interesting and you see this in the history of the war powers act. by the way the only time in the is pressed to fulfill to the letter with the war powers act says is when congress is

controlled by the other party so our political approach to this question here has been almost always first and foremost about political power and only secondarily about the questions we are discussing up here. i think it's important to have that clear in one's mind. >> you right in the back and then the other person and that. >> my name is then g-men crowd him law and public policy scholar with simple law school. in terms of thinking about long-term unintended consequences of rewriting a document about the amuf do you believe that it would perhaps encourage any culture with a perpetual state of conflict as we have seen with the current amuf? >> maybe we can get the other gentlemen as well. >> you sam with mcclatchy

newspapers. i was wondering if the panel could comment at all on any specific definitions or recommendations. belligerence, whether it's al-shabaab for isis or al-nusra. is it funding they are receiving from al qaeda or direct contact on a certain amount of time that future legislation we need in order to make this more transparent as to who the actual enemy is and who we can actually attack a respond militarily? >> good questions. the consequences and what constitutes co-belligerence? stay with absolute and utter ignorance about the legal definitions of the term what i would want to see in co-belligerence is evidence that you have meaningfully and effectively signed up to the global aims of core al qaeda and i'm sure they would be a legally valid way to do that. in terms of long-term effects, you know i completely agree with

what the christian are said and it's very difficult to quantify that. we referenced briefly at the beginning the aei method is invoked to justify the nsa surveillance which of course includes things like looking at the correspondence of the leaders of are still in germany neither of whom last i checked his co-belligerence against al qaeda. you do have this kind of creep and you have had the creep up authorities like that. if it's not only easier to use force for technical reasons but also easier to use force because we are we are so afraid of terrorism because terrorism can do what we saw on 9/11. unfortunately we have lost a number of u.s. ambassadors and personnel overtime and we didn't intend to use start wars over it and to get back to the question whether the group is that the benghazi consulate and away

having worked at the state department would be delighted if we took it more seriously when bad things happen. in the american tradition that we didn't go to war after the kenyan and tanzanian bombing attacks. we have drifted as i have said in my presentation to this mindset where war is the answer, war is the hammer. terrorism is a very serious problem that oftentimes this kind of use of force without explanation without justification the full participation of recipient society is not necessarily the best tool for it and wore such a potent political tool at home that we can't have a conversation about what is the smartest way to deal with the group that attacked benghazi consulate and what is the smartest way to do with what's going on in iraq? using the paradigms around war and our political leaders find

it very difficult to have that conversation and not recommend tactics that the public recognizes after this decade of everything in war. speeches to follow up, it is inconceivable to use a reference to president obama's may 23 speech. it is inconceivable that a president would make that speech. this is something you do in your second term. there's the political class in this country saying something that we all know is true. if a conflict is attack the one day was part of al qaeda the political costs are very high for saying we should have a discussion that ameliorating this war is a legitimate point.

it's very hard to have a real conversation around this politically. >> it is a hard to have a political conversation about this politically but for more honorable reasons than that. i think the reasons hard to have a political conversation about this is we actually don't fundamentally at re-as a society about what the role you know of military force and violence is and what the weight, what weight we should give to more traditional extra torit torreo law enforcement and the conflict when you try to define the parameters of the military conflict you are to a great extent addressing that question which is is this an extraterritorial set of law enforcement problems where you hold the article to -- and reserve forces fundamentally a military conflict that you use law enforcement as occasional or

3.2 of the military struggle? is a very different models for how you think about it. one way or another it is a hybrid conflict that you are addressing with the weight and dominant component of it is and we don't agree on that. that is why the conversation is very hard to have. i think that's actually an honorable reason to have trouble having a conversation that i just want to see a brief word on the unintended consequences question. one of the difficulties of our current environment, and if you think that in the absence of a renewed, revamps different sort of af -- amuf we will just do something that looks a lot like peace, you feel very differently about that project than if you believe as i believe that in the absence of intervening legislation what you are going to have is a piece of sufficient military muscularity that it looks like unauthorized

blue intensity conflict over very long periods of time. i think that is the likely outcome. we are going to have a very militarily active peace over the next period of time and it's going to look a lot like war a lot of the time. and the question is, do you want to think about is something congress defines the parameters in which you are in that message business of authorizing and those that will have the unintended or maybe intended consequences of legitimizing it or do you want to deny that is what is happening and let a lot of that legitimacy not happen after cost of relying to a great extent on article two inherent authority's? i am in the former camp. i don't think the president should be doing this stuff on his own to the extent that we can avoid it and i'm willing to get my hands dirty to avoid that

and yes i acknowledge that my hands had been dirty. >> any words of president points to don't constrain him or her and if the amuf is written or not written it will not make an operational difference. the capabilities exist in great abundance. these are endorsed and supported by the american people. over 70% of americans in every poll support all types of drone strikes. appetite in congress for changing this is next to nothing and oversight is quite minimal. every president wants maximum authority and minimal oversight as does this one as will all future ones. if the citizens you care about these issues there's a range of things you can do to make your voice heard and get -- try to get policymakers to do but on the current track there is a path dependencdependenc y to this perpetual war. >> on that sobering note i want to thank micah ben and heather

for an absolute ryan presentation. [applause] more now from the new america foundation. we will hear from author and political science professor michael miller. he talks about his book, subsidizing democracy which examines public funding of political campaigns. this is 90 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning and welcome to the new america foundation. for the folks here and watching on our live livestream and folks on c-span2. welcome to the first event of the political reform program at new america. i am mark schmitt and i recently returned to new america to get

this program launched. it's not the first event or discussion we have had about political reform issues here but it is the first in the series and there will be more in which i hope you'll come to. today we are bringing people to together to discuss a fabulous new book called "subsidizing democracy" by michael g. miller who is it for fest at the university of illinois springfield. what we are -- the value of this book is that it's really the first book to look at, what is really happening in some of the states particularly arizona that it had a robust public financing system for some years now. at the national level the conversation about money and politics is mostly been a conversation of despair. the numbers are huge. outside money overwhelms the candidates and parties, the courts are unfriendly and nothing seems to be happening on congress even on things like

disclosure for what we once thought had a lot of -- we have had a significant amount of experimentation in some localities with systems of public finance and varying in significant ways. and given that experimentation we are able to really begin to look at what works and what doesn't. most of these systems and this includes arizona connecticut system of public financing maine new york city's small daughter matching system minnesota's tax credit system which was turned off for a while and then turned on which creates an interesting little experiment at what happens. most of these systems have been generally upheld by the courts with one significant exception of arizona and part of the arizona law. they have been generally politically resilient. that is they have twisted efforts to repeal them and they have been generally popular with candidates. when i first got involved in some of these issues around the time the arizona law was beginning to bubble up i was working on the hill and tended to let the public financing is

almost like a black-and-white thing. more public money would be good and less private money would be bad and we would have less corruption and fair elections and things like that. over time you realize like a lot of things will happen in a system like that and there's a lot that happens between the financing of the election in the legislation and what michael's book does is begin to look at what goes on in the middle? what different kinds of candidates participate? is voter participation change in any sort of white? the ideology of the people that participate or an interesting question, if we created opportunities for people to game the system or manipulated in ways to their advantage? i am enthusiastic about michael launching some of that discussion and then after he presents important findings from the book which really involve an in-depth study of the candidates in arizona as well as all the other systems we will have

comments on it from three people who actually have surprisingly different perspectives on this although they share the basic sympathy to the idea. michael malbin a professor of law at the george washington school of law from 2008 to 2000 10. he will say that dates. i think 20002011 he was principle deputy attorney general working in a office of legal policy. he is an author of an article called participation interest which is one of the articles that is most influence in my of money in politics. michael malbin is the director of the campaign finance institute and a professor at sunni albany state university in albany and a longtime observer of all these reform traditions. he is the co-author of the wonderful paper called reform in the age of network campaigns

which kind of helped us think about some of these ideas in a new way. and finally doctor max heinz is a medical doctor. more importantly for our purposes, he is a two-term arizona state representative with minority whip in the legislature and we'll talk about the expense of being a participant in the system and also running in an election running with an unsuccessful candidate in 2012. he is the director of a writer outreach at the apartment a few health and human resources and of course he is not speaking on behalf of the administration. with that i'm going to turn it over to michael miller. >> thanks, mark and i just want to say thanks to the merit new america foundation for joining us today.

mark's introduction was so good to cut my presentation i think in half areas my orientation, the reason why i came to be interested in this is policy and i wanted to write that perspective that i did is a former life i was a consultant and strategist working on congressional campaigns in strategy and management and we didn't always win and when we would lose the candidates would always say the same thing. imagine what we could have done if only we had the money. and that stayed with me. i went to graduate school and progressed through that part of my life and you take on the big question. that has become the big question. but what candidates do if they had more money? to me the jumping off point is really the understanding that these programs more than just

from the big questions that we tend to think of them, the winning and the losing and the differential between the challenges, there is a real capacity to change candidate behavior, change the way they interact with the voters and by extension change the way that people in these systems even if they don't know publicly funded elections are where they live the orientation and participation of voters there is a great potential for it to be a fact this by the presence of public funding. the goal of the book really is to expand the analysis and looked at these easy to measure questions. our elections closer and our incumbents and challengers have more money when they run? i wanted to get a little more in depth in the analysis and to focus on the candidates. the book really looks at public

funding through their eyes. the way that i did that is i went to arizona shortly following the 2006 legislative election in january 2007 and did on the ground interviews with candidates of all types, state legislators, across the state. and then i feel that the survey during the 2008 legislative elections in 18 states. importantly this is not just arizona. there are public funding systems of some stripe in place and almost half the states today if you take a very broad definition of public funding. importantly for the audience i'm going to focus not on the matching funds programs and i know he has done a lot of work that. i'm going to speak only about the subsidy programs that take 1 dollar from some account of the government and we the dreck into a candidates pocket. importantly to me there are two types of that program what i'm

calling in the book partial and full and they are pretty self-explanatory. in the fully funded systems in 2008 when i did the study, those took place in arizona, connecticut and maine and the programs get the candidates all the money they need to run a race. for example in arizona it i believe the subsidy was just over $30,000 from the primary and general election and when a candidate runs in that circumstance you agree you're not going to raise additional money beyond that. you're not going to spend beyond that spending cap and put in any of your own money additionally and so you are blocking out all private donors. the viability threshold for a candidate is 210 -- so once i can get 210 people to give them exactly $5 that is when they qualify for subsidy. the partial programs in 2008

were in play in minnesota wisconsin and hawaii. wisconsin has since suspended the program but those programs only give you a percentage of the money that you need to run the race. there might get $30,000 spending limit but we will give you $10,000 to get you started and you have to raise the rest. that's a really important distinction because the fully funded program eliminated necessity of raising money. the efforts to raise the amount of money they need i thought the real element here that is important is not money, it's time. the question is if you remove that fund-raising item from the menu of activities that candidates have to do on a week to week basis, what will they do with that time that they regain? that is a really important question for understanding the way that politics will be waged. so i did a survey where i asked

candidates what they did and i went and talked to them and asked them what they did. i want to go to the findings of how accepting full and partial funding affected their time. on a week to week basis, when we control for all the other things that also affect this relationship candidates who fully funded states but not partially funded states demonstrated significantly less time spent fund-raising, about five hours per week. it effectively goes from five hours to zero hours because they don't have to raise money. the partially funded candidates because they only got some of that money that they needed, they still behave exactly like traditionally funded candidates spending five to seven hours a week fund-raising. from that if you have one group of candidates the fully funded candidates not raising money what did they do at their time? they invested 100% and then some back and do what i call public interaction and that is broadly defined. it's an effort to get a vote.

we in political science have conceived in paul's work has conceived of politics is existing into spheres. you have to campaign for running in the campaign for votes so i'm looking at public interaction and anything they can does to get a vote it electronic canvassing meeting with interest groups etc.. so if you take various definitions of it i get the same result and that is about 12 percentage points off time is fed back into the interacting on a personal level with voters. when you translate at into weekly hours it's five or six hours a week and fully funded candidates talking with voters that they wouldn't have otherwise. over the course, and that sounds like kind of a small number to a lot of people but think about the typical legislative campaign and america existing for march and november in five hours per week over that period of time. what we are talking about here is hundreds certainly and

probably thousands of interactions that would not have occurred otherwise. and so the second question, if candidates are talking to voters in theoretically think a couple of things might happen. if i have a candidate on my doorstep and receiving as a voter information about that race, maybe i have no idea who is running or the statehouse, i am also raising salience about the race. maybe i did note the county auditor the state legislative candidate or the statehouse does so there is a learning happening while i can't take out the mechanism there you would think theoretically that if there is more interaction between a candidate and a voter there's probably going to be changes in voting behavior. so when we look at floating we find some interesting things as well. what you have to do i think particularly in state legislative elections is throw

out the tendency to look at turnout. i don't think theoretically that these things in state races are powerful enough to compel someone to get off their couch and drive to the polling places. when you think about all the u.s. voters in a presidential election especially when was the last time you charged up the vote for the state legislative candidate? we don't see that so the correct dependent variable is rolloff. the question is what is the percentage of people who show up ,-com,-com ma vote for the president and then stop voting? they cast a vote appear on the ballot but then they don't cast a ballot for the races below. we see that in high-visibility presidential years like 2000 when he had a lot of turnout coming in. people are knowledgeable about the presidential race but not the races down below. when they have a candidate on their doorstep i find in 2008 in connecticut and in maine excuse

me when there's a publicly funded candidate running in their district, a rolloff goes down by 20 to 30%, 20 to 30%. so another way to interpret that is of the people who went to vote in the presidential election race about 30% more of them are voting in publicly funded voting runs. so summing up the fully funded candidates are getting much more time directly interacting with the voting public and in districts where at least one of those candidates is running more people are registering their preference in voting in those races. ..

challenging cannon, all of the vintages. what i find is that it is effectively put a factory. if you think about the social studies teacher who always wants to run for state help and is never needed the connection, the marketplace and most of america my judge her as not a great candidate. why should i invest in a candid it is not have any experience.

will we find here with a full funding is we diminish anxiety. we increase the feelings that they -- that the feeling of in control. less surprised about the rigors, and they emerged to take on the incumbents. you're seeing challenges a few for why people coming of the woodwork. this program gave me of the resources are needed

>> yes result advocates are typically recommending policies. new york state and all of the bills under serious consideration. wisconsin and moved away from spending limits and instead they used public and dancing as a floor and then they use matching funds to get candidates an incentive to raise money for small donors. so when i read the book i'm not looking for a static analysis of one system. i'm looking at lessons for the future.

for example for the reasoning underneath. i was extremely impressed by the way michael decided to work his way through the ways law structure incentives for candidates but that's not the way most are designed. i think it's the right way to go about it. but to explain what i have learned, i'm going to spend most of my time on only one of the book's chapters and i would be happy in queue happy in q&a to talk about in a bit others including the excellent chapter on voter engagement and participation. for now i want to focus on this issue of how candidates spend their time as a way to get at the question that concerns me. that chapter begins by saying that most candidates have too much to do and they don't have enough time to do it. that is clearly correct so the question in the book is what happens if you -- fund-raising which is not too but he most families do not

enjoy. to answer this as michael said he asked the candidates in a number of states to fill out a time log in early october and from those logs he found candidates would accept full public funding and spend out time raising money and therefore spend a greater percentage of their time making direct contact with voters than the traditionally funded candidates in the same states. that is not a surprise but it's important because most of us would prefer the candidates take time to communicate with constituents. then the book went on to compares dates with each other and it found that candidates as michael said spend a higher percentage of their time under direct photo contact in states with no public funding or impartial funding. ..

then the traditional funded states, and he analyzed the groups. people close and joined them up. that was the basis for the finding a partial verses not. look more deeply into the weeds. if you look at the data, it is on page 155, michael gives us a

pie chart which has the results of each state individually. when you look carefully you see that the results are not quite so neat to as the conclusion i have just presented. for example, publicly funded candid it's in arizona to field more time on the field activities. that is not a problem by itself. but it becomes a problem when you compare voters in states. first a let's compare voters. all three of the state's with partial funding, wisconsin, minnesota, hawaii, candid it's can hire on direct voter contact than a fully funded candidate, the parent company. everything is campaign activities. you don't do fund raising.

on the other stuff, but michael did emphasize the direct order contact. most surprisingly, that was also true in six of the nine states with no public money,. kennedy: 79 of the candidates spent more time on direct voter contact ifs then in arizona. only three states of a dozen fist. something more -- because i don't dispute, but on average. my conclusion is that something more is going on the the difference between public funding, partial, and traditional. publicly funded candidates remain at the highest percentage of voter contact, but traditionally funded context in may were second. the variation among states is far too wide for the books

explanation. the use clearly does not help us to solve the problem because the data was before the recession. a took the time to get through these because it is not just -- it has important implications. we have to figure out exactly what is driving the difference is if you want to know the real impact. contributions to my campaign funding regulation. and this is going to be especially important for the future because the future of public funding will be partial. it turns out that the differences among the state program are far more nuanced than the big labels suggest. for example, if you look at the states with partial funding, minn. is different than how why your response. in both hawaii and wisconsin very little public money goes

into candid it's, in a few candid it's. in minnesota much higher percentage of the money is public. contributions are supported by tax credits and these in turn can be seen as provoking supported money. the majority of the republican and democratic candid steve participate. partly as a result of these policies of minnesota candidates receive a higher percentage of their money from voters than any other state in the country, 57% in 2010. the most recent year for which we have data. he often sees striking results. in the recent 2013 election the city council candid it's spent more than 60 percent of their money from small donors or the matching funding of small donors in contrast we receive only 14 percent of the money from

small daughters. from the legislate it is close, and the seller or new york, new york city. why did this happen? maybe it is because the rules and of minnesota and new york drive the candid it's terror steer their fund-raising toward low dollar donors. as a result campaigning in fund-raising in those places, there is a piece. there interwoven rather than being separate activities. they can make a potential pitch. they're taking place in the local living room where the meeting halls, not on corporate board rooms are downtown. in most respects small daughter back to grocer different from others. faith in traditional fund-raising, there is a

fund-raising. in new york city things will become intertwined. this is not like other public funding. it is a different dynamic. so my big take away in these comments is this, we have to understand that the impact of the program varies quite a bit. the details are not only of a public funding but also about contribution limits and disclosure. it is a definite contribution. it has shown, for example, that publicly funded candid it's spend more of their time on direct voter contact in traditionally funded candid it's in the same states. but it does not tell us as much as we need to know to differentiate among other states . with a respected public, minnesota and new york models had been very successful and are being looked at by other

jurisdictions as models. because of this many to look at them more carefully. so in the spirit of the typical researcher my bottom line is i like the there is much more do it's more deeply needed because it followed by comparing states that you can get what makes work effective and ineffective programs. >> the key very much offs. >> what you just said reminded me of something stuck in my head when she was still governor of arizona. a qualified contributions. i remember the great thing for me is i used to go, the attorneys general, used to go to boardrooms to raise money. and i would go out to reservations and other places. no i can go to the state.

you know, that is a good feeling >> thank you. >> so i would like to think marge smith for the opportunity. professor miller has written a very important book. i agree with michael about that. i am a law professor, a political scientist. you know, the supreme court justice, we often make unfounded assumptions about how politics work. the facts are important. that is something which is important. we would assume that public financing requires that candidates spend less time fund-raising. you might assume that republican candid it's might be more averse to excepting public money.

this book shows many of us to face the question of whether in a public financing increases making a more penetrating reservation, the financing, voters are more likely. the contributions. also like the fact that professor miller focuses on reform. too often, especially in the washington d.c. area of focus so much time federal and the organizations, public campaign, common cause to lead focuses in addition saw a good objective political analysis, with focus deeply.

a knowledge is the goals of different public financing programs very. because i am a lawyer i can't really speak about data more forthright. of going to talk about my opinions. will just the mopping : values. i am going to focus on these values. public financing should no longer stand to purge all money from our. that is kind of my value proposition. instead, they should encourage as many private citizens from various economic backgrounds to participate in the financing of politics.

they voted only to% goes to political campaigns. less than one-half of 1 percent is irresponsible for the bulk of money that is received. so just like we encourage, encourage all citizens to participate to make a financial contribution to political candidate of his or choice. unfortunately conventional campaign reform, public financing barack obama, for example, there was a campaign

with the general election. a fair amount of contribution from the contributes. would not had an unprecedented member says president obama where have gladly sacrificed thousands of volunteer organizers to encased in voter registration, ordered more canvassing and bone making. is because it has been shown, you know, getting even small amounts leads to a public forums of engagement. one of the most promising tools for expanding is usually public funds to match political contributions.

the idea is that public financing programs should no longer attempt to equalize money between candidates by giving each candidate the same amount. instead, public financing should facilitate participation by donors by giving a 61 match of the first $200 of the contribution. so that makes a $200 contribution by an individual with $1,400 to a candid it. the multiple matching funds from a philosophical shift about the role of money in politics. the big anomaly has sought to spend less energy on the money and a campaign than on getting the people back into those very same campaigns. multiple matching funds draws a challenge, the lack some of it

come which is a barrier then made up to 50% of those who voted, and in 12 of the -- in terms of the amount of money that they gave they gave well over 70 percent of the money that was used for campaigns fitzhugh so average folks are not participating. we want average folks to participate in campaigns. multiple matching funds makes it candid it's more willing to engage more americans and expand bridges patient. for example, another study.

and then going to use a law professor we have to use his numbers. in new york state candid it's collect 7% of the money for good readers to give $250 or less. that is state candid it's been a new york state. there is no match in new york state. on the city level, new york city, where there is, candid it's, over 60 percent of their money for people who give to order and $50 less. and that is because candid it target middle income americans because it is you raise money. why should i call ten people and as for $100 for each of them when i can make one call and

give a thousand dollars. his studies show that people who are more likely to give. so we should not be surprised when higher income people are more likely. no, let me turn away, the differences in terms of public financing year to critics of public financing. some critics argue, hey, markets alone share. i disagree with that. i disagree because the basic framework of society, participation, that is a proper function of government. so, for example, the state provides a platform for people to participate through the registration through acceptable polling places, through ballots, through other tools. matching funds are no different.

multiple matching funds are not welfare for politicians, as some have labeled traditional public financing. instead, multiple matching funds allow more people to use tools to hold public officials accountable. those who insist that we have to rely on private funds loaned to finance policy, they elevate their mechanical aversion to government over a commitment to do legitimately expand liberty to more people. multiple american funds may make candid it's less dependent upon a small group of large donors, and by doing so they prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption. they can also avoid significant problems with traditional public financing, including wasting our

subsidies on candid it's with little public support. so some in of we're already starting to do this, stop trying to purge money from politics and instead should use money as a tool to facilitate widespread participation in politics. >> law professor. >> on behalf of myself, thank you in the foundation for the invitation. i am for candid it and former legislator from arizona, and so i represent a single data point. and i will disclose that i have not yet read the book, although

i plenty. i am just giving you a little bit of an example of what is like to live through this type of a system. and in my experience with that, and i will compare it a little bit to running to congress which was in terms of fund-raising just awful. loudobbs@foxbusiness.com

who stepped down from her senate post caused a variety of cascades. and freed up state house seat, with so i actually literally walked in to the democratic party headquarter, not knowing a thing, now it's just hello, i'm matt heinz and here to run for congress. they just looked a at me and said who are you? i was in scrubs. i haven't shaved even more so than now. it was -- that was my first real interaction with the whole system i didn't understand in any way. eventually, i was able to get some guidance from a senate senator who is a dear friend of mine who sat down with me and doesed how it worked. he suggested if you want to do this, by the way, being a democrat in the state legislature in arizona is not necessary lay very rewarding experience.

i don't think it's two to one now. for two of the years it was more than two to one majority republican. so he just explained and, you know, we work real hard. you need to make sure it's going work with your career, family, and need money to do this. i recommend you look at the clean election system. and of course, i had no idea what that was. as you've heard described by michael, it works really, really well. you get $5 -- you want to get about $250 of the con try wiewtions to make sure you have enough and you doing it going door to door. that'sing? that was, for me, personally rewarding. i can you it was basically all i did was go to door to door. and, you know, a doctor going door to door asking for $5 is a

little odd. i got to teach people about what this program was, what it did, how it em powed them, how it got some of the excess money out of the system. i got, you know, $250 contributions going door to door, then continued that. my volunteers, myself, i think i went to about over 5,000 homes personally. i it's hard to do. i did that in over seven months. i spoke to over 2,000 people on the doorstep. that's the most rewarding thing i was able to do during the campaign. that's how i defeated an incumbent. the way the house elections work. the two top in the primary are the ones that gone to the general. my district, which was majority minority democrats typically win, but an incumbent that had been there for three terms who was very comfortable and did not

choose to do much in the way of fieldwork in the way of door to door didn't qualify for the clean elections contribution. i was defeated by two clean elections candidates myself included. it dpefnlt worked, it certainly in this case was able to help a candidate like me with absolutely no connection whatsoever to a network to be politics, as a resident you're kind of -- you are in the hospital inspect it case the va a couple of other hospitals in arizona there, and you don't really come out to seat lights very often. so it was something that was able to help me get in to the system. i did not win in 2006, actually. i kind of skipped over that. i tried. i did well, but then i ran again also as a clean candidate in 2008. i did win. that was the election i was talking about where i defeated an incumbent.

so really i have to say my experience has been a very positive one. but the possible to run in 2010 using traditional funding that the point for a variety of reasons, and but that wasn't a huge focus for me, because i was an unchallenged incumbent. but then moving to 2012, where i briefly was in a democratic congressional primary against my friend, ron basher. who initially wasn't going run, by the way. that was a very different experience. one that maybe someday i'll repeat. i kind of doubt it. and principally because the entire time i was in a windowless room, on the phone, trying to beat money out of people. it was the most frustrateing, i mean, i don't know how i didn't burn a few more staff. it was very frustrated.

i don't think i knocked on a single door. not one. i went from over 5,000 personal knocks on doors in 2008 to zero because i was in a room calling and asking for money to campaign. for me, that was really miserable because whey got from going door to door and talking to people face to face was a real idea about they were facing in their world. i could see their house, i could see their kid, i could assays all sorts of things. a lot asked me for medical advice, actually, which i gave with a caveat. see your doctor, but, yeah, definitely a problem. so, you know, that's something i really miss. it's something i credit the clean election system in arizona with allowing me do. to give you a bit of an idea for

how it works on the ground. because it's been there for so long. a large recycle paper book comes out. it's clean election candidates book. you can -- you're listed as traditional or clean. you can get a paragraph of yourself, a website, a phone number for your company. it has become the mainstay of campaigning in arizona. people are expecting that and get i guess every two years. so it's -- s also,a debate series as well. the clean election system has the clean candidates come together and have a forum. that's how the system works there. and i don't want to take too much more of your time. i want to thank all the panelists. i look forward to, i believe, there's going to be some time for questions. i look forward to answering any specific questions you might have of me. thank you. >> michael, do you want to say

anything about respond any of the comments or just -- okay. usually i have some things i want to say. i think there's people in the audience. i want to hear their questions. quick comment, i think sometimes we make a -- whey hear m make lough distinction. sometimes alook a little more like each other than we sometimes think. and the important of the qualifying contributions in arizona is -- [inaudible] into very important. please say who you are or if you have an organizational affiliation. i'm going to the.

a to reduce the power of special interest and change the behavior of the way people actually vote after they're i elected. do you have any evidence on the clean money or matching arrangement change the behavior of politicians in the vis-a-vis interest groups? >> yes and no. on the question of is there quid pro quo exchange comparing legislative within arizona or the full-funded states. i don't know anyone does that. there are two studies. one of which i'm coauthoring where we find legislators elected using -- as they apair to be more ideological extreme relative to the party caucus. so i've heard about dotely

candidates in arizona say well easier now if you eliminate the campaign finance marketplace, because it used to be elected you would have to be moderate. go door to door and make the call thes. no one could give you money if you're nuts. but now, antidotally, whey hear it is easy -- if you can go for instance picking a side of your more conservative than the typically arizona legislature maybe you go your church on sunday and pass the offering plate around with your $5 qualifying in it. one day you are qualified. there is nub of that market setting going on. it was the reason for wanting to know that. but the evidence suggests the very preliminary unpublished evidence suggests that on both sides in both states we have looked at clean funded

legislators are to the right and left of there respective caucuses. that's all i've got. >> i think it's important to distinguish that system from,let say, a multiple -- right response another words, if you've got 2509 friend who are either in the syria club or the nra or whatever, you can get your, you know, contributions together. your qualifying contributions together and get a big pot of money. in a place like new york city or other places; however, you can continue to raise it -- you don't just stop at the 250 close ideological friends. you reach out to a broad group and you get more bucks as a result of reaching out to a greater number of people.

>> with respect to -- it's very hard to do the research in a quantitative way, but we know that the main documentable influence of large -- comes with the agendas setting the stage of the process. not only the final kid pro koa. that's part of the research. we have tons of examples evidence of bills being specially kept up, not passed.

especially in a negative power. stopping a grill moving forward, but also amendments to create special breaks for people. i don't think there's much doubt that this happens. the documents doesn't happen and . second on the question of whether clean elections produces more extreme office holders. i want to get -- again, this time -- we can have a private conversation later. i just want to say i strongly disagree with the paper of the

young publisher. a different interpretation. there's a -- and i find there's like extremists to be -- [inaudible] misleading. but it's the data, i think, we will have this conversation. when you move away from the clean election states, there have been states out there that systems that favor small donors are more polarizing effect on politics. campaign finance research says that's not true. we looked at the small donors are more polarized than large donors and whether the answer is no there's no evidence for it. we looked at whether the candidates to whom small donors get are more polarized than other candidates. but again, with one of two clear

exceptions. the answer is no. in terms of both candidates and donors there's really not much difference with the one difference that small donors lobby. and that is -- [inaudible] >> if i may really quickly. this is about dote l i served with 89 legislators. and on one specific policy point in 2012, i mean, there was a significant reform proposed to the clean election system, and with some provisions that would have entered the cost to limitations change a more -- make it more like kind of like the new york system, to a certain effect. what you saw was some of the folks i would describe as drafts aid -- nonviable without the public funding system.

it did include many folks on both sides, most largely democrats but then a very interesting subsection of the majority caucus that relied entirely upon the clean election system to get in there. so that's, again, antidote l. but i do think it speaks to your point. in the case of the makety i was serving to be part of the coalition to defend the existing system. i would say yes, in arizona.

>> one of the issue use have not addressed yet is the role of parties. i find this particularly interesting. because when you talk to folks particularly on the republican side many of the solutions to the current system deals with strengthening the parties. one of the questions i have when you talk about looking at these matching systems whether arizona is what you think the appropriate role of the party should be. one would say on one argument they're a moderating influence. the other argument, my experience in illinois they are a corrupting influence. what role do you see the parties playing in these?

>> there's debate how we should interpret party. i think the role of a party is -- we talked the party leaders particularly in the assembly they are looking in arizona at the clean elections as a -- so you can go and, you know, fill out the receipt where no one urged to run to take on the incumbent more than 68% last time. it's a way -- they're not seeing as we're going win the seat but out a full plate of candidate because of the rising tide. so that is, in my experience, has been the parties are kind of working with public funding. i'm not going say it's diminishing their strength, i don't think that's true. but i would actually be really interested to hear what spencer and mike will think about the small donor matching program and the role of parties in them.

>>ic it's poshtd -- i think it's important we increase incentive for political actors, candidates, parties, pacs with to reach out to average americans and ask more people and engage more people in a serious way. i also think that i am a fan of public financing. i think it's an appropriately entirely. i also think freeingicly we need some insurance money. when politicians in the future balance budgets and cut public financing money, we have other incentives to ensure political actors will reach out not just to large but to average americans. as a result, i think that, you know, one idea that was brought to the my attention by my goal was the concept allowing parties

to spend more money coordinated expenditures with candidates when that money comes from small donors or you do the first $200 of any contributions. that's one thing. another idea that happens in colorado is a small donor pac, where is a small donor pac collect the smaller amount from individuals. average folks they can give a larger amount to candidates than a conventional pac can. so giving these political actors incentives to ask and engage in bring more people to the process, i think, are key. that doesn't deal with the underlying issue. i'll let michael deal with that. matching programs and parties.

>> thank you. i was going start by saying i agree with spencer that we're going encourage activity. one prb with the way the issue is sometimes debated and the phrasing of the question with the fair election. the way it's debated but you stated it was skepticism. but that is we often hear political party uses in places. but clearly party strong speakers they strong offices with party carry the vote of the followers. his or her pocket that's very different from a -- [inaudible] the role of the party raising money and so forth.

a very large question in general, i think, we don't -- one doesn't want to see the riewlts making it difficult for parties to -- something that can back vehicle for making unlimited contributions that are -- [inaudible] candidate. corollary if you want the contributions of candidates to mean anything. some anemia some states don't want them to mean anything and they behave that way. so you can't answer her her

question in a short time. it's an important question in the center of policy debates. ic the issue is too often -- [inaudible] >> i've seen actually the recruitment concepts in the democratic party within arizona. encouraging candidates to run. in some cases when you have such -- even though we have independent redistricting in the state of arizona, which was has been since '92, i believe. we do still have a lot of lop siding majority districts either on republican or democratic side. so we're able to -- the party is able to get candidates to challenge incumbent even though may not have a high chance necessarily winning to at least engage that the people of that district in a discussion in this course. t a good thing. i also have heard that you can

also -- it also does with money. if you're a challenged incumbent you're going start working the distract little bit more. pay more attention to the people in the district as well. then from my own particular situation, i became by vir chu of the public financing system of interest to the democratic party. that is how i would kind of twist that a little bit. i was -- if the party didn't find me even when i stumbled in to the democratic party headquarter and presented myself awkwardly, they were still very -- they weren't sure of me. they didn't seem interested in exploring that. so i would say that it can definitely help them with recruitment. not necessarily in my case. >> hi. [inaudible] sunlight foundation. i'm asking the question in some

way an extension of the excellent question jonathan asked. what happened in the actual course of governing. it's a conversation about campaigning. almost nothing about governing. a lot about politics, nothing about policy. i heard spencer mention the word accountable one time. so the hypothesis, actually, i mean, the evidence tend to support this about public funding, one, you get better and more diverse candidates more representative of the population as a whole. and two, you get candidates who are spending more time listening and talking to actual voters as opposed to people who fund campaigns. therefore, you think that the people who are in office are more in touch with the general concerns of the pop lis at large. what happens if you have the matching funds or some system in which you bring more people to the system, and then when you have the two years of legislative session, that goes away. so you have people who are new

to legislating and maybe voters who are have gotten involved. there's nothing to support their participation through that two years. so one hypothesis, my contention, is that what happens is that will go away then you're left with the permanent class of lobbyists and special interest to help part-time special interests -- are there insides from public funding question take to actual law making? and then should we be thinking more about the two years of governing as pa compliment to the public funding? >> there are only three states with the public funding. some of the experts are -- [inaudible]

but one has an impression but there are no political studies that look at this comprehensively. the lobbyists not set the agenda adds much. i can't speak about arizona and it's just a different place. you're not showing far away. you're a -- in the legislative -- and you live in your neighborhood. so this varies by place. but one of the mechanisms that lobbyists use to control the agenda not there. now, you have an hypothesis, i have an hypothesis.

we woat both have the tools. both will acknowledge nobody has done it in a systemic way. let me talk about values. going to operate using their best judgment as trustee. i have a healthy skepticism of that vision of democracy. i would agree that over the course of a legislative cycle we want legislators to be accountable to st. not just lobbyists or small group, but a broad and diverse group of people. and so just as a enormous matter for me that is one of the reasons that a multiple match is more attractive than a direct

grant. sinned there is some connection to citizens and so you to get 200 or 250 qualifying contributions, but the movement of public financinger to a more kind of accountable group over a legislative cycle for over significant period of time. i think that's a good thing from a democratic value standpoint. >> go ahead. >> okay. i had a professor in grad school also -- [inaudible] used to say government is born of the cold smoke of elections. and so you think about these two kinds of systems we've been talking about, if you believe that, you know, dr. heinz, as you said excess the condition of the people that lived in my district. i think that bodes well for

representation more of that is happening. as you believe more of that is happening in the fully-funded system. i think you're going at least in a place where you can say there's every day preliminary evidence to think it might be the case. again. we don't know. all we have is a hypothesis. i do agree the small donor match programs appear to be very effective. he had a nice their suggest the donor pool look more like the voting pool in the system. i think they're promising in that regard. by americaning the campaigning and the fundraising elements in to one, i think you are also getting that out of the systems as well. >> forgive me. as being in a legislature where we have four term limits in place.

that -- every two years between 40 and sometimes 50% of the arizona legislature is new. every two years. and so the people that have a power within the people that literally write the bills and bring them to huhs. -- us. but sometimes. mostly to the majority because it's speaker and the president's office. those are the lobbyists that have been there for 20230 years. i'm not saying it's necessary lay bad thing. what i'm saying in my direct experience, that is what limited more than anything else the ability of legislators to, i think, most faithfully represent their constituencies. they didn't know what they were doing. they were trying to figure out where the bathrooms are.

there's 40% that doesn't know where the bathroom on the third floor is. because they are knew. what so you is in this craziness, everything is new and different. you have lobbyists and you have when dwhrowr to the sure if you should be trusting the lobbyist or not. then ask the chief of staff who has been there for 22 years. so and i that's probably good thing too. but the chief of staff is not elected. those people don't have to go door to door and ask the voters for anything at all nap is what -- i think t not directly the topic of this panel. but term limits seem to have more impact as far as i can tell. to endorse the point you were making. i think it's -- it reminds me of an article i read recently by heather from yale law school. which i think the title is "lobbying as new campaign

finance reform ." she's basically arguing because the people who have the capacity to lobby are so limited, we can think about lessons that come from public financing for how to build that information capacity in a broader way. help them get their voices heard in the legislature which is something more able gus to create more centralized resources. i think it's a smart direction that she's laid out. i recommend that. which is probably on your mind. >> shannon browne. [inaudible] >> that is working on health care reform. let me give you a little bit of background for my question.

we're interested in promoting public deliberation around health care reform. i'm wondering whether or not this small donor model increases civic engagement. not just at the voting boothe but also in people having conversations in their community about what they want and how to get it. does it actually increase people's ability to affect legislation? so the conversation and the community and the legislation. yeah. getting engaged in a campaign. in a low cost way increases civic knowledge which makes it easier the second time around. you increase social capital, political capital, that's a plus in the direction you're talking about. the preliminary --

it doesn't happen by itself. so it's a step to create the tool. it's useful but not sufficient. whether a candidates in the town hall whether a candidate encouraging it or using it for deliberation as opposed too using it as a selling vehicle. those are all possibilities but you don't move directly from one to another. what you do get is you model you the hurdle which is to get the person engaged and to get the person who was potentially empowered to asked the person to be engaged.

>> again, door to door, that's where, you know, all the voter contacts occurred. and i know actually from one year to the next, i had a variety of legislative candidates running around the same district talking to the same people. and those relationships really mean something. there are many situations in which as f voter had give $5 to me. they refused to give it to very protective of you. because you have that bond. you have -- so you definitely are simulating that kind of sortive civic engagement. it can go on to other things. at&t very least you are teaching them at level of governments. what the legislators are supposed to do. and getting folks only typically vote in a presidential year or

for the u.s. senator or governor your getting them -- no. that doctor came to my house. he's down here. what is this? wow. judges maybe, you know, no one votes for judges. we all know that. but -- i'm kidding. but yeah, i think that i have no way to measure it. i think in my own experience i could see that. >> i want to piggy back on this. one of the important differences we treat the state election model and the matching. most people or willing to be engaged. if they know when you get close to election day and what the clean election model does is gets do you get $5 before most people have heard of the candidate. it's strictly door to door.

that's where most of the people who of as a way of getting people in to the system. >> david donly. i see you back there. you were mentioned by name. do you want to comment on that question? >> okay. >> kurt walters with public campaign action fund. i was interested, professor miller, on your -- as opposed to turnout. i want to know if such a system to be in place at the federal level and house and senate elections. do you think we might see

similar increase maybe at the top of the ballot in overall turnout rates? >> i think so. for me it was a -- well, yes, possibly. i'm already logging that back. i think my distinction in the book is nearly theoretical. because of, you know, as i said in the presentation. it's hard for me to get to a place where i believe that's the race you care about. that's the reason why you're going to vote is state legislature. no offense to dr. heinz, but i think people are focused on the federal as vote piers that's the reason they're going there. now. if a public funded candidate, you know, is running for congress. does it make you more likely to vote? i'm not sure. i'm not sure that my fundings

are going to translate to federal rates and the reason for is it is because most congressional races and certainly the presidential race and senate races are already pretty visible. so where are you going affect voter education and salient? saints going to be very marginal, i think, and so i'm not sure others may have different thought. i'm not sure the more i think about we should expect higher turnout from public funding. because particularly since the proposed programs are going to be the six to one match and have fundraising. there's no reason to necessarily believe the congressional candidates would totally do it in a face to face way. i'm not sure we would see the effect. i think that we should give upturnout of the thing we all want to see.

i would note that i think crumtion and the appearance are important values and could be effective in especially congressional elections. many of us have an idea that the presidency is you know what we think of when we think of politics. i think it's just not the case. because there are so many other political actors and there's not as much transparency, because there's not as much media coverage, right, and also in term of the presidency you are raising money from so many more people that a large contribution that is $35,000 even isn't as significant. where as if you're running forest fire congress or running for state house or city council, a big con fry biewtion is important. there's not the throanch attract those large contributions because you don't have the celebrity that is not at play.

the other candidates are more susceptible. has to do more to raise money and more vulnerable. i think that, you know, even though i personally believe there are values other than preventing corruption that are important. i think especially at the lower level. -- we have to wrap up. there's another event coming up. >> i want to thank our panelists. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] president obama spoke briefly monday about negotiations with iran over the nuclear program and the six month interim deal reached over the weekend. we finalized an interim agreement with pirn the p5+1 which includes the united states entered to an agreement with iran that allows us to, at the time and space to negotiate a more comprehensive deal that could solve dibmatically what has been the long running concern around iran's nuclear program. [speaking in foreign language]

[speaking in foreign language] i want to emphasize the interim agreement the result of concerned international action including unprecedented sanctions that brought iron iran to the substantial and allows us to halt their program as we enter to intensive discussions around what would be a sustainable comprehensive long-term deal. it's going dpiflt. it's going to be challenging. ultimately this is how dipty should work. if iran is willing to walk through the door of opportunity that is presented to them. i have no doubt it can open up extraordinary opportunities for iran and their people.

we will be to be monitor and verify whether or whether or not the agreement is being followed through. it will be in a strong position to respond. we want to give the public a change and give peace a chance. and i'm confident i speak not just for myself but p5+1 partners they think it's an opportunity we should not miss.

on the next "washington journal." by 1890 fife or so nine

different railroads terminateed. it crated quite an economic base. every railroad had a switching yard or a repair shop, it was a very terminal in the southeast. provided an economic stimulus to the growing city of chattanooga. even today, railroads still move an amazing amount of through chattanooga. coal trains, train after train after train loaded with grain, going to the sea boards on the atlantic coast or power plants in georgia, et. cetera.

they have to come through chattanooga. this weekend on booktv a look at the history and literary life of chattanooga, tennessee. the head of the national guard bureau spoke about readiness and budget cuts last week at the national press club. this is one hour. good afternoon. welcome to the national press club. i'm the 106th president of the national press club and reporter for "bloomberg news." we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists committed our profession's future. with programming such as events like this, while photserring a free press worldwide. for more information about the national prez club please visit our website at www.press.org to donate to programs offered to

the -- please visit press.org/substitute. on behalf of our members worldwide. i would like to welcome our speaker today as well as those in the audience. our head table include guest of our speaker as well as working journalists who are club members. and if you hear applause from the audience, i would note that members of the general public also attending it's not necessarily evidence of a lack of journalist irk objectivity. i would like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. you follow the action today on twitter using the #npclunch. we'll have a question and answer period. i'll ask as many questions as time permits.

a correspondent. colonel john u.s. army retired congressional liaison office of secretary of the air force and member of national press club. thoches burr senior washington correspondent for the salt lake tribune. and chairman. jim michaels military reporter for "usa today." lieutenant general bill ingram director of the army national guard. speaking over the podium. a reporter for "usa today." the organizer of today's launch on the speakers committee and 2009. skipping over the speaker momentarily. rachel a reporter at national journal global security news wire and vice chairwoman of the club press freedom committee.

editor in chief of army magazine. chief master sergeant senior enlisted adviser to the chief of the national guard bureau. will watson a retired daily newspaper editor. president of the watson group. and john. better known as sergeant shaft who is a columnist at military.com. [applause] as the defense department ponders how to create a leaner, less costly military force without comprising capabilities and readiness. our guest today points to the national guard as a key part of the solution. today's national guard general frank says is, quote, the most

competent, relevant, and battle-tested national guard in the history of the nation. in testimony before the senate defense appropriations committee last year, he called the guard a, quote, cost-effective proven solution, unquote, that allows the nation, quote, to may be contain a robust military at the least possible cost to the taxpayer. the september 11th, 2001, terror attacks on the world trade center in new york and the pentagon in washington pushed the citizens warriors of the national guard more adowfm responding to u.s. natural disasters to the front lines of two foreign wars. in addition to iraq and afghanistan national guard personnel have dpe employed to libya, kosovo, and other hot spots around the world. but nothing illustrates the guard's dual --

elevated the head of the national guard bureau to the joint chief of staff. the military advisers to president obama and national security team. but the guard's future is uncertain. this fall as congress it'sed over the budget the guard faced potential sequestration cut that pair the force by 10%. such cuts told congress then would make it challenge for the military to meet its goal of successfully operating in two theaters of war simultaneously. they a dealt with complicated issue open the home front. they he earn the four star in

2012 when he became the 127th chief of the national guard bureau. besides advising l president he was responsible for ensuring more than 460,000 army and air national guard are assessable, anded, and ready to protect the homeland. to tells how the national guard transformation will continue, please join me in giving a warm national press club welcome to national guard bureau chief general frank. [applause] [applause] >> thank you so much. every time somebody said you are joined at 69. you're an old guy. it makes me feel old.

i'll talk about that. the guard today from 1969 to today it is pretty amazing. i know, there's a number of folks and friends in this room that have lived through this transition. a premiere party force for home and overseas. and what i thought i would do today first talk about three things. one being where the guard is today a little bit about our homeland mission and the things that our . angela mentioned just recently with the winter storm and how we were able to roll out quickly like all the time like the guard. but also talk about army and air force and the role in the army and air force on the federal mission and a little bit about our enduring partnership we do.

as a general, i mean, in the staff here that i have our public affairs staff has been phenomenal. if you can't tell your story, you're no good at what you do. newt gingrich for the opportunity to be here. what you to do tell the story of the nation's military deafen in general. this population of warriors that we have men and women in the united military. 3% of our population. 1% of -- population serves in uniform in any given day. i traveled to 25 states five

country, some of those twice. some of the combat zone to visit our troops. and our troops in general active guard reserve. every service they are phenomenal. they are the best this nation has to offer. as we move forward with the current budget crisis we have to make sure we don't break this. i know, general ohed ohed -- odierno was here the other day. i work closely with him and others with the chairman of the joint chief. we have to get it right. we owe that to our nation. what is the guard answer read well for 377 years now we have been rolling out of the gate of armories. whenever the governors calm. in some cases even before the governors call. i've seen situations where there's a disaster. i remember my state active duty

in 1973 coming out actually i was driving with my wife at the time. we were dating and headed to a dinner. and on the local radio was a flooding 220 of engineers get to the army immediately. i said show to take the car and go to dinner by yourself. i have to go somewhere. that today is what our guard men and women do still every day. our daily update in looking at mechanics that went to illinois to help repair snowplows. the civilians, you know, state truck. they went in to help out because they were run soggy many hours. they didn't have enough mechanic. the highway assistance teams in indiana that went tout check on people that were broke down that couldn't get out. to help them move along the interstate highway system. it go on and on and on of the men and wiment that do this every day. just in the last 16 months since i've been here, hurricane sandy

was the first event. 12,000 guardsmen rolled out the gate out of 22 states total. some rolled in to help new york, west virginia that was having a snow event during hurricane sandy. it was seamless. in sitting my chair, i thought i don't have to do anything. i watch it occur and goat shake hands and visit the great men and women. see who they are. i'm in new jersey in the smallest cell of 20 soldiers and airmen. the sergeant and the lieutenant i meet them and talk to them a applicability. and the lieutenant is also a deputy sheriff in the town next door. he knew everyone in the community. that is who the guard is. how it's always been. again, we don't want to break that. some folks in the room have been recognized from the guard. i want to recognize my counter part here who has been a guardsmen. how many he's had with the director of the international

guard. bill and i have worked together for years even before he was in next. he could tell you all kinds of stories and knows more about fighting and responding to hurricanes than most of us begin to think. he's retiring well over 40 years of service at the end of this month and a great partner here from the time working in the state and also state active duty and mobilization. whatever we needed he was there for us and running the army national guard for well over two years. [applause] so i want to talk about the federal mission of the guard. i get asked the question all the time about why does the national guard need f-16. why do you need f-16 or apache or tanks? i say we don't need tanks or apaches or fighter jets.

but we need is whatever the air force and the army need in their reserve. because our first mission in our two missions are equal is our mission to support the federal reserve of the air force of the united states air force and united states army. so however the army looks, our however the air force looks, we have to be interchanging. ..