nowadays by using unmanned aerial vehicles all those things can be done because you see you had to put security as a hedge against what you didn't know. we could do rates of 20 peoples announced that one raid with 120 we would do six at the same time with 20 each. we have sped up the pace of what we do. so hugely effective. in efficiency and effectiveness. the problem with unmanned aerial vehicles as they allow you to lower the threshold of-somethings. you could fly over an area with no risk to americans and you can shoot missiles down our drop bombs and it feels almost antiseptic for us. i tell people in 1998 you won't notice the people in the room will. president clinton shot tomahawks after we had intelligence on osama bin laden at one time. if you asked americans the next

morning's america at war people would go we shot tomahawks, we are not at war. if you talk to people near the receiving end of those tomahawks very different response. so the danger is you have different thresholds. you are shooting at someone and they say it feels like were to me and when you're in another position you say well we are just doing surgical operations. you can get this resentment in american arrogance. americans can be perceived as we are arrogant because we can stand up from the heavens and throw thunderbolts. although militarily it may just read the right move if you are building up massive resentment than there's a negative cost to it. it's one of those technologies that has to be very carefully balanced as we use it. pretty soon everybody is going to happen. a lot of countries have them now. i don't know how we will feel when somebody does it to us but i can predict. that's a great question.

thank you. >> with that i want to thank bank of america for hosting this and thank you all for hope -- joining in the conversation and thank you. we are life to hear from arizona senator john mccain as he recounts the lives of american soldiers who served in conflicts ranging from the revolutionary war to the conflicts in iraq and afghanistan. that's a topic of his new book. for some introductory remarks. >> he will be interviewing senator mccain about his latest book which is called "thirteen soldiers" a personal history of americans at war. the book is for sale outside of this room and all the money from the proceeds go to the national journalistic institutes and afterwards in our question-and-answer period you can have cards outside the room and you can collect them and the

senate to answer questions when he is done. before we get started, two things. please turn your cell phones o off. that's one thing i need to do. mine plays "sex in the city" so that's really obnoxious. the second thing is there are annual book fair is november 18 so please come to that. so great. we have nightly offers and you think a lot of wonderful books. so the senator we have to tell you tonight we are so honored to have you at the national press club to launch your book "thirteen soldiers" and especially on veterans day. it couldn't be any more appropriate. senator john mccain, you know all about him. i'm going to tell you just a little bit. he served in u.s. navy from 1954 to 1981. he was elected to the u.s. house of representatives and arizona in 1982 and the senate in 1986. he was the republican

presidential candidate in 2008. he is now serving his fifth term in the senate. myron dell kind over here is our 107th president of the national press club. he has had a 42 year career with the "associated press" and he has covered many world leaders. myron received his b.a. in 1961 from ohio state university and an ms with high honors and 62 from columbia university graduate school of journalism on a pulitzer traveling fellowship. when he retired in 2004 myron joined the national press club and was asked to assume leadership of the international correspondents committee. he worked to expand the clubs international activities and also attract more members to the international media, international organizations and

diplomatic missions in washington d.c.. also in that year he began his second career as a professorial instructor at george washington university. so as far as depressive and i'm going to leave this up to mr. myron belkind and you can tell by his impressive journal and background that he's going to do a great job with senator mccain and asked the very pertinent questions about the book and then we will talk to you about later for the q&a. gentleman is all yours. >> thank you jan. [applause] senator mccain i am truly honored to welcome you on this veterans day. >> thank you myron. >> in my capacity as the club's 107th president of the national press club. >> at least he you were president of something.

[laughter] >> my classmate at -- pat buchanan made a similar remark. i'm also honored to welcome the press club post 220. i also want to acknowledge mark salter your co-author and friend. could you stand? [applause] senator mccain your book published today properly on veterans day profiles 13 soldiers from 13 wars from the revolutionary war to iraq. among all of the millions who served in the military how did you select those 13 to be the subjects representing each war? what criteria did you use?

how did you do it? >> will thank you my rent and could i just say thank you to the press club for hosting this event and by the way after i lost running for president i slept like a baby. [laughter] sleep two hours, wake up and cry, sleep two hours. i'm very happy to be here with you and i'm especially honored not only to have my co-author and really the hardest working of our partnership sub, mark salter here and we have been together for many years and also mary rose and her dadar samantha are here who we write about their experience in the gulf war. gulf war. i'm honored you are here and thank you for your service to our country especially on veterans day. [applause] would you please stand up? >> thank you mary and you really

put your finger on one of the hardest parts because we tried to portray different values and virtues in different individuals have in different conflicts at different times and to try to put them in the context to some degree in the conflicts in which they fought. for example joseph paul martin our first subject, 15 years old joined the connecticut militia. he got out and then went back in the continental army. he nearly starved to death. wrote many years later a biography of his experience. remarkable. these soldiers went without eating for days. they were subject to all kinds of private nations much less going up against at that time the best professional army in the world, the british army.

a couple of times things were so bad they almost meet needs. then he wrote about later on and he waited 30 years before he got attention. so he was of his times. our last one is mikey mansoor suis aco, navy s.e.a.l. highly trained and highly capable, highly motivated to the point where he sacrificed his life to save the lives of his fellow s.e.a.l. members. the distance between those two is really quite remarkable and of course then we have monica lin brown who was a medic in the afghan conflict and when you read her story of how not only her courage better capabilities. in our civil war 20% of the casualties were anybody who was

wounded actually lived. now 90% of those who are wounded are saved. when you look at the training the capabilities and the equipment that america's -- vatican -- medics carry on them. an ied went off and she rushed in. one of the reasons why we talk about her is because it should really dispense with any arguments about whether women are capable of engaging in fighting and compat are not. the argument should be over. young women today are entirely capable. [applause] i'm sorry for giving a long answer but that's one of the difficult parts because you want to try to portray people in the context of their times and their particular virtues that they display and in a way that a couple of our people are scoundrels. some of these are not the most

model citizens to say the least. but at their moment in time they performed. that's really what we are trying to to say. >> thank you. specifically among the 13 as senator mccain acknowledge we are truly honored to have sergeant mary groves who served as an army reservist in the 14th quartermaster detachment of western pennsylvania. i know it might be hard to say this in front of her but it might actually be easy. why did you choose her to be the subject of the one soldier profiled from the persian gulf war? >> part of this context as we used to have very large standing armies and outstanding army which is all volunteer has gotten smaller and smaller. so we now provide enormously on our guard and reserve. our guard and reserve today, 12

years ago i'll be honest with you especially the guard, they were the kind of people where if there was a fire or a flood or something they were called out and to direct traffic in that kind of thing. today our guard and reservists do everything that our regular military army air force and navy doing better in some respects. i think you would agree mary whether it be flying c-130s around us are reservist trained and ready to go to. mary was a reservist. she earned a call. she answered the call and of course saw a very tragic event which frankly she thinks about everyday, every single day. yet here was an ordinary citizen with an ordinary life and she went to a far-off land and cradled her dear friends after

they were killed by a scud attack. so one of the things we are trying to point out is that we now have a lot of citizen soldiers who respond to the ca call. to me mary epitomized that kind of our society. by the way our vietnam veterans who were not well treated when they came home, and that's just a fact. our p.o.w.s were probably the only ones who were treated as heroes. i'm so pleased today to see you all over america honored that we still honor men and women who are serving. it's the most uplifting and just about one of the happiest days for me was to see the honors given to these young men and women who are serving and have served. [applause] >> as you just alluded to a few minutes ago and as you write in that chapter about the persian

gulf war the persian gulf war occasion the largest single the planet of women to a combat zone and america's military history. 13 of them would be killed as you point out. my question is when you graduated from me academy in 1950 it did you ever envision that women would in your lifetime plays play such an active role including in combat in the u.s. military into two initially favor that development and you feel there's any need to have any restrictions even today placed on the way women served in the u.s. military? >> in answer to your question, no and no. when i graduated i obviously did not have that. although in world war ii there was a much greater service than

women are given credit for in world war ii whether it be rosie the riveter or whether it be our women's army corps. we call them by different names but it was great service rendered especially in the nursing corps. so i don't think women never got the credit that they did for their service in world war ii. but now look, there are certain standards that we expect everybody to meet, male, female, and gender-neutral. they meet those standards and they serve. i have run into some really really capable professional women that have risen to positions of command. our number two member of the united states navy the second vice chief of naval naval operations as a woman. i'm very proud of that and they command squadrons in a command ships. and so i think the argument is over to be honest with you. i think it's done.

and it should be done. there was time in our history where women have a different role in our society and now thank god they have as far as i can tell a role in our society so they should have equal opportunity to serve. >> turning to vietnam where you flew combat missions over north vietnam and tony were shot down in october 1967 captured by the north vietnamese and held as a prisoner of war until 1973. i know many persons and i have spoken with them to who say if someone else was the author of "thirteen soldiers" cube would be the servicemen selected to be profiled as the soldier representing vietnam. for you -- for your book you chose the pilot known as wild weasels leo who is the recipient

of the medal of honor. at the time he shared a big cell with him and dozens of other p.o.w.s. to give us the perspective of the valor about which to write throughout your book why was leo so special? >> he was a special friend but what he received the congressional medal of honor for was for what happened on a combat mission weeks before it was shut down and became a prisoner. friends i will try to make this a short as possible. still the most heavily defended airspace in history was the airspace over north vietnam. there were literally tens of thousands of antiaircraft guns. there were thousands of surface to air missile placements and they also had made aircraft at various bases that would come out on. they didn't come out all the time because they couldn't really match up to ours but they

were a constant threat. unfortunately we watched those dams being offloaded from a russian freighter, taken often taken up by truck and put in place. we were not allowed to strike them and they later fired at us. don't ask me to explain. >> in your book 50 years later it still does. >> we lost so many men to those surface-to-air missiles which some of them anyway we could have destroyed before they ever got their placement. by the way the surface-to-air missile sites we have strong evidence for run by russians and not by vietnamese. in the pilots we found out they were most likely russians. in order to counter these very significant threats of surface-to-air missiles they have this group called wild weasels and they would go in early and try to track and

attack surface to air missile sites in the area where the main attacks were going to come in. they came in before the main body came in and they stayed until afterwards. to make this long story a short as possible he came in with his wingman. his wingman was shot down and we had ways of rescuing sending in these propeller driven planes to secure secure the areas of helicopters could come in and pick them up. he spent his time trying to protect the area where the plane went down. came back and was attacked and shot down two megs and then circled some more head more missiles fired at him, went back for another reviewing it then came back again. remember he could have left the first time. they were shot at in the surface-to-air missiles were fired at and they kept circling over where the two pilots had

gone down from the previous shoot down. one of the pilots and aircraft, the guy got lost and so than they had to go and guide him back to the tanker. he had no fuel left in to make a long story short he glided into the base in thailand and as soon as the wheels touch down on the runway the engine stopped because who is out of fuel. it was just one of these incredible stories of aviation skills and heroism. why is the dollar? he was doing that because of the loss of his friends to try to help his friends on the ground. so it was a combination of bravery -- bravery and commitment, all of those that make up the real definition of the word valor. then a few weeks later leo was were shot down in mind that in the same cell with him many years later when the vietnamese put us all together.

i will tell you he's a wonderful man and heard maintenance ration to me. [applause] >> senator want to turn to chapter 4 on the civil war when your subject is oliver wendell holmes jr. who rose from first lieutenant to captain as a member of the 20th massachusetts volunteers and who would go on to become as you write one of the most eminent jurist and our country's history serving on both the massachusetts supreme court and as is a u.s. supreme court justice for 30 years from 190 190221932. i thought one of the most moving messages in your book was when he wrote of a memorial day in

1884 when it recalled many of fallen friends from the civil war. holmes went on to savor for and to all those who fought in that war how these men have been transformed by war and by the suffering and loss that attended the transformation. he called the quote our great good fortune unquote and our hearts were touched with fire. he was given us to learn at the outset that life is a profound and compassionate thing. that is oliver wendell holmes jr.. what says senator john mccain but how were transformed your life and how the experiences in vietnam shaped your life thereafter including as united states senator since 1987. >> could i say a couple of words about oliver wendell holmes? there was the regiment from what

they called the harvard regiment and graduates of harvard but also some german-speaking immigrants were all put in this regiment together and they fought in some of the bloodiest encounters of the civil war. the casualty rates were very high. he was wounded in the neck. you can imagine what that would have been like. he was missing on the battlefield and his father who was a famous author in those days oliver wendell holmes senior walked the battlefield searching for his son and believed that he was dead. he caught up with him later on and it's a remarkable story. he continued to fight in these battles and it took incredibly high casualties. you know my friends and we look back at all that combats that the united states has been involved in the bloodiest of all

with their own civil war. brother against brother, family against family and it's really remarkable when you think about the carnage that may have been necessary in order to figure out what nation you are really going to be. but boy it was a huge and terrible cost. oliver wendell holmes calls it the butcher's price that paid. he was really a marketable man and he was forever changed. he left harvard as an idealistic crusading young man and the realities of war transformed him into a realist. he never really forgotten he gave speeches. all of his days as a journalist he would bring his lunch to work in an ammunition box to remind him of what he and his comrades

had undergone. in answer to your question is hard to define exactly what that experience did to me or for me. first of all the obvious. when you spend five and a half years in captivity you cherish freedom and you can imagine how much i appreciate every day of freedom and that has not diminished in any way in the year since but also i was blessed to serve in the company of heroes. i was blessed to serve with men who were senior to me who tried to keep us from communicating with each other which is why i spent nearly three years in solitary confinement. because they knew if we could communicate we could organize. that is what we were all about. so we were able to overcome by tapping on the walls and communicating with each other. i was led by men that were just

outstanding leaders. they made us capable of doing things that we otherwise would have been able to do because of their motivation and leadership. when i would go to interrogation and what they wanted from us the vietnamese with confessions of war crimes. they would use the usual propaganda. military information was nothing but to confess crimes and to attack our country for the unjust war and all that kind of thing. and i knew when i came back from interrogation i was going to tap on the wall and give the information to my senior ranking officer and i wanted my senior ranking officer to know that i had done whatever i could to resist these efforts. so you forge a bond. i remember tapping on the walls of one guy for two years and

then he was moved out. i never saw what he looked like until three years later. and he was nothing that i imagine by the way. i think love of my comrades still call me literally every day. why did you give that speech? why don't you vote that way? ways that john? how could you do that? a lot of constructive criticism from my fellow p.o.w.s. so i guess that's one of the real takeaways as we say from my experience there. and also because the vietnamese one time broke me and signed a confession. i found out that i was not a perfect person. >> we are going to have one or two more questions that i will

ask the senator that those of you who have filled out cards please send a man and will try to ask as many as we can. senator, normally when a political leader writes a book the first thought is on how they are running for president. i think it's safe to say that wasn't the intent of this book but i would like to ask a political question from 2014. one week ago today the republicans won control of the u.s. senate. giving your party focus will of congress and indeed within it an enhanced majority in the house. how optimistic are you that the gridlock of the past will be transformed into a new era of bipartisanship including on key issues such as immigration and what role do you plan to play as chair of the senate armed services committee? >> first of all we are committed

to going back to the quote regular order. that is bringing up bills and amendments debates and votes and we are committed to that. one of the reasons why i am optimistic that we will do that in an effective way is because now it's up to us to govern. i can't blame harry reid anymore. i love to blame harry reid but i'm not going to be able to do that anymore. and what we have to do if we expect to have a chance to elect a republican president in 2016 is to show americans that we can govern. so i think they're significant motivation for doing so. i think that there are certain members across the aisle that i and others have had good relationships for a long time but on the senate armed services committee we have always been very barbed -- very bipartisan.

.. >> >> now the president has

said the goal is to defeat isis. does anybody know the strategy to achieve that goal? we have to have hearings and called them up and say what will be deal how will we do it? how much will it cost? i went to work with the president but he will have to give us a strategy that we can help him and employment it is the job of congress to authorize and appropriate that is our constitutional responsibility. so i went to work with the president there is too many things at stake the isis threat is enormous and the greater challenge we face since the cold war or since the end of road war to

looking at it with prospective the front page of "the new york times" today the radical extremist islamic organization has now announced their allegiance to isis. the success of isis is breeding success that is attracting young men and some women from all over not just the middle east also europe and in the united states. is a growing threat and we will have to work together. >> thank you very much for this conversation the senator joseph format and we were honored to accept him and thank you for taking part in the first part of a conversation with senator john mccain lee now all been to the audience. hours is handed a question

from a representative of russian television that we have here tonight. [laughter] >> what is your expectations of the relations of the united states will change now that the republicans are in control of congress? >> may i point out to my dear friends first of all, that i covered a large spectrum because one year ago i was censored by the arizona republican party for being too liberal and also i wishing -- sanctioned by vladimir putin we sanction the russians and he sanctioned me. [laughter] with there first online periodical said number one in the whole world is john mccain and he must have wondered but then fidel castro gave an interview to say that aside the israeli

whose secret side service but i am very upset about russian behavior but almost by americans if we don't give them rapid -- weapons to defend themselves from the last couple of days it is just russian tanks going into eastern ukraine it is obvious that vladimir putin was to take whole eastern side of the ukraine to the land bridge of crimea. he puts enormous pressure on the baltics and in his own words he wants to restore the old russian empire that does not mean go back to the

cold war but it does mean we have to help. they wanted a free country of a government that was in power and now they can achieve that. so part of our relations with russia will have a great deal to do with vladimir putin. >> what is your opinion of u.s. military program? is that part of the future? >> interesting thing happened a few months ago at a drone to cough and landed on the aircraft carrier as historians look back is a seminal moment but no doubt in my mind many of the

missions that are now conducted by land aircraft will be conducted by drums they can later for 12 hours hours, the technology will get better but other countries develop that same capability we have the exclusive franchise on it. so you'll see a much greater role for drones and a much lesser role for planned aircraft we know what happens when an american pilot is captured and the repercussions of that if we can do the job with the drone that stays on station 12 hours than why not? but from a moral standpoint i do have some qualms about thinking somebody sitting behind a con sole bring stuff down on people i'd just have a little trouble

with that this passionate attachment of that kind of warfare seems to me make it easy to attract more that should never be easy or attractive so we will have to sink our way through on this type of warfare but it will be with us in the future but present us with some real questions that i think we have to work our way through. >> at one ever lunches last friday we had secretary bob mcdonnell who talked about moving on from that past with the staff who are responsible for delays or

issues and also talked about the waiting list to provide better how confident are you he could fill his desires? gimmicky is eminently qualified but it is not often i am embarrassed about my country or ashamed but when it started at the phoenix hospital where veterans died because they waited for care, i cannot think adequately what a black mark that is because if there's anybody that we though it is ever veterans. i hope he doesn't get caught up in the bureaucracy we gave the authority and the legislation all the itc

maury efficiency but there is a lot of waste and inefficiency and though it also like to see some firings because that gets people's attention. >> we ask that question last friday and they said they were going through the process that we will have to wait and see. >> this is not shared by every veteran or every veteran organization but i would like to see every veteran have the choice car that they can go wherever they want to get the care that they think he or she needs. [applause]

>> as we approached the centennial of america's entry into the first world war will we get the us national parole or one memorial on the mall? our soldiers have been overlooked. >> it is interesting that is the case because i do steady history from a historical standpoint that war had more impact on the 20th century than any other. the flower the versify a treaty and equal terms imposed which gave rise to fascism the bolshevik revolution you can go down the list of the impact on the entire century felt today that the boundaries drawn between iraq and syria

and by british kernels and the blood letting is beyond anyone's imagination would have first the with the battle the british had 30,000 killed or wounded in the first day. the numbers overall view. so even those united states came late to though war and one of the people we write about fought in the battle that was the seminal battle against the germans i think it is entirely appropriate to not only honor those who have sacrificed the recognize that conflict was of proportions that still my imagination does not encompass how terrible that

bloodletting was as a very young boy is safe is the humility that makes service people so explain how that works. >> cut and a couple in the korean war having a congressional medal of honor winner there are modest individuals. you almost have to pry it

out of them. their humble because they have the character that was willing that only qualifies for the congressional medal of honor. just the little uneasy. that is an important aspect for all of us for whenever we do in life. >> we will do two more questions but i think the senator has the prerogative.

starting with the faith of my father's. >> we have them partners all these years and most of the credit goes to marks hard work. i was thinking maybe something in retrospect to talk about presidential campaigns and what i have been involved with with the united states senate maybe that is something we should do. >> going back to this book "thirteen soldiers" it is there a movie or any series? because before we get into the ballroom? >> it would have to be a mini series because of each

individual experience. but thank you for coming tonight. i know the traffic is convoluted because of the events on the mall and i appreciate you being here and thank you so much for your wonderful service and again it is a great privilege in my life for people like mary and those that i write about and many others and i do every day express my feelings inside for the wonderful men and women that served our country after the war i fought unfortunately we did not honor our veterans and that is still an embarrassment to me that we have more than made up for it by the way we honor them today.

i am a little bias having two sons in the military there more than my generation was. [applause] >> we have a tradition at the national press club that as a small token of our appreciation we present to our distinguished guests the press club mud but i want to give the first mug to sgt mary. [applause] they give the senator mccain is a rotter to have you here tonight we will always remember veterans day of 2014 with senator john mccain here tonight i know

you will stage to sign in the books and we cannot think you'll enough for your service and for being here today. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> it is a glorious service the call comes to every citizen with the unending struggle to keep the representative. >> probably the most important political figure in wisconsin history and one of the most important of the 20th century in the united

states. he was a reforming governor governor, he defined web progressivism is and was the first to use that to self identified and was the united states senator and was recognized by his peers and the 1950's as on the five greatest centers in american history and a a proponent of world war i and stood his parents -- ground to advocate for free-speech after the civil war the american changed radically from one nation of small farmers and producers and manufacturers and by the 1790 is we had concentrations of wealth and in the quality about the concern of the influence of

money and government spending the 1890's giving speeches all over wisconsin going to county fair's every kind of the event that you could imagine and built a reputation for itself by 1900 he was ready to run for governor advocating on behalf of the people one was the direct primary no more electing candidates and number to stop the interest specifically the railroad. succe.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with george mid -- >> we're back with a research fellow from and george mason university here to talk about the history of the lame-duck congress what does that mean? >> it is of weird word it is a british term for a bankrupt businessman the lame bird that was shot. so for reasons that no one is sure of that it came to apply to politicians. people use it to describe

executives at the end of the term of their term limited. and in this case use to describe a congress their returns and sits after an election. we introduce that because the congress lost its control of the chamber so they have some numbers not returning until jenny in january elected for a few months' time. >> host: saw you study this and came up with the very lame-duck congress. talk about that. >> guest: the idea here is there's always a session

there was a mandatory one because the constitution requires they come into session after december after 1933 congress occasionally comes back for a session after an election so in that case recalled a very lame duck session silicon 50,000 house and senate votes what is the difference between lame duck and very a lame-duck. >> so this is a very lame duck. >> they will have to do something on the budget or we will look at a shutdown. we need to get a continuing

resolution may be at authorization of isis and a number of tax extenders that expired at the beginning of the year like the r&d tax credits that expires every couple years. they will likely we knew it. there are outstanding appointments according -- including the attorney general that could come up. >> host: en and additional nominees as well? and looking at previous congresses what pattern emerged?

>> probably the starkest pattern their like the rest of us when the bosses are not looking did no work as hard they're much less likely to show up for the roll-call vote in the very lame duck house members are 38% less likely to show up senate members are 67%. >> host: are these the people that lost their reelection or decide to retire? some argue it is not appropriate to make about. >> that could be. it is the met -- a mix. they choose to seek higher office or those who have lost elections. one thing that is interesting i assumed there

be mostly democrats that are lame duck but still counting the elections but there is about 39 republicans said arlene ducks i'm sorry 30. just in the house. and then in the senate the breakdown is 12 senators three republicans and eight democrats. >> host: what about those that were reelected how are they likely to vote? >> guest: we notice first of all, the pattern of not voting is not true for reelected members they are more likely to participate during the lame duck session so that is driven by the party members. also there is changes in

bill whole voting pattern. so the majority party that just lost the party unity tends to false with a typical session minority of majority parties though to with the party 82 percent of the time that the majority party and democratic party is a little more likely. the it is not sure of the republicans or the minorities. >> host: talking with matt mitchell from george mason university's senior research fellow who did a study about lame duck congress and wrote the piece was real clear politics with the headline lame-duck sessions is why it congress really wants.

what is the answer to your headline? >> guest: remember there was a movie what women really want. it is a political science version of that movie. it is not obvious that we are accustomed to seeking they are leaders but they are followers they have to follow constituents or lose their job for the special interest and they cannot raise enough money for reelection. party leadership controls everything from the agenda or committee assignments and they have to be mindful of

whatever agreements. so what is interesting is most incentives are attenuated and will cast a vote as they wish so some members rise to the occasional others sink. >> host: let's go to arizona the independent line >> caller: first of all, of with like to think fed troops. my dad who was stationed in india during world war ii and i have two brothers in the 82nd airborne at fort bragg. with a shout out to them and the lame duck congress what is that about? like the president gets to terms then his to last

year's he gets to retire is the id retirement? >> host: that is the great question and we have a lame-duck president are we in gridlock? >> guest: there is a bit of a precedent significant things happening in the final two years of the presidency because at that point the partisan bickering has died down people are tired of it or that people are looking to there the legacy bet looking at the last two years the reagan presidency was a major task -- task reform even though there was the impeachment with the largest capital gains cut in history with an unbalanced budget, there is the history of precedents of

congress is working together in their final years it would not surprise me if they would say it is us a bit of a change in washington. >> host: how were those presidents able to do it? >> one thing is it part time the of party's traditional position and so to embrace tax reform and by the way this is something people are speculating but it was traditionally the democrats. but he embraced it with 20 or 30 years later it is orthodox. you should not use the tax

code to steer or manipulate behavior. the president has shown some interest in tax reform as well. that is a possibility. >> host: democratic collar. >> caller: also quickly like to honor my father in the nervy -- the navy during world war ii period in st. louis missouri. i keep hearing the reference 67 / 70 is that the numbers that could complete lee override the president? i apologize to my social studies teachers. [laughter] >> i thing put you are referring to it is 100 members in the senate you need to sarah said is 67 and 435 members of the house two-thirds is the 270 that is the necessary to override

the president for the veto. >> host: indiana independent scholars. [no audio] --. >> caller: hello to the veterans. but regarding that's lame duck session for this congress what have you found to be ahead trent to be pushed through? >> guest: that is a great question. look at the types of bills that goes through in the lame duck session it is all over the map. we impeached a president, we created department of, and security, and major trade deals like the 1974 and 1994 so ideologically it is not clear if there is a pattern to increase the size of government. it is of mixed bag.

there are a fair amount of bills that are difficult to assemble that took zero long time that were pushed to the lame duck because of that but not to just get bipartisan bills passed but this was tricky for them to get done. >> host: is there an example during this one? >> guest: the budget of course, . the house has passed seven out of 38 appropriations but the senate has not. time is running out. >> host: talking about the history of the lame duck congress and heading into this one after the election 2014.

the past congresses have they been more partisan or bipartisan or more or less responsible with their voting? >> guest: in a lame-duck session where the party does not change our bipartisan votes are more likely but this is a mixed bag with a very lame duck. house members become more bipartisan. 9% more likely and said that members are about 12 percent less likely. >> host: we have a republican caller from georgia. >> caller: i am so glad the republicans got the senate.

because we need a president who is a muslim. >> host: he has said he is the christiandom we will move on. the next caller. >> caller:. >> host: we have the issue with of wines. judicial nominations. this is an issue for the democrats to change the senate rules to get more thorough. then what happens with thought lame duck on this issue? >> one thing republicans will have to decide if they want to keep the democratic rule you need the filibuster-proof majority to advance judicial nominations. this is something democrats

may one day regret they made that decision or maybe republicans are happy because it will make them easier to levant's their own nominees. but we're probably not likely to see major denominations like the attorney general with the lame duck session it is a lengthy process and the lame duck session is not -- even though the attorney general nomination seems to not be gathering too much momentum because republicans will take the opportunity to ask more questions. >> host: the independent line. >> caller: thank you for having me. i had this on my mind this

morning to find go way to tie into the current conversation. and then deciding not to get up and go vote. of our type of politics is long and arduous but you have to stay engaged for a long time. is like the lame-duck america. they want their voices to be heard. and how it relates to staff like this. >> guest: it is not so controversial but it is

rational of course, not to vote because it takes a lot of effort to inform yourself about the issues that doesn't mean people should not go to there is the obligation but we need to recognize the democratic system does not incentivize people to spend years and years steady macroeconomic sore platforms to wrap their minds around the issue. if people don't take the time to go to we should recognize it is a reality. to me that is up problem

that when we put decisions into the public arena through the democratic process rather than through individual choice we push those to whom will not become informed with the issue. >> host: the house and senate reconvenes for the 113th congress that our guest calls the very lame duck session that is a topic what is on the agenda for this lame duck congress perks matt mitchell wrote a piece for "u.s. news & world report turcotte that mitchell writes a piece for u.s. news world report as a december to remember and the c-span democrat says the republican lame duck

because republicans hold party unity above all else even above the joint interest. >> party unity is remarkably consistent about 82% at the time the members of it with their party. in a typical lame-duck session it goes down to both republicans and democrats. when the control of the party changes you see that goes down but not republican and unity. >> caller: i think it is not so much of a lame-duck congress the people that are not informed of the

companies that have contributed millions of dollars for instance coca-cola donated millions of dollars to the republican party to assist their people to travel from city to city or state to state. >> host: and special interest? >> this is day mixed bag. if you think of the incentives they have a strong incentive for special interests but it turns out under most circumstances you're no longer seeking reelection but one study found during one lame-duck

session measures are less likely to pass and that tends to be bad for consumers although good for industry on -- liggett the bill that failed in the senate 2008 and they found nine returning members were much less likely to be responsive to campaign donations and did not seem to be too affected with no difference how affected favored by their constituencies interest. one exception. members may be interested to bend over backwards for their next employer.

so in the 1920's president harding supported the controversial bill that was subsidized shipping construction and leaned on republicans to support the bill but it turns out those who did were rewarded by the president with lucrative commission is in the administration. >> host: the democratic line. >> caller: i want to talk about lame duck congress what is the uproar. they have been one for the last six years and have not done anything. anything to make the new law is slammed down. i predict there will once again try to repeal obamacare and probably get it will not raise the minimum wage, they will not

help working people, people are starving in the country there, give them food stamps to have to make so much many people are working $900 a month that cannot qualify. john boehner will lead to anything. he will march as the republican party. >> host: we got your point. so to talk about the things that on the agenda but what will be the difference for what they have not been able to do up to this point? >> it is hard to say. that people are saying tax reform is a possibility but i think free trade is another the president is in china now.

typically that is what democrats were in favor of debt we have seen a reversal of that. now the republican party is the party of free trade but to throw his term the president has made a number of comments he is still in favor of free trade. that is an area for potential bipartisan agreement. will sidestep interested in tax reform at this point. it is much easier to go for special interests and to identify what they are because they have big blind spots. >> host: republican line. >> caller. >> in response to the caller before me he forgets the house passed over 300 bills

that harry reid in the senate neglected to take up. so that lame duck is in the senate not in the house said the message i'm getting that lame duck sessions are not necessarily a bad thing because positive things can come out of those and history has shown they have been active to pass new legislation joseph plumb martin you have an example of that? >> i am just listening to the professor in terms he said how tax reform has been passed, a trade agreements agreements, as someone has spent productive but not worry we may get something positive this time. but there is a tendency with representatives not to listen to this special

interest or to the party leadership that i think we desire. with the enactment of the term limits for house and senate members and hands the whole concept to force of more lame duck sessions to get more who were voting their conscience or the way the constituents desire? >> guest: an excellent question. really that's is the crux of the argument against term limits from the of one hand it means finally members can do what they want to do. they are no longer obliged to bend over backwards but

we are a representative democracy and if you are totally fun - - and accountable you could go wild there are all sorts of different experiments with legislative and executive term limits like the outcomes on state spending and in that area so let's assume to be incredibly controversial what the actual result is and some studies suggest if you put in the right control german its lead to more state spending so it is still something of the science has not worked out the ultimate

effect. >> host: matt mitchell did a recent study on this issue and as senior research fellow at george mason university. we have a democratic caller from kentucky. >> caller: talking about lame duck it has been they've all year but for the last six years there is no need to expect the change now but what i want to get off my chest is msnbc showing a the conflict over in iraq. i firmly believe a favor turnover j.b. and bush that

would end most of the conflict. >> host: i will leave it there. from twitter, what is the percentage of the lame-duck lame duck in it to term presidency? so how often? >> the good question i don't know the number of hand that after 1933 there was a session in every session of congress. after 1933 they were relatively rare. you would only see them every 546 elections now they're much more frequent. said of the question is specifically on the president of a smaller set

of a smaller said it is probably pretty rare. >> caller: good morning. i watch "washington journal" almost every morning and it is amazing to hear the democrats i think three times a democrat has called accusing the do nothing republican congress that we know that the crux was harry reid not allowing any legislation to come to the floor so it is amazing to hear democrats come up with that over and over. i think in my opinion we should stop having legislators do anything actively on the floor. it just makes sense been more productivity. >> that is the great point that a lot of people have

made before with the very idea of repudiated members still casting votes strikes people as anti-democratic. that was the impetus behind the amendment that changed it. my point is i see why that might have been if you have no responsibility to your voters you may make irresponsible decisions but it is more nuanced. the fact that members are less likely to be beholden to the special interest to their colleagues or their own interest. we have to realize under the best of ruml circumstance hours they can face perverse incentives.

they're not blind to cast votes for the general interest and then provides some opportunities. >> host: what about senator andrew headed for a runoff on december 6 to decide whether or not he will serve another term or if you are headed into recession that will convene and you don't know if you are reelected to another term? >> it is like the time machine they are in regular session as far as they are concerned because they are watched by donors and their voters. >> host: democratic collar >> caller: fabled to adjust like they have done just like the koch brothers

they will do like they have been doing. nothing. >> host: utah -- may have missed it earlier. >> guest: of the theory suggests it is ambiguous if you don't seek reelection that you are less likely to pay attention to special interest you don't have to raise campaign funds or special interest to bring up the attack ad. so the day said does suggest there is less of a tendency to pander to the special interest there is that ottawa bailout bill in which researchers found members were less responsive to campaign donations and a protectionist measure

another researcher a book that that found that the lame duck members were less likely of protectionism and most would argue it is better for the broader interests but there is an exception that is the one under president harding. closed at have that ships subsidy bill. they're is no limit to the logic. >> host: what is possible that we're headed into this week? >> guest: they want some sort of the budget passed. neither party wants a government shutdown.

and to have two options to have an omnibus bill together to get something through and also is a continuing resolution and that what we have been doing the last several years that is us bit of the cop out. they may take up some nominations but as near as i can tell there is some interest to push that passed because it will take some time. the authorization of use of force with isis is a possibility and the tax extenders' that is a list of loopholes or credits or

loopholes on the individual side many of these expired but they will have to decide what to do. >> host: and springfield virginia pillheads. >> caller: -- go ahead. >> caller: i have heard callers complain it is no different than above we have had in the past. i may lifelong republican and there are a good number of people like myself that today is a rather than and legislate. but compared to passing new legislation the only thing better is to repeal. repeal. repeal we have too many laws, regulations

and, government, duplicity we need to eliminate departments and reduce government to where we have some chance of change. >> guest: this comes up where people have noticed that the bipartisan bills have more trouble. the two examples arakis x m. baker and the farm bill and i agree that these are bills that enjoy bipartisan support but they ought not to but essentially the raise prices for consumers and damaging for the overall economy with higher income individuals as the president

said it is nothing more than corporate welfare as the bipartisan agreement congress has spent more skeptical and one reason is there is now of ban on earmarks that is typical for the party's to which it used to be if you have a controversial bill there is in your mark for the congressman on the fence that has been more difficult those that pass with these are running into uphill battles. so we think her more about how special interests whole position. there is only one party,

the party of privilege and property and it has the democrats and republicans. would itg said, benefit the american people who have 16-year term for the president and not let people in congress lobby until they have been out of congress as long as they work in congress? thank you very much. guest: i spent a lot of time researching privileges to special interests. whenever government takes policy positions that single out a particular group in favor of co s and regulions or thtax >> there're a number of regulations to the tax code and to spending it affects that. the question that comes up is whats the rionship between and ivity like campaign donations and government privileging groups? needsview, a democracy and lives on the ability to

petition your government. i think we should be really careful about limiting the ability of people to donate to campaigns or to express political beliefs. this is the most -- this is what the first amendment was designed for. if any kind of expression should be protected, its political expression. if you're worried about everman pandering to special interests, try to think about limiting what government can do to privilege special interest on that will end up limiting the amount of money in politics. you have much less of an incentive to put money in politics of you don't think you'll get much out of it in the way of special favors from policymakers. host: matthew mitchell, thank you for your >> on tomorrow morning's "washington journal", the

washington examiner continues the discussion of a lame duck session and what issues the house and senate will deal with before the end of the 115th congress, and jennifer lawless of american university talks about women in politics and the impact of midterm election on women's in public office. in "fortune" magazine reporter erika five looks at plant made pharmaceuticals and how it is used. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. and as the house and senate return for a lame-duck session smile, rebecca shabad previews the debate. >> the 2014 midterms are over and just about over and we are looking ahead to the lame-duck session and we are joined by rebecca shabad, who covers congress for "the hill", looking forward to the lame-duck session and the funding bill was writing

that this would give lawmakers a day or two to debate and vote and they have a deadline in december. what is that, what is going to be booted in this bill reign. >> that is right, they basically have just a day or two based on what i have been told by the house appropriations committee to talk about an omnibus spending bill that would fund the fiscal year to the end of next september. the problem is that the funding bill that lawmakers approved in september expires on december 11, which is that week. we'll only have just a few days to debate and vote on the bill and otherwise what could happen is lawmakers might choose to extend the continuing resolution that is currently in place for maybe a short period of time. >> that sounds like they have done that in the past. how much is in this bill and is

this basically the levels that they agree to what the budget was passed earlier this year, and what other surprises me we see in that spending bill? >> that is correct, the level that will be in the bill will be at the level set by the budget deal with paul ryan and patty murray and it will be around $1.014 trillion mark. but otherwise it's hard to tell exactly what is going to be new in this omnibus spending bill. obviously the white house has asked for two separate new funding requests that are pretty major, one is for the ebola five and one is for the war on isis and those are the two funding request that the administration sent to congress in last week. lawmakers will obviously have to debate this and it's possible that they could end up and that is what the administration is hoping for in their could be those that oppose the request.

>> you sent a tweet about that request, $5.6 billion coming you said that democrats call for this in the wayne duck. so not only is there a consideration of how much money, but whether the president has the authority to do this is correct. >> that's right, he does have the authority to carry out these military actions. but he says there has been an authorization to carry out this operation in the middle east. and the problem is that the democrats do want this to happen in the lame-duck session since they do have control of the senate. the republicans wanted to be pushed until next year when they have the majority in the senate and i think that that might be what happens and the republicans might get their way here. they have about 15 more working days during the lame-duck session at the end of this year.

and i think that something as large as this will have more time for them to debate and vote on. >> replacing eric holder, making the announcement last weekend, it's interesting that the other organizations reporting about the possible delay in the headline says that the democrats are unlikely through this pick. why would the democratic leaders the way the nomination and wait until the republican majority takes control of the senate? >> i don't think they're too concerned about the nomination and this includes somewhat of a bipartisan choice. she has been confirmed twice before to be a u.s. attorney in new york. so i don't think that they will

have two part of a time getting her through and even john mccain said that he thinks she will get through the republican senate next year and i don't think that democrats are too concerned. and again they don't have too many days to debate and vote on this sort of thing in the lame-duck session. >> the likely incoming majority leader in the senate, what are his efforts in terms of repealing obamacare. >> he has said repeatedly that he does want to repeal obamacare and i read a story a few days ago about a conservative group trying to push this in the next congress to obamacare and he has kind of suggested that he could use this budget tool called reconciliation which would only require 51 votes in the senate, which he would have, however there were a number of legislative and procedural hurdles that they might face as far as getting that through. i think what would be more

likely is that maybe president obama would be going to sign another medical device tax, maybe something on the employer mandate, something that might get some kind of partisan attraction. >> both the house and senate, republican and democrats will hold their leadership elections this week heard what are some of the reasons we should keep an eye out for this? >> i think that this won't be too controversial. the publicans are holding their leadership elections on thursday as are the democrats and the senate. and i think that what we are really looking for is what is happening in the senate and obviously they're going to get the majority here and there are some that are open that are not too controversial. and as far as john boehner, i think that he will get this again, there might be a few tea party republicans that might choose to put their name in us

and i don't think that they will have to hard of a time. it's pretty clear. >> it looks like his hand was strengthened by the results of the election. >> read more at "the hill".com and also on twitter. she is a handle rebecca shabad. >> coming up tomorrow on c-span2, a constitutional role of congress is accessed for nuclear intervention. it will be at 10:00 a.m. eastern. later on c-span3, health and human services secretary sylvia burwell talks about the government's overwhelming response to protect americans from the ebola outbreak in west africa. and also jeh johnson, the centers for disease control

director doctor tom frieden and doctor anthony fauchi. that is why at 2:00 p.m. eastern. >> here are a few of the comments we received from our viewers. >> calling to tell you how much i enjoyed "q&a." everything stops at 5:00 p.m. in my house on the day that it airs come i get my cup of coffee and it's most enjoyable hour on television. >> to guess today was very informative, good opinions, i enjoyed listening to him and the comments that were given today. he was there in the middle east and he was on point. he was not using his own personal innuendo is. and i greatly enjoyed this and i hope that you have more guests like this. but he was right on target as

morning. >> i am calling to say, but i think like many people, that c-span is wonderful. but after criticisms, i almost have none. and the reason i almost have none is that i think that you all do a tremendous job of showing just about every side of everything in the way that people look at things in washington dc and elsewhere. i take my hat off to you and i thank you very much. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs that are watching. call us at (202)626-3400 or you can e-mail us or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> now a look at nuclear weapons and security threats facing the united states. the former assistant secretary of state for political and military affairs robert gallucci

talks with north korea and about the nuclear initiative in russia. as was hosted at johns hopkins university and this is one hour and 40 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, good evening, my name is token brown and i'm with the applied physics lab's at john thompson's. welcome to the 11th year of the rethinking seminar series are this year it's sponsored by the applied physics lab. each year, the rethinking seminar focuses on an aspect of international security issues and are seminar three and this year is the rethinking global constructs and threats and responses. specific areas that we will try to cover this year include potential threats and adversaries and strategies that

the u.s. should consider over the next two decades. where and when and how and should the united states engage militarily and the post-world war ii international order, u.s. leadership, international organizations and multilateralism, and finally the economic trade and security relationships between the u.s. and the eu and east asia. before introducing tonight's speaker, a couple quick announcement. first, all of our talks or videotapes will be posted on our website. additionally we post notes as well as any presentation materials that the speakers provide to us. to find the website, type in three words into google and it will show up as the first website in google. the second announcement is that in order to properly videotape these events, we do use wireless mike refunds and i would asset

everyone to please shut off all wireless truncation devices. for tonight's speaker. ambassador robert gallucci is a distinguished professor at georgetown university and previously he has served as the president of the macarthur foundation and the dean of the school of foreign service at georgetown university and ambassador at large for his special envoy for u.s. department of state. he dealt with threats posed by ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. this includes the nuclear crisis of 1994 he served as a secretary of state for political military affairs and the deputy executive chairman of the u.n. special commission overseeing the disarmament of iraq following the 1991 gulf war. for the rethinking seminar, he

will discuss nuclear proliferation, iran and the nuclear program, north korea end its program, and remedies to prevent proliferation and he's views on the way ahead. please join me for giving a warm welcome to ambassador robert gallucci. [applause] >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, it's actually true, i'm happy to be with you tonight. and so i am grateful that you are here and i'm happy to have the opportunity to speak with you. and the truth about my remarks

tonight are not exactly as advertised. but they are close. and as was said, for the last five years we have not been doing things related to national security very much. and in that role there, we are concerned with improving cases of k-12 education in the united states and will justice reform and biodiversity around the world and we are always very busy finding those geniuses every year at gartner. so i haven't been thinking about international security that often. so i left in the summer and went to georgetown and international

security i was teaching a seminar. by necessity i was reading in that area. i'm teaching a graduate seminar this semester. and i was struck by something, something that i was struck by was i was struck by the fact done a lot and i was surprised, quite frankly. i felt that that was my government for all of those decades. and i thought that there was a progression downward. so if you all bear with me, what i'd like to talk about his to go through a little bit of this and have a better appreciation of where we are. and this includes a horseback ride through 70 years of

thinking with a series of deterrence and phone ability of stability and credibility. and so i don't think that without this and an appreciation for this historical context that we are best able to understand where we are today given the complexities of the current situation. cutting me some slack here is what we are asking or, 70 years up to where we are and i'm going to do it by decade. to make it more packaged as a presentation. so beginning's beginnings and, naturally in the 1940s. this was a time marked by vulnerability in deterrence.

and as you all know, this was a theory in which two things came together and one was the delivery vehicle and it became clear that a ballistic missile will get through. i know that's a phrase that goes to bombers, but this does get through and one can argue that it still gets through if there aren't are enough of them, certainly. the second innovation was the atomic bomb. putting these things together with the 1940s meant to eyes was a unique phone ability which this nation had never seen before. i could develop that, that is another talk, but it does from the 19th century and all that we went through in the early 20th century and the mid-20th century and at that point we recognize

that we have had no way to accomplish the strategists had believed and we had no way to deny access to united states of america. and this includes the atomic on and what it would mean with one launch it means one city and that was a unique phone ability for the united states of america, which had been protected by state that could dominate it was firmly to the north and oceans on either side and a very competent way. in that setting, which made this involvement controversial for some people, is no longer the setting in which we live. and that is the message of the

1940s. and it meant that we were accomplishing this by deterrence and we had accomplished this by deterrence before. but it was deterrence by denial. and that was deterred by denial and by having a substantial defense so that anyone would have to overcome that by a simple cost-benefit analysis does not make sense. if the split theory of defense and they can actually accomplish this, but they can raise the cost. this is a different kind of defense and this was deterrence by punishment. it is conceptually a critical difference in this meant that we could not accomplish the nile

and we could accomplish punishment. and we were treating this and all sorts of things, it gave us a physical defense in exchange for no ability to really deny or punish, which is supposed to be saying after this vernacular, it can get whacked by the wacky. and that is what they meant. and another element of all this is the impossibility of knowing when this kind of turned works. if i presume to deter and that

includes i am deterring [inaudible] from this. so now i will never know whether or not it works because either i have or i haven't. it's counterfactual in my proposition is that if i did not have this, which i claim that i have, then it wouldn't happen. but that's not true. and so i never know. i only know the when it fails. so then i never know when it succeeds. i can claim it, but i can't actually prove it. and so some elements of this,

moving to the 1950s, you might call it in the terms we are now talking, the dullest years, credibility and stability. we moved in technological terms with the thermonuclear weapon of the 50s and there's a magnitude here that was close to tnt equivalent in and we are moving this in a nominal way it is a hundred times greater. bigger but also smaller. and so we remember those pictures and everything is leveled and there are things that survive area that is a weapon and you must play that by

20 and you see a crater. a different concept in terms of levels of destruction. in addition to that, of course, many more ballistic missiles, we thought and hoped in the terms we have been talking that these weapons would allow us to put out a theory of deterrence and a policy and a doctrine of massive retaliation and with that statement we could deter everything and maybe compel some things. over years in the 1950s, the truth emerged that we could actually compel nothing and be confident of an attack on the homeland. but other things are very hard to deal with. and we wish to help these

individuals to do something about this move on hungry 1956 and this has nothing to do with this. we could claim that they were a deterrent against the soviet union, but remember what i said about knowing whether it is working or not. it was a proposition that it was working. but we were not sure. and it was also claims for extended deterrence that we could actually extend this to the european states to japan and south korea and by the way the philippines and australia as well. and the other word comes in here

is the credibility of the deterrent. and would we trade pittsburgh for paris? that's just the order and we had somebody talk about this, that would be henry kissinger. reassuring allies that were worried that we would not engage in strategic nuclear war in order to protect a conventional invasion in europe. and so the proposition is part of this. and this includes weapons for use for being the first one to that. and then there is a concept of stability as it is refined.

initially it was a very simple concept and you may have heard the metaphor. one scorpion bites and the other one bites back and they are both dead. and there's a happy concept for a wild. and then everyone begins to understand the stability of this depends upon the survivability of the capacity to strike back with a second strike capability.