can. safely but we cannot us the opportunity represented here and i think it's fascinating that has been picked up by different segments. we have to go after this with techality. technology will not be the issue in the end. silicon valley will figure stuff out. the issues are the stuff that you are bringing up as humans. >> guest: what about the technical issues? will you ever want to give up your driver's license? >> host: mark rosekind is the administrator of the national highway traffic demonstration and david shephardson covers technology for thompson reuters and over the next two weeks "the communicators" will travel to pittsburgh and ann arbor. carnegie mellon university, we will show you the technology of the autonomous vehicle and then we look at connected cars at m city part of the university of michigan in ann arbor. thanks for watching.

>> the next president making appointments to the supreme court of the united states will be president donald trump. >> hillary clinton the white house rest of the world will never forget why they have always looked up united states of america.

>> i am jason kander.

his failure to defend the 2nd amendment. only one supports candidacy for illegal immigrants. missouri voters know what's important. >> i'm roy blunt and i approve this message. c this is what afghanistan looks like an unarmored suv. i'm jason kander and i enlisted after 9/11 and was the army intelligence officer in the afghan government. came home i went to reform state government save tax dollars as secretary of state and i'm running for senate and i approve this message because there are too many politicians in washington who only care about themselves. we need more leaders willing to sacrifice for their country. >> republicans and democrats disagree on lots of issues that find bipartisan solutions solve real problems i am all for it. i worked for senator brown of ohio to pass manufacturing jobs bill.

senator stabenow to pass break through mental health legislation. sarah coons led the fight for victims of child abuse and senator murray and i get the first increase in health research in 12 years. from jobs to alzheimer's it's about getting things done. i am roy blunt and i approve this message. >> thank you dennis and again welcome to the 2016 candidate forums hosted by the missouri press association. earlier today candidates drew numbers to determine the order in which they will be making their opening remarks. closing remarks will be made in reverse order. i'm going to introduce you to the candidates and the order of their opening remarks. first, green party candidate jonathan mcfarland. democrat jason kander. libertarian, jonathan dine. constitution party candidate brad riemann and republican roy blunt.

after their opening statements i will ask the first question and then we will proceed to questions from our three panelists. our three panelists today are ken nugent of the st. joseph press, carol stark of the globe and l. miller of the washington misery in. candidates will have one minute to answer each question. after each has had a turn i will decide whether rebuttal time is necessary. if so candidates will receive an additional 30 seconds for rebuttal but rebuttals will be reserved only for those particular candidates involved. if the candidate fails to answer question i also reserve the right to cause them to try again the signs will be held up in the front row showing the time remaining during their remarks. candidates please appear to the stop sign and audience please hold your applause until today's

event is over. with that, let's begin. opening statements first for green party candidate jonathan mcfarland. >> thank you very much for having me. i appreciate you allowing me to speak today. first i'd like to thank the great creator for bringing us here in having this existed and i was like to thank my wife for hon -- her unequivocal support and i've like to thank the ballot access volunteers to help get the green ballot on the party across missouri and the missouri press association for having us here. i am here because i believe we should have good ideas and not just big pocketbooks and i think representative should i show up for work and i also believe that we need real change.

i would also like to thank my son abraham for allowing me to be away from him today because otherwise he would be right here in my arms. he is two and he would know how to compromise so thank you. >> jason kander. >> thank you to the members of the missouri press association and my fellow candidates on the stage. my parents were juvenile probation officers. my dad worked as a police officer and later ran a security company. they tell my brothers and i that it was important to have courage encouragement and doing what's right. it was nice going to be the same so that's why when i saw the planes hit the towers on 9/11 i knew i was called and i was going to join the army so that's what i did. listed and later became a military intelligence officer and i volunteered to go to afghanistan to do anticorruption investigations. learned a lot from my tour there but it wasn't easy. there were times i was alone and

unarmed suv with just a translator novak up or two or three other soldiers on the streets of kabul dressed in street clothes gathering information. as the first time in my life i had been on the receiving end of decisions made by people in public office when those decisions were negatively impacting my life as they were more about politics than about the people on the receiving end. we didn't often enough have the proper equipment and i thought what i saw was very clearly wrong. so after a few years i came home , a a few years after i came home i felt the need to take on corruption in missouri state government. i decided to do it and it's a state representative i worked with republicans to pass the first major ethics reforms in missouri in 20 years and is your secretary of state i worked ban special guest to politicians. washington is broken and we are not going to change washington until we change people we send there. at times come for the next generation to step up and take the lead in shaping the

direction of our state and our nation. with your help that's exactly what i'm going to do as united states senator. >> jonathan dine. >> welcome everyone. i first want to give a big thanks to the missouri press association for hosting this debate and inviting all the candidates to participate. second i want to ask jason and rory to please make this debate about issues and not insults. as many of you know we are faced with an incredible time like many of you i'm concerned with the direction of our country. we have all seen the commercials being played nonstop, the negative ads and for the first time ever i have to agree them both. they're both bad for missouri. roy come in 2010 he promised the great people of missouri standing appear in the stage with me you were going to go to washington and you were going to repeal obamacare. you were going to restore our freedom and you're going to lower tax burden but the fact is

you have done none of that. the only thing you have done successfully is to vote yourself a raise every single year. i truly believe the biggest political problem in america is the career politician and i think we need change now, and across-the-board term limits is the answer. if elected as senator my first priority would be to pass legislation enacting term limits for congressmen and senators. congressman should be restricted to six, two year terms and senators six, two year terms. politicians are like diapers. they need to be changed often and for the very same reasons. if elected the libertarian senator i promise to stand up for your economic freedoms and your fiscal freedoms. to me they are one and the same of a two-sided coin. please stand with me this

november and vote libertarian. the time for voting for the lesser of the two evils is over. >> brad ryman. >> our founding fathers had a dream a nation of free men were power resided with we the people and yet at the same time they understood human nature. they understood that to secure the blessings of liberty they had to create a government that would protect us primarily from our own government. every man who seeks to expand the size or the power of our federal government betrays those founding principles. the mere desire for a strong centralized federal government shows either a one's ignorance of human nature or one's wicked intent.

the job of a u.s. senator is to represent the interests of his state, to protect states rights, to restrain or even roll back the ever-growing federal -- obviously i'm running because i don't think we have done a good job. but we cannot hold senator want accountable by electing someone from the party who is even more subversive on those founding principles. i want to thank the missouri press association for having this forum, for allowing us all to be here on equal footing. it's the one time where we will all have an equal voice, the same voice and so i sincerely want to say thank you. >> roy blunt. >> thank you david and thanks to the missouri press association

for hosting this opportunity to be here. in the 150 year history of the missouri press association i suppose every time there was an election politician said this is the most important election we have ever had. i do think when you look at the facts you put on the table this time you can put more of those facts on the table that might suggest this is exactly a time where we are going to make decisions that will impact us for a generation. there are lots of opportunities out there. more american energy, what can happen in health care research. in our state what can happen in transportation and actually all of those areas we are particularly well positioned to take advantage of what can happen and we need to be focused on better jobs for stronger families. so much of the time the biggest obstacle is the out-of-control government regulators.

obamacare and the disruption it is created in the health care system, regulators that passed a regulation with no real apparent interest in what the impact is, a foreign-policy where our friends don't trust us and our enemies aren't afraid of us and this is the time to move forward away from all of those things. i'm a fifth-generation missourian. i had a chance a few days ago to speak at a high school. the first place i had a job teaching high school history and the first job anybody in my family had to have a college diploma to get the job. my grandfather's last job as a janitor in that very same building. that's pretty good story but in our country there are a million stories but in that one. the promise of america something we need to hold onto. i've been listening to missourians and i have been fighting for missourians. i've been trying -- trying to find solutions and i hope to continue to have the chance to do that but that's what the voters get to decide on election day.

>> we will now go to questions i will ask the first one. whoever wins this election will have to work with senator claire mccaskill to represent missouri. senator mccaskill recently complained that the senate was scheduled to work fewer days this year than at any time in the past 60 years. do you view this as an indication that washington literally is not working and it is not addressing important issues or do you believe that this is a laudable display a limited government that less wes is actually more in this case? that goes first to jonathan mcfarland. >> i like claire mccaskill. i think as a senator i would like to work more days because being in government is a lot of responsibility. there is a lot of work to be

done so to negotiate with people, to work with people to get some kind of an agreement and come up with some kind of compromise is the best way we can do anything. so, i would like to be more involved in the governmental process and work with everybody i can to achieve those goals. >> jason kander. >> it's been 60 years since the united states senate to work so few days. i don't think it's because they are getting too much done. the congress just got done with a seven week break. they decided to give themselves a seven week break either to campaign or those who weren't up for re-election to take a vacation. the interesting thing about that as is it's not as if they had gotten all their work done. they had money left on the table. they just the other day finished funding the government. prior to that everything from

the zika virus to the fact that they haven't updated at all or seriously debated up dating the military force against isis so in missouri what happens when somebody doesn't get their work done and takes a seven week break if they get fired. senator blunt sits at the table where they come up with a schedule and apparently at no point does senator blunt raises hand and say hey fellows since we haven't gotten our work done maybe we shouldn't go home. >> the american founders didn't seek career politicians is a full-time job. serve a few hours and return to your regular profession, be a real representative of the people. today most are lawyers. they are the only ones really being represented. the times that they do work together it's usually to steal our freedoms or our money. you look at the bipartisan saudi arms deal they decided we are going to sell our enemies $81 billion worth of weapons. i don't believe our government should be in the process of

weapons sales. the less you guys were probably the better. >> fred ryman. >> i would say that's not only dependent on the senate schedule but it also depends on the senate. whether i am in washington d.c. or whether i am back here in missouri i suspect that i will be working almost all the time. you cannot simply go to washington d.c. and serve and stay there when you are off duty you are always listening and always trying to get feedback from their constituents and time not in washington d.c. is spent working here at home. >> roy blunt. >> i do think after ryman has a good sensible you do in this job which has you both places a lot of the time. i have had over 1600 meetings in

the state, meetings that people knew i was coming. they knew i was going to be there. they reported while i was there and people knew what was at why was there. i have been at all 115 counties at least three times. i have been all over the state and had been listening and doing the things that need to happen here but how much you work is not always the sense of how much you get done. as far as senator mccaskill and i are concerned when things impact our stay we almost always figure out how to find a solution we can work on together. we were able to work together to get a major national security site that geospatial agency. they are keeping that great workforce in our state. i've been working with lots of members on both sides of the aisle to get things done and i will be allowed to talk about those as we have time. >> the next question comes for

mr. nugent. >> thank you to all the candidates for being here today. during the next six years the senate may be called upon to confirm more than one member of the u.s. supreme court, plus others in the federal judiciary. can you please tell us about how you would approach your review of those nominees? >> jason kander you are first. >> i would start by actually meeting with them. senator blunt has refused to meet with the presidents nominate the supreme court. interesting because when it was asked why he hasn't his answer was we didn't have enough time. when i was in afghanistan there were meetings that i did not want to go to in dangerous places but i went to those meetings because it's my job. no matter who is elected president of the united states in november when i'm in the united states senate in a matter who is president and no matter who they nominate i will pledge that i will meet with them and consider their qualifications for the court. >> jonathan dine.

>> i would look to someone like judge andrew napolitano who is a staunch defender of your economic freedom and personal liberty. look at someone who would believe in the constitution where it stands for. for far too long the supreme court supposedly the defenders of the constitution have cited with -- your fourth amendment rights have been violated by the nsa and the government. we need somebody who is really going to not just plays lip service to these things and stand up for your rights. those are the types of people i would look for and it's a rare quality so you would have to look but judge andrew napolitano is one of the best. >> obviously and looking to confirm justices we look at their prior rulings. we want to make sure they are constitutional but frankly i think the question may be didn't go far enough. it's not simply about approving justices that we believe will constitutionally.

we have justices and judges that are ruling from the bench in such a way that they are creating new law. the senate should be working with the house frankly to impeach and remove justices that are going far beyond the bounds of what they should be doing. i can give you several examples. an imminent domain lawsuit where the court substituted public use in determining whether property could be condemned and given to another private individual. south dakota versus elizabeth dole on issues of denial of funds. again so we need to remove those that are not in the constitution. >> roy blunt. >> i think the next senate in the next president will have an opportunity to reshape the court that you probably won't see happened for two or three presidents. we know there is one vacancy and

you would have to assume in all likelihood there will be two. i suspect there might be three and there could be for so one of the things voters ought to be thinking about is who is going to be nominating judges to the court and who is going to be confirming those nominations? there is no house of representatives roll here. it's the senate and the white house. i think we need judges who read the constitution and try to figure out what the constitution says rather than look at the case and try to figure out what they think the constitution should have said. this is a big moment. voters get a chance to be heard on this moment. there was no reason to confirm judge garland. he's a perfectly nice man with a perfectly bad judicial record. >> jonathan mcfarland. >> the constitution reads at the president will select a nominee

for the supreme court and there is not much left to the imagination. president obama is the president so therefore if he chooses somebody for the supreme court i feel i would have no choice but to honor that choice and then make right decision. i strongly feel no matter who the president is in a matter who that person changes i would entertain the idea of making that choice so we can continue with our democracy. >> the next question comes from carol. >> we get numerous reports to come across our desks every day that shows the nationwide epidemic of prescription opioid abuse. how do you hope to stem the tide of the prescription of opioid abuse especially in your own state? the only one that has

prescription drug monitoring plans. >> jonathan dine. >> the first thing i would do is end the drug war. drug use is a health issue, not a criminal justice one. far too many people are addicted to drugs but the stigma of persecution makes it hard for them to seek treatment making them live underground is a harsh reality. people are sometimes forced to do illicit drugs out of the end intentional effects of prohibition. one exam book the cape to spice that kids have been doing. if there wasn't this prohibition on marijuana kids would have to be forced to do other things. people who are truly addicted to drugs deserve treatment, compassion, not to be persecuted and incarcerated. half of what we spend on law enforcement and polices not -- nonviolent and not drug related. we have the largest prison population in the world than

half of them are in their brick drug offense. it makes sense. our resources and money could be better spent treating violent criminals in real crimes and not waste it on these things. >> fred ryman. >> i would agree with the premise of your question. missouri does not have a way of tracking opioid use and abuse and possibly they should but that's a state issue and i don't feel like this issue rises to the purview of the federal government. some may disagree with me on that but i would disagree that that's something the federal government should be involved in it's a state issue and states should show responsibility and covering that. >> jason kander. >> this is a place where listening does matter and i have talked to people who. your paper every day. we have had this discussion some months ago and i had just taken

over as the chairman of appropriating committee that deals with these issues and before this became a national discussion we cut other programs to triple the commitment we had to opioid abuse. our teaching hospitals in the state now are all looking at how we prescribe pain medicine in different ways. i sat down with three of them in st. louis and kansas city university in kirksville to talk to them about how they are doing this differently. previous question was working with senator mccaskill and we only go together half the time so i don't want to suggest claire mccaskill and i agree on everything but here's a case where in karabell, the bill we just passed to even make a more defined approach to this we put a special bowl -- provision in there so our counties could link together and have their own prescription drug monitoring system.

>> jonathan mcfarland. >> my friend jonathan dine said we need to alleviate the problem by could those offenders in jail. i have met a lot of opioid abusers and i don't believe we should penalize everybody because they are on drugs. we should treat it as a health care issue. there is a very important distinction. we need the funding so we can do that. as opposed to throwing people in jail which is what we also use funding for. ..

but we need to do more. i sat down with folks that do this on the front lines and they say they appreciate the gesture but they don't think that it will do anywhere near enough and we can do more. we need a new generation of leadership to focus on solutions rather than letting this becomee partisan so often that we also o need to recognize that ultimately drug use of every type tends to follow economic concerns. so at the time when we have folks in congress protecting tax breaks that send jobs overseas and backing the trade deals, that doesn't make any sense including in a situation like

this one so instead we need to focus on the middle class and make sure they have more economic opportunity and traditionally we have done that and seen problems take downward. >> in this campaign there's been talk about a college education for every student and i would like to know how everyone feels about that and if it is economically feasible to do something like that by the federal government. >> this is going to go back to what carroll was talking about. no, i do not believe in a giving away free college. we've seen what it's done for our public education system. i used to be a teacher myself so i'm not speaking from complete ignorance but free college with me tell you i went to college for two years with about a 3.2 gpa. when i went back to school at

the age of 30 and had to pay for my own education i maintained a 3.8 plus and when i went back at 40 i maintained a 4.0 and got 2 degrees putting myself through school. you appreciate what you have to pay for. but it's developing in the country and we look to the fed to solve all of our problems. the federal government is the problem most of the time. any idea to pay for it is foolish and one of the things i tried to do and one of the things i will get done this year is returned to the year-round pell grant.

if you are the first person in your family to finish college like i was. there is no community college and that doesn't pay for all tuition, all books and fees. it's all of the fees returning which we have until 2008 would be a big help to students that are struggling to get to college. i believe that the american people could be much more intelligent and we could work on it by getting their economical

economically. if we just allow the tax brackets to go without loopholes and allow it to, you know, allow people to be taxed fairly, we could actually see an increase of $4 billion in our funding of the pre- education system. people can refinance student loan in the same way they can tap the interest that they paid. those would be concrete things that would help a lot. i was amazed last year when the senator said something along the lines of the reason folks were graduating because of their lifestyle during school as if the extra bowl of ramen in the microwave is the reason folks are graduating four-year institutions with an average of $26,000 in debt.

it's interesting to hear that senator talk about pell grants because the senator voted to cut pell grants five years ago, and what he's talking about is a situation where he's voted to work to restore the funding back to where it was. he's taking it back to where it was before he cut it. you think college is expensive now, wait until it's free. let's get the government out of the loan shark business to secure government loans that artificially inflated the price of college. if the government wasn't getting the south with ridiculously high rates, colleges would be forced to go out of business. i think we need to reevaluate the education system in

particular. we have these kids for 12 years already and we can't get them to join the workforce committee should be able to graduate with a high school degree that should be able to get them a job. the idea that you have to pay ridiculous amounts of money doesn't make any sense to me. teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. job training and skills training and plumbers, technicians, things of actual value -- i see i'm out of time. >> when programs were eliminated and returning to the year-round bill would make a big difference and if you think that student spending has nothing to do with borrowing, ask anybody at any community college or four year school with some of the elements

is that they are most concerned about when they talk to students about the money students are borrowing. it's a student lifestyles causing it and that isn't the case. when you double the interest rate and allow it this is an issue for them economics when you go around the state and talk to people. it's affecting three generations igenerationsand their families d their retirement to help states pay for school. this is affecting people all over the state. >> where do you stand in regard to the residence in the country giving them a path to

citizenship, and along with this, how much of the nation's resources should be committed to strengthening border security? >> i think securing the border is the fundamental question dealing with this issue. one is how do they secure the border and what are the legitimate workforce needs in the country. about 50% came into the country illegally into the first has to be securing the border, and i think once that happens people would be pretty forward leaning to try to find solutions. i was opposed to president obama's executive amnesty and fortunately the federal judges

in texas agreed i had a lot to say about that at the time and i still have a lot to say about that, and i'm not for citizenship of people that came to the country illegally. >> in 2011 a lot of people say after nafta was passed, the resources were taken away in the large corporations and i know it's like nobody knows about it because we keep pushing this agenda in the drug cartels and i just happened to know otherwise. so i believe we need to help mexico and not punish these people who've been continual,

historical migrants. when people came to the united states we need to honor this because for al all i see america place that is more or less taken with other people. >> our immigration system is broken and we need comprehensive immigration reform. i would have supported the legislation put forward and had that happened, had passed we wouldn't be facing the same problems we're facing righ we aw because we need comprehensive immigration reform and i would have supported the effort. that effort. i know the promise that immigration holds in this country. my wife came to the united states from the soviet union in 1989 and i've seen the contribution achieves me and my

in-laws have made this to address the system, we are going to need a new generation of folks that are focused on solutions and not so agreeable that they can't move forward. that bill that i would have supported increased funding for security at the border and that is where we need to start. >> the resources should be used to protect us against those attacking our country and not those that want to be part of it. immigration needs to be formed to the streamlined process. if we make it as easy as possible to get a piece of people would line up at the wall. if we come across a shoulder to beat the soldier give them social security is happening whether we like it or not. might as well make it a useful resource. the idea that all immigrants are bad stems from the propaganda if he headed the war on drugs, we

wouldn't have to worry about the cartels and people like colorado and others taking money hand over fist are getting money back to their citizens. immigrants play a valuable role in the society. many in the hospitality would be devastated without migrant workers. in alabama they passed the harsh immigration law. these are skilled workers that provide and tax them and make them a citizenship of after a seven-year period give them background checks so we know who they are and who is entering the country. >> i've been hearing about comprehensive immigration reform since i was a teenager. i'm sorry but never once has congress acted to support the border. it hasn't happened in 40 years and i don't look forward to it happening anytime soon as long as we have the same crowd talking the same language.

those are the things we have to do to secure the border. all they are really doing is wasting our money. what we need to do is turn off the magnets that are drawing people across the border in the first place. the real criminals are not the people that are causing to feed their families. it's the companies that are high hearing a legal immigrants against the law, undertaking them into taking no action at all against them. i would say we need to beef up the penalties and not only onlyn force for this on the books but there's something called the drug kingpin law that would apply in an interesting way. >> next question. >> after months of fighting the congress finally approved $1.1 billion of funding to pay

for the fight against the virus which has now spread into the united states and there is infected or some other private and women. you think congress has waited too long to attack this problem. >> we already had money set aside for the virus and i was wondering what was taking so long because it was right on our shores and was interred in the united states. there's at least one case in the state of missouri. being that my wife is pregnant with our second child, i was kind of disheartened about what was happening.

of the things very important to the american people when it relates to the threat for the future americans such as those being born now because we could handle the situation a lot better. >> congress waited too long they were taking weeks off to campaign. i don't think that was the best use of their time and that is one of the differences here. it goes back to the makeup of congress. right now we have the fewest veteran stan anytime since world war ii. it's not a coincidence that we have few people in either party we don't have enough of this, people have the ability to set aside their differences over personal opportunity and work together. in the military we have folks from different backgrounds come together and get things done and the way they do it if they have a mission and they know that it's going to get done.

in this case, getting it done much earlier than they did now is the mission but they don't seem to have the ability to get it done and put their differences aside and i believe that in each case like this it has something to do with us having few people that served in congress. >> is going to be a waste of money. private industry should be doing the research. there's plenty of research colleges and alumni that fund the special interests into some individuals and now they are going to get rich off of this. i don't believe the government has been a good steward of the tax dollars and the knee-jerk reactions to pass legislation is the unintended consequences worse the government shouldn't be the virus solving industry.

>> it is another one of those that crosses over the line of the state responsibility. we do have a center of disease control that could speak to such issues. it has more to do with killing mosquitoes than controlling the disease. that's something the state and local municipalities are able to deal with. could it be coordinated at the federal level, possibly a where is the jurisdiction beyond trying to cure the disease itself, i don't see one. the federal government isn't going to get into pest control, i'm sorry. >> the administration once again to solve the crisis was over

reached and tried to make the most of it but even though they asked for $1.9 billion, and 85 million was for the two buildings at the cbc that were not going to be built as part of an emergency response coming in at 175 million where to transfer any agency of government for any other reason and then 500 billion of the money hadn't been used, so he came quickly to the 1.1 billion senator murray from washington came up with that compromise and 89 senators voted. i wanted to get it done before we left and we did get it done when we got back. it was a gallant effort to get it back into talks about trying to find solutions and not be disagreeable when you could find ways to disagree and even hillary clinton who was the cochair of the campaign said what congress should do is pass

the blonde marie compromise coming into the data. and we did. we have time for one more question. >> we have all been viewing quite a few tv ads where the candidate is using a rifle and putting it back and so on. i have heard comment that they feel it is an insult to their intelligence that they've been able to handle a gun and shoots the gun and take it upon and so on. >> i support the second amendment. here is the difference between myself and senator blanche. i learned how to use a gun in the army, and i also a father. like all, i am concerned because every time i see a school shooting, i believe one of the

things we need to do is we need universal background checks to expand. i believe that is very important. the senator is about to talk about his rating and mine. i believe there is no conflict between being a supporter in the second amendment, and one of the ways to protect the second amendment is to make sure the terrorists and criminalthatterrt have the same access that you and i have. >> the whole barrage of the usual campaign commercials has become a political way of life you can't watch a television show without one of these coming across the airwaves. the world is going to end if you vote for this guy or that guy. i really wish that you could tell me why i should vote for you.

what are you going to do and not to slander the other guy i think it iis kind of vindictive of our entire political system but he proved my point in his last answer and he said we worked on this virus to build a together republicans and democrats to build two new buildings and expand that have little to do with actually finding the cure for the virus that's the only problem i have is i do not feel that it's a good steward of tax dollars and toomey, politicians and police should encourage the education and training programs in the responsible citizenship is the best defense against domestic tyranny as well as foreign invasion. >> i'm a strong supporter of the amendment, and i do not believe that it is there for us for sporting or hunt.

it's also against our own government if you want to read the federalist paper 46. but i have a long-winded explanation of the second amendment on my website. i want to say with the remainder of time i am disappointed that we never got to trade because i think that it is a hugely important issue with respect to jobs here in the united states. senator blunt voted to fast-track and i'm sorry that free trade with underdeveloped nations kills american jobs, kills local tax bases and i would definitely say free trade with relatively equal countries. >> the way this works i get 30 seconds to respond to the comment and then 30 seconds to respond to the fast-track comment and the question is that

right? >> there is a question on gun control and of course nobody wants them to have guns. what a foolish line to try to draw. apparently the secretary wants us to be able to have a gu gun t isn't nearly as concerned about whether other people can or not. not easily done he can stand here and say i'm the defender of the second amendment and nobody watching these issues believe that to be the case. the second amendment does matter. all the amendments matter. that's why the supreme court is so important. freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the second amendment, fourth amendment, they all have an impact and how the senate and the next president deal with the

court will make a difference in how we are able to secure those freedoms or whether they are taken away from us. >> jonathan mcfarland? >> when he said he felt that their intelligence was insulted i don't think it has anything to do with the requirement of being a politician and also i know people who've gotten their conceal and carry licenses and feel cheated by the wall that passed to allow almost anyone to carry a gun down. and we have a great opportunity in missouri to expand trade show p6 especially missouri could be a great producer of solar panels

especially for the midwest and we could do a lot to improve the economy and jobs. >> if you want an extra 30 seconds we can do that. >> is a major difference between myself i fundamentally believe that my second amendment rights and your second amendment rights are important enough if somebody is a suspected terrorist that we shouldn't give them the same opportunity to buy a gun that you and i have and the senator can call the foolish on th all e wants but i call it protecting those with control over the thar the world to hurt us. >> and of course you shouldn't have a suspected terror progressed coming from syria. that's the big difference.

i think i was clear we didn't build any additional buildings. we stopped the administration and agreed to do 1.1 and i think that arrives in time. the money that was available to ththe startup at october 9, so t hasn't been held back but if the congress would have passed the compromise bill that we passed this week several weeks ago it would have been a better way to deal with it. >> we are going to move ou now o the closing statements. you are first. >> again, thanks for doing this. it is a clear choice and i have four different alternatives to meet. i spend a lot of time at home and i understand i think the

state it takes a while to do. it's a verse with lots of opportunities. i've been fighting with missouri and a lot of discussions about things in the congress where i wish we could hear what you're doing. i'm able to reach out and find solutions. the senator and i got legislation passed for the advanced manufacturing that will have an impact on manufacturing jobs. these are all democrats. senator stabenow and i come she's from chicken. thinwe got the excellence in mel health act passed which many see as the biggest step forward in 50 years that will allow aid to states and maybe as many as 23 and a big pilot project for the first time ever to treat mental health like all others and for too long, we have really required law enforcement and the emergency rooms to become the de facto mental health system in america today. the senator and i were able to

get the law extended even when the obama administration for reasons we could never better understand didn't want to extend it. we got the first increase in healthcare research and 12 years after a zero increase in healthcare research for a dozen years we got 6.6% increase last year and i think we forget it again this year and to do that we had to eliminate over two dozen programs that were not effective. everything is a priority or nothing is a priority. we deserve a congress that will set priorities and look at their money and spend it in the most effective way possible to not take any more of it than absolutely necessary. it's a great honor and the last thing i would like to see if i i would be pleased to have your vote. >> i believe the desire of most

americans is to just be left alone to live our lives and run our businesses as long as we don't bring harm to anyone else. we are fed up with the overreaching and over regulati regulating. we are fed up with lifelong politicians that rule over us instead of representing us and then going home. it's what should be public service and yet he pulled money out of your pocket and mine to fund the practices of planned parenthood and to fund social benefits for illegal immigrants and green projects and to fund more and more and more bureaucracy. i believe more that this is about accountability.

but you can't hold the senator accountable by electing someone in the party by electing someone from the abortion party or the even bigger government party. i stand here representing the constitution party of america. these guys will tell you that a vote for a third-party candidate is a wasted vote. how much more wasted your vote possibly be than to be cast yet again for the two parties that have given us $20 trillion in national debt? this time when folks to step into the booth i want them to remember how wasted with less time and this time if you are going to waste your vote, waste it on me.

>> listening to him try to defend his record and this legislation he passed when he was elected one of the biggest promises as he was going to repeal obamacare. he only sponsored two pieces of legislation so at best he's completely ineffective or at worst a lie here that doesn't want to get anything done. i am concerned about the direction the country is headed. i'm tired of fighting between democrats and republicans. beating the other team has become more important than solving america's problems. the time to start voting for the lesser of two evils is over. america is on the brink of a fiscal disaster and both republicans and democrats are to blame. neither is serious about balancing the budget by restoring freedoms and the limiting of the economic

involvement. we have an opportunity to make history. if you really want to break up the stagnation to send a libertarian out there. i promisof there. i promise you that i will fight tirelessly for term limits and elimination of the federal income tax. the power should be returned to the people. vote libertarian just one time like my friend said. check out where i stand on all the issues and see who will represent you. >> thank you to all of you for hosting us. us. i've been to every county in the state and i've spoken to all over the state. when i asked them what they would do to fix congress over

and over again what they want folks in washington to work together. we haven't heard one idea about how to fix congress and that's because he has become a part of the problem. for 20 years come he's been protecting the status quo because it has been great for him and his family and to the special interest. over that time he's allowed the companies that shift american jobs overseas to continue to give tax breaks way before and that is one of the things i am going to change. over those 20 years he voted to raise his own pay and meanwhile middle-class families are continuing to struggle. today he lives in a $1.6 million mansion in washington and only visits when he has to. that's because he's not the same person or that even had my current job as the secretary of state.

believe it or not he used to be a reformer and say we've got to get money out of politics so missouri can get a fair deal. but he's changed and he no longer believes that. when i signed up i did it out of a sense of duty to the country. i knew what the job would require and i was excited to do the job. that is why i never hesitated as the secretary of state to stand up to the party or special interests to do what is right. i have spent my adult life serving the country and fighting for the values and now i'm ready to go to washington to fight for you and your family. >> i believe in democracy, and i believe in these ideas to continue. i don't believe politicians have the ideas so i know president obama ran on a platform boat and we -- i really believe that we

do need change and real change. so every american that has a vote could possibly have an idea in all these ideas we could collect and hear about them and see how we could make these ideas work for us. that's what i believe. >> that give our candidates a round of applause. [applause]

the rest of the world will never forget why they always looked up to the united states of america. >> what the vice presidential debate between the republican governor and democratic senator

tim kane tuesday night, live from longwood university in farmville virginia beginning at 7:30 with a preview of the debate then at 830 the briefing for the audience at 9 p.m., live coverage of the debate followed by the viewer reaction. at the 2016 vice presidential debate watch live on c-span and anytime on-demand at c-span.org and listen live on the c-span radio app. >> up next on c-span2, retired general david petraeus gives his assessment of afghanistan.

former afghanistan commander general petraeus said there is a

cause to bclause to be cautiousy optimistic on progress in afghanistan. he's joined by the two former ambassadors have an event hosted by the brookings institution about the future of afghanistan >> good morning everyone. the redskins are back into the nationals are in the playoffs. it's a happy year with no shutdown and we hope there's a reason for hopefulness but that's up to you to decide. the goal is t was to talk about afghanistan and the kind on the president's agenda.

i am honored today to be the moderator for an extraordinarily distinguished panel. they are accomplished in general and specifically with regards to afghanistan. i'm not going to go through the detailed introductions but let me highlight a point about each and then we will have a bit of an opening round. i'm going to pose a broad question to each person and then go to you about 45 to 50 minut minutes. in the paper that the five of us and another 12 or 13 former officials and scholars regarding afghanistan work on th or in afghanistan and put forth.

it came out in september with some deeper views on the subject. we will not cover the entirety of the paper that we will allow each person to speak for himself rather than the talking points that i want you to know the paper is out there. to my left is the retired u.s. army one of the most accomplished military commanders in american history and of course wa the famous architect d chief commander after the federal command. to his left is the ambassador who along with his father was one of the only two teams in american history to be ambassador to the same country

and to those of you that are your history remember it is john quincy adams who were ambassadors to france and ronald neumann and his father were ambassadors to afghanistan so in addition to the remarkable military career that included combat tours to vietnam and ambassadorships. the ambassador for one of the longest stints in modern american history not quite what his dad pulled off in the late 60s and 70s when he was the ambassador but nonetheless it's fair to say being the deputy ambassador for more than three years in recent times probably counts even more than those chronological years would suggest.

they've made amazing careers the ambassador who in many ways has been a sort of troubleshooter number one. there are the missions as a special envoy either in the peace process or the reconstruction all over the world but certainly the balkans and in part of the middle east and africa and in afghanistan. at the corporation where he remains today so without further ado let me begin with general petraeus and i want to ask a big simple question of what is the big idea in this paper and what did you see as the big idea for the policy in afghanistan going

forward? >> the first draft and all the rest of this i will note you left off in the discussions with reason of optimism and hugely important one is that is of course the team started in season three and this year is the reversal of experience in recent years and some of you will recall there was one topic off-limits for questions and that being we may relax that this year with the truly greatest diplomat that we have been privileged to work with in a variety of different capacities. >> the big idea here first is we continue to have important national interests in afghanistan. i would hold out the truths that are the most important, the

reason we went to afghanistan and the reason that we have stayed. we have indeed accomplished that today is so that is the core with the u.s. forces and the central command that was the most important task in mind. we wanted to help afghanistan and a host of other ways but we also add realistic assessments of what we thought we could achieve and there was never any kind of dream and turning afghanistan into switzerland in ten years or less and they were quite significant obstacles put

that object he is and was the reason we were there. beyond that, we also found afghanistan to be a hugely important platform. it's publicly known that various other activities are conducted that remains to us and we welcome and we have indeed improved life in a host of different ways whether it is infrastructure and the various elements of the economy and so forth and the progress has been quite substantial. and of course afghan security forces begin transitioning the tasks for the end of my time in the spring of 2011 very much fighting for their country and

then quite considerable numbers perhaps unsustainable members us and that doesn't mean give us concern for one of those rare. it has deteriorated and we did hold the momentum of the taliban if you will i was privileged to be the commander and w commanded indeed ask whether it and begin handing off tasks to them that was ultimately completed and we did help support and we are now in the diplomatic development arenas so that we could tasks to them as well but all of these have come under increasing pressure in the associated groups that do not want to see afghanistan since the liberation

frofrom the tampa ban taliban ae 2001. the network, al qaeda, small elements, small states etc., etc. all active and all trying to regain control of the areas they might have controlled before the surge and cause problems for the afghan government and people. we have seen the reports and i've been assured by individuals on the ground that there are special forces on the ground supporting the afghan commanders and they believe they have that in control and the district one of those during the surge in helmand province has been killed

in the past tragic loss and the police station was overrun by them as well end up in the capital of helmand under increasing threat also although i'm told there are some 1700 afghan forces and advisers with enormous efforts to enable those forces. nonetheless they describe this as a stalemate during a recent visit and you can look at that and a number of different ways you could say stalemates are not all bad if they control between 65 to 75%. the general pace as the chairman of the joint chiefs said in this struggle if you are not winning you were losing and regardless situation as we described

concerning and at the bottom linthe bottom lineis we believet administration should make a commitment to afghanistan. that is the real bottom line and the headline is to draw down or what have you that we should use the assets to support our afghan security force counterparts as many of you will know the airpower was restricted for some time and if wa it warrants even further examination to determine to help individuals for whom we provide the close support fighting shoulder to shoulder with them until more recently so those are the kinds of initiatives that should be pursued.

to discuss the other elements of this it isn't a blank check that has to be a commitment for both sides of this endeavor and there are indeed causes for concern of corruption. but indeed again the key is the commitment to a country in which we have these national interests and where we very much want to see those interests continue to be safeguarded and preserved. we know the figures are rough but can you clarify -- >> this is the land area

generally, but i probably should go back to the individual that promoted the term as an indicator it is assessed under the control. it's the categorization we used to go to and i think that it's an output of that. the former commanders that were part of this paper were forging a partnership deeper including general john campbell, john allen, stanley mcchrystal, and i will give you a digestible number as we go forward. i wonder if you could talk about

the afghan politics and that is a bit of an open-ended question but i don't know where you want to put the current situation in the historical perspectives that you want to talk about and how they are doing it if there is anything about their sort of strange and somewhat forced and unruly partnership if you want to talk about the steps in the question of afghan politics on the agenda for you please >> they now either want or automatically assess each ticket into the mental paradigm already constructed. if your opinions are opposite you can find the facts but the

fact it doesn't cover afghanistan very much make it even more difficult for people to come to independent judgments. there is a lost going wrong and i am reminded he said in one word of god, two words, not good. there's more to that. the weekend came with a surprisingly hopeful note to me that was a long story in the "new york times" and she cover afghanistan for years and was one of the most experienced with downbeat problems but on an upbeat note looking at the younger generation of things that have changed since 2001 and

is rare that you get an article by an experienced observer. general petraeus made i think the first absolutely key foundational point out our views in the paper that have big interests that merit being in afghanistan. the question that follows after that which is both political and military is impossible to achieve those interests and that's where the mixture of the event comes in. the politics are messy. they were fighting with each other. the bottom line for me is yes it is possible. that isn't the same as guaranteed or a smooth line

continuity. this will be much more like a roller coaster ride but it's still possible. first of all, we have general petraeus talked about the army so if we are not losing them is as good as we would like and they are not it is often not come if an army throwing down its weapons in the battle field. that is a big difference. on the american side a lot of problems are partially self-induced. we tried to move faster first by the political pressures to turn things over to we don't expect. they used to tell me in less than 20 years but we expected

and we were determined we would be required. afghan politics have always been messy. people have not only the war they don't expect things to get better. one woman who directs them with the dynamic u.s. educated told me when she first came to the u.s., she was met by her family and they said your timing is so good we have this weekend coming up in a few months we are going to go to an amusement park and she said the first reaction is how could they possibly be planning something two months from now?

it was so insecure and changed by external factors that we just didn't understand the idea and spent the next two months waiting for something to happen. there was a huge difference between the basic optimistic view of americans and how you look at the plans and if your plan is moving along it doesn't mean anything. so people have habits of fighting for the political control. so a lot of people scrapping for power and that makes the politics really messy and i think the chances that it will stay messy. we will help keep people

together. the government will move forward. we are going to have to ride through a lot of these things. >> it is possible there was just a bill signed and now we have to keep to the fire so that it gets implemented. with a tendency to say this is hopeless is exaggerated because americans are an impatient people and patients has a lot to do with creating things in progress but you have to differentiate between the progress and the patience of a small child that leaves everything scattered on the floor and walked away because

they are frustrated. .. >> >> you have then watching of

long time. in response to this about patients i can be patient as long as they see that things are headed in a positive direction but they seem to be stuck or moving backwards and there is a much case of being patient but actual progress the way they work together in tandem for the next-generation dimension earlier given the trajectory that we are on. >> with a solid basis you also need to understand causally one step forward to steps back and then two steps forward and one back. you need to look at the net. that has promised allah of what we can do to enable

more progress. not with the policy. bob one of the things that is injected into afghanistan assad from the caliban and the other things is the constant fear we are about to leave. in b have perpetuated that fear with constant review. there is reason for optimism >> by the way i should mention those of fasteners -- ambassadors the first after 9/11 to help mom the great line of to also serve it is in pakistan within any

had expertise in pakistan to make sure that you were aware of those coauthors now to the great jim cunningham was so with that election in 2014 with the government i'd like your take on the question chiusi net progress so water redoing to bring afghan politics along quite. >> so with the development side and political side so to one put this into perspective that are much more advanced in afghanistan. said to have a bitterly contested election campaign

and again on the upside the matter what else happens millions of afghans would vote, under the threat of the television. so that is a source of optimism fed in in afghanistan for politically gauge meant and public participation. so the elections were contested fear hours and hours of painful discussion became to agreement and here i want to know two years prior to the election me and a journalist in the political elite - - delete to have been discussing this after the election nobody foresaw how this would turn out but everybody foresaw

the dangers of the election regionally or ethically so it is of position to come together after the election. you have to gentleman each of his new and forced into a lead arrangement and to bring political opponents together they shouldn't come as any surprise for the government to manage when such ago as rapidly and as smoothly as they would wish but they have over time step-by-step and come to

gather to check off what they needed to do with the international community to deal with the internal requirements if they have come up with a plan for the next couple of years, is presented at a meeting in brussels to set out a plan for the government with the aspirations to move forward when at the nato warsaw summit with international community continuing support for the military. there is an international community going forward to maintain development assistance over the next four years so i can bear in

place to show there will be a long-term international engagement that they deduced not just protect our interests but our partner so that is pretty unprecedented to have that degree of almost anything. >> that is about changing the calculation of the neighbors in the region about what they will do in the longer-term in afghanistan and it is absolutely essential and we spoke about the afghan themselves. not only about the

commitment but also encourages the adversaries. that has always been with some frustration in afghanistan we were reviewing every six months what our posture would be. and that is critical not just continued stalemate but the united states with our partners and the european union and nato to provide the afghans the time and space that they need. i think they can do that. but they will be successful because this depends on the afghans themselves and it is

their responsibility their politics and they are slowly doing so and will continue. but they cannot pdf with the continued apprehension and leading to their own devices. i cannot guarantee success but i can if we don't stay. >> so all of the other things of afghan politics with the parliamentary elections where the constitution may be reconsidered this position could be turned into a prime minister type of position. people wonder if the two terms on the elected

president may be relaxed but people wonder if that is a permanent retirement you can comment on that but and it seems to be behind schedule. and they keep and finding their way to the eventual consensus that is the best we can '04 or what we need to with force. >> keitel think that is a fatal flaw. but to be a little humble to impose a framework. but as the deadlines have to be met the way we're used to

running our society does not always work so well. the afghans have never bend through anything like this but to maintain that political consensus and it was probably unrealistic plover the space of two years that has certain constitutional requirements. they cannot amend the constitution it is not to amend the constitution but to create the position of a prime minister. but putting that off for one

year does not seem to be stable as there is consensus with of body of politics. so far that is the case the national unity government is a difficult proposition to remain convinced of a better alternative to have a lot of help from friends to do that they are no there now on a path and to move down that path that is part of their own doing. >> as a construct of

afghanistan and constructed by president obama the first person to hold that position we don't know if the next president will keep that position but with that dual reality with that job description and title. as those physicians and often known but also brews from brookings and also carl and appear he wrote a book with another think tank and washington. and the ambassador who did so in kabul as well. so now many people said as

long as pakistan seeming to want to keep the conflict growing not only cooperates with us and others but as long as there is a state-sponsored fed is a strong word but i will let you respond. another country that seemed ambivalent with the insurgency will live on and there will not be a prospect of conflict. but that is just the provocation to put that on the floor for you to address . how to rethink of afghanistan's role going forward quick. >> in the discussions that led to this paper i think the afghan aspect was the most difficult. the only parts of the paper in fact, that they could not

come to make complete consensus that there were some differences. so what is 80 or 90% anybody that manifested what you referred with cautious optimism but with pakistan there was a general feeling with many that we failed. we failed to move them in the most fundamental aspect of policies and a number of people who do have substantial experience that were special representatives with general pretorius have a lot to do when he was at

central command as well as when he was in kabul. >> cia director as well. >> and crocker was ambassador to afghanistan. so there is a lot of experience with the general feeling we have failed. i failed when i was special envoy for the region in 2001 and 2002 to recognize while pakistan had abandoned if the support for the government it hadn't sabean did the support for the television. is to regroup and rearm and retrain and refund in began

to project power and influence. i failed in 2013 and 2414 -- 2014 to persuade them from continuing the activities of the talent and in support of the insurgency. but we are not alone. so to pay 18 visits to pakistan but then he gave up and he also failed. the paper does recommend more to this problem with the next of ministration with the greater conditionality specifically

to cooperation with those caliban sanctuaries. and also positive incentives for pakistan of their willing to move a misdirection. thoses sentence have changed over the years sitting pakistan saw the talent and as positive and afghanistan with the geopolitical competition. but now the motivation isn't so much as it deems but of fear. so to fear they have enough enemies domestically among those many insurgent groups

jihadists and the pakistan restate that incentive based on the geopolitical advantage based on the fear of consequences. nevertheless to try to defect this calculation in the government of pakistan. , there was a good deal of discussion of reconciliation and negotiation with the agreement of the objective to be pursued but not a prerequisite for american policy and should not count on it with the of prospects of the negotiated settlement . it was unlikely to occur

without the of settlement that hasn't occurred over the last 15 years and without some rebalancing on the battlefield and therefore we needed to concentrate on on those things to produce those circumstances where peace might become possible. >> >> and they are preparing to speak in with our final co-author in addition to the idea there should not be annual reviews but the long-term commitment to not be the delineated in 20/20 so in terms of the number of

u.s. troops president obama said roughly it'll be 8400 at the end of his presidency i think now is about 9,000 but there is some room for some of variation but that is roughly the ballpark that he will handoff to mr. donald trump or secretary clinton. but it is a 90% reduction as general praise is commanded his troops though on paper it suggest that without wanting to give a number to provide in washington there is a case to have the range of numbers and as has

underscored those for what the troops can do is not as much as the numbers. and with financial spending that we devote roughly $1 billion per year to economic and humanitarian aid to the afghan security force. largely added these contingency operations but technically it is enough to make afghanistan the number one recipient. with dissent often described that way the afghanistan funding is us dramatic reduction the west from the troops. but then we observe there is some progress with the

corruption mendes to afghanistan. and a think they're making some serious efforts. and those of our corrupt or any sexual fetish huge long-distance to go. so no i will ask my panelist to comment for. >> let me offer a couple of different comments first of all there is always the fact even during the reviews from central command betted has always been true what we are seeking to do is help the afghans developer would the capability to a good enough fashion. that is the core of our

effort and it has always been you could not just do this with operations with the desires for to circumscribe we here doing as a counterterrorism campaign but the fact is it has always spend more than that and required more than that with that paradox with thought islamic state whiff of the comprehensive approach and to participate in afghanistan it still will require stock comprehensive approach and those strategies that our sustainable because of the recognition of the efforts

that isn't just a few fights or if you decades. in the beginning of the effort in afghanistan many contended we couldn't sustain a strategy of the 15 years. and the fact is we have and part because we made it more sustainable in terms of cost and loss of life and for the budgetary commitment. but that needs to continue the efforts that we will persevere there so indeed with the enduring commitment and not be threatened by concerns about that. >> one interesting comment of the of peace and decisions -- initiatives give it your best shah you

cannot go after the leadership. but if you cannot do that regularly it is pretty tough to tell your adversaries to come to the negotiating table very recently the signing of the agreement between the group banned in the afghan government but that is by year's but the nephew and the other would individual from kabul shortly before that changed the was very interesting to watch their - - ever since then. with the results in the field than that particular regard. and retrospect to pakistan

we had close cooperation. this is a paradox as well in with the year 2009 we had a very close relationship with the general we were helping pakistan in a significant way to launch the counter insurgency efforts and when into south resisting and -- was here is the and and there was hope that that time that the ambassador would produce that area in which pdf all kinda and others along with outside

now with sec campaign and very unfortunately the developments with that level of cooperation. with those revelations from which he leaks -- wikileaks about the pakistan you leadership and the ncaa who shah up and killed the pakistan you down the street . and a just want to note this level of cooperation is considerable with the liaison elements with various opportunities to be realized and very sad to see

that because of the prospect but they are fighting the pakistan need taliban not the how connie network not just the reduced space of operation but but to note that reality that was laid out. . .

that drives al qaeda and isis and all the other groups aligned with that. that's the conflict we saw that began on 9/11 when i was ambassador to the u.n. so, that war, that conflict is going to go on for a long time. it is generational.

not a military conflict. we cannot win that conflict through military means. needs to be one through a combination of military means, diplomatic means, idea ideological means, cultural needs. all those knee to be woven together to stem and defeat the ideology. afghanistan is just one expression of that conflict. and that's a conflict that now extends from asia through into africa. we need to type a way to make that clear to our own people and to republics around the world and find a way to generate the kind of international cooperation, the multilateral, multifaceted strategy that general petraeus mentioned a little while ago. to come to terms with understanding and defeat the ideology. in the meantime, we have a time and place in afghanistan where we have invested considerable

amount of time and money and blood in dealing with that particular conflict and we have a way forward with a willing partner that can work and i hope that will be understood by the next administration. >> great. jim? >> well, ron has stressed the importance of rep pigs of one's message but i think we have repeat our message. i'll cede the floor. >> we have all talked about pakistan but are there three storm players near the top of the list of importance, iran, russia, and china, and i'm not going to ask you to talk about all three. i'm sure some will come up in discussion but say a word about any one thereof -- one of those three. >> the rein hoe was such an incredible diplomat is unlike many of his counterparts, present company excluded, he did not hold the mic forever and was

willing to surrender it and, salute you yet again, jim. >> thank you, dave. we maintained a dialogue with all of those countries, and particularly both in -- when i was doing the job in 2001 and '2 i had a close relationship with iran, with respect to afghanistan, nat was a high point missed opportunity that the bush administration didn't pick up on. in -- when i was back again in 2013-14, i initiated discussions with all of the neighbors including the one you new englanded and all of them helped in the crisis, the electoral crisis in 2014, and urging began any and abdullah and their campts to -- camps to come together and follower the government. any of the countried had

strongly intervene against that we would have had a much more difficult time. so, i think that china has been very cautious. it's talked a good game but hasn't really put much on the table in afghanistan. but it's on balance helpful rather than unhelpful. iran has played around with the taliban slightly but not nearly as much as our ally pakistan has, and it supported the regime in kabul from 2001 and continues to do so. russia has become sour. there view is we failed, you're going to fail, too, but anyway haven't actually done anything to help us fail. and again, on balance have been marginally helpful, although sour and particularly since crimea, more distant and

difficult. >> you may want to comment on when you were at central command, you worked on the northern distribution and the logistics through russia. >> i thought there were common interests with roush when it came to afghanistan. plenty of places where we have conflicting interest, to be sure. in fact i proposed a trip to russia as the central command commander and went back to afghanistan and wasn't able to do that. those were threefold. one was that they shared an interest with us in not seeing extremism expand through afghanistan and the central asia states and into russia. they had enough problems on their own weapon felt they had a very keen interest as well in fighting the flow of illegal narcotics. addiction was a big-for them already at that time, same interests for the central asian states and then fortunately that

generally we think we all had an interest in the central asian states prospering and doing reasonably well economically also, especially considering that for each of them their biggest trading party and the place to which hey had a default position was russia, given their status as soviet republics under the soviet union. for what it's worth that is what enabled to us open the northern distribution network. the final element we had to get -- to agree to do that and we had meetings with him that resulted in getting that approval. >> the audience we'll start with questions at time. second row, harlan and then the woman in red and then good the panel. that not harlan. he's right there. >> thank you very much. my name is -- i am correspondent

for television network from afghanistan. for all your statements. i was wonderful. the top -- hot topic in afghanistan is the afghan government. womans in afghanistan unhappy. they think that antiwoman. people want to know, people in afghanistan, that -- will be removed from the black list and also coming -- what dot you expect. thank you. >> harlan, please. >> i'm harlan, congratulations is. an exemplary group and done a great service. have a broader question which may lead people to seek early retirement. if you take a look at the state of the world today and in january 21st you have brexit, the colombian public jfk reject ed farc. you have an anti -- government

cub -- you take everything from west africa, libya, iraq, iran, afghanistan, yemen, et cetera, it's, all these multicrieses and then to throw in mr. putin and president xi and on top of tom aisle afraid the u.s. military may be heading to a hollow force if don't think we can spending enough to keep itty current lullle levels of readiness and modernization. how do we enable it to take sensible decisions because your recommendation for an enduring, sustainable presence is absolutely right, but giving all these competitive forces and factors how do you make the case not just for this but combine it to the larger priorities that will be facing the next president which are quite daunting. >> let's see what each person might want to say.

>> despite the premise of your question, the world is going to hell in a hand basket -- [inaudible] -- >> there are. you. the 1990s. they glorious period where we the world's only super power and it seemed to peaceful. there will more civil war busy more people being killed. 40 different civil wars going on throughout the first hall of the 1990s. you had rwanda, genocide, war in europe for their fir time since world war ii so let's pit the current situation in some perspective. the middle east is in chaos. well other, regions have been in chaos before. now to the specifics of your question. happily president obama has decided to leave to his successor the future of the american commitment in afghanistan and he's going to leave a reasonably robust force, and the reasonably substantial economic assistance budget which

will carry the new administration through a number of -- while they decide what to. do we hope they'll take our advice. it's not something they need to decide on in the first three weeks. unless something develops in afghanistan that forces early decision. so i think that obama had put the next administration in a position in which it can take its time in deciding how deeply and how entouringly to commit itself in afghanistan. >> thank you, jim. >> well, to the question about the agreement with hig, the peace agreement contains as integral part of it that the bruin with abide by the provisions of the afghanistan constitution and the political

engagement shouldn't be that difficult because there is a already peaceful faction of -- which has been in the government for quite some time. think that should prove relatively easy to work out. >> just to follow up on that, i think -- a pretty nasty person with an exceptionally nasty record. and whenever you get a peace agreement, as you had with the farc, and as you have had in certain african conflicts, you get this question of the tension between making peace and trying to have some kind of accountability for the past. the problem is if you have accountability you don't have peace. verier difficult to persuade people that should make a peace agreement so they can go to jail.

it just isn't a real attractive approach. and in the west we have not had a really focused conversation about this. we have a lot of discussion of transitional justice and a lot of discussion about the importance of negotiation, and we have in particular cases come to certain conclusions, but it's been very, very difficult for people to accept that at least short-term justice isn't going to be possible. if you want peace. but i think that is certainly the case in afghanistan, because once you open this door, then you say, well, does this mean if the taliban negotiated for peace, they would have to be willing to go to prison themselves? what about all the people who are in the government who have human rights questions in government. civil wars are inherently nasty

and messy. with all kinds of violations and if afghanistan has been in civil war for years, and i think the fact of the matter is, there is no way you can both bring people together to go forward and go backward for account settlement. and that is just a fact. we'll have to deal with. you can engage them in certain ways that prohibit the behavior in the future, but the desire for vengeance and desire for peace cannot coalesce -- coexist. let me take harlan's question which is characteristically provocative. first of all, to add what jim said about what the next president will inherit, i think the next president will also take over a policy of fighting

against the islamic state in which isis in iraq will either have been defeated or very clearly on the road to defeat. indeed as as i've written elsewhere the real challenge in iraq going forward is not the islamic city. it is politics. it's politics up in mosul and the province where i spent a year after the fight to baghdad as the commander of the 101st 101st airborne division, at the most complex terrain in iraq'ss and politics in baghdad where in the last week alone a faction challenging the prime minister that appears to be led by the former prime minister, has had a vote of no confidence and removed the minister of defense and then a vote of no confident that removed a highly re speaked kurdish political figure, previously the minister of foreign affairs. so, politic ises going to be the challenge there. at least the fight against the

islamic state will have moved forward a good bit further and mosul likely will have been liberated at that point in time, to take place presumely after they take care of dhawija. can i offer something -- also written be which is five lessons we should learn from the experience of the past ten to 15 years in the middle east. one of which is that america has to lead, and i think this who is it would be imperative to continue to move forward quickly. first is that ungoverned spaces in the middle east will be exploit bid islamic extremists, the same is true in africa. the second is that las vegas rules doesn't apply. what happens there doesn't stay there water rather it spews united states and fakeds 0 partners in europe, most specifically in case of sir which which has important a

tsunami of refugees refugees ine causing challenges, bigger than the euro crisis. third is in responding to this america does have to lead. we have the assets particularly if we can employ them as we are in iraq now. you can argue about how long it took to us get to the point that islamic state is seen as a loser and that really has mattered because the sooner they're seen as a looser is the soon are they're no longer effect testify recruiting ton the internet and social media. but that's the case now and the universe 0 the assets of our intelligence, surveillance, re con re consents is something only the united states can bring to -- talking about america's awesome military and how to keep it that we. the fourth, though -- by at the way, also want to it as a

coalition including islamic country. this an existential problem for them. the fourth is that the response has to be comprehensive. again, the paradox is that you cannot counter terrorist forces with just counterterrorist operations. at least not when the terrorists are an army as the islam county state really is in iraq. noting also tearist terrorist cells and will move to terrorism tactics when it's defeated in iraq and under greater pressure in syria as well. this has to be a comprehensive campaign. the goal should always be that we are enabling others to do that, as we have done actually in afghanistan, as we are now doing in iraq, having helped reconstitute their forces, so they're the ones fighting on the front lines and so that the

costs to us again are kept as modest as they can be because this has to be a sustainable campaign, lesson number five is, this is a struggle of a generation or more, and again, everything we do has to be done with nat in mind. again, that affects what we're doing in afghanistan and affects what we are doing wherever we are fighting the islamic state, al qaeda affiliates you name it. >> can i just underline one point? totally agreeing with everything trump has to say. the comprehensive approach needs to include much greater unity within ourselves in our political and military instruments, and we have achieved that in the past at times when you have, as general petraeus did with ryan crocker, or ryan with odarrin know -- odarrin know but it's very personality dependent. we have no place -- the only place the u.s. government where

the military and civilian lines of decisionmaking come together is the president of the united states and he or she in the future cannot make all these decisions and there's really serious need for rethinking how we produce the greater unity of policy and action that we constantly talk about. weed in the comprehensive approach with allies and we can lose a little more comprehensive approach within ourselves. >> another recent. the middle part and the on round after that. so, woman in black here. and then after her, gary mitchell, and then the panel. >> hi, everybody. i'm -- for afghan women mitchell question is about that women's right situation in afghanistan. as you see media coverage on afghanistan always increases the fear among afghans thatas bill we aban donned by the united states and also the level of aid

will decrease and the security situation deteriorate. and women's right is very relate teed security situation and to the level of aid and everything. also, once -- and my question is -- >> you have already been pretty clear, we can already respond as things are. you want toed a e add a question or leave it at that? that fine. and then to gary and take a third on this round. >> thank you very much. i'm gary him and i write the mitchell report and i want to venture into dangerous territory which is metaphor. and that is, as we were think about the composition of this panel there was one area of expertise that was not represented and that was oncology, and though we are met

today to talk about afghanistan, i think ambassador cunningham suggested that the enemy is as an ideology. and that ideology seems to me attacks in places of vulnerability as general petraeus says. those areas of vulnerability happen to be for the most part countries with names, although the enemy per se does not have an address. so, the question it seems to me, if this is about the importance of an enduring commitment, the importance of a communication that makes clear to people why that commitment should be enduring, et cetera, it seems to me there are two things that must be present and i'm not sure

whether we've touched on them. one is, some form of metrics. something that says to people, we told you this was to be enduring, and there are certain guide posts, certain metrics that we will determine, much as an oncologist would determine with a cancer, and we'll tell you when they have been met. second, so that if that is done, that heightens the level of domestic support that would be essential under any set of circumstances for america, for any president forks any congress, to do what this group of experts has said we need to do. >> let's take that third question and then go to the panel. >> i'm jade woo and i was a rule of law adviser in kabul and

kundus, and ambassador, dobbins, i failed, too. but i have a question, absolutely from a different angle. i'm focused on our afghan staff, the staff that we, the intermental community, hires. we think -- we'd like to think we hire the best of the best, the university trained, the multilingual, and we have also seen in recent years a number of these people have taken the u.s. special immigrant visa and have come here, bringing their intellectual and professional resources here. and we've also heard that a number of them are not gainfully employed and i have personal knowledge that some of them are not employed. so -- >> talk about here or over there? >> here in the u.s. because their degrees don't translate well here. my question is do we as america have some sort of strategy or do you know of some strategy where

we are tapping into these people, their rich network of resources, their inside knowledge, they're language, ties to afghanistan, to help us in our future relations with that country. >> thank you. jimishing want to start again or -- >> i'll have to catch a plane. >> we'll let you speak. the final word from general -- >> let me actually address what gary said but in a perhaps different way. there's lots of metrics. we could sort out which metrics might show the kind of progress or lack of progress that we are seek took achieve. don't think that is unundoable at all well put a lot of effort into having rigor in our metrics. we what we do have to do as well -- you started to go toward this -- i think is encountering the ideology, we have to do a lot better in that.

we have tried a variety of different initiatives over the years that central command, we had a -- influence in extremist influence, effort. you can have people that can be active in social media on the internet, trying to provide all term voices to those of extremism and doing until proper deelectricity and with islamic -- dialect and with islamic training now. you have the new state department accomplishtive, which i applaud, but you look at the resources provided it can't have that significant and in effect knowing how much this kind of thing costs and knowing what we achieved when we had the really substantial resources during the various surges. but what is hopeful now, think, is initiatives being pursued by the internet service providers social immediate aat plame -- media platforms and that is useful. to see whan it being known as

google ideas and now jigsaw so if you google search for, say, isis, or islamic extremism or you name it, those kinds of search terms what you get back is not just what you would have normally got '. you get back stuff that counters that kind of activity and that crimed of influence, basically alternative voices. if you ever look, for example, i'm told they said look at -- there's been a huge effort with this in other areas, including in suicide. suicide prevention. one of the efforts is that someone gets back not only, yep, that's the way you do it but, man, doesn't always work and really unpleasant if it doesn't and you're worse off than you were before this, kind of stuff. that is what is hugely helpful the fact that twitter is taking down accountants now thatter fairly sizeable evident to identify this kind of action different, and that is something i the can that it us hugely important.

we put a stake through the heart of most of al-baghdadis lieutenants, including adnani, a very significant operational coordinator and talented in that regard, will ultimately catch if will al-baghdadi you can't run a caliphate and army without at some point ending up on the x. but we may not put a stake through the heart of the ideology. ...

ambassador neumann over to you please. >> most of them are bad in a world that likes math tricks and as the weatherman says with a 50% chance of rain they say what kind of weatherman is that. >> must be careful that in the long-term. there is an interest in the biggest struggle with the afghanistan among the afghans. there are limits to what outsiders can force in their limits to how you do it without

poisoning the debate by allowing opponents of women's progress to categorize. one of the strongest bases of support from the congress software. we have taken huge risks with our troops we have gone way too far in the speed with which anyone working in the u.s. government. they are working in the embassy and the bases that are more at risk than their colleagues in

the afghan government so i would like to see you speed up one and three stripped the other. the biggest problem with having the knowledge of these people is that it doesn't allow us to go back to afghanistan where we need to tap into them here. there are occasional things to organize. they've got the green card ticket held so let's enable them in afghanistan and that takes legislative change. >> let's take one more round. the gentle man here in the front row with some geographic diversity in the room.

>> [inaudible] i came here in 2008 to go to school and they are not proportionate in the communities in afghanistan there's always a sense of dependency created. i could even call up the former presidency that's here forever. don't worry, they are not going to leave and the un says take as much money as you can. there is the sense instead of teaching them to catch a fish, we are going to provide them a fish every day all the time, so

what to do in that regard is a disconnect in what is perceived. >> i have two questions. what should have been done differently in the last government or what is being done with the new government or in terms of taking the most advantage we cannot ignore that or afford military teachers who are paid once every six or seven months. i was going to ask of dead genel

david petraeus and i will still ask the afghan military has been able to take over the combat operations and make improvemen improvements. at the same time the number has risen dramatically and often times the afghan armies are left behind in the field with no support. sometimes they are surrounded by telegram. we have had a part of graduates where they run out of ammo and couldn't fight anymore. why do you think this happens? to some extent it could be because the officials. this piece of alliance in the

discussion going on between the international community that started after. in the donor community to the afghan authorities. they become more reliant upon themselves and that is a theme of the government. the amount of assistance that is being provided was inevitably going to be declined and the part of the process is how to manage that decline so it's

actually becoming de- stabilizing in their own resources. the latter part is happening, but it's never been the case that there is some magic answer for generating revenue in afghanistan and that is something that has to be realized. there is no regime that is going to make afghanistan a country based on natural resources. that will come in time. one hopes that it will take a while. but finding that balance is a crucial part of the discussion that will take place later this week. i don't know if it is a good metric or that is a bad word, a good optic to look at what is different in the last government in this government in terms of how to get the best results out of the foreign assistance but the fact is that he knows and

understands economics finance and development which is a huge asset for afghanistan now if they can find a way to take that and make it operational. he's been focused on it for a long time and i've heard him speak about it before he was running for president about the need to make better use of the resources that are available and i have no doubt in my mind that he is quite focused on that and will do his best to make that happen. on the security forces as all problems in the field and that is one of the reasons why president obama has decided to maintain the military forces that we have most of which are devoted to the trade advisor

mission that's hoping to work the afghan security forces work out these problems of logistics and supply and tactics on the ground that they need to improve on to make their performance better and at the same time i want to emphasize what somebody else said for all their problems the afghan security forces continue to fight and continue to hold their ground and take a lot of casualties because they are fighting and they see they are getting greater capabilities and building their own air force and there've been setbacks. unfortunately, we have contributed to that by curtailing our own support during the time of transition to the combat operations but that is now being rectified and i very much hope that that will continue.

>> i don't think i share the view that they haven't been commensurate with the resources devoted to it. if you look at the metrics between 2002 and 2012 in afghanistan grew as fast as china. over the period, literacy in the country doubled twice as many afghans can read and write today as they coded in 2002 and a 7 million children that ar are l today stay in school, if well quadruple, so four times as many would be able to read or write five or six years from now as they could in 2002. the un development program has an index that the combination of health education and standard of living. afghanistan grew at the fastest rate of any country in the world

in that same decade on the human development index. one is the longevity is up 20 years. afghans are living 20 years longer than they were in 2002 largely as a result of the infant mortality. so in the middle of a civil war they are living longer. this is the largest increase in the human longevity that's ever been recorded since we started recording. so i would say these metrics are commensurate with the sources and i would hope that they would be more widely recognized. >> things are not as all wise and easy. i want to thank all of you for being here and thank the panel. [applause]

[inaudible conversations]

making appointments to the supreme court of the united states will be president donald

trump. with hillary clinton in the white house, the rest of the world will never forget why they've always looked up to the united states of america. >> by the end of march, 2017. she spoke at th the service pary annual conference in birmingham

over the weekend. >> 81 days ago i stood in front of downing street for the first time as prime minister and i made a promise to this country. i said the government i lead thi lead will be driven not by the interest of a privileged few but the ordinary working-class families. people who have a job but don't always have job security. people who own their own home but worry about paying the mortgage. people who can just about manage

worry about the cost of living and getting their kids into a good school. and this week we are going to show the country that we mean business. [applause] but first we are going to talk about global britain, because 100 days ago, that is what the country voted for. we are close friends, allies and trading partners with our european neighbors and in britain which we pass our own law and govern ourselves. [applause]

and which we look beyond our continent to the opportunities in the world which we win trade agreements with friends and partners and which britain is always the most passionate and most consistent and convincing advocate for free trade which we paid our full part implementing peace and prosperity across the world and which was our brilliant armed forces and intelligence services protect our national interests, our national security and security of our allies. [applause] so today we are going to be hearing from david and as they start to explain our plan the

country will see the conservative party is united in our determination to deliver that plan because even now, the politicians democratically elected politicians say that the referendum is that we need to have a second vote. others say they didn't like the result and they will challenge any intent to leave the european union through the call but come on. [applause] the result was clear it was legitimate. it was the biggest vote for change the country has ever known. it means exit and we are going to make a success over it. [applause]

of course we wouldn't have had a referendum at all had it not been for the conservative party or for david cameron. i want to take a moment to pay tribute to david. i served in his cabinet for five years and the cabinet for six more. i saw firsthand his commitment to public service, social justice and his deep love for our country. he led the rescue mission back to the british economy and made sure they paid no income tax at all and the people that love one another regardless of their sexuality to marry. he had a legacy of which he and the whole party could be proud and was mistaken in calling the referendum.

we know that there is no finer accolade than where david cameron put his trust in the british people. [applause] and trust the people we will, because britain is going to lead the european union. [applause] i know there is a lot of speculation about what that is going to mean about the nature of the relationship with his european future and the terms which the unions will trade with one another. i understand that. and we will give clarity as we did with the university funding wherever possible and as quickly as possible. but we will not be able to give a running commentary or a

blow-by-blow account because we all know that isn't how they work. with the negotiations that failed in the detail and with every media report it's going to make it harder to get the right deal for britain, so we have to stay patient. but when there are things to say as there are today, we will keep the public informed and up-to-date. so i want to talk you mor tell t the government's plan for come t in three important things. the timing, the prospects, and the government's vision for britain after brexit. first, everything we do will be consistent with the law and treaty obligations and we must give as much certainty as possible to employers and

investors. that means there can be no sudden or natural withdrawal. we must lead with britain and other member states as that means invoking article 50 of the treaty. there was a good reason why i said after the referendum that we should invoke the article at the end of this year. that decision means we have the time to defend upon the negotiating strategy and avoid setting up the clock ticking until the objectives are agreed and it also meant that we have given some certainty to the businesses and investors and consumer confidence has remained steady and has continued. employment is at a record high and the wages are on the up. there is still some uncertainty. but it couldn't fall as some predicted. the economy remains strong. so it was quite right to wait.

but it's also to not let things drag on too long. having voted to believe i know the public will expect to see off the horizon the point at which britain does lead the european union, so let me be clear there will be no unnecessary delays in invoking the article. we will when we are ready and we will be ready soon. we will invoke the article no later than at the end of march of next year. [applause] i want to tell you a little more about the process. it's not up to the house of commons or to the house of

lords. it's up to the government and the government alone. when it's legislated committee put them to need him to remain in the hands of people and the people gave their answer with clarity. so now it is up to the government not to question or backslide us to get on with the job. it can only be triggered after the parliament and not standing up for democracy they are trying to subvert. [applause] they are not trying to get brexit right. they are trying to kill it by deleting it.

there's the intelligence of the british people and that is why next week, i can tell you the attorney general himself was asked for the government and resist them. we want to brexit to work in the interest of the whole country. we will negotiate a -- [applause] we will negotiate as one united kingdom and lead the european

union as one united kingdom. i will never allow the divided nationalists to allow the union before the nations of our united kingdom. [applause] the final thing i want to say is that it's most important and that is we will soon put this whole parliament the great repeal bill which will move from the statute book once and for all the. it will mean that the 1952 act

in the legislation that gives a direct effect to all of the law in britain will no longer apply from the date upon which w we ld the european union and it affects will be clear our goal will be made not in brussels but westminster. [applause] the judges interpreting those laws will say it's not in luxembourg court in this country and of the authority of the law in britain will end. [applause] as we repeal, we will convert the body of the existing law

into the british law and when the great repeal bill is given the parliament will be free subject to international agreements and treaties in others to amend and improve any that it uses but by converting into the british law we will get the businesses and workers maximum certainty as we leave the european union. the same would apply as they did before and any changes would have to be subject to full scrutiny and proper parliamentary debate. and let me be absolutely clear the legal rights will continue to be guaranteed in the law as long as i am prime minister. [applause]

under this government we are going to see them in the road if and enhanced because the conservative party is the true workers party. the only pretty dedicated to making the country that works not just for the privileged few with every single one of them. [applause] i want to talk to you about the government's vision after the truly global britain and i want to start with our vision for the relationship that we will have e in the european union because in this respect, i believe there's a lot of thinking in the arguments about the future that need to be laid to rest.

for example, there is no such thing as a choice between soft and hard brexit. the line of argument for the continued membership of the conscious decision to object trade with europe is simply a false dichotomy and one that is often propagated by people who i'm afraid to say haven't accepted the referendum. the truth is too many people are leadinletting their future be dd by the way this worked in the past and that is understandable. we've been members for more than 40 years and we've just been through a negotiation which we remained members. what we are talking about now is different whether people like it or not the country voted to leave and that means we are going to.

we are going to be a fully independent sovereign country that is no longer part of a political union with international institutions that can override national parliaments and that means we are going once more to have the freedom to make our decisions on a whole host of different vendors from the way we label our food to the way that we continue to control immigration. so the process we are about to begin his in-depth negotiating all of our sovereignty away again. it's not going to be about those matters of which the country just voted to regain control and it's not there for the negotiation to establish that relationship anything like the one we had the last 40 years or more. it's not going to be a model that an agreement between an independent sovereign united kingdom and the european union. [applause]

i know some people ask about the trade-off in the operations and trade with europe and that's the wrong way to look at things. we voted to leave the european union and become a fully independent sovereign country. we will do wha with the indepent sovereign countries do. we control immigration and we will be free to pass our own law but we will seek the best deal possible as we negotiate a new agreement with the european union. i want data to reflect the kind of mature cooperative relationship to close an friends and allies enjoy and the cooperation of law enforcement, counterterrorism work and involve the free trade i wanted to give the british companies

the maximum freedom to trade with and operate in the single market as the european businesses do the same here but let me be clear we are not leaving the european union today to give up control of immigration again and we are not leaving only to return to that restriction injustice. [applause] and with international talks that will be a negotiation that will require the give and take to get a running commentary on the state of the talks that will be in our best interest of the country to combat. but make no mistake this is going to be a deal that works for britain. but it shouldn't just prompt us to think about the new relationship in the european union. it should make us think about our role and global britain, a

country with the self-confidence and freedom beyond the continent of europe and to the economic and diplomatic opportunities of the world because we know the referendum wasn't a vote to turn on ourselves and to cut ourselves off from the world. it was for britain to stand tall to believe in ourselves and to forge an ambitious and optimistic view in the world and there is already abundant evidence that we will be able to do just that. they've committed to the long-term investments in the country with the japanese purchaser both arms. countries including canada, china, mexico, south korea, singapore have already told us they would welcome talks on the

future free-trade agreements and we've already agreed to start the discussions with australia and new zealand. the truly global britain is possible and it is in sight and it should be no surprise what it is because we are the fifth-largest economy in the world. since 2010 2010, we have grown r than any economy and attract one fifth of all foreign investment in the eu. we are the biggest investor in the united states. we have the best intelligence services in the world and the projected power around the globe and the friendships, partnerships and alliances in every continent. we have the greatest power in the world exactly in the right time zone for global trade is the language of the world.

[applause] >> we don't need them as i said, to punch above our ways that we have got that substantial confidence in ourselves to go out in the world securing those trade deals, winning contracts and creating jobs and let's get behind the team of ministers working on the plan who know they are going to make a success of it and a reality of global britain so let's have a great week this season and gets the

plan right and sho showed our country that we mean business and let's keep working to make britain a country that works not for a privileged few, but for everyone in this great country. [applause]

good afternoon once again. it gives me great pleasure to introduce the secretary of state for exiting the european union, david davis. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, on the 23rd of june, the british people voted for change and this is going to be the biggest change for the generation we are going to lead the european union. [applause]

it's out of the european union into a brighter and better future. [applause] this must be a team effort. i don't know what it is about the great leaders but they are there when you really need them. [applause] i remember a ticket to the top she said it has to be twice as

good and she said this is not difficult. [applause] [laughter] back in 1979 her government had to come under some huge challenges and today just as then we are the turning point of the nation's story. people devoted the chart and new course for the country to transform britain. britain showed them it could be done. we proved them wrong then and with your help, britain will prove them wrong again. [applause]

the destination is clear for all the decisions that matter the most about how taxpayers money is spent and taken here in britain. once again the wall is made in britain and yes the borders controlled here it isn't just about the terms that we leave the european union or the future relationship with the european union. this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for britain to forage for itself a new place in the world and to make our own decisions about the sort of country we want to be. it is a force of social justice, a defender of freedom, the

tolerance of fairness and decency andecency as a and of te we celebrate the success of those who need our help. above all steadfast respect of democracy and the people' peoplt to decide their own destiny. for each come after all, democracy is what the referendum was all about. the task is now to bring together the 17.4 billion people voted to leave or remain. now i was one of the 17.4 million at some of you have taken a different view. many are now focused on making the success of brexit. but there are some on both sides of the argument that want to

keep fighting the battle of the campaign. i say to them the people have spoken and the decision is made. as a one nation government to make brexit work for everyone, for every part of our society come every part of the country and each of the four nations that make up the great united kingdom. now while we are building a consensus of hope, we should approach the negotiations with our european neighbors in a spirit of goodwill. we need to appreciate and respect what it means to them. it's off the invasion occupation, dictatorship. it's not surprising that the

governments elsewhere see the european union as a guarantor of the rule of law and freedom. we've always seen it differently and to be honest, that's been one of the problems. after all we were the greatest democracy for over a century before we joined. we joined a common market that we have never really been comfortable about what is the reality in the project. we are now leaving that project and this is not just to clear the air is to create a comfortable relationship with our neighbors that works better. we will act in our national interest. that does not mean that we want the european union to fight.

on the contrary, we want to succeed a weaker europe so we will not turn our back on europe. we never really and never have. our history shows when the democracies of europe are threatened by common challenges we stand ready to shoulder the burden. whether it is hoping to rebuild and to stand up against russia, helping to tackle the crisis in the mediterranean of course we want to play our part. nor does it mean pulling up the drawbridge. that is also not in our national interest. we always welcome those with the skill and drive and expertise to make it better still if we were to win the global marketplace we must win the global battle for

talent. and of course britain has always been one of the most tolerant places. it must and it will remain so. [applause] when it comes to the negotiations we will protect the rights of the european citizens so long as britain and europe is treated the same way, something i'm absolutely sure we will be able to agree. but on the other hand, to those that peddled towards people that made britain their home, we say to you you have no part in our society. [applause]

but the message from the referendum is we must control immigration. did you hear him last week telling us there is no need for the limit on the numbers of blacks have you ever heard of the party so out of touch? we will control our borders and we will bring the numbers down. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, i quite understand that some people are desperate to know exactly how we are going to proceed and think we should provide a running commentary on every twist and turn on the negotiations ahead. though i've never met anyone giving a business deal that thinks that it's a smart idea to give away so it will take exactly the same approach. i'm reminded of the story about

calvin coolidge who said so little he was known as silent cal. one night at a dinner guests try to bore him into a conversation and increasingly desperate she said i need a bed with my friends i could get you to say more than three words and he replied simply, you lose. [applause] now i hope you will forgive me if i'm a little [inaudible] on both sides we must resist the temptation to trade the headlines with the aftermath but these negotiations are too important for that. instead we should think

carefully about where our common interests lie. britain is one of the defenders of the freedom and security so it makes perfect sense to have the strongest possible after we leave the opinion. the better it is for both britain and europe. we are looking at all the options and we will be prepared for any outcome but it certainly won't be to anyone's benefit to see an interest if it is betrayed in either direction. so we want to maintain the freest possible trade between us without betraying the instruction that we've received of the british people to take that control of our own affairs. it is in our interest to ensure the process is orderly and smooth. some people have suggested we

ignore the rules. i say that is no not how britain behaves. what kind of message would that send to the rest of the world if we want to be treated with goodwill we must act with goodwill. [applause] so we will follow the process. as we prepare for the negotiations we also need to prepare for the impact to consult with the administration on the plans this very simple the moment we leave britain must be back in control and that means the european rule must apply. the ac act but placed the wall

that's why we are seeing today the government must repeal the act to ensure continuity they are taking a simple approach bubble be transposed into domestic law on the day we lea leave. there will be politicians here in britain to make the changes that reflect the outcome of the negotiation and the exit. this is what people voted for, power residing once again in the sovereign institutions of our country. [applause] that way we would provide the maximum possible for british workers and to those that say when we leave employment protection will be wrote it i ry firmly and unequivocally no they

won't. britain already goes beyond the law in some areas and we give this guarantee this conservative government will not roll back those rights in the workplace. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, in today's moving world, technology respects no boundaries. it's greater than ever but there are nations that are outward looking but will succeed and prosper and i believe when we have left the european union and fear in control of our own affairs that will be a better place to confront the challenges of the future. we are the fifth largest economy in the world and the english language spoken by 1.5 billion people with the international

standards. we are a superpower in research and digital, pharmaceuticals of excellence manufacturing and of course the global center for finance for the un security council, the commonwealth, the nation whose armed forces and nuclear deterrent made us a truly global player so i am confident about our future and place in the world. anyone who says the cards are stacked against us i would say think again. many times we have risen to the challenges and now it is our turn to show we have what it takes. we may be a small island, ladies and gentlemen, but we know we are a great nation. we can charge this course.

let's be confident and make britain greater still. [applause] the conference section continues on this most important issue. we will hear now from the leader of the conservative parliament and -- [inaudible] ladies and gentlemen, ashley fox. [applause]

>> this summer britain was shaken by an exit none of us expected that made us question the meaning of our existence. [inaudible] in other news, the british people voted to leave the eu. in this party we've always trusted the british people to take the right decision so whether we campaign to leave or remain, we now have our instructions and we will carry them out. britain will leave the european union. [applause]

last year at our confidence in manchesteconference inmanchestes podium that there would be good conservatives on both sides of the referendum campaign. there were. and i said after the referendum was over we would need to come together for the good of the country, and we did. the conservative party showed that we are united to deliver a britain that works for everyone while labor showed it as a disunited rabble. how many members of the cabinet doesn't change debate could take to change a lightbulb? no one knows because the lightbulb outlasted them all.

[applause] across the country there are different interpretations of what leaving will entail. some of us are concerned we will seek a soft brexit that acts like the referendum never happened. others as if to prove how tough we are but i believe we need a good brexit that meets the needs and recognizes the desire of so many to take back control of the country's borders. one thing is for sure. it means we will leave the european institutions that cover over our country so we will leave the commission, the court, the council and yes the european parliament.

[applause] so when we get a notice of our departure, the british will be handed the 40 fives. [applause] thank you for supporting my pending unemployment. [laughter] as long as britain remains a member, your conservative mep will fight the corner and we will get the best deals for our constituents and i will continue to fight for my constituency of the south west of england. [applause] they need to hear from us today,

and spain needs to listen. the conservatives wil conservatr abandon the compatriots of the rock. [applause] ..