experience in washington. >> i think it should be looking at first about getting above yourself. the last thing for those people disappointed, i'll speak to them, at the election results come in the last thing would be to figure had under the covers and say covers and say i can't believe this happened i'm not going to be part of it. we need you as watchdogs and we need you urging us to action and we need people to volunteer and stay involved in the system. one of my most heartening things that i thought maybe people would be like that. they haven't been like that at all. they are active, they want to talk about issues. they've been coming up in diners and meritorious more than ever before. they are not uninterested. that is what you have to do. >> real quaker couple things. be more interested in policy and politics. a lot of people are fantastic with campaigns. that's a job interview. we were interested in the job

done the job interview. that will help a tremendous amount. on a personal level, i see some of you concerned, afraid, whatever it may be. in my state and oklahoma, eight years ago when president obama was elected i had people saying he's going to shut down the industry. i'm afraid for my job, for my family. there were conservatives afraid the other direction. it's still america and we are going to work this out. i wouldn't panic about it. the final thing is if you are a person of faith, live your faith. that is what most deepest -- the deepest part of who we are. for individuals you can still be a great american and not be a person of faith. that is destabilizing force. >> elected these as well bottles.

the racial divide and reflects just how it fully is. senator clovis jarvis is recognized by a different school of journalism. for being the leading senator in taking bipartisan bills and getting them signed into law. two great examples of folks who make a difference. make a difference. we willing to be engaged. learn from people different from you. live your faith that make a difference in the world. you will find things that really matter to you and we have to have an engage passionate electorate where it's not going to work if this is a rough couple years as we try and find a new accommodation with a new president but it's still america. the lights are still on. the media, our election, our government center since it communities depend on you. thank you for investing the time

this evening. >> void, i not want to follow that. [applause] >> i want to kind of inquiry started that the systems may be frustrating at row. and i say this to people and a half for two decades of covert washington, especially congress. these individuals come to washington and i'm not because of that power, the clamor because it's not easy but because they want to get stuff done and because they believe in me a ds and the ideals that drove them to public service. just be optimistic about it. because it is real. you have seen it tonight. >> raise your voice. make a difference. that's why you came to gw. it's why you came here this evening. your voices are heard.

i wanted a status conversation. i'm so sorry away from the battle over but it's worth every second. part of this is the media issue. are you the same voices saying the same things and let people to get a chance to hear his individuals, there are relationships. you are not marching in lock step behind donald trump refuted by genlock said necessarily behind obama, though close. but it's important for people to realize that the men and women who work in these jobs are three-dimensional human beings and they bring more than a soundbite that we often see to those jobs and that i think is one of the dangers we saw in this campaign. the last campaign was ideology i didn't down and turn into simplistic soundbites in america rose up and said for the house down. now we bring the house down and will start again.

but there's a lot of work to do and it isn't easy and it isn't a straight line and i think that's the lesson i take from this. that does a man. it just takes a different shape. thank you very much. would you join me in thanking these wonderful panelists. i hope you enjoyed this. have a good evening. [applause]

>> yesterday senator ben sasse and ben cardin talked about prerelease for the 115th congress in the incoming administration. together they speak for an hour and a half.

[inaudible conversations] >> i'll ask you to kindly make your way to your seats. we will begin our next discussion between ambassador eric edelman and ben sasse with the title american exceptionalism and the retreat of the west. the very heavy topic to discuss. a great follow-up to subpoints race earlier in conversation with senator cardin. it's an honor to be joined by senator chan seven who represents the united states senate with an academic historian to his experience in the u.s. senate and a bit many of his colleagues i'm sure will benefit from. he will be moderating the

discussion by ambassador eric edelman and the board of -- more importantly career service from a foreign service officer in 2009 as a career minister after a number of senior positions including undersecretary of defense for policy and ambassador to finland and turkey. i thank you us for joining us today and let over to the conversation. please join me in welcoming him. [applause] >> thank you, chris. it's great to be here for my favorite united states senators and talking about one of my favorite subjects, american exceptionalism. senator sasse and i share a misspent youth having both been graduate students and phd's in american history from the same alma mater, yale.

for any struggling, aspiring graduate didn't be maybe a tad working towards your phd, where did they improve their is life after graduate school. both of us have backup plans anything. i got my degree if you years before senator schram seven when dinosaurs walked the earth and the academic job market was so badly that really have a publication called the silver lining which consisted of faculty obituaries run the country. i'm not making that a. it is true. we are going to talk a very important subject about american exceptionalism and retreat of the west. senator, i wonder if we could unpack the subject a little bit different people use the term american exceptionalism, they

tend to talk past one another in the sense that it has been used both as a descriptive term to analyze those things that make the united states different and separate it from other countries historical looks. and. but it's also sometimes used in this sense is america's mission abroad what exactly the nature if there is such a mission, what exactly the nature of that mission is. i wonder if you could tell us how you think about american exceptionalism and we could go from there. >> you bet. thanks for having me as well. the term has been used lots of different ways and the u.s. mission in the world in general post-1945 and maybe in particular in a more contested great post 1989 at the end of the cold war. it's been contemplated in contested and there's a lot of interesting and debatable things

we should talk about related to die. the u.s. is unique place in the world since world war ii. i think it's important historically to understand that the term american exceptionalism used to mean and frankly should mimic and partly because they provide a meta-level of agreement before we get to all the things we should rightly dispute. american exceptionalism is an historical claim about the american founding. it is really sad and i'm a very conservative guy but i'm not a particularly partisan god so i don't say this to open by taking a shot at president obama. it is particularly sad in the run-up to the 2012 election when president obama was interviewed one time and nasty belief in american exceptionalism? if you watch the videotape you can see the president's wheels turning in his head as he thinks about what to say. it felt like what he was thinking as of course i can't say i believe in american exceptionalism because that

sounds parochial in a way that is eric gagne 10 maybe ethnic or race-based or some thing. that you could also hear him heading toward an election day and i'm not supposed to say i don't believe in american exceptionalism either. he pauses and says of course i believe in american exceptionalism the way greeks believed in greek exceptionalism ingrates believe and pray exceptionalism. that is a way of saying i believe in patriotism and the blessings you've inherited a niche about their country. american exceptionalism is sent a mouse. american exceptionalism is to recognize about the fact the american founding is a truth claim about human dignity. margaret thatcher used to say every european country is a product of history and america's nomination a product of philosophy. the american founding is american founding is the claim that rights come to us from god via nature and government is a shared product to secure those

rights. government is the author or source of our life. government is an important secular soul that we built together but rights predate government and government is a claim about human dignity. when you look at human history there have been flirtations with this idea. the early modern period space these states have talked about human dignity as a the foundation for commonality and community. via much throughout history, people assumed the world has broken a dangerous place in the government to protect us and provide stability and whoever has the monopoly on violence when they find an older world we should be grateful for that and sit back and suffocate before the king and see what rights it grants us. the assumption has been government can been government came first, power came first and the powerful granted rights to the people. it's a truth claim that says that's not true. people are treated with dignity and we should secure those rights together as a people and

now we get to, i'll stop here, but we get to disputes about america's role to advance the claim for 7 billion people versus a particular responsibility as members of this 320 person nation that shares this as a truth claim in there for the basis of our own power internally. we should debate will be due to have been externally. >> before we get to the external mission which will be part of the discussion which is most of interest to the audience, i do want to still stick with a little bit of the theme of what separate the united states and experience from that of other nations. you've touched on i think the important point that the founding of the self understanding that the founders had that was quite different because they are very conscious of the fact that what they are undertaking is different from what has happened in the past and a tendency to in the future

world and the renaissance world demonstrated how frail and difficult the undertaking was. but there is another important element that emerges out of this that is not irrelevant to our immigration debate and also to the larger mission debate, which is what does it mean to be a citizen of the united states and in that i believe we are exceptional as well because most other countries in the world come to citizenship related to and birth and in our country it is rooted in adherence and a legion to a sad philosophical premise that if in those documents that enshrine this premises. i wonder if you would want to comment a little bit about that. how different is that from the experience of other countries and where does that put us in a world where it is no sectarian

differences are a huge part of the drivers of constitutes around the world? >> right question. first of all let's acknowledge two things. one that this inheritance is a pretty special thing. it's extraordinary that we have a shared sense of what america means that we should recognize what great peril we are in right now because we don't have a shared sense. polling data which show that our young people really don't know the history. we have intensive agricultural catechesis. we haven't taught the next generation for half a century. what this ati means to have a cretul nation. we believe certain things in common and the founders said doucet recognized its a really hard thing to do to build republican, republican government is historically rare and bizarre. the founders didn't know if they thought this would really work.

there is a lot of debate and for good reason could the revolutionary war doesn't end in 1776 but by the early 1780s when it looks like we are going to win the revolution recuperates or at least distracted enough that they wander away and their haitian mercenary fighters lose the will. we went to revolution by the 1780s and experiment with articles of confederation undergrad at this moment in philadelphia in 1787-1788 fathers passed declaration of independence, still working through ideas. american kids should have to wrestle with the questions. they should know what it meant that people in the past and as lincoln and others have said the idea of the constitution being a sober frame around the golden apple, which is the big truth claims about human dignity that are in the declaration. we aren't a nation rooted in blood. we aren't a nation based on ethnicity is a seriously

conservative guy i guess disappointed and angered and saddened all the time to hear current media mouse is of a spectrum that somehow breaks down by race, class and gender over the place. you wake up and see a taker in the news almost every morning. demography is destiny for america and its elections will determine a people skin pigment and what subset they're growing the most rapidly. if that's true, whichever way it goes based on any pigment, whichever way it goes, america died. america was an ati that was about something much bigger than what tribe you come from. the greatest things in life are the textured relationships you have with your family and friends in the dignity important of your local work as you try to start out of the life of gratitude, try to serve your neighbors and build a better mousetrap and philanthropy and wrestled for important questions

about vitality and have been and how in the nature of god, the really important things in life are local relational things based on ideas and persuasion in government isn't the center of any of that. government is a means to an end. our government is a smaller issue than the american idea that is that setting things in truth claims that we believe about human dignity that unite us. right now we have been having a conversation perfect years. i'll post here, but you can bet to president reagan before he votes republican president reagan, ronald reagan the democratic labor union organizer went to work for ge and travel the rest attacked a factory workers about what america meant. this is not a republican kramer democratic claim. this is in any republic euro is only one generation away from extinction of freedom.

the only freedom than the american understanding goes on is that the next generation comes to own it and we are not doing that right now. 41% of americans under age 35 tell pollsters now that they think the first amendment is dangerous. you might say things with your freedom of speech that are somebody else's feelings. that's the whole point of america that we can say things that are at each other's family and because they believe so much in the dignity of the person that we want to persuade them or be persuaded by them and have a community that's free from violence. we can wrestled together as people with questions more important than power. power is a means to that end and of conservatives we will even pre-political things and that is not the be-all, end-all of life. it is one dimension of life but not the only one. just underscore that term. beneath even pre-political things is an essential element

to be made fully participatory american. i have on my twitter profile than in the husk or added another step to go political addicts. what i mean by that is that dwight eisenhower aligned that every american adult should understand themselves as a part-time politician. people here that they've been a politician is the be-all and end-all of their identity are not worthy of this job and the role of service to the american people because politics aren't the center of life and yet american adults in farms in on ranches in nebraska today that are fully loving their neighbor is driven in maintaining and passing it on to kids in rented can't be disengaged today because all of the share this project. >> am grateful to hear you say that if someone in a mixed political marriage of health make it through every day. >> thank you. i do want to come back to you now adverted twice in your

remarks to polling data about young americans and the weakness of their grasp of the fundamentals not just of american exceptionalism that the founding and our political institutions and system of governance. i want to come back to that again. before we get there, what works figure of history at her political philosophy have you found most illuminating and enlightening that have been most import to you and your understanding of american exceptionalism. >> i mention the federalist papers so let's repeat that everyone ought to be banned and wrestled with federalist 10. the federalist argument ought to become a part of things we wrestled it as parents all the time is for teaching their kids. but i'll go to democracy in america and toqueville because i think that if you've ever had an assignment at class and it john felt daunting to get the 1500

pages i met in the professor ambassador joe. both historians together. before we came out here we were not remembered that. there's six of by lesson of history at history phd's which meant one of us was actually employable. it's sort of reminded me when i was in grad school at one point, the second year the chronicle of higher education came out with a special issue and it had a picture that was august pvc pipe and curtains in this thing called the pittsburgh restaurants in history interview for jobs and literally the headline on the chronicle of higher education was in the pit at the american historical association would be historians big for jobs they don't really want. my wife cut the and hung it in our kitchen and said get a backup plan fast. if you've ever had a history professor for political scientist, somebody assigned democracy in america and look at it as a daunting 1500 page book, it do wrong way to think about the book. shred it.

but the binding off and binding off and leave it at random five to seven page jones all over your house because that's the way it was written. it was written as a bunch of travel reports as toqueville tried to ask them what was happening in america in the late 1830s and early 1840s back to europeans who could make sense of this experiment. the experiment in republican government, it's edmonton self-governance. what made it the case that she had a canal revolution that showed a proto- railroad revolution that was the putting out sort of production revolution that was something that is going to approximate a moving assembly line. you have this massive economic innovation happening in the 1830s and 40s and europeans did know why. they felt these people were founded on an idea that they would have pluralism and fight about religious issues and believe the screeching religious banks and have cultural diversity and pluralism and all

of a sudden it economically safe. had we make make sense of that? their first defense was victor going to to understand american economic ingenuity, they must have better central planners thinly veiled to look at a washington d.c. and figure out for a central planners reside. they get to the city and say this is kind of a swamp and the people aren't that interesting or creative. not a lot has changed. they said this is in the center of america. the center of america is entering the compulsory power center that is washington in their 25 states at that time and toqueville travels to send aid at the 25 and he writes back and essentially says i found the meaning of america. i found the center of america. it's the rotary club. it's actually where people come together. they are not isolated individualist but they don't believe government power should organize everything. a believing community.

they believe in frustration and debate and products and services and persuade, to buy that. they believe in community with the traffic line five years ago where it was said i don't want to beat up on the second democrat but it was barney frank publishes not mention it who said government is just another word for those things we choose to do together. no it's not. community is another word for things we choose to do together. government is another word for compulsion. compulsion is necessary the world is necessary the world but we should move cautiously before we take away someone's freedom by using the power of government and compulsion. democracy in america is a great snapshot of all the platoons squared thick rich life is lived in america. >> i think that now pretty well documented decline of mediating institutions as toqueville identifies as the engine of white you are describing along

with some of the other phenomenon that you've mentioned earlier. when taken together, really are troublesome in terms of the future of what we call the exceptional america that the founders created. let's now turn to that question at mission. there's always been a tension i think in american thinking about this. on one hand the founders were not only to work the frailty of democratic institutions and for that reason came up with the republican remedy is the federalist papers call it for the frailties of democracy, that they were also very mindful of the fact that they are inhabiting the world of non-democracies in that it would be very difficult in the long run for the united states to prosper and survive in a world that remained nondemocratic world. the tension in that was how do

you, particularly as they maul not that strong country, you know, how do you beat a world revolution of democracy? you don't. on the other hand if adams said in his fourth of july speech era well-wishers to all who want democracy in the tension between how much we should intervene to help other democratic forces in the world has really been there since the beginning and is very much the animating force for what we do during world war ii, world war i and world war ii and the unique role he played since 1945 identified earlier. so when you go to nebraska, when you speak to constituents and they ask you about america's place in the world and our mission if we have one, how do you describe it? how do you talk to them about it? what do you find when you go

there, when you talk to constituents and what ought those of us who believe in an exceptional america and an america that is engaged in the game in the world, what work do we have to do in the wake of this last electoral cycle. >> great question. i certainly do when i engage in the send engage in the send to nebraska and then wrestled with these questions with them, pardon me, let's start by rich at silly false choices. said the idea that there is a choice between isolationism and sensitive mushy international is an instantly because they're both horrible ideas. if you look at some of the polling data right now, one of the tragic things that is happening is we are deciding that they continue him would have across right races left on domestic policy issues. one simple way to think about right over left has been how

much governmental -- federal governmental intervention do you want in the economy? you can have a debate about the minimum wage. this is small to medium-sized government. limited government is an idea that we don't believe the government comes first and we don't believe in totalitarianism. so small versus bdm is an important debate about economic engagement by the federal government. foreign policy shouldn't have to be immediately tailorable analyzable without. what we see an increase we see increasingly is right versus left on domestic politics are seeming to embrace silly views of foreign policy and both sides that don't make a lot of sense. outside of little bit of polling data from pew last week, two weeks ago. when asked on the eve of the election, trump supporters versus clint supporters coming to mostly identify with the statement that our country should solve their own problems for the u.s. should help us other countries solve their

problems? first of all that kind of a silly statement. but if you're just going to take it at face value, 56% of clinton supporters said the u.s. should help. help how and are there any limits on how we would help because they're certainly limits on our capacity and means. on the other side, 25% of trans supporters say the u.s. should help in the world and the assumption behind the question seems to be as a choice if you hope in the world that means you are rejecting tackling our own problems at home. one way to map this is to get more sophisticated debate would be idealism versus realism in foreign policy. also therapy should recognize that the rating system the long-term, recognizing the world is becoming a flatter and flatter his base are going to be the realism done right is still going to affirm lots of long-term value oppositions about the rule of law,

stability, how would you make a just two allies know they should trust you and your animation. that you're going to keep your word. conversely, idealism done right is always going to be bounded by a sense of the world is broken and there are going to be a whole bunch of things you and your ability to anticipate and there'll be unintended consequences from all action. i would want to start and i try to listen to an wrestled with these questions with nebraska. let's recognize that there is no withdraw from the world that could possibly be cost free for us. the distinctidistincti on that we all learned on 9/11, 2001 that al qaeda and the taliban were different entities and that we the american people haven't thought about if thought about before with a post-1989 what looked like the nationstate at yours or not the only actors that have global reach. the taliban was the government extensively of afghanistan and yet they didn't have a monopoly

on violence in their territory. al qaeda does death cult was able to kill 3000 americans, two massive harm on our economy and transform a whole bunch of aspects of the way americans thought about the world over the coming decade. and yet they were pretty small organization only enabled by the fact that there were documents of ungoverned space in afghanistan. guess what. if you look at a globe of the world today if you're nerdy. we are. kids are 15, 13 and five. everyday a new case countries mentioned with regard to the kitchen and we talk about what those economic production looks like. it's about to be her children. about a third of all countries on the glove that we treat as if their countries, the third of are really countries. two thirds of the places on the globe are countries as we think of them in a post-westphalian 1648 kind of way.

a third of the places around the world are kind of a jump ball. if more and more ungoverned spaces emerge and expand, you have more consequences at home for us in terms of loss of life, battle with jihadist here come the economic implications because the world is flat to quote tom friedman and we need a foreign policy that's engaged. we did a foreign policy that starts at the question of the long-term interest of the 320 million people the american politicians are called to serve and that involves a respect for human rights in the rule of law. it's a more complicated question. >> i want to touch on one last thing and i know you've got to get back up to the hill to preside so i hope we can have time for one or two questions before we lose you. part of the problem is that we

are different appears to be being undermined by the fact that many of the same forces that seem to be coursing through the body politic in the united states this year have been coursing through the body politic in other countries. and just as a proposition , you know, are from radio colleague jeremy surry wrote a book about what happened in 1968 which may be the previous point in history where similar kind of forces were moving across the globe, affecting the way countries thought about their international role. i have in mind for the rise of populist movements in eastern europe, central europe, and of course the trump phenomenon here. some of that suggests that to me anyway our political system may be in a deeper crisis and the

political system that we associate with the western democracy may be in deeper crisis than we realize. part of it is what you've talked about in terms of the polling data. it's also very disturbing polling data that younger folks, we don't see the importance of free speech, but i think it was that 36% said they didn't care whether they bathed in a democracy or not. which i find it enormously troubling. before the actual election was held in november, there is a lot of focus on our party and the crisis that it was thin and a lot of discussion about how our party was going to implode or explode or breakup or coalition could hold together. a triumph nomination was proof of that allegedly. now in the wake of the election, we look around in the republican

party seems dominant. they will as a will as of january 20th control the white house, the senate which republicans held the house during the eight years of barack obama, the democratic party has seen an enormous decline not only in the number of numbers at the house, but of the senate. governor should come as state legislator, et cetera. people talking about area 50 years of republican dominance. the focus now is on the democratic party and its dysfunction and questions about whether in the absence of the impact of the clintons, whether the party will lurch to the left, something along the lines of the labour party in britain under jeremy corbin. it seems to me that the parties remain in crisis. they are both in crisis throughout 2016. the remaining crisis in our political system is going through a crisis that is just mad process of globalization

that may last for five, 10 years. it may take that long to unwind. how do we go through that crisis and ensure that we come out the other end is a vibrant democracy and that's about a dozen men to even retreat around the world as compared to the enormous advances that went through the 80s and 90s. >> lots of meat did not question. agree with horror about the young people that chose somewhere between a third and a half as to whether they live in democracy. that they admit to show our historical amnesia and the lack of civic education that we don't have another three hours or we can talk about the goofiness that the media coverage of castor is that because it is a way of showing how little shared vendors handing of where we are in history.

about a third, 32% of the lendale said nepal said they believe george w. bush had killed more people than stalin. the third of american millennial kids around 50 million people. so we have big problems in terms of what we are not teaching. i think that anybody who says they know what comes next in partisan politics and american life five, 10, 15 years in the future a smoking gun aimed because the reality about the undercurrent is automation is transforming the economy and the nature of work and arguably unprecedented way in human history. when hunter gatherers became farmers, that was pretty distraught. we don't have a lot of record of what at the site for the disruption of people. field analogue we have in the transformation of work for this moment is that.

that was industrialization and it was remarkably unsettling for people to go from almost everyone and hair and a job for generations to now migrate across the landscape and go to a city and have to get a totally different job at a big tool economy. as disruptive as that was, progressive and american politics of the democratic and republican party it was big into strip it, but once you've got a new job, you tended to still have that job until death or retirement. what we have now is everybody losing their jobs every three to five years for the rest of their existence. we've never had 40 and 45 and 50 and 55 euros and are mediated out of a job and have to get a new job. if you lose your job now and you never get employed again. it's going to be all of us send

their sons of human turmoil we can talk about charles murray and robert putnam, jd events is sv selling book on the shrinking about this mediating institutions. but we are not talking about the underpinning of that which is the transformation of the economy and the nature of work and stable lifelong jobs to unstable occasional part-time flex jobs for everybody has to become a lifelong learner. when people feel anxiety right now, they're trying to project the things they are worried about in the economy onto trading traders have been the big deal. four in five there's a broad consensus trade is a good deal. if we have more trade with asia, nebraska which we are known for quantum football, but were also the largest cattle state in the union. a nebraska is trade with asia whether you want to buy a japanese pickup or not you'll or not you'll end up with a cheaper at 150 and chevy silverado and

more market for export. trade is a win-win for nebraskans. trade is a win for all consumers nationally. trade is a net win for producers nationally but their geographic and subsector folks who suffer under trade and we don't have a trade mitigation policy. all of that is a big and important topic and it is a dollar topic that artificial artificial intelligence comment in machine learning and machine automation and transformation of the economy. moving from ohio or indiana to mexico and the jobs that might be saved or lost in a move like that but the much bigger long-term fact there is each of those factories have so many fewer workers. 7% of the u.s. were researching industrial jobs away or not wrestling with any of this question in either political party has an answer. people who reduce this to right versus left are shortsighted and sniffing sound in the end this

time is made up of a whole bunch of geniuses who look into their crystal ball and know how to play in 2030. we don't. >> you can all see now why senator sasse is one of my favorite u.s. senators. i hope we have a minute or two for one or two questions. please introduce yourself. in light of the senators time constraints available? at the end. 99. security has to provided that the senate whenever anyone asked of someone to a knot is called lunch. >> first of all, thank you for spending your time with us. i inhibited university alexander hamilton society. also as a millennial we do not believe the things you have been saying horrendously about our generation. that i would like to ask in this layered and complex world and you mentioned how you teach your

kids about different countries and that's amazing. how would you teach our generation how to handle this complex in a very different world specifically to students like us. >> yeah, thanks. great question. we do have a weird experiencexperienc e with our kids because i live in nebraska and commit every week and i bring whichever kid mamas most sick of for the week, they come with me. my 13-year-old is here with me today. i won't put a rabid islamist of bannister -- vanished last week. we need to make the slip as synonyms. school is a tool that sometimes advances education and sometimes distracts us from actual education. right now we are entering a world where people have to become lifelong learners.

it's going to have to become a much more sophisticated approach to the way you build now part into the way you acquire new information or frankly to the way we've reacquire and have long cycles of learning that are driven by whatever gadget inner pocket is buzzing will only switch from one social media for him to another four minutes ago but i've missed some thing that changed the world in those four minutes. rated out of love with inking and read text again and right now we are not developing those habits of mind and discipline that are necessary for people who are not going to finish learning at age 18. you have to learn a lot longer into the future and a secondary education is radically underperforming in america, we drift towards an assumption that universal great urging would somehow solve this problem. if greater length in his opera can well and can well -- or why we think a universal one size fits all model would work very well. there's something hopeful to say which is around policy conversations that are too

regularly stuck in 1965 the high-tech resolution is creating lots of opportunities for digitization that go beyond was schooling is doing in ways that should be supplemental, not displacing in the long term but are able to go faster than our policy discussion which are clunky and stuck a half a century ago. things as fake basic ethicon academy. we can go through lots of different places for online education is not going to be a substitute for farming things that need to happen and community in relation with real teachers and peers and people who care about the big and true and beautiful kinds of philosophical questions you're wrestling to root for identity and world view ,-com,-com ma but lots of things are more like accounting. there can be new skills acquired much of our rapidly online and hybrid learning environment that

a lot of tools available pretty excited we didn't even edition five years ago. >> as you can tell from that and there, senator sasse is way more savvy. go to youtube. you're in for a real treat. >> i picked up on colleague from the reagan at registration, bud mcfarlane. >> senators, thank you very much for not just today, but for everyday you serve here. it certainly a blessing for all of us. this isn't about today's foreign policy. however in the context of idealism, realism and real things we are facing in the years ahead in the middle east, whatever one may think about the nuclear agreement with iran last year as they left among the sunni arab states for an evelyn

capability and a power generation extensively but of course with the potential for weapons systems. if you believe the rhetoric coming from saudi arabia and to vision 2030 by the crown prince, if you believe how the president's rhetoric calling for the reform of islam seemingly having a grand mufti at alice are behind him, she went to grade can or should the united states encourage the deputy crown prince be helpful in enabling the industrialization of the move away from the oriole and to what extent can we imagine the possibility of

forging a collect security organization within the middle east that might really deter and in traditional ways avoid conflict between iran and neighbors. this is more than a three credit course that i'm grateful to your comment. >> thank you for a question and for your past service as well. let's start by saying that iran can never become a nuclear power. iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terror and we should declare unequivocally that they can never get access to nuclear weapons. so much of the current short term and midterm crisis in the middle east is strengthened by the fact people don't know what the u.s. is going to land inhabit down for five, eight plus years. you have a middle east where we can talk and lots of technical details about how they got to the agreement that we have.

i was supposed to this agreement. i think one of the things that's missed when they get straight to the fight about whether people were for or against the joint agreement is the fact that we stop talking about the broader sanctions regime against iran for all of the other things they do. we should recognize that when iran is selling the discord that they are selling all of the region, just to poke a data stamp on what's happened in the area, on the eve there were 21 million people in syria. only about 11 million people in the area within their homes. around 450,000 people have been killed. almost half of the 21 million people have been just placed from their homes and about half of that path has been displaced beyond their border. and then you think of the millions that are bunched up on the jordanian border.

i was at king of ella and how many school systems that were in jordan that had moore's. cave in the school systems. just try to imagine that wherever you are from. pick any town or suburb or urban neighborhood in america and imagine all the sudden the majority of the kids in that school were from brazil and just a complete transformation of local culture and politics and the risk of jordanian collapse. those pressures are all over the middle east and would we fight about in the u.s.? whether or not the 10 peasants are in refugee number should be 10,000 commission be zero or should be 60,000. we had a fight that was about symbolic things. there were important things as well. the u.s. government is not competent to do the vetting of people who may be infiltrated unless you're in refugee pipeline could be intended jihadist to be syrian refugees.

we also did there a whole bunch of women with feeding bomb with little babies in this population summer debated 10,000 versus 60,000 when none of it really had anything to do with whether or not we have a long-term vision for the region. .. where we're credible and where we're trustworthy and where we

choose our objectives in a cautious way, if we choose them, we mean them and our allies know they can rely on us. so many of the saudi and egyptian issues you mentioned are driven from a state of vacuum no one knows where the u.s. will land. we're out of time here so i won't comment on any likely policies of the incoming administration but we're obviously at a personnel is policy moment. most of us should be openful that the new president-elect will be populating his administration with people who are cautious, responsible adults who take words very seriously because our allies and our opponent take our words very seriously and iran can not become a nuclear power, and our allies in the region should know we would never allow iran to become a nuclear power. >> senator sasse, thank you for taking the time today.

[applause] >> good morning again. chris griffin again with the foreign policy initiative. if you're just joining us it is a pleasure to welcome senator ben cardin, who is the ranking member on the senate foreign relations committee for our next discussion on the role of congress and foreign policy in the trump administration. he will be moderated in conversation by ambassador kristen silver berg, managing director and general council at the institute of international finance. kristin is well-known and well-respected among all of us in washington, particularly for her service in a number of senior capacities during the bush administration including as united states ambassador to the european union, international secretary for and also in the white house and in baghdad. great to have a speaker and moderator who share for us is

organizational interest in promotion of human rights and democracy and strong american leadership in the world and ask you to join me in welcoming senator cardin and ambassador silver berg. [applause] >> senator, it is always an honor to hear from you. i have dozens of lots of topics i like to talk about and hop into it and hopefully he save ten minutes at the end for audience q&a. when we scheduled first panel on foreign policy in the administration, i was 100% confident we would talk about the clinton administration. so, how are you, you've spent a few weeks getting your mind how you will approach foreign policy in the trump administration. can you say a word about that. >> kristin, thank you for your public service. wonderful to be here, it is a little bit of a surprise, when we accepted this invitation we

would outline our comment how the clinton administration would carry on the obama administration. now we're talking about the incoming trump administration. it is going to be different. no question it is going to be different but the foreign policy institute, one of your goals, your goal to support democratic institutions and human rights, that's under attack today, that's under attack. and the principle opponent is russia and what they are doing. i think there is going to be a great deal of concentration on russia. russia is using the influence to affect the geographic call boundaries of democratic independent states as well as democratic institutions within these democratic states. and their target, quite frankly has been their neighborhood, the former republics of the

soviet union, also, the former communist bloc and then beyond, including the united states of america. so we all see what's happened in ukraine. we know that russia has inindividualed the territorial integrity of ukraine. they're continuing to disrupt the development of ukraine as an independent democratic state but we also see their activities well beyond ukraine. of course moldova and georgia, there is a physical presence of russia's aggression but recently we saw an attack here in the united states, a cyberattack, where they compromised our cyber information and then used it to try to discredit the american democratic election system. it was not, in my you view, or i think in the view of experts an effort to elect anyone specific as president but it was an

attempt to discredit democratic elections, that that is not the best way for countries to survive. when you look at the foreign policy institute and your objective to rope us support for democratic allies and human rights, it is under attack. we need to do something about that. whether we're attacked by a mig or attacked by a mouse we need to respond. currently the obama administration is looking at a response. i have encouraged them to take a pretty robust response. i am developing legislation that will develop, give us additional tools we can use against russia. it will abbey partisan effort. senator mccain, senator graham has talked about efforts in this regard. senator shaheen are actively engaged. many of us working how we respond to the russia aggression

but this aggression is not just limited to the united states. not just limited to their neighbors. we see what russia is doing in the middle east and syria. the impact it is having on supporting the assad regime. what they're doing there affect what is iran is doing. iran of course affects the entire region. so there are a lot of issues we can talk about. but first let me tie this to the trump administration. we talked a little bit as i walked up here. the trump administration has a significant problem in that donald trump has holdings globally, including in russia. and that, his statements about russia have me greatly concerned, have many members of congress greatly concerned because russia is not our ally or friend. they are a bully and they need to be treated that way. you have to stand up to a you will aboutly and you have to make sure that they understand that the leader of the free

world will be there with our democratic allies. first and foremost, mr. trump needs to insulate himself his business interests. and i introduced the clause resolution yesterday to make it clear the only way the incoming president can do this, and adhere to the constitution of the united states, which is the oath he will take on january the 20th, to make sure his business holdings are removed from his control. there are two-ways to do that. a blind trust or to divest, and i am hopeful that he will take those steps. now i am mindful of the statement he made just today, or last night, that he will set up a way that he will isolate himself from his business dealings. we'll take a look at that i think it is in response to many of us saying you can't do both but that is going to be very important to have the leader of the free world, the president of the united states, having credibility in dealing with our

democratic allies as we stand up to russia's aggression, whether it be in europe, or whether their support in the middle east or there are attacks here in the united states. >> thank you. your comments on american support for human rights and democracy overseas i think are very important and you of course have been leader on anti-corruption and human rights side but seems one of the challenges domestic support here at home. i was disappointed how little the issues played in the current elections. i'm wondering if you have thoughts about what we can do to your up the by partisan consensus that america needs to be at the forefront of those issues? >> first of all i'm not surprised that issues don't play out well on election day. election day will be about basically economic issues. we know that that is what controls most of the undecided voters. they're going to be concerned how the next president and the next congressman or senator,

what they're going to do to help their lives. they will be interested in jobs. they will be interested in higher education. they will be interested in health care. and america's global leadership will not be first and foremost on their minds but make no mistake about it, america's global leadership is critically important. we're the only country in the world that can advance good governance, human rights, anticorruption. if america doesn't lead there will be no efforts globally to make these priorities. recently i was at a national security council meeting, it was called, because of the concern of the growing corruption problems globally and the impact it has on america's national security. if you lack at a cancer affecting stability globally, it is corruption and america needs to be at the forefront to fight

corruption. the human rights agenda is all part of that. good governance, human rights, anti-corruption, empowering people. america needs to be in the forefront in those efforts. i am proud of the role that we have played in the congress of the united states and the nitsky in russia and europe as they have passed mcnits ski law to be global application so human rights violators anywhere in the world that are not -- protected by their local governments will be subject to sanctions here in the united states and globally using the banking system or get visas to visit america. that hertz greatly. corrupt officials do not want money in local currency. we want their money in dollars. if we block that we can make major advancements. >> we're waiting on key national security nomination.

i wouldn't ask you to get into any particular preferences but i wonder if you say a word how senate democrats will approach these nominations generally? i will go way out on a limb and there will be some controversy. >> there will be controversy. >> where do you think will be particular, where will senate democrats want to draw some lines? >> i'm looking forward to talk to senator corker today to see how his conversations went. first and foremost, i think i speak for all my colleagues, we want this transition to go smoothly. i think president obama has gone to extremes to make sure this is as smooth a transition that possibly can be done. we respect the votes, the election results, and we want to make sure that mr. trump comes into power as president of the united states with his team and with all of the tools he needs in order to be a successful president on behalf of our

nation. we're going to do everything we can to make that reality. but when he deviates constitutional requirements such as the clause in the constitution we'll speak out and we'll take action. when he nominate people that have records that are inconsistent with the values of our country, we're going to do everything in our power to highlight those concerns, to use the confirmation process in the united states senate to explore their backgrounds and their commitments and how they're going to respond to the portfolio under their, under their direction, and then ultimately make a decision, to either vote for confirmation or against confirmation. so we will do that. on those advisors that are not subject to senate confirmation, i have already spoken out on some of those appointments because we're not going to have other opportunities to do that. so we have a constitutional

responsibility. we're going to carry out that constitutional responsibility, but at the end of the day we want donald trump to be successful president, and we'll do everything we can to try to help make that a reality. >> from the nse appointments we have now, clear that this will be nsc focused on war on terror, campaign against isis, is there anything that may feed the administration's interest in some kind of accord with russia if that is sort of their focus, you can see that? i'm wondering what you think really their options are on kind of isis campaign and war on terror? >> isis, obviously it is a complicated issue but russia is a critical player here. russia, their support for as saud and what they're doing in syria, is making it much more difficult to have a unified

front against extremist organizations such as isis so what concerns me. i need to gnat what is mr. trump's strategic thought process what he is suggesting with russia. russia, as i said are not our ally, they're not our partner. they don't share our values. they're a bully. they want a larger, greater russia. they don't want to see nato expansions. one of the first signals this congress can do, approve montenegro's accession into nato. failure to do that will be interpreted by mr. putin a way he can block that happening in next administration that wants to set up good relations with russia. hard to figure out exactly where

we're heading in syria, where we're heading against isis until we know until we know how to confront russia. syrian civil war is going on six years. there is no end in sight. when aleppo falls, it probably will, it is not the end of the civil war, it is continuing. the only way to end the civil war is to bring all sides together, have a negotiated way forward without president assad. i think all of the major stakeholders, including russia understands that. so we have got to get that done. the humanitarian crisis created through russian support of the assad regime warrants the the human rights criminal investigations. this should be investigated at the hague. that needs to be done. if we get that moving forward we

really can concentrate on isis. the strategy against isis is pretty simple. take away their support. take away the support by geography, you take away their support by oil revenues, take away their support through extortion revenues. you marginalize them and ultimately we deal with them as a threat because they will have their terrorist networks but we have struck them and struck their support network and ultimately we can marginalize their importance. >> the syrian civil war among its many consequences has been a lot of political stress on europe. you eeuropean institutions struggling. the rise of populism. we have key elections coming up. do you have thoughts about what the u.s. should be doing to support europe at this point? >> well, you're right, we have critical elections coming up. the inward thinking is not just

in certain european capitals that we have seen in their elections. certainly we've seen that in great britain and the "brexit" vote. we saw it as part of the vote here in the united states. it is now a major issue in the french elections. so it is really becoming a very critical issue as to whether nations will look inward. you can look inward but you will still have refugees. refugees are in danger of their life. that's the reason they become refugees. it is not safe to be in syria today. that is why people are leaving syria and risking things like traveling over dangerous waters and dangerous borders and hostile communities. they do that because they have no choice, by the millions. and with the civil war continuing in syria, those numbers are going to continue. the impact on europe has been dramatic, dramatic. i understand that. the impact on the united states

has been minuscule, if at all. so, yes, as i said earlier, the night is the leader of the free world. we believe in human rights. we believe that people should be able to live and raise their family without fear of their children being kidnapped as soldiers or killed and that women have the right to go to school and be educated and advance. that is what we believe in. that is what we fight for. so, if we can look inward rather than globally, there will be no global leadership. the reef gee crisis will get worse. it will lead to instability in other countries. it will affect america's national security interests. so we need to be aggressive in i saying that we need to be part of the solution of the refugee issue. obviously the way to solve the

refugee issue is to solve unrest in countries. we talked a little bit syria. we know it is more than syria. it is going on in africa. there is a lot of places in the world where refugees are increases. we have to work as a international community to resolve those issues. we also have to recognize we have responsibility in regards to the refugee issues more than financial. we have to take a fair share here in the united states. >> you talked about the future of ttip. it is on life-support. >> no, taken off of life-support. >> flat-lined. there is also discussion about whether fta with the uk would make sense at some point. do you have the sense of what is our future with trade negotiations with europe? >> i really don't know how the trump administration is going to deal with trade policies. they also talked in addition to

saying ttip is over, they said that nafta might be over. there is a lot of agreements. you say tpp or ttip? >> i said ttip. >> i thought we were talking about it. tp. ttip, no, that is on life-support. that's possible. it is possible you can get a ttip aagreement. it hasn't been concluded yet. the trump administration could take credit for concluding it in a way beneficial to the united states. trade agreements we need fair trade agreements. yes, for many years the night was not aggressive enough on trade barriers. for intellectual property we needed to strengthen our industries. it was never treated fairly.

currency administration was not being dealt with where we were disadvantaged by many countries around the world. china being number one but there are many other countries. on dumping issues we haven't been aggressive as we need to be. areas labor and environment relate to the table to deal with labor issues and environmental issues. so there are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with. europe is probably a country where we could complete an agreement but there the battles are going to be on agriculture and areas where europe is very difficult to the u.s. producers, and i don't know whether a president trump will take a tough position and therefore not be able to complete an agreement or moderate some of his views on ttip. ttp, that is a real void. i think we need a real ttp agreement.

i'm not suggesting one that was negotiated is the best one. it could have been done better and should have been done better. we're dealing with communist countries. when you're dealing with communist countries you need strict enforcement on issues and we could always do better there. i hope we will not give up with vietnam and other countries trying to develop trade relations because if there is a void, china will fill that void. i think it is important that we are actively engaged in those areas but they will have to be agreements that have broader support here in the united states. otherwise it won't get done. so the trump administration will have to reach out and get broader support. they will have to bring in organized labor because we'll need support from organized labor on trade agreements in order to get those types of agreements done. >> i think your point on china is an important one. while we're getting our ducks in a row on tpp, the china-led agreement is moving ahead.

australia has decided to join. i really wonder at the end of the obama administration what's our assessment where we are in the rebalance or the pivot? obviously this is something there is bipartisan agreement we need to invest in asia but have you done that? >> first of all the obama administration has been very strong on maritime security issues. we have used our military very much so. we have had a physical presence. we have challenged china directly. china has pulled back. they have done things unacceptable, don't get me wrong, but they recognize that we were prepared to take more aggressive action. they did not want to see a military confrontation. i think we were able to make certain progress. we challenged of course their fly zones. we challenged a lot of what china has been trying to do with regards to their exclusive control areas that are unilateral decision-making, rather than negotiating with their regional partners.

so we made some progress but we've seen in the, the regime in china, xi regime they backtracked on a lot of good governance and human rights issues opening their society. that is not good for china, that is not good for the united states, it is not good for the region. what i hope to see moving forward the reform process in china started several decades ago, that made some progress, they will get back on the reform pattern to energize the entrepreneurial spirit more in china, allow people the opportunity to really express themselves and to be able to advance. they made too many decisions about young children too early in life. a lot things that have to be done in china i think the united states can do, but, we're not going to be able to tell them to do things and they're going to say, yes, we'll do it, because the united states wants us to do things. it has to be in their interests. you have to understand that.

the united states foreign policy needs to reflect that. that is what diplomacy is about. that is what soft power is about. one of the interesting points, as you mentioned donald trump's the list of people seeking to become part of his cabinet or wants to become part of his cabinet. there are a lot of military people there. i'm not against military people. we need military people. we need to understand, soft power, civilian control is very important to america's goals. we don't have a large budget for diplomacy. we need a larger budget for diplomacy. we don't have a large budget for development assistance. we could use a larger budget for development assistance, particularly as it relates to developing democratic institutions. if we did that i think we could help countries like china a way it would be in our national security interests, to allow china to grow as a stronger, country, as we want it to be.

and it would be safer for the global community. >> i want to open up to the audience for questions but before i do that, assessment where we are at the end. obama administration on alliances. in asia we have some tensions, i will put it that way with the philippines, although are lots of unusual reasons for that. where do you think we are broadly on the strength of our alliances around the world? >> well, i think that president obama deserves great credit for strengthening america's partnerships. he recognized that we couldn't do things alone. look, i disagreed with president obama on his strategies on ukraine and on syria as far as his original responses. i thought we should have been more aggressive. president obama did not want the united states to be alone on decision-making.

he went to europe. he went to -- went to the middle east and went to other areas and formed broader coalitions. one of the first things he did was form a broader coalition against iran and that paid off in that we were able to negotiate an agreement. i disagreed with the agreement, but i agreed we should have an agreement. that was good diplomacy, good working in forming alliances. we've seen that now in north korea. today there will be announcement made about u.n. resolution in north korea. that is good news. we've been able to isolate countries by working with other countries to coin a phrase, we are stronger together and president obama has done that. he's formed true, confidence in the allegiance in allies in all parts of the world. in own hemisphere, and i talked to many leaders in our own hemisphere, our policy to cuba was isolating the united states in our own hemisphere.

you can argue how you get cuba to change its way. cuba has to change its way but the prior policy was not working. and it was marginalizing the u.s. influence in our own hemisphere. the obama administration has dramatically improved america's eninfluence in our own hemisphere. so there are a lot of things that happened in asia. i've been to asia several times. i can tell you that that i was pleasantly surprised to see the close personal views in vietnam with the united states. a country we're at war at not too long ago. he has built those relationships. countries would prefer to work with the united states than they would with russia and china. they look at the united states as being a stronger, more reliable partner. and they want to deal with us. i was in the middle east meeting with a lot of our gulf state strategic partners.

to a leader this, they said we rather deal with the united states but if you're not there we have to look elsewhere. i think we have formed alliances under the obama administration that are critically important for america's national security interest. >> great. i want to go to the audience. i see at love hands -- a lot of hands. i ask everybody's question to be short an concise. right here on on the second row. >> senator you talked about montenegro and nato. what about perhaps sending invitation of ukraine and georgia into the alliance as well? >> ukraine and georgia are going through a process with nato. make no mistake about it, russia is doing in their power to make that difficult. there are activities in ukraine. their occupation of crimea,

activities in the eastern part of ukraine, made it more challenging for nato, to meet the nato requirements for accession. that is a strategy we need to counter. i would like to see ukraine in nato. i would like to see us develop a path where we get there. the same is true with georgia. i would like to see georgia in nato. russia again is occupying or encouraging occupation of territories in georgia. they recognize as long as they can continue that uncertainty, that because of the border uncertainty issues unlikely that georgia can make it to full participation in nato. we should counter that by showing a way they can get to full participation in nato. i very much want to go on a path we can get there. that will require u.s. leadership because we're more interested in that expansion than some of the european countries are.

you have to have consensus for nato expansion. so it will require america's leadership with our nato partners. >> let's go over here. right there. dark suit, white shirt, but -- [laughter] >> thank you. my question concerns alliances. you previously spoke about the importance of them but i want to wonder, given the rhetoric of president-elect trump and some people in his senior cabinet discussing racketeering idea when it comes to nato what does it portend to the baltic republics in particular? is there defense any less secure as we talk about reproachment with russia? is there any alternative guarranty they could pursue of independent foreign policy if they had to? thank you. >> that is a great question. a lot of things mr. trump said during the campaign and even

after the campaign have me greatly, greatly concerned. it goes well beyond foreign policies. it has me greatly concerned. i also been, welcomed when he has changed his views on some of these issues and i encourage him to do more of that after consultation with experts in the field. it is one thing to appeal to voters. it is another thing to govern. i don't condone comments made during a campaign. you should have a moral standard in a campaign. but i want him to govern properly. i hope he will take this advice, as it relates to russia, i hope he will understand russia's danger to the united states and to the region. the baltic countries, so many countries in the region justifiably concerned what could happen. some are nato allies. we have security arrangements. we have, as you know the security initiative unnato in the night, which i think was the

right way to go, to show physically that we're there and we increased that dramatically. i am suggesting that we have democratic initiative for democratic institutions similar to what we did for military institutions. so we provide real support to the democratic institutions. you're finding more and more ngos being threatened. more and more civil societies being challenged. we should provide support to make sure the institutions are strong particularly starting with our democratic allies, there is concern that some of our democratic allies, including nato allies may go below the threshold acceptable to us for a democratic country. >> you have a question. >> imrussell king. senator i have a question about cuba. you mentioned it briefly but

cuba had a close relationship with russia and china over the years. they have been very heavily militarized. lately mostly chinese weapons, but how would you approach the demille at thattization of cuba -- demilitarization. >> cuba, how close they are to us and history we have had with cuba, the way i approach cuba is very similar to what president obama is doing. we need more people to people contact. we need more business-to-business contact. yes, we need more military to military. we have to understand their military and understand it better. i think we need to reach out to try to break the isolation that existed between our two countries and i could give you chapter and verse on this on some business people i talk to what they have to go through with canadians in order to get the type of information they need from cuba, it is just ridiculous. but make no mistake about it, cuba's government is repressive.

it is repressive to the economic growth of their country. i am shocked at how backward they are on dealing with business issues in that country. i have had business people from my state who tried to do business in cuba, trying to do business in cuba and it is very tough! i had, if you go to cuba, you see how it is unfriendly towards commercial activities. the way they treat their citizens is terrible, repressive, oppositions not allowed. the press is controlled. there are some things that need to change for them to be, be able to grow the way they need to. then the military. what is their intentions for their military? we need to know. what is their capacity? what is their fear? who are they worried about. that needs to be changed. yes, i do worry about their military. i do worry about their human rights violations. i do worry about their

repressive economic system in a country so close to us. we need to have a strategy to change all three of those. you don't do it by policy that failed for decades. >> let's take two more. we have to keep the senator on schedule. over here on the front row. >> senator, one of the things you addressed a lot today is strengthening democracies abroad and strengthening our allies, specifically with the ones with our democracies and ones we entered into alliances but my question to you why do you feel it is so important to send more money overseas when most americans would argue we have massive shortcomings at home and we need taxpayer dollars to be spent on education, and health care reform and issues that affect our citizens? >> i thank you for that question. i would just argue we don't send massive sums overseas. we just don't do it. it is very small part of our budget.

our total soft power budget is about 1% of the federal budget. it is a small percentage of our national security budget. the largest part of our national security budget are our soldiers and our weapons, as it should be. there is, the generals will tell you that the monies that we spend on development assistance saves money on the military side, the department of defense side. it saves lives. when we can prevent a country that is strategically important to the united states from becoming a destablizing influence in that region where we potentially will have to use our soldiers, we are saving significant money. look at afghanistan and amount of money has been spent in afghanistan. look at iraq and amount of money we spent in iraq. and look today at syria, amount of money we're spending in syria. look at africa, see there are seeds in africa could end up as challenging to the united states

as what we've seen in the middle east. it is in our interest to resolve these issues. so this is not the united states alone. the sustainable development goals with the u.n. has been able to do, what our countries have been doing, we've been able to reduce poverty and increase health outcomes. look at ebola episode and u.s. involvement, u.s. taxpayer involvement, saved literally hundreds of thousands of lives. i think americans should be proud about that. not only our dna, the countries of our values, we respect life and we respect opportunity and america could make a difference and should make a difference and we should be proud about that our humanitarian and social conscience. the fact it makes us safer. it's, it is a win-win situation. and our development assistance budget, we spend a lot of money in few countries. we should be spending more money, particularly in developing democratic institutions.

in africa we spend such a small amount of money to build democratic institutions. we should be spending more. >> last one. this one is right here, red shirt, yeah. >> senator, i wanted to ask you, you talked a great deal about democratic institutions bidding them up. can you -- building them up. can you discuss -- [inaudible] >> turkey, our nato ally? turkey, from my point of view turkey is going through a difficult period and turkey's had a rough history. for many years i think they were not treated fairly by europe. i think mainly because they were a muslim majority country. so they have had their share of issues. turkey is very concerned about the kurdish extremists. to the detriment of themselves. they focus so much on that.

it causes a challenge in their commitments to governance and human rights, and it, prevents turkey from being a more significant player in dealing with the broader regional security issues. so, we look at turkey as our ally. we look at erdogan's policies as being not what we would like to see them on some of the alliance issues as well as some of the good governance human rights issues and we'll continue to work with them. we certainly want to continue our partnership with turkey. so we look at this as a country that is a large, independent country, that will do what they think is right in their national interests. we will try to work with them to get them back more in line what we think is important for a major democratic state. let me, let me sort of end on that point. one thing i want to mention

priorities in the next congress, a bill that would develop an anti-corruption index which is important to all countries. it is important to see how the united states and turkey will -- no country is perfect fighting corruption. some countries though,. saw in trafficking persons, we put a spotlight on acceptable practices in combating modern day slavery make significance progress reducing amount of trafficking. india is big issue in their country how they're dealing with trafficking. our work on that is particularly responsible in types of changes we're seeing in india.

i am hopeful we use the model, put spotlight on all countries and all of us can do better. i'm not picking on turkey, i really am not, i would not put them as being that -- they're not, they're within range that we can make some additional progress as we all can you but i think every country can benefit, america taking leadership and help our national security pointed out to me. corruption is so devastating to international community. that is one of the bills i work on in the next congress. i have republicans very much interested in this. i am hopeful that congress will do what we need to do in foreign policy as well as other areas. this was a conversation i had with several republicans before the election and since the election. as you may be aware, there has been serious concern, by republicans that barack obama has abused his power as

president. that he used his power stronger than it should have been used. the general view among democrats and republicans, presidents abuse power or do things that they shouldn't do through executive action because congress has not acted. on immigration, we should have acted. on climate change, we should have acted, congress. we didn't. and as a result, president obama felt compelled to use the power he had as president. fast forward to january 20th of next year, i think it is incumbent upon congress to act. we've seen many statements that donald trump made during the campaign are out of step what i think majority of congress believe is the right poll sieve our country. trump through may move in some of those areas. if congress does its responsibility and passes legislation we can influence what the trump administration will do.

to me that is very true on foreign policy. that's why you're going to see democrats and republicans, whether it is russia, whether it's iran, whether it's climate change, whether it is how we deal with tolerance for human rights violations or corruption, you will see members of congress come together and i hope be able to speak with the voice of our legislative branch of government. that is an optimist speaking on very cloudy day but i do have confidence in our country. thank you all very much. >> thank you. [applause] >> at the same event a panel looked at a range of national security and foreign policy issues the next administration will have to address in their first 100 days in office.

>> welcome back. my name again is chris griffin, executive director at the foreign policy initiative. ask you kindly make your way back to our seats so we can begin our next conversation for the day. once again, as a courtesy, ask that you if you have just arrived, have your cell phones, put them in silent mode for the courtesy of those around you and of course for our speakers. next panel discussion will be on opportunities and challenges for defense innovation and reform. this really will continue on some of the threads that came up in our first discussion between chairman thornberry and senator talent, which should be no surprise in principle. major topics they discussed with immediate challenges to defense readiness today and chairman thornberry as he described, eroding technological advantage enjoyed by united states forces going forward. we have an excellent group to discuss the topic today. they will be moderated by

dr. thomas menken, chairman and ceo of center for strategic and budgetary assessments. senior professor at johns hopkins university school of international advanced studies. in discussion will be benefits gerald, the center -- for new american security. he rebeck a heinrichs with the hudson institute, last on the panel rob rice leads a team at lockheed martin. ask you to join me, thanking them for joining us today. [applause] >> thanks, chris. and, i think the panel's topic or charge is a very apropos one, not just as was brought up by chairman thornberry, senator talent this morning. at least since world war ii the united states has sought to

maintain a qualitative advantage over prospective competitors and adversaries. that was, that was the focus of a lot of effort during the cold war. over the last quarter of a century, the u.s. has enjoyed unquestioned dominance, at least from a qualitative standpoint. in the 1990s, charles krauthamer famelously dubbed it the unipolar moment. over the last 15 years the focus of defense has been quite rightly counterinsurgency and counterterrorism. but now, you know, we face the reemergence of great power competition and increasing probability or possibility of great power conflict, whether because of russia's aggression in eastern europe, china's

assertiveness in maritime asia, and so i think it's quite appropriate as we close out the obama administration, look to the trump administration, we kind of take stock of where we are and where we need to, where we need to be. so certainly in recent years the obama defense department has placed emphasis on the so-called third offset strategy, the defense innovation initiative and as we approach the end of the obama administration i wanted to ask our panel, you know, how they would take stock of those efforts, from their, you know, from their standpoint. whether it's running science and technology program at a think tank, focusing on missile defense and other areas, or from, from defense industries. where do we stand with the third offset strategy and whatever it

will become in future months and years? >> so i, there is a lot to unpack in there. and i think the, sort of my bottom line up front i think leadership in the pentagon and also frankly on the hill, have created a window of opportunity for some fairly significant change. we're going to see i think at noon today more details of the ndaa for 2017. we've already seen some fairly significant structural changes. also under leadership of secretary carter and deputy secretary work we've seen a real focus on the need to improve our military technical advantage. that's great. it is unclear to me if it will actually move forward and what it will look like. while it is great we have all common understanding we need to improve, how we get there is not clear. the third offset strategy i think is important and helps us address one, very particular problem, which is our ability to continue to project power, conventional military power.

that is one thing. that is separate from in some ways innovation conversation. a lot of those actions have been very good. i think dox in current substantiation is great. we're hosting a event with them later this afternoon, not to compete with this. those are innovation outside of the bureaucracy, around the bureaucracy. we'll create a new office. what we haven't seen a fundamentally different approach how we generate technical military advantage. how we pair that military technology with new concepts of operation? i think that is what we need. i'm happy to unpack in more detail but i don't want to mow no no lies the conversation. >> great. rebecca. >> happy to be here. 2014 secretary of defense hagel introduced third offset strategy. he provided context what he was talking about, what the defense were and why we needed a new

third offset strategy. some of the things he talked about were that, sort of less sophisticated actors like al qaeda and hezbollah were beginning to challenge the united states in ways we haven't seen before. of course on higher end, near peer competitors, china and russia advancing in military modernization programs in ways that the united states hadn't seen in decades. he listed specific technologies that they were spending a lot of time and resources and energy in. they were in areas which they saw a vulnerability where the united states hadn't. so they were taking advantage of that vulnerability and exploiting it. and so they were developing new missile technologies. advanced aircraft, submarines. longer range and more accurate missiles. he mentioned missiles multiple times. undersecretary kendall i think

has been one of the most helpful administration officials laying out specifically where we're getting behind. i like specificity. in the age of trump we'll have more specificity and less vagueness which i'm excited about. that will do a lot to help us move forward so we know what we're talking about here and not talking about things in vague terms. but undersecretary kendall, again he mentioned in a memo he sent over to congress, that the united states was getting behind in missile technology. that he specifically mentioned china but then made clear he wasn't only talking about china but china and russia were challenging the united states in space. and that posed a unique problem because everything else we do in the pentagon depends what we do in space. so space is unprotected or does have vulnerabilities or we're getting behind or others challenging us in it particular domain. that portends very bad things

for the united states across the rest of the pentagon. and so i think that is going to be, if i had my way, i think we'll be focusing more on space, what we do in space, in national security space, surveillance in space. i think that you know, president-elect trump is a new kind of president-elect. it will be a new kind of president. sort of things, we sort of have gotten used i think inside of the beltway and inside of the pentagon we sort of all know what each other means we say very vague terms and phraseology where the new president will want to be convinced and persuaded. everybody will have to do homework when we talk about what it is we want the administration to do. that is a very good thing. it will have to make sense and most cost effective way to do it. things like, oh, we don't put kinetic kill capabilities in space because it might be provocative.

you will have to make the case if that is what you think. another perspective to say we can't have passive space capabilities, we'll have to have more active defense capabilities in space. that will be the next, the next phase in our ballistic missile defense capabilities including directed energy technologies. mokv we're putting on the gmv system to protect the united states homeland i think we'll see more investments in that. so all of this means that, you know, we've taken too long to come to this place where it's no longer a matter of, should we do it some day, that we have to do that. our adversaries challenges us this way, we have to do that. my last point on this, we sort of, when we began to talk about the think tank world and inside of the pentagon, paying for this new oaf set strategy, talking about legacy systems.

oh, no, we're still fighting wars where we need legacy systems. newer advance technologies, f-35 is still not quite ready, we're keeping the a-10 which i'm excited about. because i love the airplane. so does john mccain. it will be around longerrer. we need it. we're still using it. and now where do we get the money? we'll have to increase the top line. i'm optimistic with the new administration we will be increasing the top line. we're not bill paying with legacy system with new advanced technologies. we're going to have to do both. that means getting rid of the dca, which i think is the direction we're headed. >> thank you, rebekah. rob, where do we stand with third offset strategy and defense initiative and defense innovation more broadly. >> thank you, tom. great to be here representing the defense industry and conversation. i would like to begin talking

about where we are in the nation from my point of view. one of the great things in my job, i get to interface with many of our young women and men defending the nation. i would contend we remain to have the best fighting force across the globe, bar none. we have the best people. they're well-trained, and they frankly have the best equipment, compared to any other nation in the world. that said, there is some real challenges, many of which we talked about earlier this morning by chairman thornberry. we're spread too thin. we have readiness decline and we have a acquisition system that needs to be more agile. specifically regarding the third offset, we are investing in virtually every technology that's highlighted in the third offset. hyper son i cans, big data analytics, open system architectures, autonomy,

directed energy, on and on. we're demonstrating a lot of those technologies right now. not only lockheed martin and who i work for but our competitors, teammates across the defense industry. so i believe we have a qualitative advantage in the technology today. the question is how do we field it more quickly i believe. when we look at the adversaries we face around the globe, a lot of this is presence. you know, we're talking about the western pacific, eastern europe, and in order to enable that presence we do need substantial force structure that has been on a decline for many years now. and i think that's one of the big challenges is, transitioning this technology to a larger force structure as we move forward. that will in my view, enable us to maintain the qualitative advantage across the globe. >> okay. response to that. >> i think what we're sitting

here, we have a fundamentally like strategic problem. i'm sympathetic about need for acquisition reform we have couple positive steps last couple years we have acquisition system that hasn't been great arguably since theey '70s. we have still maintained qualitative advantages. so what's changed? we've seen in the latter part of 20th century, we had a pretty neat strategic alignment between strategic needs which is really until the fall of it, until end of the cold war, containment, we had a fairly finite set of technologies we needed to invest in and very clear business models in terms of defining requirements from strategic threats through technologies out of the defense industry and lock those through export controls. none of those things pertain today. we have range of threats from terrorism to cyber threats to great power competition. we've shown no appetite to pick

one which ones we'll address. we want to do everything. we have much wider range of technologies. we heard all of those, to your point we still need to maintain legacy systems. we have all the things. still using same business model. that is what we need to look at. acquisition reform and top line. how will we make our approaches. . .

from prototyping and have them forward quickly. i'm more interested in that type of innovation rather than hanging i know they've been five years away from 1972 but they really only five years away. i don't know if will be facing an enemy that stresses back at the one cap i see in one cap icn what we do is the ability to incorporate commercial technology and adapt. that's where we have the most opportunity. it's great to see out this commercial technology out there and that they're moving ahead. we can acquire but we have no

adults were truly military purposes for broadly available commercial technology. >> rebecca company mentioned space after that? >> what i was vague and is an encouragement for new new opportunities the administration needs for the pentagon because they get to sort of take a fresh look at where these vulnerabilities are, where the united states is being targeted. i talk about missiles a lot that is not randomly selected the different threats, but because it is becoming all the way from north korea on the low end to china on the high end. that is how they are investing in new technologies and dismayed the united states from doing many different things in the region. several months ago i had the privilege of co-authoring and authoring a report that had a senior review board with two

commanders, the farmer direct your administrator of nasa. a whole slew of people familiar with the high-end threats come a high-end threats, missile threats and acquisition process and will need to be done to close these gaps are they'll great with findings and recommendations in this study. what we found was that the united states is not a matter of can the united states, but our engineers smart enough to come up with technologies? of course they are. go back to what is a problem, what is the hindrance to move forward at the more advanced technologies. the united states has been intentionally holding back a particular area of advanced technology for the year of becoming provocative or trailblazing in a project or area or what financing space. some of these phrases we've heard that simply don't make

sense anymore because this is what the chinese and russians are doing where the rain and they're going comments better. some of these challenges get their resources, but that is actually a shorter hurdle the weekend clear. some of the bigger problems have been a matter of me. i'm excited about the opportunity that we can have in terms of changing policies and we talk about america's technological edge. we get back in the business of american privacy unapologetically. that's a very good day and once he's hard to say that and get that out of the way, we are moving forward in mountlake here we are not going to name 10 status with china and russia. we are moving forward in planning ahead and the sky is the limit and it comes down to where we get some of the money in the budget control act has been confusing to me because

nobody wants it. the congress doesn't want it and here we are we have it and the president threatened veto bills even though he says he doesn't want it. the conference report that was just saddle -- i don't know if these figures are official but this is what the media is reporting now. congress is excited about spending more money on the pentagon, which you should hear it if we spend money and he wears an american security. i think we will see what happens with president obama and his last few weeks and what he decides to do with the bill and all that kind of stuff. i do think it means we are sort of headed a different direction. >> how about you? >> rebecca made several good points about maintaining american privacy. going back to your point about this stance has passed that we're asking our military to do today, i don't see it changing. i think we have to maintain a

capability against major regional actors and counterterrorism. so we've got to be about to address all of them. i think the priorities than what we invest in as the nation to address those priorities are very important. clarity in the national military strategy assigned and that is going to be key. and then we are going to have to budget accordingly to rebecca's point and that will enable us to do what we need to do around the globe. you know, the other points have been made. we are investing in this technology has been mentioned earlier. we are prototype in these technologies. though we are singing mature capabilities that not a transition programs and records so we can in fact bring it about. i could tell a lot of stories we have, but one that just pops into my head i think about the

f1 17 when it was fielded as the first stealth fighter back in it cannot of desert storm back in the early 90s. the tremendous capability to demonstrate something no adversary had at the time. it began with the program many of you may not know called half blue. that was the prototype and it proved we could fight this hopeless diamond as it was called. we prove that out and then a transition to a program of record. i think that is going to be key going forward is reproductive technologies that they transition quick way. >> and there is a challenge there. challenge it being in an era of budgetary constraints on the one hand. there's a lot of relock tends to transition to programs of record. on the other hand, there's a different set of challenges coming with opening up the

budgetary spigot. their tendency as well if you have a lot of money to keep doing more of the same. perhaps less urgency for doing things differently. maybe we will start with raw then come back this way. talk a little bit more about the budgetary dimension of all of this. you know, how big a constraint is the budget right now and you know, what is the best way to move forward sensibly? >> well, i think i may start by answering your question. we talked a little bit about the past 35 earlier today and we think about just the air dominance, for example. we have a program that the nation has invested considerably in the last decade. it is now, we recognize the

challenges along the way, that is not very mature capable time. the rate that we are buying airplane is insufficient and all the services are ready for new equipment. so we should start by buying the leading-edge technologies that are always available to us today. that will not only provide us more capability, but it's going to get us out of these older airplanes that are costing a substantial amount of money to maintain and are insufficient against future threats. so i would begin their and they modernize these airplanes. over the life cycle of a ball aircraft, all successful aircraft programs have had robust modernization continue to add capability over its lifecycle. so we need to be doing that with their systems as well. everything we've invested in.

the third step is to continue to invest in technology that is 25 or 30 years the way. again, we are investigating technologies today. sunday we will feel another fighter, but for now we should buy the one available to us and get on the modernization path. the budget is not here to do that today. and frankly coming back to the 35 of eight becomes the bill payer for everything else we want to do. that is not the best way to go about acquisitions. >> you pointed out quite rightly that eta makes no sense except for the fact it the law of the land. assuming it is an assumption, but assuming that changes, how do we go about spending money, the most effect way, most responsible way, but also the greatest advantage. >> sure, every time i talk about how we need to increase defense

budget, people immediately think that your i don't care about defense waste. i know care about acquisition costs that are unnecessary. we can do both, thanks for. we have been planning and spending money in ways that don't make sense at all. i think everybody in the room would agree with that. some of the things we can do differently is weakened by more of a particular item on, just sort of buying a couple of items come to securing a couple and letting production line restart them and find people to build them and the expertise to invest in and build them. that is incredibly expensive. it is incredibly shortsighted. it's not thinking through the long run how the country can spend money more efficiently. if this is how families ran their own purse no budget, we would have a lot of big people.

we need to start yanking about how do we spend, how we plan, how we prioritize. we talked about the f-35 a little bit, but the budget air force can do during major big ticket items. these are just people thinking out loud, but maybe we should take the new icbms down the road because we need to pay for the f-35 now. why in the world is the effect competing with their nuclear triad? we need to have the nuclear triad and the next-generation fighter jets. and no reality does it make sense to punt on what i would argue is quite possibly the back bone of her nuclear triad comes something that we need. we need to prioritize programs couldn't figure out what the united states is going to prioritize and what we can no longer afford to punt on and figure out how many items we can buy it once so weird not having

this trickle in fact and just creating a lot of extra cost on that end as well. i will leave it at that. i've got more ideas. >> yes we want efficiency and the programs we do, but we've seen pushed towards efficiency, a fugitive efficiency. we will just have a single multi-roll combat aircraft and that would be less expensive. i'm not sure that's turned out to be the case. still criticizing the work, but from a dod did, was that the right approach? when we talk about the costs associated with that, the aircraft has a flight of $40,000. we are going to potentially roll that against people in $10,000. that's not an asymmetric strategy or cost imposing strategy.

that's a self-imposed strategy. we are really good at running them ourselves. other people want to question it. i agree bga is irresponsible, but i don't think it's purely an issue of topline. we need to think about what it an actual investment strategy and one of the ways in which we can buy down risk depending how said. since the early 1990s was that between 45 and $90 billion for the taxpayer fund on projects that yield is your capability. the cost overruns and other things. i just don't think we've got the right approach. we think about how we have a more diverse so we just don't get in a modern cultures very have expensive plot lines that assume efficiency is over or 60 or lifecycles. we don't know what's going to happen next year.

we continually need to have a capability that allows us to respond. it will be more expensive as we go and will have less likelihood of massive multi-billion-dollar failures. we have about $15 left for the fashion previous sessions are a clue they probably have questions to ask our panelists. we've got microphones out here. sarah in the front row center. >> my name is kaufman. i'm a former cia officer and i've been in the private sector. you all are very smart, but i haven't heard one word about the ground forces that did 80% of the fighting, 80% of the guide

and get 1% of the budget. 1%. arafat is out there are still using the same family as in entry weapon that i used in vietnam and i am hearing about icbms and s. 35 and we ought to put some more attention i think and energy and resources into the people who are doing the fighting. thank you. >> responses. >> i don't think you find anyone who disagrees with you. your point is well taken. it's exactly right. it's not the way you increase morale of our troops. give them better stuff to make sure they are well cared for. i certainly don't disagree with you and i think your point is incredibly well taken. >> we've actually been in testing a lot in the army and a

lot of the marine corps. for a particular type of war we've been fighting. if you adjust -- i've done that, you know, a couple times. you know, take a picture of a soldier in 2001 and compare that with a soldier in 2016 and you'll actually see a lot of change. and i know the army likes to, and the marine corps events though and i'm a very proud son of a former marine, likes to say it's not about technology. the technology is matter of ground combat. we've invested in certain areas of technology. you know, the body armor that soldiers and marines, airmen and sailors do what today is much better than it was 15 years ago. the tactical situation awareness, commanded troll is

all much better than it does fit teen years ago. but other areas that could be crucial for decisive in a high-intensity conflict against a capable adversary. things like electronic warfare. they like active protection system for armored vehicles. because we've been investing in particular areas of technology, those other areas have been deferred. we retrained a whole artillery unit away from artillery because of the exigencies of iraq and afghanistan. now he entry. where artillery and artillery threats are more important. i don't know that there's necessarily a lack of investment had we've invested for a particular set of words that we've been fighting and the challenge particularly for the army and marine corps is very likely to evoke much different.

>> i will say this. you look at percentages of budget, were resuspended among the services in the army in terms of percentage of what things cost. it's not necessarily indicative they're not getting everything they need, but the point is well taken the army tends not to. i will say some of the things i miss specifically on this base, the army is dependent on space. you might take care guys deployed they need to be alert to see where the enemy is nothing on what they are doing and that's why i try to talk about surveillance as well. but then you need to make sure the army has grayed out as to those new technologies that might invest in the budgets of the air force for a period idea of black >> that's exactly right.

[inaudible] >> there's going to be structural differences you structural changes they think that we are going to have to figure out over the next couple years as we advanced in these technologies to make sure the people who need them the most about sudan. >> one point that a lot of us here in the united states does these things and will win. we are also engaged in like a multiparty conflict here were other people get to vote. we've seen that commercial technology has really enabled nonstate at yours. it is not that hard for adversaries to have encrypted columns, there is satellite imaging. that's available now. they have moved ahead relative to us more than we've seen in the other domains. the other thing i would say and we will hear later today and we

will disagree a little bit with what i'm about to say. the army does not have a clear view of what it needs to do in the future and it does not have its own vehicle modernization program. it's not that there's no money money for it. if that they don't know what to do and is fundamentally problematic. the army today is that the marine corps once in 2010 and the marine corps has done great work figuring out what the marine corps needs to do and for the nation. the army is less clear. the frustrating subplots of the army needs to do is cut army staff and make it to the vision and from that hope come good capability. >> do you want to weigh in? >> burst of upcoming thank you for your service and recognizing the men and women out there defending our country in the

army and marine corps on the ground. i would just add that we talked a lot about airplanes, but the technologies mentioned earlier have applications across airplanes, subsurface army, data analytics to communications. we've done a number about committees amid demonstrations for us all about communicating to your point about the stance phase,, what we see in air and putting the information in the hands of the men and women on the ground. and that is key. we are going to continue to do that and those types of technologies. so i think we are addressing this. the other thing i would say as many of the things we are doing are related to the special or since. not everything we can talk about on this particular forum, but there is a lot going on. >> about to. >> of that to move on to our

next question. gentleman in the back on the far right. hold on. you've got a microphone coming. >> nicholas romero. protection about compromise of technology. something that's probably not so much that is incredibly important to prevent bandwagoning from your peers. i am wondering if you believe that we are spending enough on it to prevent reverse in january compromise. we are seeing a lot of news about infiltrators. there was news yesterday about a german intelligence up sir was exposed in the domestic intelligence agents he over there and we've had very recent revelations of information breaches at the national acuity agency. i'm wondering if you see the prevention of compromise and reverse engineering is a focused

area or something that we should spend my time on. >> i'm going to go to rob first from an industry did. i'll give you a first crack and if anybody else wants to weigh in briefly, have that as well. >> cybersecurity is a top priority for that matter. the cipher is one of the big issues we are paying a lot of attention to. it is a continuous, you know, challenge because the enemy gets better. we've got to get better. and we are continuing to try to keep that advantage versus what our ad was very hard doing to basically is your technology. so it is at the forefront of what we are doing every day. i would also is a there is an element of taking the fight to the enemy if you will and the offense is a prayer.

you don't want to be playing defense all the time and they were things that are happening that will keep them playing good defense. i believe that it. at the top of the list for things are paying attention to. >> very briefly i agree with everything bob said. we need to a sound these things that will keep happening, even if they're not happening from espionage, people will figure out we can't let the features of our capability be the differentiator. that's why we need to have more diversity and tear those technologies with new contents of operation. even if the adversary can reverse, we can still have 47 different ways. the next question, gentlemen with the glasses. >> we have heard today quite a bit about acquisitions in engineering. one of the other things he indeed does his research. i want to ask the role of

research in the next year of funding and especially the new administration and i'm speaking specifically about a sick research capabilities 10 to 20 years down the line. >> rob, do you want to? >> academia and outside of indus tray. >> i think it and very best thing to be funding in the basic research, which is going on. some of it and the skunk works the skunk works in the advanced programs and reduce some of that work. we tend to be a marked as to cover 63 arena versus earlier technologies. there are price of our corporation doing as well as the rest of industry. what we are trying to figure out in limited resource is its wares to balance. when you invest in a

technologies you want to see them mature mature technologies are available, we want to transition those into the program record. the way i have our argument nations that have the technology outcome of program record arm i was looking for challenging the technology arm on how we are going to advance it to the programs of record. great point and i think again it comes to finding the right balance of reese versus the wii definitely need to continue to invest in basic research. >> the only thing i ask you is for the last several years, we have a lot of technologies that have been sort of in limbo in research and development that really again are ready to move beyond. so i'm a huge proponent of investing in research for the next generation because you have to continue a look ahead, we've got plenty of good stuff. we talk about technology, but we always talk about how is five years away.

well, get 10 people serious about it from a matter of policy and give the money behind it and see what happens to these programs and i think we will start the night of close. the airborne laser program right before it was cut up into many pieces and sent away and shot down a missile. people had some problems directed energy on a 747, so we have some questions about the concept of operation, which proved the technology was able to do what it wanted to do. now we can see how we can get it on a more useful plot on. that is just one example that we are really ready to go with technologies we've been hitting on for a while. >> united states basic research capability especially to the d.o.t. lab network is one of our key differentials and i worry over the next four to eight years that funding will come in

a search for stuff we cannot immediately and we will be eating around seedcorn and that will be dangerous for the future. we do need to have better method by which we can harvest the great work that done and move those things forward. but that shouldn't be a the expense of the fundamental research. other people can't do it in the way we can. >> defined as any good table as we leave questions on the table. i see a number of handset. in the interest of keeping us on schedule, that will have to be the last question. i want to ask you to join me in thanking our panelists and thank you further discussion. [applause] >> u.s. senate is about to gavel in for a bill on sanctions on iran for another 10 years.

the house passed legislation made team-1. a look at a president obama for signature. the vote scheduled for 1:45 p.m. eastern today. government spending past december 9th when current spending expires. the policy bills come in medical research legislation in the water projects bill. and now come alive to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black , will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, thank you for the joy of your surprises.

you do more for us than we can ask or imagine. keep the hearts of our senators steadfast toward you. lead them safely to the refuge of your choosing, for we know you desire to give them a future and a hope. today, provide them with the power to do your will, as they more fully realize that they are your servants. give them the wisdom to make your holy word the litmus test by which hey evaluate each action, as

they refuse to deviate from the path of integrity. may they maintain a conscience void of offense toward you or humanity. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: this morning i'd like to pay tribute to a fellow kentuckian who has devoted much of his life to public service. my good friend congressman al rogers of kentucky's fifth district. hall just won reelection in his district with a mod test 100% of -- modest 100% of the vote. i imagine he'll serve here in congress for many years to come. but as chairman -- haze job as chairman -- his job as chairman of the committee is coming to a

close. i saw is fitting to say something about the extraordinary tenure of this remarkable man. he has served on the appropriations committee for more than 30 years and was selected as the 31st chairman 36 years ago. to mark the end of his chairmanship, family and friends and several special guests assembled a few months back in the house appropriations committee hearing room to unveil his official portrait as chairman of the committee. hall's portrait hangs alongside those of former chairman including some who went on to become speakers of the house and in the case of james garfield, president of the united states. adding his portrait to his distinguished group is the continuation of a century old tradition and many house colleagues, including speaker ryan, were on hand to mark the occasion. it's a well deserved tribute to a man i've been honored to serve

alongside for many years and to have known for even longer. i first met hall rogers several decades ago and later worked with him during the 1971 kentucky gubernatorial campaign. while the republican candidate that year did not win the race trks was clear to me after -- it was clear to me after getting to know hall he was destined for great things. born in a small town of barrier, kentucky, he became first a country lawyer in the town of somerset and then the commonwealth's attorney for the region. he was first elected to congress with the reagan revolution back in 1980 and is now the dean of kentucky's congressional delegation. chairman rogers is legendary in congress and back home for his relentless focus on the concerns and priorities of the people of the fifth district. long before the issue of opioid abuse dominated national headlines, hall played an

instrumental role in highlighting and preventing the scourge of drug abuse which has impacted many in eastern kentucky. he's helped bring jobs and hope to the people to southeastern kentucky thanks to projects like pride which promotes environmental responsibility, operation unite which helps substance abuse, and the southeast kentucky economic development corporation which encourages economic development and growth. through the years, hall spearheaded numerous -- hal spearheaded numerous -- rog scer scholars, rogers explorers and rogers entrepreneurial leadership institute just to name a few. hal had launched tour southern eastern kentucky to boost tourism in the region and the center of rural development as a way to help transform the area's economy. he's helped secure millions for the kentucky national guard in which he proudly served and the

u.s. forest service for marijuana -- initiative as a way to unite kentucky's ap lash shan counties for attracting jobs and economic development to the region. he's also supported the ap labor shan commission and has earned a reputation as a tireless advocate for a strong national defense. so i'm proud to work closely with hal on these and many other projects on behalf of the bluegrass state. his constituents could also be proud of the work he's done for our nation in his role as appropriations chair. under his leadership, the appropriations committee responsibly refocused efforts on regular order reviewing and approving all our -- i repeat all 12 annual government spending bills through the committee during his tenure.

as chairman, hal has made oversight of federal spending a top priority and his appropriations committee has held more than 600 hearings to ensure that federal tax dollars were being spent properly. under his leadership, the appropriations committee has gotten results like reducing wasteful spending by $126 billion in total annual spending cuts since fiscal year 2010. hal is only the third kentuckian to chairp the house appropriations committee. the last ways congressman william hacher who held that till 1994 and he is the only republican chairman from the commonwealth. i know that becoming appropriation committee chairman was a great achievement for hal and something he worked hard to earn. i'd like to add just on a personal note that hal rogers is a great friend of mine. elaine and i have always enjoyed spending time with him and his wife cynthia. as a senior republican and kentucky politics, he's been a leader in getting things done

for the benefit of people in his district and of the commonwealth for nearly four decades. you can see his impact in many places. one can drive across the hal rogers parkway in southeastern kentucky or visit one of the many institutions in service to kentuckians. hal is literally beloved in southeastern kentucky where he regularly wins reelection as i indicated earlier with an overwhelming majority of the vote. and hal loves the people he serves. he's proud to champion their causes here in the nation's capitol. so i want to thank chairman rogers for his steady hand at the helm of the house appropriations committee for the last six years and for all he has done for kentucky. both kentucky and the nation are thankful for his service as he turns his considerable energies to other important roles in congress. i wish him the very best and look forward to partnering with

him many more times in the future on behalf of the commonwealth we both love. mr. reid: mr. president? would my friend yield for a brief comment. mr. president, i am going to give a speech here in a minute regarding senator mikulski. but the reason i mention that, i want the record to reflect that chairman rogers has been so nice to me wherever we've gone in public events and events dealing with the work of the hill, he's been always a gentleman. i mean first class. and i've heard senator mikulski in meetings with just democrats talk about her great relationship with this good man. it's been pleasant for me to listen to the relationship of the republican leader and the chairman of the appropriations committee. i just wanted to take a minute and let everyone know that i have also been hon roared by his

-- honored by his presence wherever it's been. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, on another matter, after two terms in the senate and more than two decades of public service, our friend and colleague senator david vitter will be leaving us at the end of his term. so i'd like to say a few words before he does. our friend from louisiana is the first republican senator popularly elected from his home state. it's an impressive achievement that history will long record. but senator vitter had little opportunity to celebrate at the time. hurricane katrina hit just a few months after he took office. it was a catastrophic national disaster that presented massive and immediate challenges for louisiana. our colleague didn't miss a beat. back home he and his teamworked tirelessly to set up mobile offices. here in the senate he fought hard to bring aid to those in

need. it underlined something we've all come to know about senator vitter. he's passionate about his home state. that's been a constant throughout his career. he simply loves louisiana, loves the richness of its history, loves the richness of its culture, loves the richness of its food, too. crawfish pie, atrue fay -- atoufet. several other things i can't pronounce. senator vitter loves it all. he flies home just about every chance he gets. when he was younger, he turned down offers from harvard and yale to study law in the pelican state. this is after he spent some time in cambridge, mass and oxford as a rhodes scholar and by the way pretty impressive so perhaps it was born of a simple lesson. you're just not going to find alligator sauce pa cante

anywhere else. nor are you likely to find many saints fans, certainly not as enthusiastic as our colleague. you will find senator vitter glued to a tv every football sunday. he'll watch between votes in the cloakroom behind me if the senate is in session. he's been a diehard fan of the black and gold as long as he can remember. not that he had much choice growing up in the big easy but i stuck by his team through thick and thin, often thin. it's what made the saints' eventual superbowl win in 2010 that much sweeter. he called it a dream come true. this tenacity and determination carries over to his political career as well. whatever the issue, senator vitter's staff says he's always looking for solutions that can improve the lives of louisianians. and they say he's always ready to roll up his sleeves and stay the course on legislation that will do just that. senator vitter has worked hard to protect his constituents from

the fetes of hurricanes and -- effects of hurricanes and floods before they occur and rebuild when they do. he's taken the lead on important initiatives to reform the army corps of engineers and impore our nation's waterways. -- improve our nation's waterways. most recently he helped to pass the first significant reform of the toxic substances control act in nearly four decades. senator vitter was a critical player throughout working across the aisle with our late colleague senator lautenberg and center udall to steer this much needed legislation to passage and eventually law. senator vitter says he believes his most important job is to keep an open door policy for constituents who need help. i know he'd tell you that although it may not be the most pub liss sized part of the job, he considers it the most fulfilling. he remembers the woman in desperate need of a transplant. with the help of his office she got it. he still remembers the veteran who needed an operation to save his leg and his life with the

help of team vitter, he received that, too. and senator vitter will never forget the countless families in need of assistance following hurricanes katrina and rita, the oil spill, and recent flooding. he's he has seen firsthand a life-changing, even life-saving impact constituent casework can have. it's what inspired him to compile these powerful stories and best practices into a constituent service guidebook that will help guide his successor from day one. of course, none of this would have been possible without a great staff, and senator vitter has built a strong team that's as committed to the people of louisiana as he is. it's tight knit, it's loyal, it's a group of men and women who know they have got a boss who takes genuine interest in their success, who trusts their

judgment and who is always eager for their input. senator vitter awards a reform trophy each week to the staffer with the best new policy idea. he clearly believes in a heavy dose of competition. that includes when his son jack is in town, staffers can expect to be enlisted in an entirely different type of competition then. it's called office olympics. team vitter knows to bring their a game when jack is around. they also know to bring their since of humor -- sense of humor. it turns out, jack's a bit of a prankster. i hear you don't want jack laying hands on a post-it note for a roll of aluminum foil when he is in the office, but lifelong memories are often made when he does just that. it's these relationships, it's this capacity to make a difference for the people of louisiana through constituent

service and the legislative process, that i'm sure our colleague will miss most when he leaves the senate. so senator vitter may be retired from his -- retiring from his post in the chamber, but we know he will continue to look for ways to serve the state he loves so much. so today we join with his team and his family in recognizing his many years of service. i know each of us is looking forward to seeing what else our colleague is able to achieve on behalf of louisiana in the years to come. a senator: if the majority leader would yield for one moment? mr. vitter: i just want to thank the majority leader for his very kind words. serving here in the senate for two terms has been the highest honor of my professional career. i have so much enjoyed it and been honored by the relationship with all of my colleagues, certainly including the majority leader. i'll have a few more reflections next monday, but i wanted to sincerely thank him and also

congratulate him on getting the senate, particularly in the last two years, back to working order and some of its best practices. and not as a member but as a cheerleader on the outside, i'll be very much looking forward to even greater successes this coming congress. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. reid: it seems that democrats and republicans in the senate don't agree on very much, but the one thing we all agree agree -- oh, i'm sorry. i thought you were finished. that's no problem. mr. mcconnell: i have one more statement and then i will be through. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: yesterday the house passed the 21st century cures bill with overwhelming

bipartisan support, and i hope to see the same here in the senate. the medical innovation bill is one that can have a substantial impact for families across our country it supports medical research, including promoting regenerative medicine. it provides real funding to help combat a prescription opioid epidemic that swept our nation, particularly places like my home state of kentucky, and it improves mental health programs, among other bipartisan priorities. i want to thank senator alexander, chairman of the help committee, for his tireless work in driving this critical legislation forward. we should also thank senator hatch who worked with our finance colleagues on a significant number of medicare provisions in the package to protect care for america's seniors, and i'd like to note the great work by senator cornyn and senator cassidy to incorporate key mental health reforms into the cures legislation. so let's work together to send it to the president's desk as

soon as possible. now, on another matter, later today, we'll have the chance to pass the iran sanctions extension legislation that passed the house by a large margin. given iran's continued pattern of aggression and the country's persistent efforts to expand its sphere of influence across the region, preserving these sanctions is critical. this is even more important given how the current administration has been held hostage byitarian's threats -- by tehran's threat to withdraw from the nuclear agreement and how it has ignored iran's overall efforts to upset the balance of power in the greater middle east. the authorities extended by this legislation give us some of the tools needed to, if necessary, impose sanctions to hold the regime to account and to keep the american people safer. next year, i expect the new administration and new congress

will undertake a total review of our overall iran policy. these authorities should remain in place as we address how best to deal with the iranian missile test, their support for hezbollah and their support for the syrian regime. i would urge all senators to support this legislation later today. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: as i said, at times it seems that democrats and republicans in the senate don't agree on very much, but the one thing we all agree, without any exception, is this -- that our colleague barbara mikulski of maryland can turn a phrase better than anyone else. it's one of her many, many

gifts. just listen to some of those memorable lines that we've heard her utter. running for her first term in the senate, barbara said, and i quote -- "i might be short, but i won't be overlooked." close quote. as part of the 2013 government shutdown, she told senate republicans, and i quote -- "you can huff and puff for 21 hours, but you can't be the magic dragon that blows the affordable care act away." close quote. earlier this year, she spoke of the zika virus as follows -- quote -- "the mosquitoes are coming. the mosquitoes are already here. you can't build a fence to keep them out. the mosquitoes won't pay for it. the mosquitoes are here. this is not an obama fantasy." close quote. my personal favorite is something she said at a welcome reception for the 1986 class. we had gathered in one of the

buildings here, the russell building. and it was