would probably be a conversation for a larger group. but it depends on how strong one would believe the deterrence is in the absence of those. in other words, would the extended deterrence still be strong enough if everything were pulled back to the u.s., that that would be equivalent. if it were not seen as equivalent of the forward deployed deterrence, then you probably would have to do something on the conventional side. but if it were still seen as equivalent, then probably no. >> general cartwright? >> my sense is it's in the eyes of the beholder. so it may be true one way in one country and different in another, but from a purely military standpoint, my opinion -- and i've said this multiple times, as has ivo -- any capability that is on the soil in europe today can be replicated in kind and in availability from a standoff distance. that's really not a problem.

and it's credible, probably to the extent more credible because it's safe, it's guarded and it can be called forward when it needs to, and it can be substituted with something that's strategic and gets there fast. from that standpoint, it's true. there is a value, though, to something that you can go back and say, it's here, and people practice, et cetera, and that's the political side of this equation, which is very important. in the pacific, we've done it differently as a nation for the united states to what we have done in europe. >> it can work either way. it really is in the eyes of the beholder and what do allies really feel they need for us to be convinced that, we'll honor our commitments. >> i think this is a broader problem with nato again.

that is we have gotten ourselves comfortable with the idea that allies can agree to a mission and assume that it doesn't mean that. so we agree, yeah, nato will take on this thing, but does it mean i'm going to commit military forces to carry this out? and libya's great example where germany pulls its forces away from the coast of libya the rest of us go to do something in libya. i think that's a dangerous direction for them to go. it puts up this problem. the reason i have the question from the guy from the regional defense system, if you didn't have any. >> one more question.

>> thank you. i have one comment regarding the deterrent or preventive power of nato, and i think the last history of the nato environment clearly suggests that the lateral policy was one of the strongest deterrent factor and made me cry because it could have been prevented because of the gdp and subsequently wafg. they go in different directions in europe as well as globally. but my question now is pending on the erosion. this is an attempt at the. there is an attempt of recreation of the soviet union. and while the attempt is to cover this under the customs

union, we all remember that initially this idea was a security initiative. so what should be the nato's position toward this type of who once decided to break free from the soviet union. thank you. >> i think that falls more to public deterrent. first of all, i think you're right that enlargement was a great deterrent. when we enlarged, we claimed that we were serious about the disruptive. and. the fact that we stumbled over georgia kind of gave a green

lig light. th then. both of us have kind of run out of steam so that talking further, talking about is going to raise questions about your commitment. are with really going to extend our defense guarantee to more countries and more territories when we're cutting our military forces, we're pulling back from operations. is that really credible? >> we have a lot, i think, of homework to do as nato itself to rebuild some of the deterrens. it would be better to say we're moving forward and it's as

iron-clad as possible. start talking about our desire to get there, to countries that are interested in that. we have to back that up a bit. >> let's close our session by proposing to our panelists one last question, and they have some closing arguments to our audience. >> what wou what would you like to see come to the nato summit that would fundamentally realign the forces of these capacities?

>> i would go back and realign the capabilities so they outline not only the most dangerous but the most likely. knowing, of course, we have to deal with states that are going to have crises but we're going to have groups and individuals that are highly empowered and that they're going to be able to bring threat against elements of the alliance that are going to have to respond. i would be focusing particularly in europe and in the alliance. we have capabilities that are addressing the most likely. the second thing, from my perspective, and i'm very much in line with ivo's comments and others. we've got to bring down the reliance on nuclear as a strategic deter rent.

. and start to move for the technologies that would allow us to have those kinds of capabilities at the strategic level to deter conflict and increase other options so that our state craft options don't run out prematurely or are less than effective against a wide range of threats. we have to increase the tools on the spacecraft to prevent these things. >> ellen? >> i would say probably, the ability of everybody i know, nevertheless, make sure that's a member of nato, that you really commit to your defense goals. the second thing, i would say,

is really look at those things which could enable nato at large to take greater advantage, i think, of its various abilities and to focus of the new strategic and maybe that's an area he hasn't totally taken advantage of, like cyber. make sure the nato members are protected. so all these things that need nato to be able to practice. and the next ting that right now are only in the province of one country to provide. i would say the u.s. much of these stablts.

other.com, how do we spread this around so nato isn't totally reliable on one country, for example. >> i would say for them to take a fresh look at the threat in a way that's not static. i've spent a career listening to what is a real threat and what isn't, and about every -- not real threats. i have the opportunity to look at it from a different point of view. in some cases, it's a terrorist group, and i couldn't disagree more with kurt's point that that doesn't have a deterrence effect. . >> thank you. kurt? >> three things.

i would like for a renewed consensus on creating the 3, that we have to get that back together. that could meenan an invitation but it could mean just getting the allies together, this is where we want to go. second, i would want to see a renewed commitment to exercising and planning capabilities for nato's article 5 collective defense. we have a lot of building blocks in place and we need to put a strong package over that. we know we don't need certain things, so answering the question, what are are you prepared to do and putting that into concrete terms. and then the third thing is to be using nato as a place to discuss the really raging crises that are going on around nato. so syria, egypt and follow-on in libya and iran and so forth,

because i think we've really drifted over 20 years with nato being a central place where we imagine it as a place where we don't really talk about strategics anymore. >> thank you very much. let me take my panel for development insights. many think military defense is kind of old-thinking. it's clear they really aren't. there may be longstanding threats and tools that we have and they're linked to the new that we face be it terrorism and other things that face us today. with that, let's give our panel a round of thanks. today the wall street journal ceo council is hosting its annual meeting here in washington. treasury secretary jack lew spoke about the recent government shutdown and ceiling

debate and why he believes president obama's option is the best for the economy. here's a look. >> so what are we going to do on the day that congress has successfully kicked the can down the road a few months. are you saying we're not going to have another experience like we had in october? >> i think if you look at the things republican leaders have said since october, it was clear this was not a good experience, either for the country or for them politically. i know the right answer. the right answer is they should extend the debt limit and have no sense of crisis at all. i hope that will happen. they said september 7 is the date the debt limit expires. we do have extraordinary measures about a month after that. they have some time. i hope when they resolve the budget when they start moving

forward, they just do the debt limit in a businesslike way and kind of give some certainty to the u.s. and global economy. that would be the right thing to do. >> everybody is looking for some kind of longer term kind of sustainable budget arrangement. we'll hear from paul ryan later this afternoon. what in your view would be the right thing to go for? this talk about maybe trading off the sequester for some significant changes to entitlement reforms? what would be -- what's your position? what's the best outcome here? what can we expect in the next couple months? >> i guess if you ask me do you have the best option, it may not be the same as what the most likely outcome is. the president's budget lays out a very clear path with both tax reform and entitlement reform and replacing the sequester, and i actually think the president's budget is a blueprint that if we were to follow it would actually give the economy the kind of certainty and tail wind that it needs to grow.

i don't want to get ahead of the budget conferees. since the resolution of the debt limit in october, they've been meeting, senator murray and congressman ryan have been meeting. there is any number of possibilities they could come out with in any number of sizes sizes. it could be small, medium or large. i think a way they could work together and kind of chip away, instill some confidence both in the process and the substance. i don't want to jump ahead of where they are. the challenge in doing something really big is both sides have to do something really hard. we've made clear that in order to do the kinds of entitlement reforms in the president's budget, it would require some tax reform and raising some additional revenue. if that's not a possibility for the republicans, then something

large is not likely. but there is other ways for the conferees to work things out and i would allude to that. >> that's secretary lew's remarks earlier today at the annual meeting held by wall street journal ceo council. you can see his entire comments later in our schedule or any time on line at our website cspan.org. light coverage on c-span 3 continues this afternoon on the hearing of development of digital currencies and what their current potential uses will be. we'll also hear how national security issues could be impacted by the currencies. the hearing is held by a senate banking subcommittee and it starts live at 3:30 p.m. eastern. also today, remarks from outgoing federal reserve chairman ben bernanke on monetary policy. he'll speak at the national

economists club and you can see it live at 7:00 p.m. eastern, also here on c-span 3. today marks the 150th anniversary of president lincoln's gettysburg address. look for coverage at soldiers national cemetary, including the keynote address from civil war historian james mcpherson. next week, thanksgiving day at 4:00 and 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3's american history tv. last week policymakers, business leaders and journalists gathered in washington to discuss a range of domestic and national security issues. we'll now hear from americans for tax reform president, grover norqui norquist, who looked ahead to the 2016 presidential election and a possible run by texas senator ted cruz. this is 20 minutes. >> it's great to have you back again this year, and i thought i would start off in territory that would be a little bit fun

and get beyond this most powerful man in washington stuff. so you recently competed in the funiest politicians and political types in comedy. i heard you won. how did you win? >> a celebrity in d.c. does not mean the same thing it does in l.a. it means you've been on c-span. >> john lovett won a couple years ago in washington. what was this strategy? >> i did a stand-up. >> on taxes? >> no, i don't do politics when i do political work because half the audience sleis left ask hans right. comedy works when -- >> so if you were going to win the audience over here, how would win that night? >> well, i started with a glass

of bourbon, sat down and said, bourbon, neat, no ice, no water, never drink water, dick cheney tortures people with it. gives it an awkward taste. and i just wondered whether when midgits play miniature golf, do they know? i wanted to make young people feel better. there is a new poll out that says 25% of young americans can't find france on the map. so i wanted to assure all the young people in the audience that this was not an important life skill. i've been to france several times and it has never required me to find france on the map. you go to the wonderful people at american airlines and they find it for you. >> any ted cruz references? >> no political references beyond that. it really was a discussion of -- >> let me bring you to ted cruz. so i'm going to read from

national review here. it says, norquist defenders owe conservatives an apology. norquist is not happy with defenders. he told reporters today they have a lot of policies to remake and bridges to rebuild. this is governor norquist talking about apologies and bridges to rebuild. quote, it would be a good idea if they stopped referring to other republicans as hitler appeasers because they proposed a strategy which failed. i think if you make a mistake as big as they did, you owe your senators and fellow congressmen a big apology and your constituents as well because nothing they did helped the cause of obama care. could you take us a little further? who are the "they" in this, and are they rto members? >> no. what happened was there was a republican strategy going into the continuing resolution and the debt ceiling. and that was to move the cr, the budget, past the debt ceiling, so you had one deadline, not a

soft deadline that was going to be pushed through, but one hard deadline. and then work on whether there was some sort of spending reforms you could get as part of the debt ceiling. never as big as the sequester in 2011 but generally something, and that would be doable. some people jumped up, and ted cruz got most of the attention and said -- >> you said he led them into traffic and wandered away. >> he pushed them into traffic -- >> -- and wandered away. >> yeah, because he said i have a strategy and the strategy will be the house will vote to repeal obama care, and then the senator will pass it and the president will sign it. that was the strategy. we're going to invade iraq and it will turn into kansas. that's not a strategy. okay? it was a tactic that didn't take

into effect the other team gets to move as well. you can't plan out your chess moves without recognizing the other players get pieces, too. sometimes just to annoy you he doesn't have the queen where you hoped it would be. so the argument that the president was going to sign away obama care was not likely to actually take place. and there were alternative strategies that were put forward. delay it for a year which was on the month of the rollout, so it was a mistake. it wasn't a strategy. it was a bad strategy. >> did any of your gop colleagues get it right, that paul ryan, did rand paul who i know you're close to, do you think they played any more responsibly? >> at the end of the day, yes, because what we had to do was kick the can down the road, rethink, and when you talk to

house members and senators, everybody understands that effort was in error. it didn't work, it was never going to work. it was a distraction. it may well have cost us the governor's race in virginia, because you had government shutdown at just the time we should have been talking about obama care. when we did get to talking about obama care, you did see a resurgence from cuccinelli, the republican candidate for governor getting stronger and stronger who lost only by a couple points when he went down by 10 or 12. here's the good news. you have a united republican caucus in the house and in the senate for the next step in the budget fight. keep the sequester, don't raise taxes and be willing to do something -- not everything, but something on delaying all parts, some of obama care, whatever the democrats are willing to concede. because if you have a republican

house and a democratic senate, you have two evenly matched sumo wrestlers and neither can knock oe the other guy out of the ring. so the idea the house was going to make them do something is silly. if you say you'll make them surrender, that won't happen. but there are democrats who are worried about the 2014 elections and how this obama care is not working out how they said it was going to, promises were not kept, assertions were made that were never true, it's not good. if you're a democratic senator in a red state and there's 7 they're likely to lose, 10 they might lose, you don't need this bumping around before the next election. they may want to delay things for a year, but let them recognize it. >> a year ago on this stage, chuck todd did an interview with you, and at that time two things were going on. everybody was wondering, is there any tax that grover norquist would sign up for?

i understand you said yes to marijuana, you legalized marijuana. is that a wrong report? >> the question was, in colorado they were going to legalize marijuana. would it then be a violation of the pledge if you taxed it? >> no. >> no, if you tax it like a sales tax or tobacco tax level. once you've set that rate, there was an effort by the democrats just recently to increase the tax on marijuana, and to that the answer is no. you set a reasonable tax like a sales tax rate, and they want to make it higher. >> they tried to trip you up on that. i think the bigger issue at the time was everyone was talking about the tax pledge. would it hold? they were describing you as the most powerful man in washington, the most reasonable man in washington and you were being blamed for everything dysfunctional in government. i can't find anybody talking about the tax today. it looks like the dynamics shifted and ted cruz sort of

grabbed some of that grover norquist spotlight around the debt ceiling and obama care and others, but what is the state of the tax pledge today? >> sure. this is what winning looks like. >> you said winning. >> yes. because the other team doesn't talk about raising taxes, you know, klinein, ezra klein said don't push for tax increases. there is not going to be a tax increase. you have a united republican and tax senate that wouldn't allow tax increases. what changed is we got the sequester, okay? that was the big shift that took place. people thought the old paradigm that for years people said, someday we'll have fixed entitlements. someday. and the democrat requirement to agree to that, because you need bipartisan support for something that big, would have to be a tax

increase. so that was the idea. there would be a tax increase and entitlement reform and that's the grand bargain. in 2011 some thought you might get the grand bargain, but all they were offering were temporary spending cuts and imagining spending cuts on the table. they weren't really going to happen and we were able to stop the fake spending cuts, stop any tax increase and get the sequester. so the old deal was raise taxes for entitlement reform. there is now a new deal. the new one is we have a sequester good for ten years, real spending limits. it's a choke collar. and the democrats think it's a very tight choke collar. i think it's a rather loose-fitting one. they think -- >> that's tweetable, a loose-fitting choke collar. >> and so they think that the level of spending is so low it's

problematic, they're starving to death, the kennedy kids are at a table and there is one six-pack in the middle of the table and they've never been so mistreated and they have to have more resources. and they're not going to get more resources. but here's the new deal. not a tax increase for entitlement reform. the new one is we'll loosen the choke collar. we'll temporary not take off the sequester but loosen it in return for trillions in unfunded liability reduction, and if the democrats come -- >> you're up for a grand bargain? >> this is not me. this is the republican party. >> the ones that listen to you, grover norquist would put his blessing on a deal? >> yes. i've written an article for every major concern and publication stating just this, and paul ryan has led with this option as well. he said, guys, we'll reduce the sequester tightness if you are willing to do entitlement reform. we're not willing to trade

loosening the sequester return for promises of discretionary spending cuts someday in the future. >> handicap the presidential race coming up for us. you have some personalities where chris christie looks to many like he's emerging as the establishment candidate, you have marco rubio, rand paul all first-time senators. normally there is a genuine opposition candidate who will come up. how do you handicap the gop in 2016? >> this is going to be the strongest field the republicans have had since reagan ran. >> do any of these guys look like reagan to you? >> here's the good news, they're all running as reagan republicans, okay? when reagan ran in '76 and '80, he was the only reagan republican running and he was the only strong candidate running in those races. last election cycle -- seems

like four years ago -- in '12 you had 10 republicans on stage. three of them were running for president. eight of them were selling books. the three of them that were running was governor romney from massachusetts, governor palenti from minnesota and -- they were serious candidates. when he didn't catch fire in iowa, pawlenty dropped out. the other eight didn't drop out because they were selling books. this time around, look who is around the table. chris christie for sure. significant reforms in that state, $130 billion in reduced unfunded liabilities sta