>> good afternoon. i am delighted to welcome you to the brookings's decision -- brookings institution. i am even more delighted to welcome sylvia burwell, burwell, tolvia this event at brookings. i have known sylvia a long time. over 20 years. sylviafirst encountered in the clinton administration, i thought of her as that friendly, competent young woman who worked for bob rubin at the national economic council. i learned that sylvia was the go to person and a can-do person.

that was a useful person to have around. i also learned that she liked to keep in touch with real people out around america, not just in washington. and that she grew up in west virginia. one day, i found myself in a hard hat, deep underground in west virginia in a coal mine with sylvia, barbara ven and rich trumka. i was not the only one who noticed that sylvia was competent and levelheaded hearing the president notice to that, president clinton. by the end of the administration, she was the director of -- she's had a distinguished

career. president obama had the good sense to bring her back to washington to be director of omb. i was delighted. affection forg the office of management and budget and i always feel better when i know the agency is in a strong, confident hand. a deep respect for the difficulties of that job because it is the toughest job i ever did. but apparently, it was not tough enough for sylvia. talked her president into an even tougher one. the department of health and human services is a vital agency of government that literally affects every single american at sometime in their lives, often many times area at any time in history, running hhs effectively is a huge strategic and managerial challenge. but this may be the most challenging time of all. it includes implementing the

affordable care act. is a far-reaching, much-needed piece of legislation that has -- that is already providing millions of people with affordable health insurance and will impact the way americans interact with their health care system for decades to come. it is complex. we don't things simply in the united states. it gives states a lot of flex ability. it will play out differently in different parts of the country. it will change as we gain experience with what works and what needs to sing. -- needs fixing. people in the academic world and at ring tanks like this one often imagine that the hard job in government is making policy. no, it is not. after the political battles are fought, and the compromises are made, after the bills are passed and signed, the really hard job

is to implement the policy on the ground. and that is city of -- that is sylvia burwell's job right now, to make the affordable care act work and she is here to give us a progress report. sylvia. [applause] >> thank you very much, alice. it is an honor to be introduced by someone that i have known and followed for so long. i am sure most of you all know that alice was the original director of the congressional budget office as well as the first woman to head the office of management and budget. to follow in alice's footsteps, she was someone who has climbed many mountains, both literally and figuratively, for those who know her, and for whatever reason, in trying to aspire to do that,

when i left the clinton administration, i decided to climb mount kilimanjaro. aookings is a place that has special place in the burwell household. we like to read to her children. our children are sex and four. it is a morning ritual over breakfast. sometimes we read the magic treehouse and sometimes we read brookings institution reports. [applause] when my six-year-old daughter found out that i was coming today, i don't seem all dervish, but i do have a message firm -- from my six-year-old. on the whole aggregate gdp eating a less good measure of economic progress, she does not agree. while i am not going to get in the middle of my daughter and a brookings scholar and academic leader, i do just want to skip to the fact that i have great respect for brookings as an institution and the work they

do. examining all issues, they take both the long and the short term view. they think about and analyze trends over time, conduct smart, systemic, empirical research. and focus on three words in the motto. quality, independence, and impact. as a former omb director, those words are music to my ears. i want to take this opportunity to apply that analytical framework to the issue of health care. as we think about the question of how is the affordable care act working. then i would like to share with you a little bit about how i am thinking of the steps as we go forward here i. i have come to believe strongly in the importance of measurable impact. when it comes to the affordable care act, i think there are

three basic measures. access, affordability, and quality. our more people getting covered? access and affordability. are middle-class families shielded from suffocating melba -- medical those? affordability -- medical bills? affordability. when you consider the law through affordability, access and quality, the affordable care act is working. and families, businesses and taxpayers are better off as a result. four years after president obama signed a law, middle-class families have more security and many who already had insurance have better coverage. if -- fewer americans are insured and come at the same time, we are spending our health care dollars more wisely and we are starting to receive higher-quality care. as we walk through the evidence,

it might be helpful to add a little historical context. as a country, we have been wrestling with these questions of how to cover the insured for as long as the brookings institution has been here. as a matter fact, even longer. in 1912, teddy roosevelt's progressive party platform called for universal health care along with priorities like women's suffrage and a national highway system. in the 19 20's, women got the right to vote during in the 1950's, president eisenhower delivered this nation a highway system. franklinago, president delano roosevelt succeeded increasing social security but was unable to make roberts on the issue of a national healthcare system. 625 is ago, president truman asked congress for a fair deal, a deal that included things like equal rights for all, an increase in the minimum wage, and universal health air.

congress passed the minimum wage. 50 years, president johnson signed medicare and medicaid into law. but a few years later, another president told the congress, "copperheads of health insurance is an idea whose time has come in america. there has long been a need to access tory american health care." that president was richard nixon. heftyuntry has paid a price for inaction on health care even though president ford come up harder, bush, and clinton made this issue a priority. cost spiraled out of control and health care became unaffordable for millions of families and businesses alike. taxpayers felt the effect as well. priced outo weren't of the health-care market, many were locked out because of pre-existing conditions.

and many who were fortunate enough to have insurance did not receive a very high quality of care. by the time president obama took the oath of office, our system had broken down to such a degree that we were spending far more as an economy on health care in both gross and per capita terms that all the other developed countries. in 2009, we were spending $2 trillion a year on health care. it was almost 50% more per person than the next most costly nation. these rising costs took their toll on family budgets. study led byrvard a certain professor with a very bright future, elizabeth warren, found that 62% of personal bankruptcies were due to medical problems. what were we getting for the higher health care costs that we shouldered?

fund10, the commonwealth benchmark our health care system against six advanced industrialized nations. in that the quality, access, efficiency, equity and healthy lives. we were dead last. while we were not scoring well in these benchmarks, we are doing a lot better on some measures of quality. by the time the affordable care act was passed, tens of millions of americans were injured. -- were insured. everyone felt the impact. too many americans relied on the emergency room for the most basic medical care. uninsured children statistically were more likely to have fewer immunizations and go without prescriptions. uninsured adults were more likely to have chronic health conditions, many of which went undiagnosed. the system was not working either for millions of americans

who had insurance. went bankruptwho due to medical bills actually had health insurance. just because you happen to have an insurance card, your carrot was not necessarily affordable. if you got charged several thousand dollars for an ambulance ride that was not covered. notng an insurance card did guarantee that you had access to the services you needed. having an insurance card did not mean your doctors were effectively coordinating so that you wouldn't end up taking tests twice or getting procedures that you may not even need. thanks to the affordable care act, things are changing for the better. let's consider for a moment the evidence on the uninsured where we are making historic progress. the affordable care act addresses affordable, quality, and access. coversat barriers to

like pre-existing conditions as well as annual and lifetime caps . it allows young adults to stay on their parents' policy until they were age 26. it created the health insurance marketplace. insurance companies now can provide affordable coverage to consumers through that marketplace. during the last open enrollment, consumers chose from an average of nearly he plans. i have some news for you when it comes to choice and competition. today, we are able to announce aat in 2015, there has been 25% increase in the total number of issuers selling insurance in the marketplace. there is already real evidence these plans are affordable. just last week, the commonwealth fund released a study showing that 70% of americans with marketplace insurance plans feel they can now afford their care. and a majority say their premiums are affordable.

it is no surprise therefore that, when folks evaluate the success of the law, the marketplace receives much of that attention. reportsmarch, news suggested it would take something close to a miracle to reach 6 million people. last week, we announced the that 7.3 million people signed up for marketplace plans, paid their premiums, and have access to affordable care. borrow aon people, to phrase from the vice president, is a big deal. but i am here to tell you i don't think that is the number we should focus on very yesterday, we released another number, a significant number, and that is that 8 million people enrolled in medicaid or chips since the enrollment date, an increase of nearly 14% in terms of the monthly increases before that time. that is a significant number. but again, i don't think that is

the most important number we should focus on. the number that is even more important is that, in just one year, we reduce the number of uninsured, adults that are uninsured, by 26%. 2013,nslate that, since 10.3 million adults are no longer uninsured. i firmly believe this is the key measure. we should look at it because it represents historic progress on something that has eluded our country for over a century. there isn't a business in america that wouldn't be ecstatic with that kind of growth. ultimately, every number tells a story. i want to share with you the story of robert mailer junior, a floridian who was uninsured. roberts coverage, he signed up for the marketplace and it took in effect on january 1.

on january 2, robert went to see a growth he had on his tonsils and i'm afraid the diagnosis was bad. it was late stage cancer. after prayer, perseverance, ration and chemotherapy, robert is now cancer free. without health insurance, those treatments that saved his life would be $200,000. under the affordable care act for robert, what we saw is he paid a $2000 deductible, $1500 in co-pays, and what was roberts monthly premium? $118. i want to read some words to you from robert directly. "i was not in favor of obamacare," he said. tost year, i was not going pay for health insurance and i was quick to take the penalty. i am one of the luckiest people in the world. i'm going to live and work and be productive.

so i would submit that roberts story is not a story of the left or the right. it is the story of affordability, access and quality. who it comes to americans already had insurance, i will be straightforward with you. those of us who support the affordable care act haven't done a good job at making the case that this was something that helped those people. if you think about a mom or a dad sitting at the kitchen table working out a family budget, it is a big deal that they are saving money, still getting better coverage, and have financial security. many middle-class americans have more money in their budgets because their insurance company is now required to spend at least 80% of their premium on their health care. families have saved an average of $80 that they can live on their electric bill or back in their grocery budget. meanwhile, millions of seniors are saving billions of dollars

on their prescriptions as we phased out the donut hole. more than a .2 million seniors have saved -- 8.2 million seniors have saved $5 billion. middle-class families are benefiting from the real security that comes from knowing your health care coverage will be there when you need it. to worryno longer have about losing their homes or having their hard-earned savings or anaway by an accident unexpected diagnosis. there is security in knowing that, if you lose your job, you can purchase market place coverage, even if you have a pre-existing condition and you won't lose your insurance just because you get sick or get caught off or if you need chemotherapy or some life-saving operation. a healthier and more financially secure middle-class is good for business who benefit from a healthy workforce and consumers with more disposable income. the bipartisan policy center

reported last week that businesses lose $576 billion each year because of an unhealthy population. as the new law makes our population healthier, we should be able to ring this number down. some of the biggest and most positive impacts that businesses and taxpayers feel from the law are in the area costs. since president obama signed the affordable care act, there is evidence that we have been to the cost are when it comes to health care. we have held down health care price inflation to the lowest level in 50 years. premiums for employer-based coverage have been driven down as well. earlier this month, kaiser reported that this year's cost growth is the lowest on record. that, hadprojected premiums ground at the rate we saw over the previous decade, instead of the slower rate of the past four years, employer coverage would be $1800 more today.

thisu are an employer, means it is easier for you to hire workers. if you are an employee, it means you can be keeping more that in your paycheck tomorrow. if you are a taxpayer, it means a healthier economy. improvements to our health delivery system are also having an impact on costs to taxpayers as we spend dollars more wisely. $160 billionyers in spending medical dollars more wisely. in a further example, the accountable care organization models we are testing through medicare are saving $370 million and counting. at the same time, they are delivering care that is more coordinated to beneficiaries and rewarding providers that do that. taken together, i believe the evidence points to a clear conclusion. the affordable care act is working.

my job as secretary is to lead our efforts, to keep it working and to help it work better. like anyone in business, we want to learn from the things we got right and the things we got wrong. we are taking that approach and we have a four-part strategy moving forward. first, improving access and affordability through the marketplace. in order to make sure that americans continue to get access and affordable choices, we have to get healthcare.gov right. to me, the formula for this is technology, management and prioritization. off thehecking outstanding items from last year's to do list, cleaning up the backend personality and adding functionality for inewing and enrolling coverage. we are prioritizing the most important issues and the areas to improve consistent with our deadlines. givingfocusing on

ourselves the appropriate amount of time for testing and we are very focused on security. anyone who can ever manage a wrought -- a large scale arctic knows that these are challenging and require tough choices. we are prepared to make those choices so that we can deliver the best consumer experience. second, improving quality for patients and spending every dollar wisely. we are testing new models in medicare and medicaid and reaching out to the business community to find solutions that we can all benefit from. changing incentives from volume-based to more impact-based systems come investing in tools that can expand our capacity for change in the health care delivery system, improving the flow of information so doctors can spend more time with patients and less time doing paperwork, so they can coordinate more effectively with the -- with one another.

third, expanding access by expanding medicaid. one of the first meetings i did with -- was a bipartisan meeting with governors and i said to all the governors we want to work with you. we want to work with you to be flexible, to expand access to medicaid. in the time that i have been there, we have added pennsylvania, a state with a republican governor, and we are hopeful that we can work together to do more in that space. consumerslping understand how to use their new coverage, including the role of prevention and wellness. many of the folks who are newly covered have not held health insurance in years and some never before. we want to make sure that folks know how to use their coverage and we are partnering with organizations across the country to help them do so. i would like to close with one final thought. as we work through these issues, i think we need a bit of a course correction when it comes to how we talk about these issues.

it starts with collectively turning the volume down. surely, we can all agree that the back and forth hasn't really helped those that we are trying to serve in terms of delivering for the hard-working families that we all try to serve. i prefer a brookings-type approach, quality, independence, and impact. a small business owner from texas wrote a blog for the hhs blog. what you talked about is what it was like to be uninsured. she talked about what it was like to be insured but not have a member of your family be covered because your son had a pre-existing condition. she wrote about, for her family, the affordable care act is working. i want to read to you a few of her words. "recently, i was able to enroll my family, my entire family. not only is my son finally covered, our premium is only half of what we were paying before. i was shocked to learn my

prescriptions, which used to cost $280 a month, now cost five dollars. my dog -- my family now has the financial security and jim and his peace of mind that comes with coverage. i don't have to work for someone else just for the health benefits anymore. i launched my small business and can focus on expanding it." families across the country are counting on us. they are our boss and they are looking for this to work. let's work forward together. iq. -- thank you. [applause] i am happy to take some questions. yes. >> thank you. i am from the american cancer society. people touched by cancer know have available insurance is. the challenge for all of us has

been making sure that people who have not been touched by the disease or may be at risk for it , how the law can help them. as well as those who have coverage through work, how the level stirs that. what will hhs and cms be doing to educate those people about the importance of the law. >> in .4, when i talked about the coverage and the covers, i think the point you raise is one not just for the newly insured but across all. i think many people don't realize the extension of benefits for prevention and wellness. i think that is probably what you are referring to specifically. one of the things we will do as we do our education for the uninsured is do that more broadly. the other thing is, in our conversations with the employers , that is a place where we are having a lot of conversations. i think many employers are

what we want to do is our own messaging, but we know in this case things will move more through our partners, the stakeholders on the ground,, people who are delivering to move that message out, and it is an important one. earlier, i dode not think we have done a good understand what the affordable care act did. yes? >> thank you for your remarks. hospitals were deeply involved in giving people -- getting people enrolled. for hospitals that were not yet engaged in that war have hesitated because they are in states where the aca is not as popular, do you have guidance for those in how they can work

in their community and getting people signed up? >> thank you for the support and help. with regard to the state where the aca is not as popular, one of the things is making sure states reach out to us. there are regional offices across the country for hhs, and with the hospitals, weather coming to our business organizations in washington or the regions, that might be more familiar with the challenges you are articulating, we want to work with those so we can enable them to do what they can do. now that people can see last time we did not have something we could point to. we did not have those stories, and we are hopeful that will be an element that can create a better environment, that where the environment is still out, we will work in ways that will work for the context that these hospitals are in.

we are working with hospitals, insurers, stakeholders. this is an all hands on effort. yes. one of the things as we think the number of latinos who are signing up for the law could be improved, and i am wondering your thoughts on how we can make a more concerted effort to get to that community and make sure their community is covered. place, and important we believe we can make progress, even more progress this year. one of the things we need to do is listen, listen to the feedback we received last year about a number of challenges. some of those challenges were technological, and some came and other forms, and we are trying to work through and make sure, whether through our navigators, to how we share information through language issues, that there are a whole suite of things we're working on to make it easier to engage in the

system and, second, to make sure we are sharing the information so people can understand what it means in terms of the benefit that it will mean. and then work with stakeholders that are closest to these organizations to help make sure, whether it is how we phrase something, explain something. often those kinds of things are making a difference. we have heard from probably some of you all here on the issues of our challenging. leaves keep letting us know. the ones we can fix, we will work to do that and do that as quickly as we can. in the back. thank you. i wish the national center for transgender equality. and with all the great things that have been done for years rules for thehave active civil rights provisions, and most people have not heard of those provisions, including providers i have talked to. we have delivered hundreds of those stories of discrimination

to the department, and i would like to know, are we going to 1557 implement he rolls this year's? >> that is something we are most focused on, making sure as we are getting the system up and running that if there are issues of discrimination that we are working through those. thank you for doing that. with regard to that question for the specific timing of the role, not something that i am at this to a ready to commit specific timetable on where we all and that. consider the issue extremely important. you know the administration's commitment on a number of fronts to the issues around making sure that there is access and that the access is not discriminatory, that cuts across a wide range of issue. we want to work to make sure we are enforcing the law and understand the importance of the issue of that specific provision . thank you. thank you very much. [applause]

>> on behalf of brookings, i want to thank secretary burwell and thank all of you for coming and listening out there. and good luck. we need this thing to work at hh s, and we are counting on you to make it work. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

screeria -- nigeria. - remarks

leader ed milliband at his party's annual conference. former senator jim webb of virginia spoke at the national press club, mr. web who is considering a presidential rung speaks about the economy and foreign policy, this is an hour. >> good afternoon, and welcome. my name is myron belkheim, i'm a professor at the school of media and public affairs, a former

international bureau chief with the associated press and the 117 hth president of the national press club. the national press club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists committed to our profession's future through our programming with events such as this while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, please visit our website at press.org. on behalf of our members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speaker. those of you attending today's event also. our head table includes guests of our speaker as well as working journalists who are club members. if you hear applause in our audience, i note that members of the general public are attending. so it's not necessarily evidence of a lack of journalism objectivity. i would like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. follow the action on twitter. using the #mpclunch.

after our speech concludes, we will have a question and answer period. i will ask as many questions as time permits. it's time to introduce our head table guests. i would like each of you to stand briefly as your name is announced. john doeman from your right. reporter for wnew. jill lawrence, syndicated columnist. eleanor clift, washington correspondent. for the daily beast and mclaughlin group panelist. james r. webb. soften son of the speaker. mark shields, political analyst news hour. hong lee webb, wife of the speaker. jerry zeremski, chairman of the npc speaker's committee and former president of the national press club. angela king, white house correspondent for bloomberg news and former president of the national press club.

amy webb. rachel smoker. john failes, known throughout the country at sergeant shaft. mike deigel. principle people mow part nevers public affairs. a round of applause for our head table. [ applause ] here is what we know about jim webb, our speaker today. he is a former one term democratic senator from virginia, a decorated marine who served in vietnam, secretary of the navy, an award winning journalist, filmmaker and the author of ten books. what we don't know is whether he will be a candidate for the democratic nomination for president. there have been some hints. webb visited iowa last month and

is planning a attribute to new hampshire. while not everyone who goes to iowa and new hampshire becomes a presidential contender, no one who hopes to be in the race ignores those early primary states. two weeks ago, he tweeted a link to a "new york times" article with the headline, populous could derail clinton train. as he told a labor audience in iowa, i am comfortable to say i'm the only senator elected with a union card three tattoos and two purple hearts. [ applause ] while in the senate, webb served on the foreign relations, armed services, veteran affairs and the joint economic committees. his legislation, the post 9/11 gi bill is the most significant veteran's legislation since world war ii. [ applause ]

as chairman of the foreign relation committee's asia pacific subcommittee, webb called for the u.s. to re-engage in he east asia. in 2009 he went to burma, the first american leader to visit that country in ten years. though the trip was criticized by some in the pro democracy movement, subsequently, relations between the two countries were resumed. webb graduated from the naval academy in 1968. when he returned from vietnam, he got a lot of grief from georgetown. webb was a staffer on the house veterans affairs committee before being appointed as assistant secretary of defense and then secretary of the navy. in addition to his public service, webb has had a varied career as a journalist. winning an emmy for his pbs coverage for the marines.

he wrote the original story and was executive producer of the film "rules of engagement." his books include a history of the scotch irish culture and i heard my country calling, a memoir of his early life published this year. webb has been to the national press club on several previous occasions and we are very happy to welcome him back to the national press club. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. i appreciate all of you coming today to be with us. i have noticed -- i should point out here at the outset that jerry has enough questions, i think, to last for about an hour and a half after i'm done. i hope you will be kind in the questions that he chooses once i am done.

first let me say how proud i am that three of my family members are with me today up here at the head table. my oldest daughter amy, who as a small child used to ride on the lap of some of my disabled friends from vietnam as they did wheelies in their wheelchairs and races in the hospital. she found her calling at a young age and works with disabled american veterans. [ applause ] my son jim, who left penn state during the height of the iraq war and enlisted as an infantry rifleman and fought in some of the worst fighting of the war in a place which is now becoming familiar to us. and my wife who in many ways represents what the american

dream is all about. her entire family, extended family escaped from vietnam on a fishing boat. her father was a fisherman when the communists took over south vietnam. they were rescued by the united states navy at sea. she spent time in two different refugee camps. neither of her parents spoke a word of english. through all that, she ended up as a graduate of cornell law school. that, folks is -- [ applause ] that represents the best of what our country is all about. i have said for many years that the truest legacy of my time in public service will always come from the contributions of those who served either under my command in the marine corps or on my staff. our country has heard and will continue to hear from these talented men and women wherever they go and however they choose to serve. and a good number of them have

made the trek over here to join us today. we did great things during those six years. they continue to show us that they are all stars in a multitude of endeavors. i would be pleased if they would stand or wave and be recognized right now. [ applause ] there have been a lot of things going on in the last couple of days. i'm sure i'm going to get questions about them. what i would really like to talk about today in my opening remarks is what's going on in our country. and what we can do to make things better. let me begin by stealing a quote from gor vidal. he was one of the most brilliant minds of the post world war ii era. you never know when you have happy he wrote. you only know when you were happy. the same holds true i think for the times in which we live.

we seldom know when we are living through a period of true historic challenge. we only know after it's over that we did. the internal workings of national policy are not a part of most american's lives. he wake up every morning. you go to work. maybe you try to find a job. you take care of your family. you pay your taxes. you turn on the tv and watch commentators. sometimes you agree with both of them. sometimes you agree with neither of them. bad things happen in the world. that will never change. at the same time, i think it has been rare in our history when our economy crashes at the same time we're at war as has been the case in the past five or six years. here in america, our multicultural society lives in a

state of constant disagreement. this is frustrating. it's also creative. but the discussions during recent years have taken on a different tone. the very character of america is being called into question. who are we as a people? what is it that unites us rather than divides us? where is our common ground when the centrifugal forces of social cohesion are spinning so out of control that the people at the very top exist in a distant outer orbit completely separated in their homes, schools and associations from those of us who are even in the middle and completely disconnected from those who exist paycheck to paycheck or those at the bottom who are often scorned as undeserving takers who simply want a free ride. now think about that. how can we say we're fellow americans when tens of millions

of people are being quietly written off, not only by our most wealthy but even by many of our political leaders as hopeless? who will never be fully employed. who would be or should be avoided on the street, feared rather than encouraged to enter the american mainstream. we live indisputably in the greatest country on earth. the premise of the american dream is that all of us have an equal opportunity to succeed. if you are 10 and black and living in east baltimore and go ing to the bathroom in a bucket because the landlord won't fix the plumbing and your school is a place of intimidation and violence and the only people on the street who seem to be making money are the ones who are selling drugs, no matter how hard you work, you do not have the same picture of the american dream as a kid your age who is being groomed for prep school

and then to go off to the ivy league. or if you are a kid growing up in the appalachian mountains of clay county kentucky, by most accounts the poorest county in america, which happens to be 98% white, surrounded by poverty, drug abuse and joblessness, when you leave your home in order to succeed, and when you do, you are welcomed with a cynical unbelieving stares and whispers of american that don't understand you and that can exclude you from education with the false promise that if you are white you are by definition have some kind of social economic advantage, what do you think about your government? if you are a man or woman who did time in prison as have so

many millions of americans in today's society, you paid the price for your mistake, which could be as simple as a drug addiction or a moment of absolute but culpable stupidity and you want to re-enter the community you left behind when you were knocked up, neglected, possibly abused and marked for the rest of your life on every employment application that you ever fill out, how do you do that? when there are no clear programs of transition that can prepare you for the structured demands of the work force or society itself, which is going to fear you because you spent time in prison. what do you do now? do we as a government have an obligation to provide a struck tur that can assist you so the rest of your life is not wasted? or have you become another throw away like the kids in east

baltimore or clay county kentucky? let's say you are 30 years old without a high school diploma. maybe you hit a rebellious streak when you were 17. you got a dead-end job or got pregnant and became a single mom. now you are looking at the rest of your life. you feel hopeless. the big debate between the two political parties seems to be whether you should get a higher minimum wage, whether the government should start universal programs to put kids into school from prekindergarten. what do you need more than a minimum wage? even if your kids attend pre-k, what happens when they come home? is your life over at 30? would it change if we had a second chance program where you could finish school and show your kids your own diploma and tell them to stay in school and study and be an example and

aspire to a real job that pays more than minimum wage? what would it take to turn those things around, or is it impossible? or should we just decide that it's something beyond the role of government? this societal dislocation has been happening at a time when america's place on the international stage has become increasingly unclear, both in terms of our position as the economic beacon of the global community and our vital role as the military guarantor of international stability. for more than two decades since the end of the cold war, our country has been adrift in its foreign policy. the greatest military power on earth has locked a clearly defined set of principals that would communicate our national security objectives to our allies, to our potential adversaries and most importantly to our own people.

over that same period our debates over domestic policies have been more polarized, driving our people further and further apart rather than bringing them together. in many cases, deliberately exaggerating divisions based on race, class, gender, sexual orientation and geography. not surprisingly, the american people have grown ever more cynical about their national leadership in both parties and increasingly more pessimistic about the future. so make no mistake, how we redo dissolve these two formidable questions is going to determine what america looks like ten, 20 or 30 years from now. in the not too distant future, depending how we resolve this we will look back and judge ourselves. did we have the courage to face the hard issues to make the

difficult decisions, to prove we were worthy of the sacrifices of the ep generation that went before us? or did we fail? watching passively as the greatest nation on earth descended slowly into mediocrity because it burned itself out through bad choices, petty debates, trivial party politics and the inability of our leaders to come to grips with these sorts of challenges and to work together to actually solve them. so we have reached an unavoidable and historic crossroads. the way we choose to address the conditions that now so deeply divide us over the next few years will define who we really are as a people and what our future will look like. what are the responsibilities of our government? provide for the common defense, promote general welfare,

maintain order and public safety for all, whether you are in east baltimore or north arlington. erect standards of fairness when it comes to the opportunity to succeed. don't pick favorites based on several access to the corridors of power. despite any of the barriers that have too often divided us, i'm naive enough to believe that those of us who love our country can come together to rebuild our infrastructure and to repair the torn fabric of our national spirit. true fairness is not an impossible dream, nor is the notion that we can return to a time when we can look at a fellow citizen and feel a moment of comradery rather than a feeling of mistrust, dislike or fear. we need the energy and the talent of every american trained and put to use in ways that will make them more productive, their neighborhoods more vibrant and our country stronger.

more than that, every one of us should view this as a duty, as a citizen if nothing else and participate in the national discussion. let me mention a few areas where i believe we can make a difference. first, we must develop a clear statement of national security and foreign policy. an understandable statement of our national security interest is the basis of any great nation's foreign policy, clearly understood principals and the determination to stand by them are essential to stability and also to public support. our allies will be able to adjust to our clarity, our adversaries will know we are serious. we do not have that now. our foreign policy has become a tangled mess in many cases of

what can only be called situational ethics. what does the united states stand for in the global arena? under what conditions should we risk our national treasurer, our credibility and more importantly the lives of our military people? here is a quick bottom line. tell me what our national interest is, how we're going to defend it and how we will know we have accomplished our mission. unless you can do that, you don't have a strategy. once the cold war ended, strategically we lost our way. we have yet to regain it. in the area of international relations, it's not a healthy thing when the world's dominant military and economic policy has a policy based on vagueness. so we ended up and continue to be trapped in the never ending ever changing entanglements of the middle east, beginning with the pandora's box that was opened with the invasion of iraq and continuing through the still

fermenting nightmare of the arab spring, particularly our inadvisable actions in libya. i was one who warned before the invasion of iraq that our entanglement would destabilize the region, empower iran and weaken our influence in other places. let me quote from an article i wrote in the "washington post" on september 4, 2002. five months before we invaded iraq. america's best military leaders know they are accountable to history. our time bringing an expansionist soviet union in from the cold was accomplished not by an invasion but through decades of maneuvering. with respect to the situation in iraq, our military leaders know

two realities that seem to have been lost in the narrow debate about hussein himself. the first is that wars have unintended consequences. the second is that a long-term occupation of iraq would beyond doubt require an adjustment of force levels elsewhere and could diminish ameri inother parts of the world. then later, in japan, american occupation forces became 50,000 friends. in iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets. so what should our governing principals be? first, if a president wishes to conduct offensive military operations, he or she should be able to explain clearly the threat, the specific objections of the operations and the end result. second, we should honor all our treaty commitments.

we are not obligated to join a treaty partner if they elect to use force outside boundaries of our commitment as in libya, for example. third, we will maintain superiority in our strategic systems. this includes not only nuclear weapons but also such areas as technology, space and cyber warfare. fourth, we will preserve and exercise the right of self-defense as guaranteed under international law and the u.n. charter. fifth, we have important allies around the world, especially in asia and the middle east. who we will continue to support in many ways. this will not cease. in fact, as we clarify other commitments, these relationships will be strengthened. with respect to the war against terrorism, we should act vigorously against terrorist organizations if they are international in nature and are a direct threat to our national security.

this includes the right to conduct military operations in foreign countries if that country is unwilling or unable to address the threat. we have this right through international law and specifically through article 51 of the united nations charter. but there's an important caveat to how our country should fight international terrorism. having ignored this principal has caused us a lot of trouble since 9/11. can do no better than quote from an article i wrote the day after 9/11. do not occupy territory. similarly, it would be militarily and politically dangerous for our mill tear require to operate from bases permanent or semipermanent or to declare we are defending specific pieces of terrain in the regions where the terrorist armies live and train.

finally, with respect to national security, a warning spurned by the actions of this administration in libya. there is no such thing as the right of any president to unilaterally decide to use force in combat operations based on the vague concept of humanitarian intervention. if a treaty doesn't obligate us, if american forces are not under attack or under threat of imminent attack, if no americans are at risk, the president should come to the congress. second point for consideration as we look into the future is we need to give our people some hope on issues of economic fairness and social justice. working people have struggling following the collapse of the economy while those at the top have continued to separate themselves from the rest of our

society. if you look at the stock market since march of 2009, when this recession bottomed out, it has moved from 6,443 to more than 17,000 as of today. the stock market has almost tripled as we have come out of this recession. at the same time study after study shows that real income levels among working people have suffered a steady decline since january of 2009. not only for our workers. according to the wall street journal, loans to small business who traditionally have been the backbone of the american success story have decreased by 18% since 2008. overall business loans have increased by 9%.

the growth in our economy has been increasingly reflected in capital gains rather than in the salaries of our working people. in many cases, corporate headquarters, financial sectors are here while the workers are overseas. many of our younger workers in this country right now are subject to complicated hiring arrangements that in many cases don't pay healthcare or retirement. corporate success is measured by the increase in the value of a stock, corporate leaders are paying accordingly. when i graduated from the naval academy, the co made 20 times the worker's pay. it's not a global phenomenon. in germany, which has the highest balance of trade in the world, the average ceo makes 11 times what a worker makes. many of our brightest economic analysts, high along them ralph gamori who is here today, point out that this disparity came about not because of globalization but because

executive compensation became linked with value of a stock rather than the company's actual earnings. investors will not complain. they invest in stocks. our workers, the most productive work force in the world, are the ones who have been left behind. i would agree that we cannot tax ourselves into prosperity. but we do need to reconfigure the tax code so that taxes fall in a fair way. third, we should rebuild our national infrastructure. the technology revolution has pushed a lot of louer skilled people into unemployment. yet, every wrf around us we see roads that need to be widened or repaired, bridges that are beginning to crumble. others that need to be build. traffic jams from clogged highways, schools that need to be built, expanded or repaired. inner city neighborhoods with cracked sidewalks, broken

windows and people on the street. roosevelt mobilized a nation whose unemployment rate was at 25%. the civilian conservation corps planted trees and cleared land. we built roads. we put people to work. we cleaned things up. eisenhower, his vision brought us the interstate highway system and the jobs that it took to build it. there are people who need jobs. there's work to be done. along the way, i believe it's possible to meld such a program with another one featuring adult education for those who did lose their way when they were 17 and now know how important it is as a worker and as a parent to get that diploma, earn some money and be a role model to your kid. fourth, we need to reform our criminal justice system. this is not a political issue. it is a leadership issue. it has dramatic manifestations throughout our society. the united states has the

highest incarceration rate in the world. since i doubt we are the most evil people in the world, many now agree that maybe we're doing something wrong. millions of our citizens are either in prison or under the supervision of the criminal justice system. during ply time in the senate, we worked to examine every component of the this process from point of apprehension to length of sentencing to the elements of life in prison, including prison administration and to the challenge of re-entering society and hopefully living productive lives. when one applies for a job, the sigma of having been in prison is like a tattoo on your forehead. in many cases, prison life creates scars that can only be remediated through structured reentry programs. many of them are non-violent offenders who went to prison due to drug use or dependence. those who wonder whether we can

or should put such programs in place, my answer is this. do you want to see these former offenders back on the street coming after your money or your life? or do you want them in a job making money and having a life? finally, let's find a way to return to good govern answer. it will take time but it's possible to rebalance the relationship between the executive and legislative branchs and to carefully manage the federal government which is surely the most complex bureaucracy in the world. a lot of people running for president and a lot of people covering those who are running for president seem to skip past the realities of governing into the circus of the political debate. the federal bureaucracy is huge. i have seen many people come to public service from highly

successful careers in the business world only to be devoured and humiliated by the demands of moving policy through the bureaucracy and then the congress. the very administration of our government needs to be fixed. with the right leadership and the right sense of priorities, it can be. i spent four years as a marine, four as a committee counsel in the congress. six years as a member of the united states senate. i am well aware and appreciate that there are a lot highly talented dedicated people in our federal work force. i know they would be among the first to agree that we would benefit by taking a deep breath and basically auditing the entire federal government in order to re-justify the functioning of every program and every office. [ applause ] the way to solve these challenges and others is the way that other such challenges have always been solved in the past. find good leaders. tell them where the country needs to go.

free them up to use their own creative energies. trust their integrity. supervise, hold them accountable just as they should hold our own people accountable -- their own people accountable and just as the american people should hold every national leader accountable. have the courage of your convictions. have the humility to listen to others. remember the greatness of our country and the sacrifices that have gone before us and never forget that history should and will judge all of us if we ever let the american dream die. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you.

[ applause ] we will now go into our q and a session. as i said, we will try to make it rapid fire to get as much as we can in this next few minutes. sir, are you considering pursuing the democratic nomination for president? would you consider running as a independent? >> i would say we have had a lot of discussions among people that i respect and trust about the future of the country. and we are going to continue having these discussions over the next four or five months. i am seriously looking at the possibility of running for president. but we want to, you know, see if there's a support base from people who would support the

programs that we're interested in pursuing with the leadership. so the answer is, i'm a democrat. i have strong reasons for being a democrat. basically, if you want true fairness in this society, you want to give a voice in the corridors of power to the people who would not have it, i believe that will come from the democratic party. we're taking a hard look. we will get back to you in a few months. [ applause ] >> what trait is most important in a person wanting to become our president? and what is your best trait? [ laughter ] >> how many questions do you have on that stack before you pulled that one out? i think trust an integrity and vision and loyalty.

you cannot run or lead unless you have that and unless you have that in the people who are with you, too. it's one thing i used to tell my staff when i was in the senate was that i met every day with weinberger when he was secretary of defense. you will never see one word that was ever said in that meeting when the door is closed. i owe that to him and to good governance. the issues of character override even issues of intelligence. i would rather have someone loyal and trusted than someone who is smart and couldn't be trusted. [ applause ] >> hillary clinton, of course, is widely seen as the democratic front runner for president in 2016. what do you see as her strengths and weaknesses? >> well, i've had the pleasure of working with hillary in the senate.

she has a broader forum to answer that question than i do. >> a follow-up regarding mrs. clinton. hillary was secretary of state for four years. how responsible is she for the tangled mess of u.s. foreign policy that you cited in your remarks? >> again, i think that's a question that really should be directed at secretary clinton. i'm not here to undermine her. i'm here just to explain where my concerns are as someone who has been involved in the military and in foreign policy all of my life. it wasn't a political comment when i made it. we need to be much clearer in terms of our national goals and our objectives around the world. [ applause ] >> as someone who didn't really embrace the task of being a

politician while serving in the senate, why are you considering a run for president when that job demands so much politicking to be effective? >> you know, i think a lot of people misunderstand the approach that we took during my time in the senate and how much i valued being a part of the united states senate. i look at these positions more as opportunities to lead rather than to conduct politics, per se. i was raised on the notion of what it takes to be a leader. and i think if you look at what we were able to do during our six-year period in the senate, it's pretty remarkable. we did it by bringing strong,

dedicated people into the staff, trusting them, giving them what the marine corps would be called mission-oriented orders and approaching issues such as criminal justice that a lot of other people in the country were afraid to touch and bringing them to a place where we bring these issues out of the shadows and into the public debate. so it's a very tough thing to run for office. but it's also the way that the american people get to know you and to make their own decision about whether they want to trust you. that's the process of a democracy. >> related question. what's appealing about the job of president when partisanship and unwillingness in congress to compromise and work together makes getting little things done so hard? >> i think with the right

leadership, we can get a lot of things done in this country. and we have seen this over and over again. i'm going to give you a bipartisan historical response to that. this country was completely in the doldrums when roosevelt took over. people had a feeling of hopelessness, that things couldn't be done. he came in with vision and leadership. put programs into place all over the country. things started to change. by the way, many of us lived through the carter administration. and if you recall, in 1979 and 1980, there were a lot of people saying, nothing can get done. everything is so paralyzed. the people were writing that the presidency was now too big for any one person to handle. and ronald reagan came in. he was a leader. some of my democratic friends

don't like it when i say that. ronald reagan was once a democrat. he was still a leader. he brought strong people around him. he had a vision where he wanted to take the country and things started moving again. leadership in this world requires that you sit down and talk to people and give them a clear vision of where you want to go and listen to them. i think we did this probably most clearly when we got the g.i. bill through the united states congress. i wrote this bill with legislative counsel before i was sworn into the senate. we introduced it on my first day. we worked extremely hard across the aisle. we got two republican key sponsors, two democrat sponsors, two world war ii veterans, two vietnam veterans. in 16 months, we got a bill through a paralyzed congress

that now more than a million of the veterans post 9/11 veterans have been able to use and change their lives. [ applause ] >> you have opposed u.s. military intervention in iraq and libya. tell us why you reaction to owe -- to the president starting air strikes and respond to the remarks the president made three hours ago. >> i would start -- mark shields will remember this. i will start with a comment given to me when i was in beirut reporting more than 30 years ago. i was at a marine outpost that started taking fire from an outpost because there was a

lebanese army position located with the marines and then some unknown militia started joining in just because it was beirut and then syrians came up and were firing 25 millimeter into it. a young marine turned around and said, sir, never get involved in a five-sided argument. during the hearings when i was still in the senate and they were considering doing something in syria, that was one of the points that i would raise, that if you think lebanon was bad, syria is lebanon on steroids. look at the situation that we now are in. isis, whatever -- however you want to define that. we need to be very careful to define what the membership of these entities really is, because in that part of the world people tend to drift in and out of organizations, depending on who they think is getting something done.

we have isis who supposedly is anti assad and wants to create up there and we are going to arm and train another syrian opposition whose mission up until a couple of weeks ago was to help take out assad, now they are going to fight isis. we have a quiet agreement with the syrian government as this time, one would assume from what i'm hearing, the same government that the president a couple of years ago said must go. we have a tacit participation by iran on some level. you know, the country that many in the region believe we should be most concerned about. it just shows you, that is this region. it has been this region for 2,000 years. and what i have been saying since i was secretary of the navy, not just before the iraq

war, is that the united states can assert its national security interests in that part of the world but we should never become an occupying force in that part of the world. so when i look at what the president -- the strikes that the president ordered, i would say this. if he is ordering these strikes based on the notions of international terrorism, to borrow from remarks that he made. and the national security interests of the united states are directly threatens and he is conducting limited strikes, i would say that is legal. that is legal. the question of judgment will remain to be seen. i will stop right there. folks, this is a very, very complicated part of the world. we have to deal with our

national security in a way that is -- make sure that we do not get entangled on the ground again. >> the president's advisers are saying that attacking al qaeda is not an expansion because congress authorized war against them over a decade ago. do you agree with that? >> i had not heard them say that. i would expect them to say that t. goes to the portion of my remarks where i said that even without the congressional authorization they are mentioning, we have the right of self-defense under international law and under the united nations charter if there is an international terrorist organization that directly threatens our national security interests. so in that context, these types of limited raids are really no

different than what we have been doing in places like yemen. >> do you think that the obama administration is handling -- how do you think the obama administration is handling the situation in the ukraine and how would you deal with putin if you were president? >> i do believe this administration has been taking the right approach with respect to the situation in ukraine. first, this is -- the issue of the russian involvement in ukraine involves larger players in historic europe, countries like germany, which have an impact on the actions of the russians. second, it's possible -- always possible for the russians to have overplayed their hand. we saw this actually with the

soviets in afghanistan in 1979 where they went in, they overplayed their hand and over time they had to adjust their policies. i believe the policy of sanction and working with our european partners is the best way to go. what we can be thankful for right now, by the way, is that ukraine did not become a member of nato as many people were advocating during the time i was these situations. we need to preserve our options and to work with our european partners. >> going domestically for a few questions. does it bother you that all of big financial firms and banks found responsible for the 2008

great recession have only had to pay fines? are we monetizing felonies? >> let me just say this. i will give you a historical marker here. when we had to vote on whether to provide $700 billion under what was called the tarp program to appropriate $700 billion to a lot of companies who had, i think, abused our economic system, i called a lot of people trying to get their thoughts on which way i should vote. and one of the pieces of advice that i appreciated most came from an individual named martin bigs, who was with morgan stanley for many years. he helped me when i was bringing companies -- american companies into vietnam many years ago.

very, very smart, macro economic thinker. and i said, which way do you think i should vote on this? number one, he said, you have to do this. if we do not stop the bleeding within weeks the economic systems in the world economy will have a cataclysmic free fall. number two, he said, we need to reregulate. we need to get back to proper regulation of the financial sector. he said that as a hedge fund guy. he said, number three, you really ought to find a way to punish -- and that was his way. you ought to really find a way to punish the people who created this situation. who's negligence and activities created this situation. so, with that in mind, we worked

from our office to pass a wind fall profits tax. i'm not big on long-term taxes like that, but after reading an article by martin wolf in the financial times actually, very conservative economic newspaper, where he was recommending because these companies got bailed out through the moneys of the average working people in this country the tax money of the average working people in this country, they ought to pay, they ought to pay back in. and so we put together a refined piece of legislation that basically said, if you were one of -- i think there were 13 companies that got more than a certain amount, very top amount from the tarp program, and you're an executive, you get your full compensation and

400,000 bonus on regular taxation, but anything above your $400,000 bonus, you split 50/50 with the people who bailed you out. i thought that was extremely reasonable. the most interesting thing about it was when we got it to the senate floor, it was the democrats who didn't want to vote on it, not the republicans. nobody wanted to touch it and as a result we didn't get a vote on it. >> one more question before we go to some questions about veterans. do you believe obama care is a step forward? why or why not about fairness? >> the whole issue of obama care, i think, was the most difficult issue that we faced during my time in the senate. whether to eventually vote in favor of it or not. and first i would say, i believe the administration made an

error, a strategic error of calling for that legislation at the time that they did, which was the beginning of their administration. it was an issue that had been very popular during the elections cycle but you will remember two months before the election the economy crashed. and to bring something this vast and potentially costly as your flag ship piece of legislation at a time when the economy was still suffering, was not a strategically smart thing to do, quite frankly. there were a lot of pieces in this legislation i did not like. i voted with the republicans 18 times on different amendments trying to bring the legislation to a place that i was more comfortable with. in the end, i did vote for it. and i'll tell you what was in my mind when i did.

let's say this is 50.1% what you like and 49.9% what you don't. but my mother grew up in east arkansas in some pretty difficult surroundings. she was one of eight children. three of her siblings died in childhood, not childbirth, childhood as did her father when she was 10. and there wasn't medical care in east arkansas at the time. and if you go back to that period in the 1930s, even on issues like do we create social security, any program that was put up where the government was going to take a greater responsibility for the individuals to go back and look at it, they're all screaming. you know, this is socialism. how are you going to have social

security for these people? 1960s, medicare comes along. it's socialism, you know. so, that really pushed me over. i think there's -- to vote in favor of it. i don't regret voting in favor of it. but there's a lot in this program that could be tightened and adjusted. and i would hope that's where the congress can come together after this election. let's -- it's not going to go away. let's tighten it up and make it better. >> we have many veterans in the audience, including yourself. i would like to ask a general one and have you respond before we conclude. many veterans are struggling to find work. is there more we can do to ensure the men and women who serve are better prepared to enter the civilian work force. >> what i would like to see is a

better understanding among potential employers about the value that a veteran can bring to the workplace. we've had discussions over the years on this issue. i was a councilman in the veterans economy after leaving law cool worked on this many, many years. and if you're in the military today and you're an officer and have been able to not only have a college degree but have in many cases an advanced degree and you've got a skill set that people in the civilian world can understand, you don't have a terribly difficult time selling yourself. if you're enlisted, particularly non-career enlisted, career -- the citizen soldiers, the people that i designed this gi bill for, you interrupt your life,

you go out and pull a pump or two in iraq, afghanistan, you come back and some of the best leaders in that environment are the ones that are in the combat arms but they come to an employer and they have a dd 214 that doesn't have a degree or a computer school, it says i was a squad leader. we need to have a better understanding among potential employers what that means. that means i had to get things done everyday. i had to lead people. i had to motivate them. i had to work across ethnic and other lines, i learned how to lead and how to get things done. and the more people understand that then the easier it becomes to resolve the issues that you mentioned. >> we are almost out of time, but before asking the last question, we have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. first of all, i like to remind you about our upcoming events and speakers on october 15th.

deborah rutter, the new president of the john f. kennedy center for the performing arts will outline her plans for the center's future. october 20th, thomas perez, secretary of the u.s. department of labor. on october 21st, bob bosby commissioner of the big 12 conference. next, i would like to present our guest with a traditional national press club mug. you can add to your set at home. and our final question. sir, two of our greatest presidents, teddy roosevelt and fdr had backgrounds at the department of the navy. do you sense a trend developing there? [ applause ]. >> unfortunately we're not

cousins. thank you very much. >> thank you all. we are adjourned. on the next "washington journal" a look at the president's strategy for combatting isis. we'll talk with american university law professor steven vladeck and charles stimson and also lou anna simon.

begins live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> the congressional black caucus opens thursday in washington. we'll be live from their national town hall examining the impact of voting, starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on cspan2. this weekend on the c-span networks. friday night in primetime on c-span. featured speakers include ted cruz and ran paul. and saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a national town hall on the critical and historic impact of voting. and sunday evening at 8:00 p.m. on q and a, sally kwin. friday night at c-span2 just before 9:30, daniel green and william mullen, two freedom veterans talk about their experiences in iraq, isis and the use of american force. and saturday night at 10:00 p.m.

on book tv's after words, matt richtel. and sunday at 1:00 p.m. eastern the ninth annual brooklyn book festival. friday at 8:00 p.m., former chiefs of staffs and advisers to recent presidents talk about the relationship with the commander in chief and how he makes important decisions. and saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern, author jonathan white on the role of the union army and abraham lincoln's 1864 re-election. sunday afternoon at 8:00 p.m. eastern, author annette dunlap. call us and let us know what you think about what you're watching at 202-626-3400 or e-mail us. like us on facebook, follow us

on twitter. >> last week, voters in scotland rejected a referendum that would have given them independence from the united kingdom. alex salmond addressed the scottish parliament on tuesday. his remarks are 15 minutes. [ applause ]. >> thank you presenting officer. i'm glad you decided to do time for reflection today. your remarks which i very much support and agree actually chime in exactly to the first point i was going to make in this statement. because you rightly identify that last week's referendum was the most extraordinary empowering and exhilarating experience. huge credit in that is due to both sides in the referendum

campaign. what i will reflect is it's worth comparing it with our previous experience. the vote of 1979 was a botched job. 1997 referendum was an all together different experience, it was a great experience actually that we should remember and talk about in that referendum having it successful was 60%. last week, as you correctly identified, presiding officer, the tongue note was 85%, the highest for any vote on this scale ever held on these islands. and in my estimation of the exception of a handful, both sides of the debate conducted themselves in extraordinarily democratic, civilized and engaged manner. en effort to every single campaigner and voter, whatever you do and whatever your vote, i want to say thank you. this has been the greatest

democratic experience in scotland's history and brought us great credit both nationally and internationally. [ applause ] that overwhelmingly positive side to the referendum experience is generally recognized. a few journalists concentrated on negative and minor elements, it's a shame. because the true story is that scotland has had the most politically engaged population in western europe, for both sides, that's a significant and positive fact to be reckoned with. we need to retain and encourage the people's engagement, vitality, spirit. nothing is more important for the future than that. now, i'm going to add a couple caveats towards the end of my speech. right now i want to focus on the positive. i'll focus on two points in particular. the first is this, there is not

a shred of evidence for arguing now that 16 and 17-year-olds should not be allowed to vote. [ applause ] the engagement in this debate, this great constitutional debate was second to none. they proved themselves to be the passionate committed citizens we always believed they would be. everyone in this chamber should be proud of this chamber's decision to widen the franchise that is an overwhelming and unanswerable case for giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in all future elections in scotland and indeed across the united kingdom. all parties in this parliament i think should make a vow to urge westminister to make this happen in time for next year's general election. the second point of the second question which is one that's already asked by many people,

where do we move forward from here? from the moment the result in the referendum became clear, that means that both the uk government and the scottish government are committed to accepting the outcome of the referendum and working together in the best interest of scotland and the rest of the uk. i believe strongly in that section 30. i put it into the eden borough agreement. it was the red line issue for the scottish government the same way the red line issue for the uk government was not to have the max on the ballot paper. therefore the scottish government will stick to section 30, the clause that we insisted in being in the agreement. and that means that the scottish government will contribute fully to a process to empower the scottish parliament and the scottish people. we will bring forward constructive proposals for doing exactly that. now, this intention to the prime minister within minutes of the result being confirmed.

that is how the scottish government intends to proceed. i welcome the appointment of lord smith. he is a trusted person who in recent months at least recent years we should say has given great service to scotland and to his oversight of the commonwealth games organizing committee was outstanding, indeed exemplary. david cameron surprised me and i suspect others in this chamber with his statement on friday morning, less than an hour after the outcome of the referendum was confirmed. he said in that statement, a change in scotland could be in tandem, we didn't understand what that meant, he repeated at the same pace at change in england and the rest of the uk. that condition, as all of us will note and recognize, would risk throwing the entire process into delay and confusion. it would directly contradict the clear commitments made during

the campaign. i should say the briefing from downy street yesterday afternoon was very different from the friday morning statement. that suggests that the uk government started to understand the importance of meeting its commitments during the campaign is crucial that they do have that understanding. but for this parliament, we, all of us, have a responsibility to hold westminister's feet to the pyreto fire to ensure the pledges are met. it's one for all parties in the parliament. we might argue there's a special obligation in the unionist parties. it's essential they deliver. but all parties should understand and understand this well that the true guardians of progress are not the political parties at westminister or the political parties here in this chamber or lord smith, they are the energized electric of this nation, the community of scotland who will not brute or

tolerate any equivocation or delay. now, i was struck yesterday by the statement of graham smith, the scottish changing in congress, and i suspect in that statement he captured the feelings of many, many people in scotland. this is what graham had to say. the vast civic movement for meaningful and progressive change is built up in the last two years is impatient for change and will not accept minimalist proposals developed in a prereferendum context handed down on a take them or leave them basis. they are not going to be passive participants in the process or tolerate political observation or compromise. the sooner politicians recognize and get down to working with civil societies and the communities and the people of scotland to deliver a comprehensive new settlement, the better. well, what he said is absolutely correct. the referendum debate engaged people in every community of our

country. its final outcome cannot be a last-minute deal between a small group of westminister politicia politicians. lord smith has already recognized the need to capture the energy of referendum debate. all of us should support his commitment to general consultation. proper consultation and debate energizes people rather than distracting them. it's worth remembering that since the edinburg agreement was signed in 2012 the number of people unemployed in scotland has reduced by 40,000. we now have record employment in scotland, the highest in scottish history. we have the fastest-rising female employment ever in scotland. the economy has come out the great recession ahead of the rest of the uk. scotland had outperformed uk outside london. visitor spending in scotland has increased. exports have grown. the scottish government

introduced 30 new bills in the parliament and delivered the most successful commonwealth games in the history of the commonwealth games. i mention that, in passing, because in the last parliamentary debate, joe ann expressed concern in the way scotland has been paused on the big decisions fatsing our country. scotland wasn't on pause for the referend referendum, it was fast-forward as every statistic indicated. [ applause ]. >> this parliament rightly has also occupied its attention and introducing measures to alleviate the effects of westminister legislation, the council tax reduction scheme to help 500,000 of our fellow citizens or the bedroom tax alleviation to mitigate the impact of the bedroom tax. asking ourselves as a country what sort of nation we want to

be, isn't something that is separate from good government, it's part of good government. political confidence and economic confidence going together. all of us have a responsibility to maintain that political confidence and self belief to enable our empowered and engaged electric. any improvement of the def lugs settlement will require an agreement here in this parliament. considering what new powers should be delivered, there will doubtless be a range of views and proposals. the scottish government view should pass three key tests. should enable us to make scotland a more prosperous country the job's task, in particular, genuine job-creating powers are important. they should allow us to build a fairer society. we need to address the ÷ql deep-lying causes of inequality

in scottish society and should enable scotland to have a stronger and clearer articulated voice on the international stage. the labor party less than two weeks before the referendum promised home rule for scotland inside the united kingdom. it's also vital that new economic powers do not in any way disadvantage scotland. the vote made by the party leaders was clear that, quote, because of the continuation, the powers of the scottish parliament to raise revenue we can state that the how much is spent and national health service will be a matter of the scottish parliament but the delayed west dlts minister parliament at least over the weekend, failed to prepeat that promise. this promise is essential as the

unionist vote acknowledged until or unless scotland has control of all of our own resources. and so we need clarity that the uk parties will stay true to their promises. we need to insure the scottish parliament is entrenched in legislation. it can never be therefore abolished or diminished by westminister. that was clearly promised before the referendum again is missing from the parliamentary motion at westminister. while making that important change the united kingdom government should give us statutory basis on legislative consent motions. overall, there's a great opportunity for this parliament. we can work together to help the uk government deliver its promise of significant extra powers for this chamber. we can do so in such a way that interest and engagement of scottish people.

i dare say there were two caveats i wanted to add to the hugely positive nature of the referendum process, both involve the criminal law and therefore they're worth including in this statement. there is the outstanding matter of the treasury briefing of the evening of 10, september. 45 minutes before a bank of scotland meeting finished. we need to establish the full circumstances and justification for this briefing and how it can be anything other than contrary to section 52 of the criminal justice act of 1993. secondly, the scenes we saw in glasgow on friday night cannot be tolerated. we know that scotland will take proper and necessary action against those who indulged in prearranged thuggery against the peaceful demonstration. the full force of the law will be enabled and be expected to make sure we eradicate such

behavior from scottish life. [ applause ]. >> the late donald dure and what i believe to be the finest speech of his life spoke at the opening of this parliament in 1999. he reflected at one point on a discourse of the scottish enlightenment as an echo from the past which has helped shape modern scotland. what we have seen in these last two years is a new discourse of democratic enlightenment. scotland now has the most politically engaged population in western europe, and one of the most engaged of any country anywhere in the democratic world. this land has been a hub of peaceful, passionate discussion in the workplace, at home, in caves, pubs and on the streets of scotland. across scotland, people have been energized, enthused by

politics in a way that has never happened before, certainly not in my experience and i suspect in the experience of anyone in this chamber. change, attitudes towards independence and greater self government and also how politics should be carried forward. we have a new body politic, a new spirit abroad in land in one that is speaking loud and clear. all of us, all of us must realize that things will never be the same again. whatever we are traveling together, we're a better nation today than we were at the start of this process. we are more informed, more enabled and more empowered. as a result of that, a great national debate in my estimation will help us make a fairer, more prosperous and more democratic country and in all of that, all of scotland will emerge as the

winner. [ applause ]. the british house of comments is in recess as parties attend party conferences. our live coverage of prime minister's question time will return october 15th, 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. on the next washington journal, a look at the president's strategy for combatting isis. we'll talk with american university law professor steven vladeck and charles stimson of the heritage foundation. also michigan state university president lou anna simon on higher education and the role of the big ten conference. "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the british house of commons is in recess as members attend their annual party conferences. tuesday, labor party leader ed

spoke to members about his party's agenda, u.s. air strikes in syria and the recent scottish referendum. this is an hour and ten minutes. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the leader of the labor party, ed miliban.

[ applause ]. well, friends, thank you so much for that incredibly kind welcome. i want to start by talking about somebody who is from just down the road from here and that's ellen henning, a british hostage taken by isil. his wife barbara henning made an incredibly moving appeal for his release just over the weekend. you know, allen henning is simply an aid worker, trying to make life better for victims of conflict. i think it should tell us all we need to know about isil and their murderous ways. they take a decent british man like allen henning hostage and it's not just british people that they're targeting. it's people of all nationalities and all