corporations in the world. last year the fortune 500 companies received more than half of the bank's financing. nobody would care if this was a private bank, but this is a government subsidy. it amounts to cronyism that is financed by tax dollars and puts americans businesses at a competitive disadvantage. do you see what i mean when i say that government is lifting up the big at the expense of the small. enabling the rich at the expense of the poor. that's not what government is supposed to do. it's time to let the free market work and allow the export-import bank to expire. we can and must advance opportunity for all americans without giving special handouts to the select few. after six years of barack obama's presidency, it's no wonder that the american people feel this is a government for government, not a government for people. i believe that president obama's

lasting legacy will be that the american people saw what a lawless presidency looks like. what big government overreach looks like and the american people are going to say no, i think i will take a rain check. president obama set out to make government cool again and he did just the opposite. the principals that make america exceptional are too valuable to throw by the wayside. they will allow america to shine as the enduring beacon of freedom and liberty around the world. the tea party awakened the country to the values that we hold dear and made us the greatest nation in the world. the freedom and rights are taken away. the spirit that built the nation from the bottom up. it didn't build us from the top down. america has not been preserved by officials in washington, d.c.

as much as we would like to see it. it isn't. it has been preserved by the men and the women who rose to the challenge and made the nation great. the norman bor looks of the world. the martin luther king,jr.s of the world. from george washington's army who crossed the delaware fearlessly in a blizzard to the pioneers who crossed our continent in covered wagons to settle the american west. to the freedom-seeking immigrants who cross oceans to claim the promise of america's ideals. that's what keeps us rich and strong. it was the faith and spirit of our citizens along with an opportunity for a better life that built the country and made it great. freedom and opportunity, they are not political. they are not republican and they are not democrat. they are american values. if we don't stand up to defend these ideals, then who will?

in the last few years, it was the tea party. the squeaky little voice of the tea party that said i will. i will stand up. i will defend these great enshrined american values. they have been the last line of defense to stand in the way of an ever expanding government that taxes us too much, that regulates us too much. that spends too much. and is trying to extinguish one liberty of the american people after another. the tea party will never be content to let the principals slip away. with two more years of president obama's pen and phone yet to come, contend for them we must. i thank you and god bless you and god bless the united states. >> we have time for a couple of

questions. how would they manage that and how would the tea party be back? >> that's a great question. if everyone heard the question, it was fundamentally this. if the republicans at both the house and the senate this year, what is it they should do from a

policy standpoint. my opinion was this. what's wrong with these people. don't they understand what it's like to raise a family. they had a struggling small business. don't they know what it's like? we just want to grow and live and want a better like our patients and grandparents did. i say now and always, it's not about d.c. it's not about politicians. it's about finally getting your act together and listening to

the american people and recognizing that the world is not stagnant. things are changing. the united states maintains its position as the economic power house of the world. we can be the military power house of the world. the world is a safer place and better off when america is strong. what is phenomenal about this is it's based on liberty for the individual. only america does that and lives up the greatest amount of liberty for the individual and you have the greatest country in the world that is also the power

house. you don't do that with small ball ideas. you do that with big ball ideas like beginning with the tax code. you change it now. immediately. you go with the flat tax or you go with a national consumption tax. you figure out which one. you lead the debate. dead the debate and do it. guess what, folks. this is not working. america's foreign policy is not working. literally thousands of innocent people across the world are getting killed. including women and children who are buried alive. by the islamic state. there consequences when we are not strong. we don't have time to play around. now on the time to reclaim greatness. you do it by bold news.

do you have compromise? not your values and principals, but you get there. >> please use the microphone. >> i want to say what a hero you are to the silent majority and the christian coalition and mainstream america. i just got back to southern california. as you know it's run by the democratic party and between that and the sciu and the undocumented immigrants. i want to know if those of you in congress realize that i hope you if you pass it and according to walter moore who was a candidate for mayor in los angeles and said that southern california does look like a third world dump. i hope those of you in congress realize realize you pass immigration

reform, i want to know what you have to say about that. >> thank you for your question. all human beings have worth and value. when it comes to immigration, the most cynical move was made by the president of the united states. when he announced publicly that yes, he was going to grant amnesty to potentially millions of people illegally here in the united states and some of them could be terrorists in the united states who have come across our southern borders. that's one of the greatest fears. we don't know. that's one of our greatest fears today. he could be granting millions and he is going to wait until after the election just like he is going to do with not publishing how much premiums are going go up until after the election. let me say this about

immigration. i cent four days on the southern border. i studied it a lot. i thought i knew a lot about this issue until i went to america's southern border. i drove from the mouth of the rio grand all the way to laredo. what i learned was this. it was shocking. the border patrol doesn't stop anyone from coming into the united states. it's not their fault. it's the politician's fault. any foreign national who wants to come across the southern border comes in. they don't get to stay, but they get to come in. america has the most generous nation in the world when it comes to immigration. we allow them legally over one million people from across the world. every year. legally. if you took every other country of the world and you took the number of people they allow in through immigration and you add it up every other country of the world, every country of the world together doesn't equal what the united states allows in

immigration in one year and we are not the most populated nation. we are an amazingly generous country and immigration is good for the united states. we are a nation of immigrants. that doesn't include the number of illegal immigrants who come into the united states every year. illegal immigration is estimated between an additional one to two million per year. that's an enormous amount of people. we had great waves of and we hitit pause button. we had a period of time where we dealt with assimilation. what is very different now from previous waves of immigration. today we have open borders

combined with the welfare states. we didn't have that prior. that changed our equation. you can't talk about immigration without talking about america's current welfare state. those are two issues that come together. >> what i wanted to ask, you were talking about introducing legislation to help ban people who have western pass woerds from entering america who fought with the islamic state. i was wondering if you would talk about the latest on that. >> that's a great question. i just returned from the mideast and it is concerning what was going on. i confirmed with the fbi and the department of homeland security a scenario that i find concerning. it's one that i think would offend the average american

person. i come from minnesota, a state with a tragic nexus to terrorism. we have the only convicted terrorist from 9/11. we have over 50 leave minnesota to join an affiliate of al quiet qaeda. they have strapped suicide vests and fighting for them. we had four cases of terrorism and had over 20 minnesotans leave minnesota to join and fight on behalf of the islamic state. we have had three young women, 19-year-old girls go to join the islamic state. we have a tragic nexus to terrorism. as i saw the uptempo rise, i sit on the house intelligence committee. we deal with the classified secrets of the nation.

i asked for a are there any who fight with the islamic state and they said yes, there two. at that time it was classified and the whole world knows. presumably if they don't blow themselves up or are not killed, would they be allowed to return to america if they chose to? they said yes. they are murns and have an american passport. these are terrorists. they have taken up arms against the united states and would be allowed free passage to return to the united states of america? there isn't a citizen i have spoken to that has thought that that's a good idea. i had that confirmed in the last two weeks and that's how they lead the law.

i read the law and it's code 349 a. as i read the law, i believe that our government would not be allowed to come back to the united states. my legislation would say if an individual who is an american citizen with a u.s. passport is either affiliated with or a member of a foreign terrorist organization, u.s.-designated, the government would have to right to pull their passport and begin the process of denaturalization. stripping them of citizenship. they would have full due process rights, but not the right to return to the united states. they have battlefield experience and have relationships with other terrorists and potentially a plan for terrorist acts here in the united states.

we know the uptempo. we know what they have stated. they stated by their leader in skbrn he made this quote. he said we will be in direct contact with you soon, meaning the united states. he said we are with you. we are watching you. we're with you. just weently in the last month or so, he made another comment to the united states. they intend to have activity here in the united states. no one thought they would be able to get into baghdad. mortars are going into western badad and the islamic state cells in baghdad and the question is will baghdad fall? i think when a mad man speaks, you listen. we need to take this thread from the islamic state extremely seriously. we could see violent activity here in the nation as well and that's why on every level we

need to secure our borders. i am sorry to say i don't believe our government is fully securing our borders today. i know they aren't. not on the southern border through illegal immigration, but certainly not from legal immigration. when an american citizen becomes a terrorist in my mind do not have a right to come and upset the safety and security of the mesh people. they deserve to have the right to feel safe in their homes and safe in their communities. that's what the legislation is doing. it should be fast tracked. i think when we come back and to washington, d.c. the legislation has a companion by ted cruz in the senate and that should be fast tracked. we need to stop terrorists from coming into the united states.

yes? we have one from the beb which is addressing campaign finance issues and the fact that the beltway seems to have so much control over who wins or loses because of the national developments and campaign financing. they propose having donations restricted to and spending within the district from which the candidate is running. would you care to comment? >> that's an interesting concept. i never heard of that before. just for the benefit of the camera, the question from the internet from an anonymous individual was all the power for who gets to be elected seems to come from washington, d.c. so much of the money comes from lobbyists and organizations here in washington. the suggestion was how about if the only money that could be spent on a race would come from money, i assume from individuals who live in the district, right? was that your understanding? okay. from individuals who live in the

district. anybody could go and open up a post-office box or a bank account and defeat the purpose. that's the question. i never heard of that idea before, but i know in minnesota, let me tell you one thing that worked well for us. it may be counter intuitive, but i believe it is ridiculous the amount of money we are spending. it has gone into the bizarre and absurd. even for washington, d.c. standards. if you look at that, about a billion dollars was spent on either side. i was told we may be looking in 2016 at about $2 billion being spent on either side to elect a president of the united states. why would that be? the reason why is whoever becomes president holds the key to the world's largest atm machine. the people who are giving the money to elect that president

want access to that atm machine. from my remarks, i mentioned solyndra. that is what it was. an individual organization who had given money to barack obama, president of the united states and lo and behold, they get a loan of hundreds of millions of dollars and it goes up in smoke. too bad. it's just the taxpayer's money. it happens over and over again. in minnesota this is what we did. maybe this is too pollyanna, but what we did in minnesota is we have limits on what you can spend on an election. actual limits. when i ran for the state senate for the first time, i think our limit was like $50,000. to me as a young mom and kitchen table homemaker, i thought $50,000 was the moon and the stars. how would i ever raise that kind of money? today i have the distinction of being the member of congress who has raised more money for a house seat than any other member

of congress. i did that because i was nancy pelosi's top target to defeat and i was highly motivated. i didn't want her to win and i wanted to win. people were generous. i raised over $13 million in a two-year cycle. that is crazy money. that's crazy that any candidate should have to raise that kind of money. i think the question is a great one. money is influence rather than great people going to the polls. one would be limits like caps on how much could be spent. the other idea that i heard in california, these may be with local elections. there was a limit and a booklet sent to every person's house. there was a list of each candidate by their name and with their photo and basic questions and basic answers to certain issues. people would get that in the mail and they had a side by side

comparison and people would go and vote. seems like a rational idea. things that we can do, but what we are doing now is not working. it's leading to a game of bigger and better. we are at the point of bizarre and absurd. one thing i love about the heritage foundation, this is a wealth spring of thought and ideas. don't we need more of that? we need more inside. whose ideal will win rather than cruise crummy 20-second sound bide will win? that's what we need more of and there is a better way to do that. great question. thank you for having me here today. par. >> ladies and gentlemen, thanks for joining us and with being and thanks for joining us. >> thank you.

thank you, everyone. [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> i'm from that area. you from santa barbara?

>> ventura county. >> great. >> close enough. i like the shadow. >> they are great, aren't they? >> yeah. they can be a little overexcited sometimes, but they are trying to work it. thanks for the shadow and mixing california as a third world nation. >> yeah. >> i was like oh, gosh. >> thank you. thank you. >> congresswoman, you said that there is too much -- we need to have caps on campaign spending, would you support to overturn the supreme court decision? >> what i was talking about is the way we deal with campaigns in minnesota. that was done precitizens united and caps on how much could be spent and also limits on touch could be raised at a time. $500 caps and $1,000 caps, etc. it just made so real people were giving money.

the question is not with citizens united, but the legislation for mccain fine gold. there is an agreement about that because special interests have the upper hand and that's the direction i want to move. real people having more of a direction. >> you think there should be restrictions on the groups like the industries and sponsoring? >> i'm not getting into that. i'm going with the remarks. i'm going to remarks. is it just a general thing that will be -- on my legislation?

when we come back, depending on what happens, there may be a movement to have it. i'm hoping they will do that. in november. that's what i'm hoping. it's possible. if you want to get it done, you get it done. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for coming today. >> all good? okay. yeah? and what's your name? hello.

i don't think it was taken as serious as it needed to be taken. they said ebola will never come into the united states. it did almost immediately come in. the american people knew when you have a highly contagious

virus with all the movement it could easily come in. you need to quarantine where the problem began. there have been outbreaks in the congo as well. and out of those areas into europe and other areas. it was very, very difficult and i think that's why we have to make sure we have to put a lot of money into dealing with whether it's the vaccination cure or whatever to deal with it. you know the doctor who originally got ebola from africa and came back to america has been generously giving up some of his blood as transfusions to this woman in dallas. we have to put every available resource we have.

we can't just rely on what's happening with the liberians. we have to step in to protect our own people. we have to do a certain amount of screening as well. for the time being, looking at the problem and appreciating how serious the problem is, we need to quarantine the problem where we can. not export. we can't allow people to come to the united states who may have had contact. now people have a far more serious view of this problem and

they are willing to take a little bit more stricter actions than they have. >> take care. >> thank you. >> heading out this way. >> hi, guys. >> thank you for coming. that was so nice of you to be here today. i was surprised to see you out there. how did you even know? >> we know things. >> you are "the insider"s. aren't you? are you here full time? great! i have to come over and see you. i will. i absolutely will. >> that's right. that's right. okay, you guys, will we see you soon. bye-bye.

>> c-span campaign 2014 is bringing you 100 debates. coverage conditions on c-span with an alaska senate debate and republican opponent dan sullivan. here is a look at recent ads running in the state. >> i'm megan sullivan. you have seen a lot of ads attacking my family. i wanted you to know the facts. alaska has been my family's home for generations. my dad is teachingitous handle a rifle, fish, and be strong independent honest women. we learned a lot about sacrifice in the service in afghanistan and we are proud to protect alaskan women. dad will be a great senator for alaska a. >> i approved this message. >> when we were young, our father loved to bring us here to

this spot. when things seem impossible, i tried to do what he would have done. when i took on obama to take on the drilling in the atlantic and exempt alaska schools and fighting like hell to fix the health care law for alaska. i will go anywhere and work with anyone to do what's right for alaskans. >> i served with dan sullivan. parses are he was one of the leaders who led by example. he trained hundreds of marines to be ready for combat. alaska needs a fighter. i see that in dan sullivan. let alone the state it was built by people like dan sullivan. >> when times got tough, he cares. >> if dan says something he is going to do, i believe him. >> i'm dan sullivan and i approved this message.

>> what was the real record as mayor? invested in police, firefighters and schools. as senator, he took on obama to fix alaska's va and exempt the schools for no child left behind and taking responsibility for fixing the health care law so it works. >> i will go anywhere and work with anyone to do what's right for alaskans. >> recent polling listed the senate race as a toss up. see the candidates's debate tonight. david brad and the democrats trammelled which was vacated after house majority leader lot of the primary. all tonight on the com ban yon network of c-span?

throughout campaign debates from cross the country. they will determine control of the next congress. you watched the live election night and who wins and loses and which party will control the house and senate. the results and analysis. you will also see candidate victory and concession speeches. the most closely watched senate races. we want to hear from you with your calls, facebook comments and tweets. campaign 2014. >> the senate on c-span 3. we show you the most public affairs effects. on weekends, c-span 3 is the home to american history tv. including the unique series. the 150th anniversary with

battle feels and key events. touring museums and historic sites to see what they reveal. the best known american history writers and the presidency looking at the legacy of the commanders in chief. lectures in history with the top professors delving into america's past. the new series, real america with the educational films from the 30s to the 70s. created by the cable tv industry and funded by the local cable and satellite provider. watch us and like us and follow us on twitter. >> next, a discussion about european defense with major general walter pyatt. the commanding general u.s. army in europe. he talked about the state of nato operations. the current situation in ukraine and the impact of u.s. budget constraints. this was held at the center for strategic and international studies. it's about an hour.

>> good morning, everybody. >> good morning. >> lead by example and turn off my ringer. if everyone else can do the same, i would appreciate it. the international studies, i am very honored to take advantage of the ausa conference and the a tend tendance to have the general who was here for the conference as well. talk to us about the interesting things that are going on in u.s. army europe. major general pyatt is the commanding general in u.s. army europe who previously served as the commander in the joint

multinational training center. the multinational readiness center. >> the training command. >> the training command in skbrerm annie. enlisted as infantry and letter managed to bounce around to suriname and other places. i recently learned. so again he is going to talk to us about what's going on with u.s. army europe and what's going on with combined and how things have changed with the response.

over to you. >> i got an assignment to join the training command and they said i am sending you over there and i took over in june of 2013. he said clearly this was several months before. your mission is to get the u.s. army back integrated into nato. and part of our plan, we had been training forces and providing forces to an operational demand in afghanistan and iraq. we needed to transition to operational preparedness. this was a plan put into action by the united states army and u.s. army europe well before the current security crisis in eastern europe. we did that with the restructuring of forces in europe and better integrate ourselves and we didn't know what would be next. what would be the next contingency. we wouldn't do it alone and if we were going to have to respond together, we need to train and work and live together and to

understand and build that operability. the first exercise is called combined resolve one. dedicated our contribution to the nato element. the list was in the fall and sequestration they were not able to bring the brigade open. we didn't want to let it die on the vine so we used the signed forces in europe and used the 173rd airborne and headquarters. we had a mechanized from the republic and several platoons and companies from nine different nations.

>> that was our proof of principals and getting after operational preparedness. we learned that inner operability was a buzzword. they defined it. some people think it was left up to the technology. they think it's putting two people together. we thought and saw firsthand that the operability is more dependent on the capacity of military professionals comi together in one formation and face facing a common problem. trying to develop solutions against the problem. that's what the, lines is i think very strong at. we have a strong experience force throughout the allies in europe and we come together, we are better than we are separately. that was one big lesson. we have a framework.

they need to open up the book again and learn the framework and the doctrine that we are native skills and understand the doctrine that was neglected somewhat. we had common framework and well experienced formations and that provided a great exercise. we had 14 different nations over 4,000 soldiers. again a tremendous exercise and now we are conducting as i speak combined all three which will have 16 different nations. we have done other exercises as well. we have safer junction which was the brigade headquarters. it was a lithuanian brigade with u.s. airborne battalion

underneath it. the czech republic and battalion companies and platoons with albania and serbia and other nations. we had many nations well over 6,000 soldiers. this time we did what was different. we just didn't train in germany which we normally do. we expanded and did an air field seizure and simultaneously in lat via and lithuania. we landed and we were able to drive the striker vehicles out of the c 17s. we seize the air field several countries away. building on the operability and the partnered capacity. we are doing this well before the crisis started. my mission to get over there and

get the u.s. army in europe with nato, it's successful. we have a strong alliance that can respond to security concerns today. they responded as a number of a very, very strong alliance. >> can you talk about how nato operations in afghanistan and lessons learned from that and i'm inferring if there was a positive lesson from that and potentially negative ones that operational diseases there have created things where we wouldn't get the same feature. i don't know if that's true. can you talk about how you attempt to leverage lessons learned and how you are thinking about your training going

forward? >> i think first the number one lesson from my perspective is the strong relationships we have built while facing combat with our allies. we have trained and deployed together, side by side. many nations that are in conflict in afghanistan has forged a special trust and deep respect and created this bond and a strong relationship that is very powerful. they have experienced the force and that experience and i think we have in europe and nato now probably the most experienced force we ever had. i know the united states said that a lot about the services. we are the most experienced in history. i believe that to be true. the same is true with the allies. to share that now is costing the nations nothing. that is one that can carry over

to what the next conflict can be. some of the challenges we face is that because you are falling into a mature construct and classification sharing and foreign disclosure and all the rules are set for a mature thing in afghanistan and you do exercises or named operations in europe now, you have to work through those ahead of time and you have to understand and respect the sovereign rights of the nation as part of that alliance. it's not just one set of rules. it's established and you have to establish that so you can rotate forces in there quickly. each time we build up a new exercise, you have to go through and take the steps. i found out as i tried to bring over the exercise, they are ready to do all the right things and i didn't think it was a big deal across the border into

germany and i realize they were on the border. there were procedures i had to learn and say germany has something to say about this. we had agreements and some we have to get in and work them out as we go through. we are seeing that in the baltics right now. in april in response to the crisis, in ukraine, the u.s. army and europe with the airborne brigade and lat via and lithuania. our missionary is to reassure the governments that it meant something to the united states. in this brigade, even prior to that time and certainly since, it has been the most deployed in the united states army. they are the biggest effect we

got. we didn't go to deter or defend or reassure the nations and build up the capacity with the allies. we trained constantly. that was the mission to train with the allies in these countries. we recently handed over the mission on the 13th of october to elements of the first brigade and the division from ft. hood, texas. instead of preparing troopers, we have m 1 tanks and bradleys and striker vehicles. they have assumed the mission of operation atlantic resolve with the named operations. so as they came over for combined results, they put one task force with resolve and put the other combined arms down with the gunnery and they go to force on force exercise and complete live fire exercise. >> can you talk a little bit

about how the change in security environment in europe is affecting u.s. army europe's thinking about future requirements. obviously we have been on a trajectory to reduce the structure and presence and consolidate on that path for 15 years or more. more explicitly in the strategy documents. as i think you alluded to, our partners are asking us for slightly different or additional kinds of things. given the budget environment and given the down sizing of the warmer and the existing plans, how does the u.s. army do the divergence and capacity and clearly regionally they can help

to address some of that. how would you characterize the command's thinking about this? >> simply put, i would say it reinforces the plan. the plan was right. i do. if we look i really do. we fail to see what our purpose in europe is. that's to be a member and contributing member of an alliance to provide a collective smart defense for europe. so we start with to get us reintegrated was some recognizing what the the role was going to be. during the cold war when we had 300,000 u.s. forces there, it was a very different environment. because of that commit mement o the alliance, we now have a larger nay to member nations. we have peace and stability in many countries. the plan and reduction in result of our success, not we just had

a plan to cut, we're going to cut forces and now we have a crisis. i think it reenforces it. i think the crisis shows that our strategy to shape the size, to consolidate the infrastructu infrastructure, we're saving millions of dollars of consolidating those bases, getting the right size to be a contributing member of nee to was the right approach. if you do the math and look at the structure that nato can put to any security challenge, we may be lower, but the alliance is greater. and we're stronger and we're trained, ready, equipped to respond. i think where we took our guidance from was his vision was to build a smart defense for europe through connected forces initiative. and connected forces initiative is a lot like interp operability. it meant different things to

different people. but army europe really started to dissect that and said what does it mean to us wb how can we help build that vision wb. it made sense but what was the real plan wb we knew it would be wrong if every nation came out of afghanistan and wept back into their own borders and fought their own cuts on their own. they probably with respeeren't win that. we shared our training areas and facilities we had already purchased, paid for, funded, which were very good, we could build a greater training capacity that's much better than, as you would stand alone. this really helped and it opened

up the possibilities of doing bigger exercises, more frequent exercises, and a lot less expense. so i think this has helped. it reenforced that the strategy of forces for the u.s. army and rotational forces is a solid concept for us. now we don't think we got everything right. the budget is impacting that. it's not all going well. last year we brought in equipment availability set of armor brigade headquarters, at least one battalion with small enablers, but it wasn't enough. we needed more. equipment to europe, leave it

there and as forces k078 in, we don't have to pay the expense of shipping that equipment. we'll be able to maintain it and it will be used for training and applied for operational deployment u. so i know that sounds optimistic, but i think that plan served as a forcing function too, and with the crisis it became a greater forcing function for nations to look at it. . across the board as we travel through eastern europe, a nation's commitment to nato, their 2% contribution from their nation, they wear it like a badge of honor. they almost call each other out on it. and that's good because a lot of folks at least where the united states military sometimes we think in our own government back here, we think we're the only contributing member of nato. that's not the case. e we see nations who understand the security threat better than we do because if they are living

it, it's right there, it's an immediate impact so they understand the contribution is required. they also want to see that their contribution is building a collective defense. it's not just being wasted without cooperating with the alliance and tleptening alliance. so i think it has an impact. so we're seeing that. we want to do more. when talking about the budget crisis affect us most, if sequestration continues, manning levels could be forced down, readiness will not be funded. that's what keeps him up. we have to do three things. we have to man the force, train the force and modernize the force. they all cost money. if we don't invest in those and you lose money, it has to come from one or the other. he knows he cannot take the force any lower so he's going to lose readiness. as he described this week, his

fear is that we could have a repeat of what we had in the beginning of the korean war. when he was chief of staff, always forced us that would not happen again. we're never going to send untrained, unprepared forces into conflict because the price will be the blood of our servicemen and women. and so that is the real impact looming out there if sequestration continues, what will the impact be on our readiness. >> one last question and then we'll open it up to the audience about the national guard partnership program, which i think has been widely acknowled acknowledged as an extremely successful meaningful effort particularly in europe. how do you see the partnership program? is it going to expand? i don't think u anybody is saying it needs to change at all, but how do you envision it

fitting into u.s. army, the future strategy? >> it is vital to the strategy of the partnership program. and because of the resizing of the force, again, that's put more focus on the plan. we're better able to synchronize that and what we're trying to kwhaef. recently i u talked to my former high school basketball coach has a long standing relationship in lithuania because of the relationship with that country. good friends that he calls. he helped me, he's been retired for many years now. but he put me in contact with people he knew. we get great benefits when they come over once a year. we get things done, we get things built, we get them trained. but the greatest effect is these long-term standing relationships we have with our allies. you can't accomplish that just

in training. those relationships are fostered over time. i think they are the fiber to make up this fabric of the alliance, very strong. we have a better coordinated effort of the program. every nation that they are partnered with wants more, not less. so our vision is more, not less. but they have been crucial to everything we do. and even on part of the -- it helps contribute to funding to some of the exercises that we do. so instead of being a september entity where that guard unit will come for a a specified time, we have a larger exercise so that nation gets a greater benefit and we get increased readiness in the active guard so the total force benefits it. a critical part of our strategy. >> if people could raise their hands if they have questions and

we'll come around with mics. if you could briefly identify yourself and be concise, if you would, it would be appreciated, thanks. we'll start in the back and move forward. there's one behind you. you can't see that. >> look at an article from reuters from earlier this month. it's on german defense capabilities. it says, quote, the military says only 70 of 180 boxer arm armored fighting vehicles, 7 of 43 navy helicopters, 42 of euro fighters are operational, unquote. that's a huge shortfall in operational capability. given what's going on in europe

now with regard to the economies of germany in particular, where will the money come from to make these forces operational? >> i don't track the operational readiness rates of the german army, but we do track our own. you have a current slant where you may have three of 29 tanks. at one point last couple months ago, three tanks were operational of 29 we had. three days later, 29 tanks were operational. it is a concern. but i will say that currently, germans have the baltic air police mission up in astonia. they are ready, they are capable, they are able to respond to violations at air space that are happening quite frequently. so they provide d a force for

that. they have provided forces to the mission in afghanistan. they had part of their brigade deployed in northern afghanistan. the rest of the brigade was back at home in various different states. we're gutting units to send them to an operation and leaving some at home. sometimes that readiness level when you look at it, i can speak from the u.s. perspective. when we send a brigade one place and keep battalions at other place, it looks like we're not ready. we are meeting their u requirements. we're doing exact ly what we hae been trained and ready to do. we're well e kwipd for the mission. it's a ta lord mission so therefore you don't bring all your equipment at certain times. we're fortunate enough that as the brigade came back from

afghanistan they became the chief of staff of europe. now we have a chief of staff swrer man general and he has really opened the doors even greater to increase our partnership and readiness levels between our two nations, which is quite good. i can speak to a couple brigades. i have been on the ranges with them and seen their equipment. it's first rate. it's well capable. they are ready to meet their requirements. i know every nation has a challenge, though, with their defense spending. i won't discount that. i will say the formations that i have been able to train with have been ready -- i mean trained and equipped and ready to deploy. the last live fire we did for combine. ed resolve, we completed with a live fire. we had a u.s. armor battalion, a

romanian tank battalion, a georgiaen infantry company, and we did a combined arms live fire. first we did it in a virtual world so the commander could fight large formations. so he was fighting from nurn berg to the czech republic. as he came to the live realm, the first round came in by german aircraft. then led the georgiaen infantry terrain followed by romanian tank battalion and the u.s. attacked from a different flank. so what i'm seeing is increased op prablt and partnerships we have created and we have trained

towards. i'm sorry i can't talk specifically to those readiness rates, but what i can tell you is the forces we're training with are ready and well equipped. >> i don't know if he still has a question. >> my question is linked in some way to the previous one, slightly broader. two threats. cno two days ago said here that if he had a real nightmare it was isolationism is a policy here in the united states. i'd like your comment on that. and then the second threat follows on austerity u. every country is being lent on heavily to reduce their debt. almost to the state where any price will go. spain, 27.7% unemployed,

dreadful ee that as r your threat? >> i think the threat to isolationism is one that -- i mean, i'm proud to report -- i think u.s. army europe and all the land forces in europe and really the total services have worked very hard to e prevent that from happening. our mission was to get integrated and create this multinational partner capacity. and i think by building that capacity and showing the leadership of nations that are contributing these forces, we have shown them that isolating is not a good strategy. i'm confident from the military perspective we have shown that we're stronger together than we are alone. and i'm also confident we have shown our leadership that the stability in europe is certainly still within vital interest of the united states.

i'm not an economist. i know there's many challenges in the european union, but i do know we have seen growth due to the previous commitment, security commitments from the alliance in europe, but i know it's not wout challenge. but i do believe that part of our mission is to provide that security environment so the economies can flourish and that they can try to solve these challenges and get to the right agreements that are going to allow these nations to prosper. i think we are is and will continue to do that. i do believe that the complex environment, the complex threat that we're seeing is a threat to europe, is a threat to their economy and this collective security environment is definitely needed. so know the european union has

challenges. i do believe the security we can provide together will help effect and at least allow our conditions for good economic decisions to be made in the future. >> if. i could follow up on that. to what extent are you concerned about american isolation and how, if at all, do you perceive that? does it affect you in your job? >> i think that -- it's a great question. i think one of our fears when we september them to europe, we know we can't come back. it would be wrong. globally we would put our nation more at risk if we did not have forces deployed to build a collective security cooperation we need in various nations. there's a requirement for us to

be there. i also learned when i got to europe that we weren't explaining that to our national leadership enough. why it's important to have u.s. army forces in europe. and i u don't think we're explaining it to the leadership in germany either. it's a fair question. and it's an active question. we need to address it. we are required. . we're not going to respond alone. it's a global economy, it's a global threat. it's absolutely vital. we don't need 300,000 soldiers in europe anymore. 28,000 is going to be enough because the alliance is bigger, it's more competent and trained and ready and we're going to make sure we have it. it's absolutely the wrong approach if we think that pulling back will somehow be more secure. we will be less secure. but i think it's a duty u and responsibility of the united states service that members in the military to explain that to our national leaders. it's a fair question.

we have to answer to the people that pay our salary and pay tax dollars that are investing in security what they are getting for their money. and tstz also tough and we're in an area that we're not in a congressional district, but we have to explain it to our national leadership. it's a fair question and one that i think we have done so. . i think through the last recess we had a last staff visit. we show them what they are getting. i think they come out with a better understanding that we have greater cooperation, a strong, collective defense, but we have strategic access for future conflicts that could arise. we're acting right now in liberia to the ebola crisis because we were there. u.s. army, africa, could get there. . we have forces there, we have established relationships and cooperation and access.

. we don't want to have to go in -- it was best said when i did an exercise and evaluating the purpose of it. one of our doctrines calls for forcible entry operations in case of a crisis. we might have to forcibly enter a country and seize a pier. we get early entry operations. we're there. the presence is there, the security is established, the cooperation is established, and the key task to that is presence and relationships. and we're preventing more. conflicts than we can possibly measure. so i'm afraid of that rearing its ugly head again, but i think that we have explained it and we will continue to explain it when asked. we wm any and all visitors to come and see it firsthand. . take me up on it. >> i think let's come up here it

goes straight over on the aisle and we'll go back and over to the other side. right there, yeah. >> first, i want to say how much we appreciate the fact that u.s. troops in astonia. we hope they will be there for a long time. i have two questions. first, a part of u.s. force reductional forces from europe, do you see any chance that given the current crisis in ukraine that this decision will be revisited and some of the forces will be put back again to europe. and second question is what is your ta take on the very task force which nato decided to launch at the summit? >> would more u.s.s forces come back to europe? >> do you see any chance there would be a decision to put some forces back to europe, because

of the rebalancing. >> thanks for the question. we were in astonia when president obama visited and gave his speech. that meant a long to reassure the allies. i know it was a great day to be in astonia when my president came to visit. but his statement, i think, did a lot to reassure. the u.s. response is, i u think there is a much more than adequate force now. as nato expanded and we really do have from a military perspective, from a land forces perspective, we have a lot of forces in europe. we just can't look at from the u.s. army perspective that i con standpointly counsel soldiers in my army of that. that our army is nato. it is the alliance. it's not just the u.s. it's the alliance. together we're very strong.

the rotational forces that we're using, the forces and that concept will provide the right amount of force to guarantee the readiness levels that would be needed in case of crisis or conventional forces required in europe. if there are more forces needed, more forces will come. but i don't envision that we're going to increase permanent u.s. forces structure. we don't need it. we have the bases outright. i think this is a result, too, of everybody's commitment during the cold war. this is a result of our success. so will we continue to send forces over, yes, we will. will there be enough to build on the readiness? yes, they will. if needed for more, yes, they will, but that gets to the concern of sequestration, as the chief said. if we need a a large force to respond to a large crisis somewhere, his fear is we won't be ready and he will be forced

to send forces that aren't ready into a conflict and that price will be paid with blood. so second part of your question, i want to make sure i remember it, yeah, i'm sorry. so as the nato summit ended, i was watching the insertion be executed. we had the nato ambassador there. we had the joipt forces there. nato took command of that part of that exercise. i think this will take time to develop. i'm excited about it. we know we're going to have a role in this. i think it's needed. i think it's overdue. i do believe our training and exercises that we have been conducting over the last year r or plus are showing us that we can build a multinational brigade rather quickly through con standpoint training and

provide the force structure needed. what we need more work on is the readiness levels and the development and the training of the nato core level head quarters that are normw coming online. so they can do that large scale mission command. if they asked us right now to put a brigade together to rapidly respond, we could do it within nato. we're training that much together and we could put that force package together really quickly. i'm excited about this becoming more permanent structure providing to that ready force, which i think is going to be needed, and one of the -- we give general breedlove the ability to at least exercise that it without having to get back to the alliance for everybody to agree on. we don't want to stand up a ready force and not allow the commander who is responsible to not test it. i know committing it is another step that would require agreement from the allies.

but training it, building its resident dayness, that's one of the key decisions that came out of it. very much looking forward to help training and exercising with that force. thank you. >> i think we had one here and one here and then we'll go to this side. >> thank you. you were talking about some of the intellectual challenges. i was wondering if you could mention some of the technical challenges. are there some things should be doing to sort of better enhance interoperability. >> it's a great question. the first step on interoperability is try to find a common understanding of what you think the word means. people use it a lot. and people default to we have to have a technical solution. that's why i said it's not just a technical solution. obviously, it is. even within our own forces.

we have to be able to have constant sustaining shared information. but when you have experienced warriors looking at a problem set together, that really is the power of interoperability. that makes greater than the individual. the challenges we have are many. logistics is one. especially in the training arenas because we have to look at agreements and who can contribute what up front. the biggest challenge we have is with communications. simply put, with just the equipment we have right now, we're unable to talk to our allies. that's a pretty harsh statement. now we mitigate that because we're able to exchange what we call interoperability cells, small packages that extend. so from a u.s. brigade, i put a small package of my suite into a

baa. tallon and that allows them to see what i'm seeing and talk directly back and forth. but that can't be the long-term solution. we have to get a system that we can talk to one another. it's about 13 different systems. the land comp commander has worked on this it for the past year. it's his number one problem statement is we can't talk to one another. we have 13 different systems and fun of them talk to one another. and because of security concerns and encryption, they won't talk. we have to get beyond that. if we're going to be allies, we have to be able to share and use the same network. we don't believe, though, that any one nation is going provide the solution and everyone else has to fall in on that solution. that's probably not the right answer either. we have to come at this as an alliance. so one of the steps we're taking

to better define the problem is during the next exercise called tried it lance, this is commander from turkey to reach his full operational capacity. this is the last exercise to reach that as a staff. we're going to hold an industry day. we have invited industries all over the world, not just u.s. we're asking you to come and show you where our gaps are and we can have a discussion on the best solutions in the future are. we can't -- it can't become so sophisticated that every nation can't afford it. that's not a good answer. it can't become so classified that it's above nato's secret. it has to be shared and understood. that's an initial step. but in the meantime, we're going to take mitigation measures so we can fight tonight if we need to. the next measure will probably be how do we make unlike systems talk to one another. we have done that before in the

world of simulations and things. . we know there's good workarounds. it's purchased by the alliance and fielded to the alliance. i think that's where we're going. >> with an eye on inner operability. that's very powerful. they are not just being sold something because it's really good. they are asking the question. it's really good, but is it going to allow me to be inter. operable with my allies. i'm not adding to the initiative, i'm disconnecting the forces. so it's powerful to see leaders of these land forces within the alliance asking these questions. that's very powerful step in the right direction.

>> here. >> washington correspondent for euro politics newspaper. the eu is about to get a new high representative. she said in her hearing a couple weeks ago in the european parliament she was going to be devising a new security strategy, that would be one of her priorities. have you any advice for her? >> yes, come see us do a multinational exercise. one of the things that has really helped us is we're very transparent in what we're doing. as you saw this week in the unveiling of operational concept is that this is not just a military -- it's not a problem that the military is the only

solution on. this is a nation, all of the alliance, all elements of national power to be presented against the problem set. to win in a complex world, we have to put multiple dilemma. we face many adversaries. it's got to be more. i think any leader that's coming into a new national role should go and look at their militaries and understand the goodness of this collective defense, the goodness we get from putting this alliance together. that will help them see the problem through our lens and we can see the problem from their perspective as well. we can make sure we're not working against political objectives by using military means. my advice would be come watch us train. we have done it for many nations, ambassador for many nations have come to see our training and have offered good advice and some of them have participated in the training to be a national representative

that would give us those national caveats and challenges that sometimes we wish away during an exercise. it's not going to be a constraint. that's been pretty powerful. tell her to come if you see her. >> thank you very much. first of all, let me join in thanking my estonian colleague for hopefully your perm innocent presence in my country. two questions, one about the concept. the first one about european reassurance initiative, which was rolled out by your president in june, so the question is about how much you want to participate in, let's say, in the portion of those initiatives

and let's say tangible evidents on your side. armed forces in europe. the second about the concept army operating concept, which was ruled out two days ago and specifically the threat from some nations including one european one. so any u comments on this one? thank you. >> well, i think when the president comes to war saw and pledges $1 billion for reassurance, it's a powerful statement of how he feels of the alliance and then goes to astonia and gave the speech he gave there. there should be no doubt by anyone that he's committed. we have been asked as a military to look at what would be the initiatives we can do in concert with the nations that we're attempt ing attempting to reassure. we want to bolster readiness and

training. so one of the things we're looking for for that initiate dif -- and i believe it's going to get passed. we're going to be asked how we're going to do it. we want to make sure we bring over more equipment availability sets, that we have the sets we need that are in europe that can be used to train with and also be deployed if needed. we want to make sure they have the strategic access that we have. we have looked at -- and the training capabilities required. so in poland, we have looked at the training areas. there's some upgrades we'd be able to make to those areas. we have gone and surveyed all of those. we have surveyed rail heads if we have to move this type of equipment around for training or operations that we'll be able to do that, bolster those up and give us better access for training but also could be guaranteed strategic access. it's not meant to build something that's going to require every year to be funded. we're not looking at anything like that. we're looking to try to build

the readiness of the appliance through training and readiness initiatives and things i just mentioned. i think we'll get more equipment. i think we'll get better training areas. more training exercises and we'll be able to also fund a continuation of resolve, which will keep forces rotating through poland and also in the baltic states and perhaps other eastern european nations. as far as the threat in europe, i think it's very complex. we have foreign fighters throughout europe because there's a threat to every single nation, but that's also used to help us as a forcing function to share intelligence together with our allies. we know it's not one nation facing this. it could be a lone wolf attack. it could be an attack of opportunityic person. it's forced us to better share

intelligence. we see increased threat in turkey and they have responded they are meeting that threat and protecting their borders, but they are a member of the alliance and we have named operations and forces deployed there as well. but also the threat from russia is very real. your mill a tear leadership has done a tremendous amount to educate my army and our soldiers on how you see that threat. same way in the baltic states. there's a tremendous amount of information influence to try to perhaps mislead or mobilize citizens of those countries in the wrong direction but just giving them misinformation. we have to be very cautious of that and be able to inform the people in russia that these things are not true. so it's a very big challenge. it's a very real threat that these can destabilize europe and

the appliance. i think we need to make sure we constantly monitor and reassure. that's why the president has committed we're going to continue to rotate forces through operational resolve. >> okay, these two up here. >> i'm gary r sergeant, a retired colonel. was even a planner at the pentagon. my question is, and i think it revolves around a bunch of things, ebola, africa, what's going on in the baltices, what's going on in ukraine. in one word and also relates directly to regional alliancement, both the force as well as the o koe nus force. it's foreign internal defense. and guys do a real good job with the lower unit foreign internal defense overseas, language skill

sets. how do you get the general purpose forces to provide that capability globally? i think europe and u.s. army europe does it better than oh, but how do you get the guys sitting back here? the big talk this week was regional alignment and where do you do the force structure. >> i think the foreign internal defense expands out. it's almost regional internal defense. you have to build that collective force to do that. i have seen over these years in afghanistan and iraq that our forces have been doing quite well. and our mission set has expanded and moving away from that task. they do so well. so we need to all get back into that understanding. but i think the first step is to understand the environment you're operating in and step two is to build those relationships. i think they can be done with

the concept because you learn and focus on an area much like how the special forces have always done, but then they have been deployed outside their region. by giving a region, you're allowing that study and knowledge to be built up. by participating, you're building that partner capacity that's required to strengthen an alliance and helps the region build that internal defense from a collective defense standpoint. so we're fortunate in europe that we have an alliance that drives that mechanism in. but i think in the pacific, having served there for many years, our continued exercises and relationships that we have in our parking ltners in the pa they help that. you're not meeting each other for the first time in time of crisis. i think this strategy and this way that our army is going is the absolute right approach that will help do that.

>> thank you. thank you for our very strengthen and tight corporation with our forces. just a short question and request for you, if you could comment a bit, the new developments in crimea increasing some measures. and how these measures would inference the measures of kou counteracting by the forces in that area. >> i'm not sure i got the second part, but on the first part. we have trained and we have

partnered with ukraine and ukraine military for quite some time. so i feel very stongly about this because i have many friends in the ukraine army. and the united states has stated clearly no nation has the right to invade another nation and simply take land away from them. so we know the way ahead is still extremely complex. we just completed an exercise in western ukraine where we were trying to help build the capacity of the military u there so they could respond to these security threats to the east. we're very real. and so i think the best way to continue to provide that support and training, we're continuing to provide advice, but in response, the purpose of how --

and i don't know the strategic purpose or the strategy behind putin, but i do think that i'm not sure that the people in russia are really getting the full story. and i think the one thing that the interim community can do is to reach out and fashion to at least inform the people of russia that they are not being threatened by the west. that their government and their leaders is the aggressor in this one and the innocent people in ukraine are being harmed and killed. and i think they need to be exposed to that information. that's one thing that the international community should and can do. i don't know if just reacting to every new crisis is going to

persuade or stop this aggression, but i think informing the population just might. >> okay. >> i think we have time for one more question. we have one more that's been trying for a long time. if you could -- why don't we take them both. >> in 2001, a plan was executed to reduce our permanent force structure in europe, bringing back brigade as well as closing some military installations. is there any discussion today either at uconn level to not reduce force structure, but as we do more rotational forces, both in concept and execution,

any discussion about reducing or consolidating our permanent u.s. military installations in the european theater. >> let's take that question and answer them both. >> european union has come under currency and has open border for moving of goods, but you describe something very different when you're describing how to move forces. so is there any other future for european defense going forward? >> that's a good question. i was in slo venn ya a little while ago for immediate response exercise. very beautiful country. the restraints we have are sovereign about moving equipment back and forth, but it's

educating us well on agreements that we should probably have preestablished to allow in time of crisis that we can do this. but also a time of exercises that we can put the right force posture in the right place while still abiding and respecting every nation's laws. i think the more we exercise and the more we build on multinational participation, the more and more we learn and the more we learn how we need to go about this. our connected training initiative has helped us. we were also doing places we don't need to move large formations, but we can still tie them in through simulations to allow the higher headquarters to exercise them. we could do an exercise from astonia down to slo veen ya and allow the court to command it from poland and simulate a large scale maneuver exercise in eastern europe. we can do that right now. so i think that we're going to

get better at this. there's procedure, there's agreements that have to be in place for shared logistics. these are laws. we just have to get better acquainted with as a military. there's nothing wrong with the laws. we just need to know what they are. on a consolidation of bases, it's a plan we have been working on for some time. it made absolute sense as we drew down the size of the force, we had to con ssolidate the bas to meet the right force structure. and after never serving in germany and going for my first time, i was amazing and impressed of the detail and execution of this plan. people don't always say that when they see military plans, but i don't tell you we really got it right. we got it right because we worked with the host nation and worked with everyone. we understood where we needed to put it. we had to build. consolidating doesn't mean you cut bases, you have to build up and increase capability in some

so we can reduce others but this saves us millions of dollars every year in operational costs in these bases. so we saved our government a lot of money, we were able to give infrastructure back to our partners they need and able to reduce the u.s. presence there that said it was the price of our success and i think it was the right approach. but how we did it and where we put it gives us great operational reach, strategic access and access to training that's going to be required to meech the future conflicts. >> so does it need to -- now that we are planning for more rotational forces and the like, is it time? can you go further? >> we have what we need to have to facilitate the rotational forces. so right now in astonia, we're staying on astonia bases. so it's there. the infrastructure because it is connected, because of the long-term established relationships, we have access to

what we need and thank you for the host nations and the nations we're in, they are very ak accommodating to us. we have equipment we can go and we can do these rotational type of footprint in places without building new bases. so when you hear u.s. forces in the baltices, in poland, it's not a u.s. base we built that we're asking taxpayers to build for us. it's provided by the host nation. what we'll do with the reassurance initiative is build the things we do to increase training capacity and readiness within our forces and increased interoperability amongst one another. but there are some people who think we are trying to build permanent bases in these places and that's not part of our plan nor part of our vision nor do we see it's a requirement. we need to improve rail and port access in those kind of places that will help set the force and

build on interoperability that we're trying to achieve. >> thanks to all of you for coming. thank you for taking the time to come by. [ applause ] c-span's campaign 2014 has brought debates. one recent was for louisiana senate between mary landrieu and her republican challengers, bill

cassidy and rob maniess. here's part of their debate. sglz i'm part of the first generation of americans who may not achieve the same standard of living as their parents. that's a very frightening concept. was the role of government in ensuring economic prosperity for my generation and future generations. colonel? >> please note the first real gaffe of the night came from the moderator. >> first of all, i think that's a legitimate concern and that's one of the things i work hardest on in washington is trying to lift the economic power of our country. as chair of the energy committee, i'm in a particularly great position right now on behalf of the people of louisiana to help create millions of high paying jobs so that your generation can

benefit. in addition, i'm excited to be here at lsu where we have science, technology, engineering and math for men, women and minorities as well in the field of energy. number two, i also think access to education is important. my opponent bill cassidy refuses to sign on to a bill that i have toower interest rates on student loans, which are $21,000 average, 11% interest. he's refused to do that. and he won't sign on to my bill to double the opportunity for pell grants for poor student who is are smart and want to work but they come from families that simply can't afford the cost of education. >> i can tell you government doesn't create permanent jobs. if it does, they are jobs they don't want to have. the jobs come from the american people, not from government. but government gets in the way. if the president would allow the pipeline to be permitted, it

would create 40,000 jobs. by the way, senator landrieu speaks of her clout, her first priority is becoming chair of this energy committee was to get a senate floor vote on the pipeline. she's not been able to do so. she said she's done everything in her power, that just means she's not very powerful. but there's other things. the president's health care law is a damper on the economy. if you look at those in the lowest fifth of income earners, the obama care laws hammered them. and 400 custodial and food service workers had reduced from full to part-time because they could not afford the obama care law. get government out of the way, you're going to have a better job. >> colonel? >> the main thing senator landrieu has been able to accomplish is to push through all of obama's aipt-energy o point tees and we don't need that kind of clout. we need to pull obama care out by the roots.

it's a job killer. i have been in 64 parishes and talked to small business own oers and employees of those businesses all over there through 85,000 miles and every one of them give me the same message. sir, you have to do away with obama care. we cannot afford the restrict n restrictions. . we can't afford the taxes and we are not creating the jobs we could and we are cutting the jobs we had down to part-time jobs and that's hurting the economic spectrum. that's what obama care was supposed to help. we need to unleash our energy sector in the state so we can lead america to energy independence. that's away we should be doing across the board. drill, baby, drill. >> recent polls list the senate race as a tossup. you can watch the full debate online any time at c-span.org. join us tuesday night on c-span pr our live campaign election night coverage starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern. you can see who wins, who loses and which party will control

congress. and engage with us on twitter or facebook. the c-span cities tour takes book tv and "american history tv" on the road traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. this weekend we partnered with comcast for a visit to colorado springs, colorado. >> in 1806 montgomery pike was sent into the american southwest to explore the region. very similar to lewis and clark who were sent to the northwest earn part of the louisiana territory pike was sent to the southwest part of the territory and from his perspective when he came out here, he really walked off the map. he went to an area that was unknown. when pike first sees the grand peak, he thinks he'll reach the top of it in a few days, but it

takes weeks to approach. they reached what we believe is mount rosa. they turned around and at that point, pike wrote in his journals that given the conditions, given the equipment they had at the time, no one could have summited the peak. pikes peak inspired the poem that became "american the beautiful" written by katherine lee bates who came here in 1893. and the view down to the plains from the top of the mountain inspired the poetry and inspired the images that are captured in that poetry of the united states. >> watch all of our events from colorado springs saturday at noon eastern on c-span 2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on "american history tv" on

c-span 3. next a forum on health care policy and accountable care organizations hosted by the brookings institution. the group of doctors and health workers aimed to provide care while minimizes costs for patients. at this event officials and providers discussed the current state of health care organizations and the future of the growing field. this is about an hour and 40 minutes. all right and while i'd like next to go straight into our next panel and ask our panelists to come on up to the stage. we're going to talk now about in terms of the state of accountable care, what we know about aco so far. so this panel is going to explore in a lot more depth the kind of evidence that you heard about briefly in my introduction

and in some of shawn's comments. the evidence on aco implementation, practice and results. while our panelists are getting seated, i'd like to introduce them. they include michael randall, the vice president of clinical innovation for advocate position partners in chicago. he previously served as manager of business advisory services and hospital operations for the camden group, a consulting group that provides support for business planning, financial advisory and compliance and hospital and physician services. next i'd like to introduce marcus zachary, senior medical director for quality and population health at brown medical group in california. he's primarily responsible for the strategic and operational oversight of medical services related to the ambulatory care u network at brown and the aco portfolio, which includes their medicare pioneer program. within brown, dr. zachary helps

design and drive initiates linking quality and information technology in pursuit of the goals of improving quality outcomes and reducing costs. before being at brown, dr. zachary was lead physician working on implementing electronic records for a hospital in san francisco. next is jay michael mcwilliams, glad you could join us today too, down from boston. associate professor of health care policy and a practicing general internists. his research, he's an m.d. and ph.d. focuses on quality access and disparities in ageing populations with chronic conditions. the overarching goal of michael's work is to inform the development of health care markets, delivery systems, insurance coverage and regulatory and payment policies that support value in health care and in medicare.

much of his work relates to evaluating accountable care programs including the massachusetts blue cross alternative contract. and finally, david mulesteen is the director of research. it's a health care intelligence business where he the changing health care landscape. he studied the growth of accountable care organizations extensively with the center for accountable care intelligence at leavitt. and he leads the firm's study of geographic variation in health care markets. his research interests focus on applying legal and legislative framework to evaluate the evidence of health policies for the benefit of government, and private policymakers. now, i've asked each of our panelists to start out with some opening comments for this session on how they see the evidence on acos emerging. any particular challenging areas, notable findings, what they'd like to see happen next. comments along those lines. and we're going to have some discussion across the group, and then with all of you here today.

so, if i could start with michael randall, please go ahead. >> so, first to start, advocates, we're excited to be here to share our journey with you. i lead many aspects of advocate strategy and operations, in total we serve about 600,000 lives in our aco. this includes commercial, medicare, and medicaid lives. in terms of how do we make the model more sustainable, i think you've heard some things that medicare is looking at. commercial payers are also looking at. how do we design a model for shared savings that is able to support provider organizations to have funds available to invest in information technology and care model design. before i get into those aspects in particular, i just wanted to share some of our results both in the area of quality, and also

cost savings. so first in terms of quality, medicare shared savings side, we had our estimated total quality score, we saw that increase in 2012 from 79 to 86% in 2013. of the scored measures, 21 of the 27 improved during this period of time. on the commercial side, also seeing improvements in quality. we track eight key indicators for our hmo population. six of those eight improved in 2012. we're still finalizing results for 2013 but overall a net positive improvement. 2013 was a baseline steady for our ppo population. on the cost side, our results mirror that of the national experience for the commercial plans, both hmo and ppo. we're seeing a year over year improvement of about 1% to 3%. for medicare shared savings, a little bit less. but our first performance year was a 0.2% improvement ahead of

the national benchmark. all of which came in the last six months. that equates to about a 0.6% improvements. or about $3 million in net savings to medicare trust fund. to make the model more sustainable we believe that there are two areas of focus. one is information technology. and the second is care model design. so in terms of information technology, it's very helpful to have a claims information, it gives us a glimpse into the total care that patients are receiving, but it's not enough. and so, for us, we're focused on marrying up the clinical and claims information. one example of that has been our partnership or collaboration, rather, with sernor where we developed a new hospital readmission risk tool that has a predicted value, that's 20% better than anything else on the market today. a second example of how we're trying to merge clinical

information claims data is our support of the development of a regional health information exchange. advocate supported this through leadership, as well as investments of funds, and in the model design of the regional information exchange. anticipating about 50% of their hospitals will be participating in this by the end of the year. starting first in the exchange of admission, discharge and transfer data with clinical information to flow about the middle of next year. the second area to address is care model design. like other organizations, we started by focusing first on our high risk population. we designed an outpatient care management program today that employs over 100 care managers, working in the field with our physicians to coordinate care for these patients. a second key program was investments in post acute care services. development of a pan sniff network. advocate only owns one skilled

nursing facility yet we refer business to over 100 independent skilled nursing facilities throughout chicago. and so for us to be successful, we had to identify those organizations that shared a common vision to prove quality and lead to greater efficiency. looking forward, we recognize that we need to go deeper into the population health triangle to engage not only the high risk, but the moderate risk patients, as well. we've done some of this through our patient center home implementation. we are implemented this past year three new pilot programs. one of which is a community health work care program and as we look at 2015 we will be making additional investments in pilot programs. i think for you in the audience that has the ability to influence public policy or commercial development efforts, supporting the efforts to promote interofferability of data, and the exchange of data, as well as research to

understand what truly is having an impact, and what's working, would be there as a focus. thank you so much for your time. >> great. thank you very much, michael. and i'd like to turn next to dr. zachary. >> thanks for having me. i'm marcus zachary from brown and toland. i'm having a disconcerting moment that i'm the gray-haired guy up here on this panel. i guess i've reached that age. so for those of you who don't know, because there's not a lot of folks from california here, brown and toland is a fully physician owned and operated independent physician association, the largest in northern california, over 1700 docs. so we are truly hospital agnostic. we have no private equity partners. we have no hospital financial partners. we have a long history of managing mostly professional risk, and a capitated environment.

we, like sean was saying, are interested in taking more risk, and so with payment reform that was happening with the aca we jumped right in. we have shifted about 100,000 lives over the last three years into some form of risk sharing program. and that runs the gamut of alphabet soup, we have hmo, aco, ppo, aco, we've got a limited scheme for taking first dollar on medicare advantage patients, and then of course we're pioneer for participants and happy to say we were one of your red dots up there where we've achieved significant savings, actually, in the first two years of payout with good quality outcomes. and we're very proud of that. i think on a high level what we'd like to see, you know, i think one of the things is, that

i worried about from the beginning, is that if the payers' attitude is, what have you done for me lately, i think we're going to be in trouble. we're coming from double digit inflation in the health care space and now we're talking about actual savings. and there are a lot of inefficiencies, and there is a lot of opportunity to raise the sea level but at some point, it's only going to go up so much. and we will have to i think, accept the fact that there will be some growth for inflation. also taking into account, again sean was actually quoting the exact figures. we know the baby boomers are really going to put a stress on the health care system financially, and resource-wise. so i think there has to be some dose of realism that the remarkable performance that we've seen early on at some point that's going to regress to the mean. to some extent.

that doesn't mean we have to go back to double digit inflation. but, something realistic. and then, i think the other thing, and this is just from brown and toland's perspective, because we have been managing risk and our docs are used to it, we definitely would like to see the continued evolution for the opportunity to take on more risk and to get at that first dollar which i think sean was sort of alluding to. it's not going to be for everybody and i would caution anybody thinking about it to really understand your organization and your ability to handle that risk because it's not easy. when we get into questions i'd be happy to talk about tactics and strategies that we're using sort of more into the weeds that seem to have been important to our success. but i think i'll leave it there for now. >> great. thanks very much, marcus. we've heard about results to date from the standpoint of a couple of the major organizations that are

participating in aco efforts in both public and private sectors. and now we're going to hear from a couple of the experts on looking at the bigger picture across all of the aco experience in the u.s. so far. next up for that i'd like to turn to michael mcwilliams. michael? >> so i'll speak more from a research and policy perspective as mark said. and i'll comment on three things. two challenges, and one as far as results go. and i think one of the key challenges ahead from a policy perspective is getting the benchmarking methodology right, the spending targets for acos. under the current model, the incentives for acos to generate savings are quite weak. particularly because of the rebasing that's implied by the current rules. so if an aco achieves spending on one contract period, carrying the current rules forward that would mean that their spending target or benchmark for the following contract period would be lower by that amount.