to have health insurance, less likely to own a home. part of this is a legacy of hundreds of years of slavery and segregation, and structural inequalities that compounded over generations. it did not happen by accident. [ applause ] >> currently it is the result of continuing and sometimes more subtle bigotry. whether and who gets called back for a job interview or who gets suspended from school, or what neighborhood you're able to rent an apartment in, which, by the way, is why our recent initiative to effect the fairness of fair housing laws is so important. so we can't be satisfied or not satisfied until the opportunity gap is closed for everybody in

america. everybody. but today i want to focus on one aspect of american life that remains particularly skewed by race and by health, a source of in equity that has ripple effects on families and communities and ultimately on our nation and that is our criminal justice system. now, this is not -- this is not a new topic. i know sometimes folks discover these things like they just happen. there is a long history of in equity in the criminal justice system in america.

when i was in the state legislature in illinois, we worked to make sure that we had video taping the interrogations because there were some problems there. we set up racial profiling laws to prevent the kind of bias in traffic stops that too many people experience. since my first campaign i've talked about how in too many cases our criminal justice system ends up being a pipeline from under-funded inadequate schools to over-crowded jails. what has changed though is that in recent years, the eyes of more americans have been opened to this truth. partly because of cameras,

partly because of tragedy, partly because the statistics cannot be ignored. we can't close our eyes any more. and the good news -- and this is truly good news -- is that good people of all political persuasions are starting to think we need to do something about this. so let's look at the statistics. the united states is home to 5% of the world's population. but 25% of the world's prisoners. think about that. our in cars reagan rate is four times higher than china's. we keep more people behind bars

than the top 35 european countries combined. and it hasn't always been the case this huge explosion in incarceration rates. in 1980, there were 500,000 people behind bars in america. half a million people in 1980. i was in college in 1980. many of you were not born in 1980. that's okay. i remember 1980. 500,000. today, there are 2.2 million. it has quadrupled since 1980. our prison population has doubled in the last two decades alone. now we need to be honest, there are a lot of folks who belong in

prison. if we're going to deal with this problem, and the inequities involved, then we have to speak honestly. there are some folks who need to be in jail. they may have had terrible things happen to them in their lives. we hold out the hope for redemption, but they've done some bad things. murders, predators, rapists, gang leaders drug king pins. we need some of those folks behind bars. our communities are safer thanks to brave police officers and hard working prosecutors who put those violent criminals in jail. [ applause ] >> and the studies show that up to a certain point, suffer prosecutors and stiffer

sentences for the violent offenders contributed to the deck line in violent crime over the last few decades. although the science also indicates that you get a point of diminishing returns. but it is important for us to recognize that violence in our communities is serious and that historically, in fact, the african-american community often times was under-policed rather than over-policed. folks were very interested in containing the african-american community so it couldn't leave segregated areas but within those areas there wasn't enough police presence. but here is the thing. over the last few decades we've also locked up more and more nonviolent drug offenders than ever before, for longer than

ever before. and that is the real reason our prison population is so high. in far too many cases the punishment simply does not fit the crime. if your a low-level drug dealer or violate your parole, you owe some debt to society. you have to be held accountable and make amends. but you don't owe 20 years. you don't owe a life sentence. that is disproportionate to the price that should be paid. and by the way, the taxpayers are picking up the tab for that

price. every year, we spend $80 billion to keep folks incarcerated. $80 billion. now just to put that in perspective, for $80 billion we could have universal preschool for every 3 and 4-year-old in america. that is what $80 billion buys. for $80 billion, we could double the salary of every high school teacher in america. for $80 billion, we could finance new roads and bridges airports, job training programs, research and development. we're about to get in a big budget debate in washington, what i couldn't do with $80 billion. it's a lot of money.

for what we spend to keep everyone locked up for one year we could eliminate tuition and every single one of our public colleges and universities. [ applause ] >> as republican senator and presidential candidate rand paul has said, and to his credit, he's been consistent on this issue, imprisoning large numbers of nonviolent drug offenders of time cost the taxpayers' money without making them any safer. roughly one-third of the justice department's budget now goes toward incarceration. one-third. and there are outstanding public serve abouts at our justice

department starting with our outstanding attorney general loretta lynch. and we have some great prosecutors here today. and they do outstanding work, so many of them. but every dollar they have to spend keeping nonviolent drug offenders in prison is a dollar they can't spend going after drug king pins or tracking down terrorists or hiring more police and giving them the resources that would allow them to do a more effective job community policing. and then of course, there are the costs that can't be measured in dollars and cents. because the statistics on who gets incarcerated show that by a wide margin is disproportionately impacts communities of color. african-americans and latinos make up 30% of our population.

they make up 60% of our inmates. about one in every 35 african-american men one in every 88 latino men is serving time right now. among white men that number is one in 214. the bottom line is that in too many places black boys and black men, latino boys and latino men, experience being treated differently under the law. [ applause ] >> and i want to be clear. this is not just anecdote. this is not just barbershop talk. a growing body of research shows that people of color are more likely to be stopped, frisked questioned charged detained.

african-americans are more likely to be arrested. they are more likely to be sentenced to more time for the same crime. and one of the consequences of this is around 1 million fathers are behind bars. around 1 in 9 african-american kids has a parent in prison. what is that doing to our communities? what is that doing those children? our nation is being robbed of men and women who could be workers and taxpayers, could be more actively involved in their children's lives, could be role models could be community leaders.

and right now, they are locked up for a nonviolent offense. so our criminal justice system isn't as smart as it should be. it is not keeping us as safe as it should be. it is not as fair as it should be. mass incarceration makes our country worse off and we need to do something about it. [ applause ] >> but here is the good news. good news. don't get me preaching now. i am feeling more hopeful today, because even though when let's face it, it seems like republicans and democrats cannot agree on anything, a lot of them agree on this.

in fact today, back in washington, republican senators from utah and texas are joining democratic senators from new jersey and rhode island to talk about how congress can pass meaningful criminal justice reform this year. that's good news. that is good news. good news. that doesn't happen very often. and it is not just senators. this is a cause that is bringing people in both the houses of congress together, it's created some unlikely bedfellows. you've got van jones and newt gingrich. you've got americans for tax reform and the aclu. you have the naacp and the koch

brothers -- no, you have to give them credit. you have to call it like you see it. there are states from texas and south carolina to california and connecticut who have acted to reduce the prison populations over the last five years and seen their crimea rates fall. that's good news. my administration has taken steps on our own to reduce the forward prison population. so i signed a bill reducing the 101 sentencing disparity between crack and powdered cocaine. i've commuted the sentences of dozens of people sentenced under old drug laws that we now recognize were unfair and

yesterday i announced i'm commuting dozens more. under the leadership of attorney general eric holder now continued by loretta lynch federal prosecutors got what he called smart on crime which is refocusing efforts on the worst offenders, pursuing mandatory minimum sentences 20% less often than they did the year before. the idea is you always have to charge the max. to be a good prosecutor, you need to be proportionate. and it turns out that we're solving just as many cases and there are just as many plea bargains and it is working it's just that we've limited some of the excess. and recently something extraordinary happened. for the first time america's

crime rate and incarceration rate both went down at the same time. that happened last year. [ applause ] >> so there is some momentum building for reform. there is evidence mounting for why we need reform. and i want to spend the rest of my time laying out some basic principals, or simple ideas of what reform needs to look like and we are at the beginning of the process and we need to make sure we stay with it. and i will focus on the community, the courtroom and the cell block. i want to begin with the community, because i believe crime is like any other epidemic. the best time to stop it is before it starts. and i'm going to go ahead and say what i've said 100 times before or a thousand times

before and what you've heard me say before, if we make investments early in our children we will reduce the need to incarcerate those kids. so one study found that for every dollar we invest in pre-k save at least twice that down the road in reduced crime. getting a teen-ager a job for the summer costs a fraction of what it cost to lock him up for 15 years. investing in our communities makes sense. it saves taxpayer money if we are consistent about it. and if we recognize that every child deserves opportunity, not just some. not just our own.

what doesn't make sense is treating entire neighborhoods as little more than danger zones where we just surround them. we ask police to go in there and do the tough job of trying to contain the hopelessness when we are not willing to make the investments to help lift those communities out of hopelessness. that is not just a police problem, that is a societal problem. places like west philly or west baltimore, or ferguson, missouri. they are part of america too. they're not separate. they're part of america like anywhere else. the kids there are american kids. just like your kids and my kids. so we have to make sure boys and girls in those communities are loved and cherished and

supported and nurtured and invested in. and, we have to have the same standards for those children as we have for our own children. so if you are a parent you know that there are times where boys and girls are going to act in school and the question is are we letting principals and parents deal with one set of kids and we call the police on another set of kids that is not the right thing to do. [ applause ] >> we've got to make sure our juvenile justice system remembers that kids are different. don't just tag them as future criminals. reach out to them as future

citizens. and even as we recognize that police officers do one of the toughest, bravest jobs around, and we do everything in our power -- and as we do everything in our power to keep the police officers safe on the job, i've talked about this we have to restore trust between the police and some of the communities where they serve. and a good place to start is making sure communities around the country adopt the recommendations from the task force that i set up that included law enforcement and also included young people from new york and from ferguson. and they were able to arrive at a consensus, around better things like better training, better data collection, to make sure that policing is more effective and more accountable but also more unbiased.

so these are steps in the community that will lead to fewer folks being arrested in the first place. now they won't eliminate crime entirely entirely. there is going to be crime. that is why the second place we need to change is in the courtroom. for nonviolent drug crimes. we need to lower long mandatory minimum sentences or get rid of them entirely. give judges some discretion around nonviolent crimes, so that potentially we can steer a young person who has made a mistake in a better direction. we should pass a sentencing rye form bill through congress this year. we need to ask prosecutors to use their discretion to seek the best punishment the one that will be most effective, instead of just the longest punishment.

we should invest in alternatives to prison like drug courts and treatment and problems-- probation programs which can save taxpayers thousands of dollars per defendant each year. now even if we're locking up fewer people, even if we are reforming sentencing guidelines as i've said before, some criminals still deserve to go to jail and as republican senator john corbin has reminded us, virtually all of the people incarcerated in our prisons will eventually some day, be released. and that is why the third place we need reform is in the cell block. so on thursday i will be the first sitting president to visit a federal prison. [ cheering and applause ]

>> and -- and i'm going to shine a spotlight on this issue because while the people in our prisons have made some mistakes and sometimes big mistakes they are already americans. and we have to make sure that as they do their time, and pay back their debt to society that we are increasing the possibility that they can turn their lives around. that doesn't mean that we will turn everybody's life around. that doesn't mean there rrnt

some -- aren't some hard cases. but it does mean we want to be in a position in which if somebody in the midst of imprisonment recognizes the error of their ways, is in the process of reflecting about where they've been and where they should be going, we've got to make sure that their in a position to make the turn. and that is why we should not tolerate conditions in prison that have no place in any civilized country. we should not be tolerating overcrowding in prison. we should not be tolerating gang activity in prison. we should not be tolerating rape in prison and we shouldn't be making jokes about it in our popular culture. that is no joke. these things are unacceptable.

[ cheering and applause ] >> what's more, i've asked my attorney general to start a review of the overuse of solitary confinement across american prisons. the social science shows that an environment like that is often more likely to make inmates more alienated, more hostile potentially more violent. do we really think it makes sense to lock so many people alone in tiny cells for 23 hours a day for months and sometimes for years at a time. that is not going to make us safer. that is not going to make us stronger. and if those individuals are ultimately released how are they ever going to adapt? it's not smart.

our prisons should be a place where we can train people for skills that can help them find a job. not train them to become more hardened criminals. and look, i don't want to pretend like this is all easy. but someplaces are doing better than others. montgomery county maryland, put a job training center inside of the prison walls to give folks a head start in thinking about what you might do other wise than committing crime. that is a good idea. here is another good idea. one with bipartisan support in congress. let's reward prisoners with reduced sentences if they complete programs that make them less likely to commit a repeat

offense. let's invest in innovative new approaches to link former prisoners with employers, help them stay on track. let's follow the growing number of our states and cities and private companies who have decided to ban the box on job applications so that former prisoners who have done their time and are now trying to get straight with society have a decent shot in a job interview. and if folks have served their time, and they've re-entered society, they should be able to vote.

you know communities that give our young people ever shot at success, courts that are tough but fair, prisons that recognize eventually the majority will be released, and so seek to prepare these returning citizens to grab that second chance that is where we need to build. but i want to add this we can't ask our police or our prosecutors or our prison guards or our judges to bear the entire burden of containing and controlling problems that the rest of us are not facing up to and want to do something about. so, yes, we have to stand up to those who are determined to slash investments in our communities at any cost, cutting preschool programs cutting job training programs cutting affordable housing, cutting community policing programs, that short-sided investments

make our country strong. we have to ip vest in this country more than ever. an african-american man born roughly 25 years ago has a roughly one in two chance of being employed today. more than one in three african-american children are growing up in poverty. when the unemployment rate was 9.1% when i came into office as it was going up we properly recognized, this is a crisis. right now the unemployment rate among african-americans is 9.5%. what should we call that? it is a crisis. and we have to be just as concerned about continuing to lift up job opportunities for these young people. so today i've been talking about the criminal justice system but we have to recognize that it's not something we can view in

isolation. any system that allows us to turn a blind eye to hopelessness and despair that is not a justice system, that is an injustice system. by that it is an extension and reflection of some broader decisions that we're making as a society. and that has to change. that has to change. with the march -- the marchers on washington knew. what the marchers in salma knew, what folks like julian bond knew. what the marchers in this room still know -- is that justice is not the only absence offo appreciation -- oppression it is the presence of opportunity. justice is giving a child a great shot at education no

matter what zip code they are born into. justice is giving everyone willing to work hard at a chance for a good job with good wages no matter what their name is what their skin color is where they live. 50 years after the voting rights act, justice is protecting that right for every american. justice is living up to the common creed that said i am my brothers and sisters' keeper. justice is making sure every young person knows they are special and important and that their lives matter, not because they heard it in a hash tag but because of the love they feel every single day. not just love from their parents, not just love from their neighborhood, but love from police, love from politicians. love from somebody who lives on the other side of the country but said that young person is still important to me.

that is what justice is. and in the american tradition -- and in the immigrant tradition of remaking ourselves in the christian tradition that says none of us is without sin, and all of us need redemption, justice and redemption go hand in hand. you know, right before i came out here i met with four former prisoners, four ex-offenders. two of them were african-american one of them was latino, and one of them was white. all of them had amazing stories. one of them dropped out of school when he was a young kid.

now he's making film about his experience in the prison system. one of them served ten years in prison, then got a job at five guys which is a tasty burger, and they gave him an opportunity and he rose up and game a general manager there and now is doing anti-violence work here in the community. one of them, the young latino man, he came out of prison and was given an opportunity to get trained on green jobs that are helping the environment but also gave him a marketable skill. and he talked about how the way he's staying out of trouble is he just keeps on thinking about his two daughters and i could relate to that because you don't want to disappoint your daughters. you don't want to disappoint those baby girls.

and he said i go to work and i come home and i grab that little baby and get a kiss and that is keeping me focused. and then one of them jeff copeland, was arrested six times before his 38th birthday. he was drinking using drugs, racked up dui, after dui, sentence after sentence. and he admits the sentences he was getting for dui weren't reflective of all of the trouble he was causing. it could have been worse. and jeff spent so many time jogging in place in his cell that inmates nicknamed him the running man. and he was literally going nowhere. running in place. and then somehow jeff started examining his life and he said

this isn't me. so he decided to hold himself accountable. he quit drinking and he went to aa. met a recruiter from the entry program of the community college of philadelphia and enrolled in classes once he was released, made sure to show up every day, graduated assuma couple laudy with a 3.96 gpa. and this fall he will graduate from temple juvenile with a major in criminal justice and a minor in social work and he volunteers helping former inmates get their lives back on track. and it is sort of a cliche, he said, but we could do anything. in just two years ago, the running man ran his first marathon because he's going somewhere now. you never look at -- look at crossing the finish line he said of his journey, you attack it by putting one mile after the other. it takes steps.

it takes steps. that is true for individuals, it's true for our nation. you know sometimes i get in debates about how to think about progress or the lack of progress when it comes to issues of race and inequality in america. and there are times where people say, oh, the president, too optimistic or he's not talking enough about how bad things are. all right, let me tell you something, i see what happens. my heart breaks when i see families who are impacted. i spend time with their families and feel their grief. i see those young men on street

corners and eventually in prisons, and i think to myself they could be me. the main difference between me and them is i had a more forgiving environment. so that when i slipped up when i made a mistake, i had a second chance and they've got no margin for error. [ applause ] i know -- i know how hard things are for a lot of folks but i also know that it takes steps. and if we have the courage to take that first step then we take a second step. and if we have the courage to take the second step and

suddenly we've taken ten steps an the next thing you know you've taken 100 steps. that is true for us as individuals and that is true for us as a nation. we are not perfect but we have the capacity to be more perfect. mile after mile. step after step. they pile up one after the other and pretty soon the finish line gets into sight. and we are not where we were. we're in a better place because we had the courage to move forward. so we cannot ignore the problems that we had but we can't stop running the race. that's how you win the race. that is how you fix a broken system. that is how you change a country. the naacp understands that. think about the race that you have run. think about the race ahead.

if we keep taking steps toward a more perfect union and close the gaps between who we are and who we want to be america will move forward. there is nothing we can't do. thank you. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [ cheering and applause ] ♪ ♪

♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪ >> so there is president obama in philadelphia making his way out of the convention hall. a little hard to see but he is there. another stop tonight a democratic party function. tomorrow the president off to oklahoma. more importantly, we should tell you what happened earlier today. starting out today at the white house, the president making that historic announcement about the iranian nuclear deal. and we have a whole lot of programming for you tonight starting at about 8:00 eastern on c-span and we'll cover the announcement itself and the reaction in iran and congressional reaction and your chance to weigh in with your calls and facebook comments and tweets so that started at 8:00

eastern time on c-span. what we're going to do now is take you back to the senate armed services committee hearing last year, the chair of the joint chief of staff with joseph dunford. and we'll leave off where we were. >> i'll do that senator thank you. >> committee will not review how the senator from arkansas got his nicknames. senator kaine. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you general dunford to your family. with the recent announcement of about 500 more vicars going into the anti-isil mission in iraq and the region we are up to 3500 troops serving abroad in that battle, serving as vissers

trainering, special -- training special forces conducting ground strikes and the war past the 11 month anniversary yesterday, and two days ago general dempsey testified in a mission of this complexity it was likely to be a multi-year effort that would require a sustained commitment by the united states to defeat isil. do you think it would be received positively by the troops who we are asking to deploy far from home and risk their lives if congress were to have a debate and to authorize and affirm the u.s. mission against isil? >> senator i do think it would be positive. from a couple of perspectives. one, the reason you mentioned what i think our young men and women need and it is really all they need, to do what we ask them to do, is a sense what they are doing has purpose and meaning and has the support of the american people and that is the first reason. but there is a second benefit

from such a debate and that is to send a message to our adverse air yours and our allies we're committed to this endeavor. >> thank you, general. with respect to the anti-isil effort i want to pick up on something senator reed was talking about earlier. the whole of government approach as you referred to it has sort of nine lines of effort and we know this but for everybody there, supporting effective governance in iraq. denying isil safe haven. building partner capacity, enhancing intelligence collection on isil. disrupting finances exposing isil true nature, disrupting the flow of foreign fighters, protecting the homeland and humanitarian support. the nine lines are purely d.o.d. denying safe haven and building partnership capacity and the others are generally non-d.o.d. you testified you think the effect of sequester on the d.o.d. mission could be catastrophic but given the fact

that seven of the nine items are d.o.d. would you agree that as of october 1st it would hurt the other seven lines of effort which are kit kral -- critical to defeating isil. >> senator, i do. and i would like to talk about and highlight the issue. the two lines of perspective deny sanctity and build partnership in iraq and syria are buying time and space for the other seven lines of effort to work. and to be honest, i don't see how we can have an enduring rest without those lines of effort that set the conditions for the other seven lines of effort to be put into effect. but i certainly can't see us being successful without all of them being properly resourced. when you talk about threat finance, and moving foreign fighters and more importantly

the state department's efforts to negotiate to develop effective government in iraq and syria those are important actions for us to take to have enduring stability in the region so we can deal with this issue once and for all. >> and i think there is a question that if we fix sequester for defense that is all we need to do but for defeating isil the testimony about nondefense and defense investments in defeating isil is important and i'll note by my account, 95 of 100 senators are now on record, either by voting in the budget or voting in the ndaa or in public statements for supporting the notion that sequester should be fixed for defense and nondefense accounts and it is my hope we'll do that. with respect to training and equipping opposition in the anti-isil battle two items. senator mccain first raised in september in a hearing, i think in this room, the question of if we train folks to fight isil in

syria and they get attacked by assad regime and will they be protected and he still hasn't gotten an answer and he stillthem. and we have had nine month hads without a clearance. we were told in theater last week that the current rules of engagement would prohibit u.s. efforts -- if they come under attack by the assad regime, i have asked questions for the record to get it clarified. i would like to ask if that is the policy. if d.o.d. will change the policy, and if not what do we need to on do to change the policy? i do not believe we need to send u.s. trained folks in to a theater of war without a guarantee that they are going to be protected. those will be record questions, we wanted to let you know they are coming and we view it as an important matter.

>> thank you. >> thank you mr. chair. >> thank you, and i want to thank you for your service to the country and taking on a new responsibility. i know that certainly marines all over the country, whether in active duty or retired take pride in the fact that you are only the second marine ever nominated for this post and i know your career has exemplified the values of ss of horn -- values of honor, courage and commitment. look forward to seeing you tomorrow night at the parade. i wanted to ask you a few questions about the military and relationship with the congress. even though your role will be a principal adviser to the president. force posture. usually usually that weighs in through the ndaa, placing of troops.

aircraft, the a-10, when it happens, how important is it that the military follow the defense guidance of the senate or the congress? >> senator, i think it's very important, given how explicit the constitution is about the responsibilities in that regard. >> what if there was something that passed unanimous usually about the committee, votes on to senator floor, do you think the cno should say, well the chairman does not know that much abou we will blow that advice in the ndaa off, is that an appropriate role for the mill tear sni. >> if congress passes a law senator, it would not be appropriate to ignore it. >> how about ndaa amendment that says in support of the president's strategy, to

increase paycon in the aor, what do you think our response to be if that is happening? >> first obviously the -- >> there's a recent amendment that says exactly that. >> right. >> let me provide a second area. we have talked about it a bit in terms of emerging threats. sometimes the department of defense, civilian and military officials, because there's so many threats out, there they miss certain threats. i will provide an example of one that everyone is focused on. with the exception of the d.o.d. there was a cover story about the arctic in the race to control the arctic the u.s. lags behind. it's a long article. talks about how this is the world's newest great game. major powers are struggling to

seldom nate the remote and strategic places and russia is moving aggressively forces and having serious military exercises. and it's being said this that it's a new cold war that the u.s. is in danger of losing that we are not in the same league as the russians and we are not playing the game at all. so, i think it's safe to say that the department of defense has been asleep at the switch on this. congress has been more atuned to had this issue. in this year's ndaa there's a section that requires the department of defense to provide congress a military strategy. given the new threat levels and an old plan for the arctic, based on the incomed interest and threats sdimpt make sense to cut any of america's limited number of cold weather trained warriors in the arctic before this congressionally mandated strategy is completed?

>> senator, i guess, i'm not sure which forces you are eluded to be cut. >> there's only certain forces in the arctic right now, they are all in alaska. >> senator i would like to take that for the record. i'm not aware of the full range of discussions that are being made right now and what the implications are. >> so, general i think, it's important to recognize you know, how -- it's hard to figure out appropriate force levels and capabilities in the arctic without varyinghaving a plan. we mandate today desire and need of getting a plan and we are having the cart before the horse, cutting forces before we know the plan. we recognize there's an increased threat and congress has and we hope the d.o.d. does as well. >> if confirmed. i know i had conversations about the arctic and the commitment i

will make to you, we will in fact develop an appropriate role in spurt of our economic and political interests in the arctic. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman and mr. dunford and mrs. dunford for your service. i want to pick up on a topic, you said that he would work to ensure that the culture does not support retaliation, and i would ask you to have a sense of urgency, a as you respond to this committee on how you are going to address and resolve the issue of retaliation. as we downsize our military. it's important that our troops

morale remains strong and there's cohesion, and that cannot be if some of your troops are encountering sexual assault and harassment and retaliation. want withed to make that point. could you share briefly the views on the rebalance to the asia pacific? >> sure i can. and it's absolutely critical that we do it. given the demographics in asia and our economic future. no question about it. that's going to require us to modernize our alliances, and you have seen improvement with our relationship with south korea and japan, india, philippines all have been adjusted in recent months. we have an unprecedented level of exercises and engagement right now in the pacific to assert our influence and to provide a stabilizing presence. the most important thing the rebalanced pacific does, it provides a security infrastructure within which we can advance our national

interests. that is what existed for the past 70 years and to rebalance the pacific as we know it today is designed to modernize that security infrastructure and make sure it's in place so that as we protect our national interests, we can do it here as well >> i want got information on the cuts that will happen to paycom as a result of the budget necessities. and i'm glad to know that the general did say, the cut cans were with regard to the importance of rebalance. therefore we want to make sure and it's something that i know senator sullivan shares with me that the rebalance to the asia pacific remains a very strong commitment on our part. you mentioned that russia is the greatest threat to the national security, where would isil china and north korea fall with a regard to our national security concerns. >> i had russia down as number

one. i would have china as number development. >> could you explain why, briefly? >> sure. russia, of course, because of the nuclear capability and their aggression. china because of their military capability, the grow military capability and our interests in their area. it does not mean we view them as a threat or enemy. but as someone in uniform, i get paid to look at intent and capability. when i look at that with china, i consider china as a area of concern as security clearly north korea, with ballistic missile capability and the potential to attack the home land is high on the list and then isil. but, you know senator is i want to make it clear as i go down the list. i don't view it meaning that we

can attack the issues in sequence or that a prioritization of one at the expense of the other is necessarily something that would have to be done at this time. all four of the security issues are ones that require the department to look at, they all create a challenge that needs to be addressed. >> and that's why live in very complicated times. i would like to focus on our lay down in the pacific. and specific to japan, i'm aware of the concerns of the oaky kimptthe relationship, can you characterize the relationship and the challenges of relocating our force from and within japan. that is part of the rebalance we are committed to. >> i did visit japan i was encouraged by my visit.

i received nothing but the full commitment. so my sense is that the japanese government is committed to that and recognize it's important for us to continue with the preferred lay down that you eluded to. my sense is that the our relationship with the japanese we are in a good place. >> do you view the okinawa facility as a concern that should be dealt with in japan and their government? >> we and i specifically now talk about the marines, we need to be good neighbors and set the conditions for a positive relationship with the okinawan people, but in the replacement facility, it's an internal japanese political issue that has to be worked by the japanese government. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman. >> general dunford welcome to

you and your tammyfamily, you stated that our nuclear deterrent is the nation's top military priority. that leads me to a specific question to how we plan for that priority over time. the health of our nation's whole nuclear weapons complex is critical to our nuclear deterrent. and one of the things you wrote in your written testimony wrote in your written testimony is that we must recruit and train our next generation workforce capable of certifying stock power requirements and to modernize the nuclear weapons infrastructure. can you share with me your thoughts specifically on ldrd or laboratory directed research and development, and the life extension programs that are going on in the national labs and their role in achieving rerecruitment and achievement of that next generation nuclear

workforce? >> that is a question in my current capacity i have not developed expertise and i would like to take that one for the record. >> that is fine. i look forward to engaging you on that in if future. i think it will be important to view the particulars of how we manage the labs and particularly the things that bring people in the pipeline at the front end with the greatest amount of expertise and then, they stay in those positions, rise up through the labs and provide the continuity that it's going to take to make sure that we have the kind of modern deterrent that we need. i want to focus my next question on some of of the challenges here at home. in my view, defense innovation is moving too slowly. often times, in cycles that last years while commercial innovation can be measured in cycles on of months.

this committee authorized funding, half of which was dedicate to directed areas. directed energy, low cost, high speed munitions under sea warfare and intelligence data analytics. what role do you think the development of these new technologies will play in our national security posture and? what steps should we take to develop and deliver operationally useful systems more quickly? >> in my capacity as the chairman if confirmed i view the future of the direct forces one of my more important roles. we need to find fundamentally different ways to do things in the future that are more effective and maintain our competitive advantage. i think what you are outlining

is an area of concern for me, even as a service chief, i wouldly tell you -- i would tell you that our efforts in inon ovationoh -- in innovation have been lower than what they should be and i will bring that focus if i'm confirmed. >> the air force remotely piloted air field is under severe strain. largely through increased requirements and you know sufficient personnel policy actions for manning levels and the reality that the air force is losing more remotely piloted aircraft pilots than its training. we've heard from the secretary james and general welsh they have assured that they are dedicated to resolving the shortfall, i want to get your commitment to helping on this

issue. if confirmed i ask that you make it a priority. >> senator is, i will comment quickly, those men and women in that field represent a core capability in the joint force their effectiveness, their morale, their willingness to continue to serve is important and i will certainly reinforce. i have spoken to general welsh about this issue, i will reinforce the efforts of the secretary of staff to make had sure those individuals are appreciated and they have a climate in which they want to remain a airmen. >> i appreciate that deeply. it's an area where we are seeing some severe strains. and where folks really need our support. so, thank you. >> good morning general dunford, thank you for your service and for your family's long time serving our nation. i was -- i leaned over to senator sullivan during some of

your comments, i appreciate your concise answers. i would like to build on a question that senator sessions asked of you and it had to do of the plus up of spending and a use of oco as a way, we all know it's not the best way to do what you need to do. primarily for the purposes that you pointed out, the certainty. it still doesn't give you long-term certainty. my question to you is have you given thought to how you could potential use the funding? although it's not a long-term commitment to take the edge off of sequestration and any ideas of how you would? >> senator, we started to look at that and it would require a change in the world for using oco for us to do that. if you right now applied if you gave us oco given the current

rules we would not be not be able to use it where it is needed. in the president's budget, it was focused on modernization. that's the thing that suffered the most over the last two years including the readiness. we have looked at it but there's areas that we need to apply it to. >> will you be making specific recommendations for things that a we need to look at to make sure you get the most productivity you can out of it? >> i will do that. through the secretary of defense, as he works the issue. >> thank you. >> i wanted to go back to also questions that were asked about afghanistan, and iraq. i visited both countries and spoke with a number of people while we were there skpirkts. and it seem likes we have the right mix and in the right roles and the afghan people feel they can fight successfully.

in iraq, i understand what you said about the political decisions from past administrations have caused a problem and those structural issues have been addressed. have you given any thought, assuming you get to the point where you have the right command infrastructure among iraqis what we need to create a credible trained effective fighting force for the eye inging troops for iraq? >> in their ability to develop training and capacity at the level to support tactical level forces. it has been a few years since i have been on the ground in iraq. i would like to take the opportunity if confirmed to visit iraq and talk to the commanders on the ground and develop a campaign moving forward.

>> to flip side, i know that afghan has made a lot of progress. i think they rely on us heavy hadly for the training advice and assist is roles in our isr capabilities in the region. i know that i have he heard you say -- moving towards a reduction in forces. the sense that i got when i was in kabul, those that are very much in touch with the situation on the ground you now think that it would be a very bad idea to substantially reduce our current presence over the near term. now, i assume that is because they are looking ahead where they are going to be in a place where afghan can be independent. do you share that view? >> what i can tell you, the assumptions that we made in a recommendation that was delivered in 2013 that is 19 months ago, some of the

assumptions affected the time line. we did not expect it to be a delay in the elections process in 2014 and it was. and when i was on the ground it was difficult to get my counterparts to focus on the practical side of growing ministerial capacity when they were trying provide support for elections. there's been other areas where we made assumptions about things that could be done in a certain period of time that did not get during that period of time from a distance now if confirmed immediately from a distance it makes sense me that the time line that we identified in 2013 is possible, has been effected by the political events inside of afghanistan. >> thank you mr. duntordford, i

look forward to supporting your confirmation. >> thank you for you and your family's service did mr. dunford. i want to begin with what assessed as the primary threat from russia and china and talk about a weapons platform that has not been discussed today. our submarine force. i recognize it's not immediately part of your background, but obviously a great responsibility if you are confirmed and i'm certainly going to strongly support your confirmation. the ohio replacement program is critical to the nuclear deterrents. and the cost of that program has been estimated in the range of $100 billion. the navy has said that it cannot pay for it out of its navy budget. i'm wondering whether you will consider and whether you will support looking at the defense

department budget as a whole to fund the ohio replacement program, which i'm assuming you agree is critical to our nuclear deterrents. >> senator thanks. first, i do agree it's critical it's the most survivalable part of on the triad and a critical capability to modernize. i'm very familiar on the ship building plan. what i can tell you with the degree of surety is, we are ready to fund the ohio class replacement out of the department of the navy, it would have aed a strers affect ed ad a adverse affects. we are not where we need to be right now. so it was intended to get us where we need to be. so, i do think a broader mechanism for the ohio class replacement makes censor we will have adverse affects on the navy. as i mentioned a couple can of

times today one of my perspectives on the role is that we need bampt that includes a balanced navy. as important as the ohio class replacement is they have many capabilities that are critical to our nation it would be difficult to balance that if it is paid for out of the navy's resources. >> thank you for the answer, i hop you agree that the continuing program to build two subs a year, two virginia class subs a year should continue as planned right now. >> and here is where i defer to my partner, chief of naval operations, that is his plan and i trust his judgment that regard. >> thank you. going to another area that i do not think has been raised yet. and i know of your commitment to our men and women who are the

greatest asset in the united states armed forces. their well-being and welfare and i hope that you can commit that you will continue the effort to coordinator better with the veterans administration for men and women leaving active duty on everything from transfer of medical records, to drug formulariys, to a range of on issues. i do not need to expound on them for you. i hope you will focus and continue those efforts. >> senator is, absent ly -- absolutely. i cue it-- i view it as one of our proprietor responsibilities. we have an expression, once a marine, always a marine, from my perspective, once you have served our country, the respect and support that you should

receive is sacred i will absolutely continue to support the efforts to make sure that the health care transition that our young men and women make is as seamless as possible. we owe them that. >> one last question general. your p your predecessor repeated we have the capability to use a military option if iran chooses to stray off the diplomatic path, end quote. my question to you is, are you satisfied that our nation has done enough to prepare militarily for the option and the president has said that all options should be on the table if necessary to use a military option there as much as we all may wish that the negotiations should succeed? >> senator, my understanding today is that we have both the plans in place and the capability in place to deal with a wide range of eventuallities

in iran. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman general dunford congratulations on your nomination. and thank you for your 38 years of the service and your leadership has commander of the marine corp, our nations is fortunate to have a military leader such as you serving in a time of great peril. i want to ask a question of you that is the same question i asked your predecessor general dempsey. if the objective were to destroy isis, not to weaken them, or degrade them, but to utterly destroy them in 90 days what would be required militarily to accomplish that objective? >> it would not be possible to

destroy isil in 90 days and i don't believe that we can develop a enduring solution with simply force against isil but the military aspect of the campaign is critical. >> well, if the timeframe i've suggested is not feasible. let me ask you a follow-up question, what would be required to destroy isis, and what timeframe is necessary if that was the objective, what would be required to accomplish it? >> if confirmed i will look at the issue. my perspective is this is on the order of years not months to droi isil. >> and what would be required to do that in whatever time period is necessary. >> from a military perspective the two things we are doing and we need to continue to do is deny isil sanctuary and require

us to build local forces and partnership capacity of local forces that would be the real defeat mechanism for isil in the respective countries given the way it's spread right now. you would have to have effect governance, where isil cannot get traction in the future, would have to address the foreign financing where they get their money. and we have to address the movement of foreign fighters back and forth and probable as importantly, the one thing we need to do senator we need to discredit the narrative of isil. >> in your personal judgment, are you concerned about the rules of engagement for our current use of air power that it is over constraining the effectiveness? >> i'm not. the thing that we are doing now

is ensuring that we do not have civilian casualties that supports our narrative and gives us the credibility we need to be successful long-term in the campaign. >> in recent are days the congress has been informed that we are arming the kurds, it's something i have called for for a long time. i spoke this week with a senior kurdish leader. and they are not confirming that. what can you tell us about the extent to us arming kurds and whether it getting bogged down in baghdad. >> the most important forces in that area are in fact the kurds, my understanding is that the issues are being addressed and they are now getting the material support they need.

if confirmed i will -- i may make my own -- >> will you commit to provide thg ing this committee with details? -- let me ask concerning iran. if iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, what is the national security risk in your judgment to the united states of that occurrence? >> senator, i think it's significant. particularly if accompanying that intercontinental ba liftllistic missile --

>> i'm concerned -- the world is getting who and more dangerous, and we are dramatic alabama under mining the readiness -- in 2014, it dropped in half. do you share the concerns about declining morale in the military and if so what are the causes of it and the proper approach to fix it? >> well, senator, thanks for the question. first of all, with regard to the morale of the force.

it's clearly one of the things that distinguishes us and i was able to say in my opening statement that we have the most capable military force in the world today and that is clearly rooted in the men and women that we have in uniform and their willingness to do what we asked them to do. i do have concerns about a service is chief of how hard we have been running our men and women over the last few years. as an example, senator is, we had a plan where we wanted to have a 1-3 deployment to dwell ratio. that allowed the marines to be, what i describe a sustained rate of fire. many of testifyhe units are below a 1-2 deployment at home rate. they will be home less than 14 months and back out again and that continues on. and it has an affect on the families and again our able at the to train across the range of hill terry operations. if i'm confirmed senator this is going to be one of the areas

that i focus on. i think i have responsibility to lead the young men and women in uniform. i think i have a responsibility to represent them, and when i say represent them, to articulate here on the hill, what material support, leadership and resources they need to remain the finest fighting force in the united states. it bothers me greatly if this they do not have confidence in their senior leadership, ever day when i wake up if i am confirmed that will be an issue of priority for me. that is what i will do seek their respect. and let them know that we a as leaders recognize we are asking them to do a lot and they do not ask much in return other than to accomplish the mission with minimal loss of life. and that is what i will do. >> as sequestration bred uncertainty that has contributed

to the drop in morale? >> chairman thanks. i should have mentioned that when i talked about how busy the forces are. there's a tremendous amount of angst and that is driven by how big the force is, and what will happen to their careers and will we have the equipment necessary for them to accomplish their mission. sequestration is a factor. >> there was a follow-up question and ten-- and then we rurp return. >> thank you. i want to get back to the role of congress. do you think it's an important role that we have to not replicate missions? >> i do. >> let me provide a quick example. i believe one of the core comp tensesies is large scale airborne units that can deploy in a moment's notice anywhere in

the world. is that a core competency? yes. >> and there was a testimony about putting troops and helicopters on naval shipping for "expeditionary maneuvers throughout the pacific" what do you associate that mission with? >> with the united marine corp senator. >> so if i told you it was an army general describing the new pacific pathways strategy, would that surprise you? >> it would not senator. i have seen that description in the open source on. >> you think that costly new army mission is a redundant mission to the united states marine corp's mission and is it a good use of military and taxpayer spending? >> given the short fall of amphibious lift, i'm speaking as a service chief, the priority should go to the united states marine corp. >> would it an appropriate role of the congress to limit such

review doneye thee redundancies? >> senator i do agree that the congress has a critical role in ensuring that we have a proper division of labor within the department of defense and that the joint capabilities and capacities are right sized. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for that single follow-up question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i apologize for he getting back so late. i was in an appropriation's markup. but general dunford, thank you very much to you and your family for your service in had the past and for your willingness to continue to serve and i have to say, after watching you before the crowd of new hampshire, business folks and hearing from them how impressed they were, i look forward to the impression that you are going make as the new chairman of the joint chiefs. so i'm -- i wanted to follow-up

on senator wickers' questions about europe and the concerns in europe. because i recently returned from a visit to poland and to lafio where i saw the nato exercises at a base and heard extreme concern about the potential for putin to engage as you pointed out in a symmetric instigatio in the baltic countries. i'm concerned about the failure of them to commit the 2% gdp for defense spending and wonder if you have thoughts on what we can do to encourage them to ante up? >> i think it's important that the nato partners bear their

share of the burden. >> i know we addressed that. they came out of the conference with a commitment for all the -- the -- -- capacities, and also, had that we have seen first hand in a afghanistan, they do have capabilities. they can be effective force for stability, in europe as well as for out of europe operations. >> i agree, and hopefully, we will we will see that commitment followed through on because clearly, the threat from putin and from russia continues. and our eastern european allies

are very concerned about that. i want to ask you about, you talked about the deployment the pressures on our military. i wonder if you could give me your perspective on the appropriate active to reserve ratio, and the importance of the national guard and reserve and continuing the military mission that we have in this country. >> senator, and again, and of course one of the things we have to do when talking about using reserve and the guard, is balance the concern of employers and concerns of families with the willingness for the guard to serve in a more strategic sense. there was in the past the sense that the guard and reserve was something in a case of a major war, we would mobilize the fwaurd and guard and the reserve. we have found today with the size of the military force, that the reserve is more operational, in that they are useful and necessary on a day-to-day basis. my sense is as a service chief

and i will look at the implications across the other services if confirmed. it's about once every four years is a reasonable time to for a major deployment, although in many cases, depending on their employment individuals can be available on a much more routine basis, for whole units, probable about 1 to toure4 years, 1 year mobilization and 4 years back focused on the families and employers, seems to be ss ss to be sustainable. i will consult with the appropriate leadership if confirmed so make sure that i have a full appreciation for theiring challenge ingchallenges. >> we have seen in new hampshire the significant contribution of the guard and the integration particularly with the air refuelling of active duty and guard, and providing that mission. so, i think it's very important. let me ask you if you would commit to two things. one is, in 2013 the department

announced the elimination of the drkt combat exclusion policy and announced plans to fully integrate more women in to all occupational fields. i hope that you will continue that effort and see it through. as we know, women are make up a greater percentage of our military these days. and making sure that they have the ability to compete in all areas and it's significant. >> the other question that i noticed, the navy announced that they tripled the maternity leave policy for women serving in the navy and i urge you to consider that across all branches of the military as women are making up more of the troops. i think it's important to address the issues that the family issues that they have and certainly maternity leave is a big part of that. so, i hope you will do that. >> thank you, senator i will

look at both the issues. >> senator graham? >> general, i think you are an outstanding choice and the president could not have chosen a better person to be a chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. congratulations to you and your family for a lot of great service, the best is yet to come. when it comes to stopping isil stated goal is to degrade and destroy, what if we fail in that goal what can american expect? >> senator if we were to fail in stopping isil i think you will see an expansion of esil across the middle east and outside the middle east and we have seen elements of isil all the way to afghanistan. >> they are an expanding power as we speak? >> senator, i think they are expanded in terms of geographic location. i have not yet concluded they have expanded in capability. >> i remember you saying, that

if we do not stop them we can expect tsunami of isil and their supporters. is that true? >> it is. >> iraq and syria, is it fair to be said, that they need to be looked at as a stopping point for isil? >> absolutely. the enemy does not respect the boundaries that we see on the map. >> can you see a scenario where you have a regional army made up of local troops that go in to fight isil alone, and leave assad off the table. would they join up for a fight? >> it's hard for me to see that the integration given the divergent interests that the

countries have. that would be effective to have a regional army to deal with isil. >> if you did not put assad's removal on the table it would be hard to get them to join up to fight is is il because they are worried about syria becoming a puppet of iran? >> that is true. >> would you a groogree with me that assad's presence is a magnet for sunni's presence. >> it is certainly one of the primary drivers of the isil movement the abuse of the assad regime. >> do we substantially lose our counter terrorism mission? >> assessment is we have a significant degradation if we do it. would we lose our eyes and ears along the afghan and pakistan border that we enjoy today? >> we would, senator.

>> would that create a rift to the gains achieved if we did not have the eyes and ears in counter terrorism? >> no question, it would result in great risk. >> when it comes to 60 pre-syrian army troops being trained under the current regime, would you agree with me, it would be hard to recruit people to go in to syria if you do not promise them protection from assad, because if they get any capability at all in fighting isil assad would assume that capability would be turned on him one day and he is not going to sit on the sidelines and watch a force mature and develop without hitting them. does that make sense to you? >> i agree with that assess isment. >> so the most logical questions to train a force to go in to syria and fight isil alone is that assad will see them as a threat to his regime and most likely attack? >> i agree with that, senator.

>> and i think it would be immorale to put someone that position knowing that is coming their way without a capability to defend themselves does that make sense to you? >> my assessment is, if we train moderate syrian forces and syrian army, we need to provide them with the where with all to be successful. >> good this war in syria continues the way it's going for another year do you worry about stability in jordan? >> i do. >> do you worry about stability in lebanon. i agree with that, senator. in your view, over the long hall. is sit in the national security interests to destroy i symptom

l? it is in our interest to do that, senator. >> god bless them and god bless you. best of luck. >> general, on behalf of

chairman mccain, let me thank you for your testimony and your it was and the tour of your family, i will now adjourn the hearing. >> thank you. senator reid.

. the road to the white house, 2016, we take you there road to the white house coverage rick santorum said that the american family structure will be a key issue in the 2016 election and that he supports a national standard of marriage. hosted by the christian science monday on monitor, it's an hour. okay on, here we go folks. >> our speaker is rick santorum his last visit was in july of 2005, so we are glad to have him

back, he was born in pennsylvania and he is a graduate of penn state earned an mba at the university of pittsburgh and that is a law degree. at age 32, he ran for the u.s. house. defeating an inincumbent that out spent him, he beat another incumbent for a u.s. senate seat. he is making a second run for the white house, having been the last conservative challenger standing get mitt romney in 2012. the senator and his wife karen are the parents of seven children. thus end the biographical segment. no live blogging or tweeting, so we have time to listen to the guest. to help you curb that selfie urge, we will e-mail several pictures of the session to all

the reporters here as soon as the breakfast ends and as attendees know, if you give me a signal i will call on as many people as we can. we will start off by offering our guest to make opening comments and then we will go to questions around the table. thank you for doing this. we appreciate it. >> my pleasure, thank you for coming this morning, and look faurtd forward to your questions. actually not. i will do my best, right? i will just say that, yeah i think it's a --s as someone who ran four years ago, this is a very different election. and for me one that is a much more satisfying election as a candidate. because this is an election from my perspective in a republican proprietor, four years ago it was about who was the conservative alternative to mitt

romney and sort of your entire justification as a candidate was to establish yourgzself as a foil for the establishment pick for the nomination. this is a race that is obviously a wide open race. and it's a real opportunity. to go out and talk about important things that confront the country and why, why, what is your vision why you believe you are the best person to tackle the problems that america is facing right now. in that respect it's a more interesting race for mes as a candidate. because it's a race about issues. it's a race not about who your opponent is, i think if you look at most of my comments certainly in the last few months, i don't really like to talk about my -- the other folks in the race. it's, to me it's really not

relevant. there's so many faces out there that paying attention to any one is, i don't think is necessarily important. from the standpoint of the success, and i just don't think it's relevant. what is what the voters want to, are trying figure out right now is you know who is on my list. and i don't think they are looking for any help from the candidates in trying to take people off the list. i think they are looking to see what candidates are potential viable presidential candidate gogs forward. so, i look at that, as a real opportunity to make the case a as to why we are we are the candidate that iss that right solutions for the country and has the best possibility of success in a general election. and those, that is really been

the focal point of our campaign so far. and it will continue to be. that is exciting for me. it's about how we help the country. what we can do to make things better for the people who are struggling in this country. and -- and you know why we are -- why winning is not as important winning something that is worth winning. and so it's not just about winning the election. it's about winning for this country in a way that, we have not seen in my opinion in several elections. i'm excited about the message we are delivering that's why, announced from a factory floor in western pennsylvania, i believe that message of looking at the people in america today, who are not succeeding looking at a very large hole in the middle of the country that needs to be filled with policies and values that are going to be make

america a much more top to bottom successful country going forward. and i think we have some very unique ideas in that regard that separate us from the pack. that's why when i travel around the country, we have a lot of manufacturing events. we will be in iowa 19 of the next 33 days. we will do a manufacturing event almost every day we are there, because that to me is one of the keys of helping to make america stronger top to bottom. creating things and creating opportunities for people who are not succeeding through resurging that part of the economy. on the other side, we have a national security which has become a really important issue in the election. which was not at all important four years ago and again we believe that our message is, different, we have experience is

that almost nobody in the field has, and a track record that certainly distinguishes ourselves from hilary clinton and the to be able to go up against hillary clinton. that's an important part of this race what are you going to do for america and how you juxtapose that with a democratic nominee. we match up very well because we have matched up well in the past. i'm the only person having had experience going up against the clinton machine and hillary clinton specifically when i was in the united states senate. if experience matters -- i think there are a lot or people who believe experience is a lot more important than what it once was recommends me to the electorate. >> let me ask you about fund

raising. as you know jeb bush has raised $14 million. the estimates are that cruz raised and allies raised 51 and rubio 45. cruz's folks say that you don't need to be the most well-funded, but that you teed to have the money to go up against jeb bush. rick tyler said a conservative does not need to raise the most amount of money to be a establishment candidate. we're a well-funded conservative candidate and we're the only one. can you give us an update on what you've raised and your folks have raised and what your response is to the argument from folks like cruz's staff that you need to be the best funded conservative to have a place at the table. >> four years ago we raised less than $2 million.

and we started raising money april first of 2011. we raised less than $2 million heading into iowa and we won the iowa caucuses. after that point we raised about $20 million. and i think if you go back and look at the campaign itself, how fund raising was going we were at times out raising romney. toward the end of the campaign romney was laying off staff. they were not in some respects keeping up with us with the fund raising pace we have had. i would make the argument that money is important, but what's money for? money is to get you votes. the most important thing is how effective are you in getting votes that you need to be able to win the election? and clearly four years ago, we

ran a race with being out spent four and five to one and still were able -- primarily four and five to one because of the superpac situation. i don't think that this time around you're going to see that same type of dynamic. four years ago we had an establishment candidate that everyone backed including the vast majority of super pac donors. i don't think that there is that candidate this time. i mean, i understand that jeb bush has raised a lot of money. there's a lot of other money out there on the sidelines that i think is willing and able and will support a conservative candidate as that conservative candidate emerges in february and march of next year. i think the question is, how much money do you need to win iowa and be competitive after that. my opinion, it's not nearly the money that's being talked about

right now. >> i notice you didn't give us a number. do you want to give us a number? >> we'll report the number at the appropriate times. >> we tried. let me ask you one other -- fox news has said that to be on stage at their debate in cleveland you have to place in the top ten. the average of five most recent national polls is conducted by major nationally recognized organizations. cnn's polling director recently released, has you 11th. obviously, not a helpful thing. how damaging is that to your bid to overtake the other conservatives in the field who are likely to be there, ben carson, mike huckabee, ted cruz and what's the strategy to get you on the stage? >> well again, i don't really pay a whole lot of attention to things that go on this far ahead of an actual vote.

go back four years ago when we finished fourth in the iowa straw poll. most people would have thought that was not a particularly good thing to have happen. it turned out not to be particularly relevant at all. a lot of things that happened six, seven months before an election sound big at the time but in the end don't turn out to be very consequential. there are pluses and minuses of the way that the fox has set up their debate. cnn has set up their debate. we'll participate in whatever their black box way of determining what polls at what point in time. i think i've been very, very vocal about this. i think to have the national media play such an important role early in a primary to determine who the quote, top tier are and who is not is

undermining -- if i was an rnc chairman is undermining the process that was established by the rnc to let the states and voters to make that call as opposed to the national media. particularly using a yardstick that historically has had no relationship to who the actual winner of any of these primaries are going to be, which is national poll seven months before the election. i remind people i was at 1% 2% national polls two weeks before the iowa caucuses i was at 4% when i won the iowa caucuses. and so given that benchmark, i wouldn't have been included if they were going to eliminate 2/3 of the people in the debate prior to the iowa caucuses i wouldn't have been included and yet i was on the way to winning the caucuses. to me it's a miscarriage of --

by the rnc to agree to something like that. having said that, we'll play by the rules. i don't think our game plan hasn't changed much. i mean we're probably going to do a little bit more, you know television, radio this month than we otherwise would have. but i think i just told you i'm going to spend 20 of the next -- 19 of the next 30 days in iowa. my game plan hasn't changed much. we're going to continue to work and make sure we win the iowa caucuses. one thing i know the people in iowa don't care what goes on in washington, d.c. they decide for themselves who they're going to pick as their president. >> first question hello? [ inaudible question ] >> louder. oh bernie sanders. because he is the democratic party. he's their base. he's the hard left. i mean, hillary clinton is moving to the hard left that's

who the democratic party has become in their activists as well as their donors. they're the party of the left. it's not a far cry to say the party to the left would be very welcoming to someone that's a self-identified socialist. >> we'll go next to jose real from "the washington post." >> your message is focused on national security which is an area you've distinguished yourself from the pack and on economic inequality. you're still talking about social issues do you worry that risk -- that you might need in a general election? >> you know i'm a conservative across the board who speaks on all the issues, national security to economic to moral and culture issues. i don't see them as

indistinguished. to me they fold together. if you don't have a strong family structure in america -- i've said this many times as the american family breaks down the, ability for limited government becomes less and less possible. when the government has to fill in for the problems that come with the breakdown of the family and in those communities, then the idea of the economic conservatives in the republican party that only want to talk about these or members of the public well that's all we need to focus on i think is -- if you look at every study that's been done by the left and right. i talk about on the campaign trail, i talk about the two books i bring, which is charles murray's book read both of the books. the principle problem and every study done on income equality

have pointed to the same thing. the principle problem is first and foremost the breakdown of the nuclear family. you can say well you still talk about those things. i talk about those things because they're relevant to the debate on how we get our -- a more vibrant middle of america and how we create more opportunities for children to be successful. so i think they're important -- it's important to understand that none of these things are sort of issues unto themselves but they interrelate. national security, if we don't have a vibrant middle of america, the desire of america to engage in the world is -- you saw this during the recession. you saw republicans sort of pulling back saying we don't -- can't afford to do this anymore. we have to cut the