to the weapons as the last epidemic of mankind. talking to u.s. troops in camp liberty in 1983, he argued that a nuclear war could not be won and must never be fought. and promised to continue to pursue one of the most arms control programs in history. his the day after made for a tv movie about the effect of nuclear war on a small kansas towning is to strengthen his resolve that there is never a nuclear war. his unwillingness to accept the only way to be safe from attack was to be vulnerable to be it led him to make the strategic defense initiative a centerpiece of his policy. the willingness to share the breakthroughs of the program with the soviets harkins back to his desire for the internationalization of atomic energy and his disdain for the weapons. for many, reagan's defense

policy seems toe contradict any notion he sought to eliminate the weapons. strategic forces received an increase in funding as he saw the to the modernize all three legs of ballistic bombers, missiles and submarines. to relaunch the b 1 program, to modernize existing bomber force, improve the trident missile. he will produced an additional 17,000 warheads by 1987, a significant increase over the plans of the carter administration. by 1985, u.s. nuclear forces were more lethal and technically advanced than at any point. american history. it presents a strong con taft to the focus on arms control and arms reduction in his second. creating a tantalizing narrative of it his sudden reversal. however, the shift in tone is a bit less stark when viewed

through the vision of how to achieve vision. reagan viewed military strength as essential to establishing peace and identified establishing a sound east-west balance as essential to peace, as well. when he assumed office, he and his national security advisers perceived a stark gap between the united states and the soviet union. n subpoena d 32 and the overwhelming growth off soviet capabilities as givens indicative of a critical imbalance in strength. reagan blamed day tent and felt continuation of the policy would ensure soviet gains. in one address, he say the detente is what a farmer has with his turkey before thanksgiving. the only way with the soviets can peace with the soviets was achievable would be to demonstrate an equal resolve and strength. this necessitated the creation of the a part between both states before entering negotiations can embodied by

reagan's slogans build up to build down and peace through strength. he wanted to make sure it was negotiated on equal terms with the soviets. but ultimately, his strong stance put him at odds with many of the leading voices in the foreign policy and in the pentagon. he would lament in memoirs many of the pentagon still claimed a nuclear war is winnable as we saw with general scowcroft as the lunch with tom clancy. the joint chiefs almost argued against continuing to pursue the elimination of the weapons entirely. the existing deterrent forces they said was inadequate and insisting it bringing it up to par would require investment of tens of billions of dollars over a decade. the army chief of staff expressed reservations of nato allies to take part. doubts that they would be able to put up either the manpower or the budget to bring the defense forces to where they need to be.

john poindexter had reversed his earlier support for the reagan proposal to eliminate them shortly after returning. he wrote to reagan that it was similar to the situation faced in the 1950s, leaving only a chance of stopping a conventional assault rather than the strong deterrence that the current arsenal represented. former president richard nixon henry kissinger wrote an op-ed which argued the deal would reopen the gap and deattorneys national attack due to the inability of the u.s. to provide sufficient power to match the soviets. brent scowcraft also expressed his deep reservations about the proposed deal. asserting it might lead to disaster. and not all the options came from the right. les aspen who would later be the secretary of defense under bill clinton argued it would take

another ten divisions in order to make it the reykjavik framework feasible. nato allies expressed concern about what a nonnuclear united states could mean for security. u.s. information direct ker charles wick wrote poindexter following the conference noting european stations were amazed at the sweeping nature of the proposals and europe feared the united states might be away from europe as a result. the united states could not afford to eliminate nuclear weapons because without them, there was little hope of re. heing a soviet ground invasion. reagan anticipate this had criticism. while at reykjavik, he plead he noted the so-called right wing would react strongly against the framework to eliminate nuclear weapons as the response shows. reagan noted critic were createding his brains out for considering eliminating

ballistic missiles. gosh ba chov noted if reagan believed that, he should check recent articles about him in pravda. the reagans an appeal felt on deaf ears and demonstrates how well he grasped despite the criticism from his right, reagan was willing to move forward and engage in a tough battle to ratify the agreements because he viewed the strategic situation in europe differently than critics did. he felt that by the fall of 1986, the traditional forces of the u.s. were more than a match for the soviet counterparts. a destabilizing force opposed to the stabilizing force hiscrit sicks maintained that they were. reagan says as much to nixon in the white house in 1997 arguing the u.s. had enormous support over the sovietian. the combined population of the west -- that the u.s. could count on allies as opposed to

the uncertain an legion yanszs of the warsaw pact reaching the point where rag-confidence in the capacities of both the united states and his allies was the work of his first time. lauded the administration's record over the previous five years as one of progress and accomplishment and went on to argue the refurbishment of u.s. ability and the strengthening of an alliances limited -- the document sites improvement s in nato's defenses. the document engaged with the question how to deter attacks despite the movements toward lower level of forces. the objective of the united states should be to rely on contribution from primarily nonnuclear systems. developing the nonnuclear

systems needed to win the u.s. from nuclear deterrence was the major initiative of the first term of it reagan's presidency. the administration acquired nearly 4 thoufl thanks and expanded support for new infantry fighting vehicles resulting in the army's bradley fighting vehicle and the marines vehicle. all the technology we're still using today. the administration saw the it out extend the apache attack helicopter, the black hawk support helicopter and the f 117 stealth fighter entered service. other investments in communication systems means the u.s. military was a more lethal and resize force than when he assumed office. all the union fied and specified commanders in chief said by every measure of common sense, conventional forces are more ready for combat than in 1980. this assessment by a major military commanders left reagan with a strong sense is the u.s. military was strong enough to

forego nuclear weapons. of clancy's books always placed technology in a starring role. red storm rising is no exception to this. the new technology i mentioned previously plays an critical role empty narrative. though still a classified program at the time, the f/a-18s 17 stealth fighters appears in a chapter entitled the frisbees of dream land. they wreak havoc on soviet supply lines leading to serious logistic problems and establishing nearly complete u.s. control of the skies. the tank is almost responsible for establish a stalemate in germany despite the difference in the size of available forces between the soviets and the west. a soviet armor arment places a depleted tank company and a reinforced infantry. the battle goes poorly for the soviets to say the least in the book. as the effect integration of

u.s. thanks costs the soviets nearly a third of its strength. this is not ans a typical battle. t the ratio approached tenton one enough to nullify the feared soviet advantage. the allied forces are able to synchronize forces thanks to the early warning control system platform which provided an accurate view of the battlefield. the result of this advantage thank nato makes efficient use of forces essential when is you're outnumbered, friendly aircraft strike exactly when the soviets mass allowing one aircraft to destroy a full battalion of artillery. technical ability to identify the location of transmissions an lous nato to target command elements to devastating effect. clancy and bond incorporate this precise target intentionally as it was an emerging doctrine of the u.s. military at the time.

soviet leaders alternate between au and frustration about the capabilities of nato forces recognizing advanced technology is playing the role in the conflict. red storm rising came out at the perfect time for reagan. it provided a narrative that the president could use to envision how his positions might play out in the real world. it served as a personal war game for the president. on the service the use of this novel seems ludicrous. why would you use a work of fiction to inform your visioning? many close to reagan expressed shock and were perhaps less than secretly pauled by it. margaret thatcher for example had, great difficulty responding to reagan's administration she add the book oo to her reading list. however the reism of the novels makes their uses in this man ter perhaps for "nice-matin"able. clancy's research into technologicalspectivefications lent his books authority. reagan noted asking the author how he achieve tpd clancy

telling the president that the characters were the hard part. while this is likely true, clancy did devote significant time to researching and fact checking details. as part of the research, clancy and bond travelled to virginia to talk internal soviet politicsing are chev chen cowho detected to the u.s. clancy had previously called his book breaking with moscow dynamite for the way it described the system and his influence is evident. the authors went to norfolk providing more authenticity to the wait allies interact in the novel. trips to military installations allowed them toe observe fighter procedures, the operation of m-1 thanks and clancy received a ride on a submarine. being an army officer, that clancy would note his favorite thing was riding in m 1 tank which he describes as a 671 ton corvette. but all of this contributors to

the realism of the language used by soldiers and the way the novel detickets weapons systems. while the research trips and interviews contributed to the realism, another important contributor was war gaming. novel is rooted in the war game conducted by the center for naval analysis. federally funded and research center tied to the navy. larry bond was working on similar projects which analyzed the how the u.s. would to europe. the back transformed the central fightings into a narrative everyone could digest. all the book far exceed thes the war game in scope, the snop intentionally brought the war to the narrative. reagan's use of red storm rising is a form of actually simulations. however, the narrative in the novel provided the ultimatelidy jetable format for the president. the war game was not the only

one to have significant influence on the book larry vaughan disliked the official navy war game because it was classified which made it very difficult to use. the rules were very inaccurate. he designed a game call harpoon he would market through dungeons and dragons adventure games. clancy bought a copy of this as he was researching and took the time to write an editorial letter to bond which start their friendship. it became a major for validate dg values used in red storm rise. they used it to fact check account dance of the vampires in which soviet bombers are able to be damage an aircraft carrier. the purpose of war gaming is to identify what could happen allowing for the games to serve as important analytical tools for military and civilian planners. in addition, peter perle, a long time war gamer who they referred to as the peyton manning of war

gaming notes they can have a greater emotional impact repair than a simple discussion or memorandum on the plan. individual decisions determine success or failure forcing a lot more personal investment into the scenario. the resulting lessons last longer because of the emotional tie. this is something a novel can do, as well because it's designed to cause emotional ties with is protagonist and have you invest in the narrative. it forces the reader to em pa thitz what's going on and remember the effectiveness of technology more than a newspaper article or a quick conversation which an friend would. so throughout his career, reagan makes use of narratives to communicate with large populations. did he this as a sportscaster calling chicago cubs games for who des moines. as a movie star in hollywood and throughout his political career. speechwriter jack matlock highlights how reagan sought to

communicate as the essential essence of his message. if the story was true or false it, didn't patter nearly as much as the message itself. reagan viewed himself as a modern say aesop telling fables. similarly in his biography, lew ken argues for reagan every story whether true or not had a distinct purpose. he recognized the power of narrative to forge strong emotional connections. once reagan found the right story, he would keep telling it till he found another one which often exasperated those around him. reagan found such aer to in the works of tom clancy. the books resonate him w him in a wa way for him to cast aside his reluctanceton talk about books. walter him on argues that reagan and the national security elite exploited clancy's fiction 0 promote a cult of national security. this implies a much more

sinister motivation. clancy's work, reagans found narratives that boar a resemblance. also recognized him as a way to discuss these dales with the american people. the overall impact of the books is debatable. the case study of reagan clancy shows that the development in communication and political ideals is not limited to official forums. policy comes from complex and difficult to define interactions between culture, individual experience, the public and policymakers themselves. reagan's use of clancy provides one example of how a politician can operate to find policy success. so thank you. bob will go around with the mike. >> i have been asked to remind you when you ask questions to please stand up so the facial recognition software will be

better for tracking purposes later. >> how much do you think reagan used these popular fiction narratives to tell stories to convince people. and how much do you think he got his views from reading popular fiction? it seems like reagan was an effective leader in so many ways but some ways he comes across as intellectually shallow. so it always confused me. >> reagan is constantly using fiction to connect with the american people. we see this early in his administration. a good example comes from when he's awarding the medal of honor torn -- the yam is name is esca right now. but he's awarding a medal of honor and he's talking in his

speech about mitchner's novel, which is also a movie that stars william holden who was the best man at reagan's wedding with nancy reagan. but he quotes the part of the novel where he's talking about the end this carrier commander is looking at the fighters going off over the korean peninsula and asking himself, where do we get such men? marveling at the quality of people in service. so reagan answers this question talking about we get them where we always got them in our cities, our towns and our farms. again, highlighting this quality of american service. so throughout his presidency, he's really using fiction to communicate these ideas. the west point address, he references the works of james warner bella who he calls the american kipling. he prioritizes fiction over nonfiction in strange ways. as far as how much influences him, i think he uses fiction as a kind of personal war game. a space where he can imagine the near future. it equates to how he's working through the fog of war. he constantly talks about the

out these indistinct shapes in the fog, right? a more standard thinker, he's probably going to try to compare them to something else that he knows. whereas, reagan is going to imagine what they could be. so because he's trying to imagine what the future could be and is more kind of creative approach, he has very different policy as a result. >> is there any record of how clancy's books were received and interpreted back in the soviet union? >> publicly, they weren't announced. they weren't very popular there. they're pretty consistently reviewed negatively again as you would imagine, kind of reinforcing the stereotype of the superior capital lift nation and denouncing the soviet union unfairly. they have very negative reviews of the tom clancy novels.

i haven't seen anything that indicates anything more official internally. there's a gift of "hunt for red october" at a human rights convention in vienna. and the guy kind of laughs and says now i'm going to be on the list, thanks a lot for giving this to me. but beyond that, there's not much i've been able to find, unfortunately. >> thank you very much. a person with a conservative reputation, one of reagan's biographers was a teacher of mine at city university graduate school. sorry, i can't think of his name. but when he told me, one of the things that most impressed him about reagan was his mutually assured destruction -- you know, the nuclear contest. why -- you know, i read the newspapers and stuff, somehow this seems inconsistent with reagan's reputation. how did the media cover this? and why was that sort of missed by so many of us?

>> so a lot of it goes to the rhetoric he's employing. you see in his first term that he's using very harsh rhetoric towards the soviet union, something that the soviet ambassador is going to call an uncompromising ideological offensive. this sfrems reagan's sense that in order to negotiate with the soviets you have to be on even terms with them. he elt under the carter and ford presidency, the u.s. has fallen behind. both in conventional but also in nuclear forces. so he's inheriting a force that he thinks the bombers aren't effective, the subs aren't effective and the missiles aren't going to be effective. and so in order to effectively reduce arms, you have to build up the soviet's respect and fear, so they're going to want to be as equally motivated in order to reduce this. so you do see a shift in tone in the second administration. not necessarily because he has a change in heart, but because he thinks the u.s. has achieved what it's going to achieve.

>> while this was going on, i was a student in germany and what i remember very clearly was there was tremendous resistance during the schmidt administration while the spd was in power to the stationing of the pershing missiles. where does that fit into this, clancy's vision and everything. i mean, how was that a part of these novels? is there anything that he had to say about that that influenced reagan? >> there's very little mention of protest of the u.s. policies in the novels. the global zero movement isn't talked about much there. it's something reagan acknowledges in 1983 and comments their goal is something he supports ultimately going to the global zero. but it's something he's not ready for yet, he doesn't see we have the parity to convince the soviets to give up theirs first or at the same time as that. while it's a major influence, it

doesn't really replicate much within clancy's novels. >> this issue you raise about him mistaking hollywood themes with reality, supposedly he alleged that he had filmed the liberation of auschwitz and told itzhak shamir that he had footage of the liberation of auschwitz. when you raise the question of "high noon, it's musing that carl foreman was attacked and blacklisted, the author of the screenplay, and john wayne refused to take the role in the movie because he realized that "high noon" was an attack on the mccarthy period. he made "rio bravo" as an attack on "high noon" later. it's sort of interesting how reagan confuses this kind of hollywood with politics. i have a different remembrance of that early period of reagan. i remember reagan '81, '82, '83, people were feeling that we were

moving to an unrestricted first strike capability, that there were representatives of the reagan administration who openly talked about the fact that we could win a nuclear war, regardless of what you would say about his personal feelings and that this was something that really scared people and led to the largest demonstration against nuclear weapons in american history in this city at that period of time. so i was wondering, you know, in a general sense, how do you look at popular culture in general? you know, in terms of shaping public opinion. looking back at our culture. you know, is norman mailer writing "naked and the dead" after world war ii where he wants to be the novelist of the war? it is certainly a different image of war than clancy is. and i wonder how you see that shaping popular consciousness in general, these kind of waves that we have in our society. because reagan's -- you know, most of us, i would say have dubious feelings about reagan. and i wonder if alzheimer's was setting in when he would make

these kind of silly comments. the great communicator was not at auschwitz and did not film it. yitzhak shamir was informed by that and sort of stup fied. >> yeah. and things like joking about the bombing beginning in a half-hour in front of a mike contributed to this image. the media at the time was portraying this as something zarngs and there's a lot of fierce starting world war ii first hand. as far as the question looking at how to deal with pop culture, i think it touches on historical memory in a lot of sense, too. the way we talk about and look particularly at conflict in the war, so you mentioned norman mailer in world war ii and the way these narratives change over time. sticking with the 1980s period, you can look at the vietnam war, it was a battleground in this time period. so you have movies like "rambo first blood" which are kind of raising the narrative that the service members that people fighting in vietnam were

betrayed by the politicians. they weren't allowed to win the war. but at the same time, you had movies like "platoon" and "full metal jacket" which was a different view of what the conflict was. public memory is a battlefield as far as how it remembers conflicts and what lessons did we take from now. so if we're talking the "apocalypse now" version of the vietnam war, we're not likely to do things to intervene. that's the prevailing narrative. if we get something like the "rambo" movies, we're more likely to do things aggressively. it's speaking to kind of the willingness of the public to accept these things and discussing how they're talking about it. it's certainly shaping it. it's difficult to trace at some times, though. you're right. >> i want to extend your idea about clancy showing the u.s. military technology in the best light to say he's also showing soviet military technology in the best light. in "hunt for red october" he

gives them a caterpillar drive that's able to move silently through the ocean so sonar can't detect it. again you have jones again you talked about, this great sonar operator. then in "red storm rising" they pull off these brilliant actions where they sneak into iceland and take it over through a ruse, and then are able to knock out an american aircraft carrier and sink a french aircraft carrier. and i think again is this -- you know, the soviets are -- he's giving us the soviets are a ten-foot tall story when, of course, now we know that their military was -- and they knew their military was much less capable, which is why they planned on nuking us at the beginning of any invasion of western europe. and i just wonder again, obviously reagan didn't know that at the time. it's not just conventional parity. we had an overwhelmingly conventional superiority and would have won any conventional conflict between us and the soviets. >> i think that's a really good point.

technology is portrayed very positively. you mentioned the caterpillar drive as well as the success of the soviet bombers. "cardinal of the kremlin", as well. clancy's third book. the soviets are ahead of united states in strategic defense. they're more capable than we are there. and that serves a purpose for clancy, but also for reagan. this fear that the soviets are going to keep passing us. they're going to be ahead of us and we need the best weapon, we need the best systems in order to take care of this manpower. if we fall behind, it's incredibly dangerous. there's lions and particularly it stands out in the movie but also in the book, talking about the hunt for red october, they could sit off the coast of new york and we would never know and be dead in 15 minutes. it's driving the sense we need to to keep pouring money into these programs. it's something the military appreciates very much. you get to the late 1980s, some of the national defense operations and hearings in congress, one of the senators is asking the navy's chief of submarine warfare, hey, clancy

wrote this article that is critical of british submariners, what do you think of this article? the admiral knew what it was immediately and said thank you, senator, for allowing me to address this issue. but what follows is this really delicate dance. he doesn't want to insult our allies and their quality of their sub mariners. but he also doesn't want to piss off clancy. he prefaces everything with i love tom clancy. no one loves tom clancy more than i do but i respectfully disagree with him here. but clancy is great for the navy. the senators agree, he's absolutely fantastic for us. it goes to the sense that they know these books are good for driving up funding, the fetishization of technology is helping to drive interest in these new systems, funding them and employing them ultimately. >> how, how you doing? i enjoyed your rapid fire delivery. it's really nice. there's a film in popular

culture that reagan did actually endorse in the '80s. it was a low-budget movie called "if all the guys in the world" dot, dot, dot, and it was made in the early '80s and it's about a cia operation that relations all these patriotic schizophrenics and lunatics at a mental hospital and puts them on the frontlines. and being on the frontlines, the shock of being on the frontlines forces them to lucidity and makes them become well. and he personally endorsed this film as a progressive mental health issue. he totally endorsed it. are you aware of this film? >> i haven't heard of it. i have to look it up now. >> it's really rarely seen. doodles weaver. supposed to be really quite good. thank you very much. >> it's quite interesting.

>> thank you. sir, excellent talk, captain. it showed a lot of investigation. i was in camp kakoosh in 2006 a little before you got there and i was working on boomerang and warlock duke, putting them on to humvees and emrap. not putting them on to abrams, m-1s. now i see you're understanding my question. also, the heroes that i like are van, hoffman, okay? my question to you is clancy and reagan had a specific view and that went into the training of the military.

i would say that when you went in twemp -- 2007, you weren't trained very well for the war you got. they did not have a small war on a -- or a regular warfare concept. and that caused our -- i think that caused -- that reagan/clancy viewpoint caused our country to be unprepared for 2005 when we needed not m-1s, not lavs. we needed m-raps. we needed m-4s, not m-16s. we needed those types of weapons for regular warfare. what do you say about that? >> you're right. a lot of what reagan and clancy are laying is the groundwork for the modern force. we're still using these systems that were developed for the '80s.

it's designed in part to respond to what the expectation of fighting world war iii with the russians would be. so following that, there was little desire, i think, to really study some of the lessons we had from vietnam. we weren't necessarily prepared to do this. i think that's a fair criticism. >> okay. i have one question. i'm drawing a blank now. i swear to god. oh, yes. i remember now. you talked about president reagan not revealing or reticent about other books that he read. but did historians find out what other books he read? and if so, what were some of the books he read other than tom clancy? >> so this has been a project of

mine to try to put together, and something that's been rather difficult to hunt down. so we know that clancy likes westerns. unsurprisingly, given what his interests are. he also likes science fiction quite a bit. so one of the books he most fondly remembers reading when he was a young man is the john carter series. so he likes those books. a book called "that printer of udels" which is a terrible book. don't find it and read it. it's a book he credits with kind of revig rating his religious spirits. i haven't been able to prove this yet, but i'm confident he read "starland troopers" and it actually contributes to reagan's speech that introduces sdi. it's likely that he read "the third world war" by sir john hackett, kind of a precursor to clancy in a lot of ways. it's very similar to "red storm rising," a world war iii scenario written with a degree of reism.

it's a best seller, but doesn't have the lasting success as clancy's work. he was also known to like thrillers. when he was reading in the white house, one about air force one being taken over and that kind of stuff. in general, westerns, science fiction and thrillers are what he would go for. >> thank you. can you clarify your dependent and independent variables? you was an aerial officer during this period, top secret clearance, works at the joint staff. you seem to imply that the independent variable was clancy's work influenced reagan and somehow decided the reykjavik outcome. i would kind of feel that it was more like helen caldecott talking about the danger of nuclear war and that the real independence variables at reykjavik were the pope and gar

ba chev's belief ta was time to end the cold war. so can you clarify independent variables? thank you. >> i'm not sure i would term them independent and dependent variables. i'm not trying to put forward a fam la. you're right. there's a lot of factors going into this. the pope is playing a role, gorbachev is playing a role. clancy's past is playing a role. the nuclear zero movement is playing a role. so it's all of these things combining into a very chaotic environment. and so it would be wrong to say that "red storm rising" is why reagan does reykjavik. it's something that contributors to his thinking. it would it be one of many variables spotsed to having one of two there. >> the question of simplistic narrative that he put out, it's obviously not genius, but it's necessary. and if you want to look at somebody who's copied it to the nth degree, that's putin. putin has copied reagan's method

ol and it's working for their global view. he's done an excellent job of convincing his people that he should be where he is. and what they're doing is what's correct. so you can mock reagan in his clancy cowboy narrative, but he's actually -- he's being copied. we have nothing comparable to what putin is doing, and we have nothing comparable to what reagan is doing. i don't see anything wrong. obviously it's a far more complex thing that he was doing other than just, you know, going with the clancy model. you need that kind of current within the public's mind in order to do what you need to do, which is ultimately outspend them. >> i agree with that. i didn't mean to mock this. i think it's showing a level of savvy of reagan to recognize the importance of pop culture and media portrayals. it's showing political acumen and skill.

>> hi, my name is garth. i heard you talk about the power of narrative and also i want to comment, i interviewed as a graduate of nyu, in my studies, i had the opportunity to interview 500 cops and federal people, also. in one term is very apropos and writing about the cops report about, crime story, fact is stranger than fiction. crime stories are more logical than real life, and how would -- how am i trying to say? -- and going into another tangent that in a contra positive, like -- did ronald reagan ever go view things like a lawyer on the -- and the viewpoint the european side/russian side, le carre

series, tinker tailor soldier spy? go into that? >> yes, i think reagan was a fan of le carré. he talked about his speech to the cia at langley. as he's researching this, his speech writers reach out to le carré and look out for some of the ken filby pieces. so reagan has read and is aware of this stuff. he doesn't like it as much, because le carre, tends towards a bit more depressing narrative. the spy who came in from the cold is not a happy story. tinker taylor soldier spy isn't a happy story, even though the main characters escape me now -- smiley, yes. >> i wanted to mention also, the fact that those spy stories, the reality is, the movies don't -- the movies don't -- the police department would say, movies -- the cia stories are more complex, are more complex than

those movies could ever portray. the best movie, saving private ryan, can never ever depict what war is all about. but it gives some semblance of what reality is. >> that's the challenge of any creator, is to try and get as much of reality or truth as they can. it's always going to be from a certain perspective, too. people but through war and view it different ways. it's going to be hard to get a fully accurate one. for reagan's purposes, he happened to like happy stories. if a story was morally gray or ended poorly, it wasn't going to be something he would read and enjoy and talk about as much. what would define a reagan story and talk about one he wouldn't use as much. >> hi. thanks, very interesting comment on culture and military. i'm interested specifically in

the area of technology you were talking about. i know the whole focus, the harpoon, the war games, that kind of thing, and at the time, which is interesting as well, because of the start of intent's use and that kind of thing would come a couple of years later. and my question is, did he foresee the transition from war games to actually what we're doing currently, the settlements operators and the drone, that kind of engineering, were we moving towards that at the time? i know you come from the army side, and so on. but are the air force, when they're training folks who are, you know, systems operators, do they transition from actually a war game to in fact, you know, a

technological use of the drone system which is fact, stranger than fiction? >> the development of drones was begun in this time period. i'm not quite sure they envisioned it to be at the scale it is now. as to the question on the air force, i don't know, in all honesty. >> one question, the questioner saying that the goal was to outspend them, national security adviser brzezinski a couple of years ago was caused on video saying we baited the russians into afghanistan. and later on he denied that. he said he had misspoke. but that indicates that that may have been a strategic plan to get russia into afghanistan, to basically attrit their forces and use their economic power there and waste it.

the way i see it, it is an economic plan not to outspend them but basically to either beans or bullets is what you're going to produce and basically to wreak havoc with the russian economy. and i think that that's what he was trying to do. i'm just curious if you come up with any information that supports that theory. >> they're pretty explicit in that in nsd 32. i was talking about the need to make the soviets realize the cost of their operations is too high. so reagan enters in, you see in early strategy meetings, talking about how much the soviets spend of their gdp on their military budget. the official estimates were 10 to 15%. reagan didn't buy into that. he felt everything they did, when they built a road, it would support tanks, when they built a hospital, it would treat generals. it was very much about trying to convince the soviets that the cost of the game is too high so they'll have to make the choices, beans versus bullets, as you say. so the idea is to make them pull

back as a result. so i think that's a fair characterization, yes. >> switching the topic back to clancy for a minute, i had heard a story that after "hunt" came out, he was visited by somebody in naval intelligence who wanted to know how he got his information. is there any truth to that? >> so prior to the book being release, it was sent out to a couple of readers that were in the navy, involved in submarines, asking them to see if there was any classified material, because it's a high level of detail. one reader says it's fine, the other reader says you can't possibly publish this, it gives everything away. he's finding everything in open source, to the point where he's satisfied with it. again, secretary lane's response was, who the hell cleared this? i think he was told that it wasn't classified.

throughout his career clancy denied having access to classified material. there was a fairly rigorous fact checking. >> i have one question. i have read "october" and "red storm rising. >> they were very good. i didn't read a number of his books for several years. i picked one up which was about an attack submarine, and the missions it went on. and it was godawful. i mean, it was obvious somebody had sat down and played scenarios one after the another. none of the american equipment ever fails. none of the soviet equipment ever works right. i was just wondering, i find most of his late stuff unreadable. i don't know how much of it that he wrote or he just did a trump and stuck his name on it. >> it depends what series you're

talking about. you have the core jack ryan series, still being written, obviously by somebody else. through the mid-2000s, clancy is the main author on that. throughout the '90s there are a series of spinoffs, you of "tom clancy's op center," and all these books are basically franchises, it has his name on the cover and somebody else writes it. it's a way for that other author to get sales and clancy makes money from licensing his name. >> captain, i have one question. when everyone attends a talk about ronald reagan, there is always laughter about ronald reagan and make him a fool. in fact his great central achievement in foreign policy

was to lay the foundation for the destruction of the soviet union and of communism in europe. and i for one, no all of history, cannot think of another leader who has done so much at the cost of so little bloodshed. his achievements are extraordinary. why is it, do you think, that people are unwilling to accept that central truth and rather to laugh uproarously at all of his minor nonsense. >> i think you touched on one of the commonest attacks, that reagan isn't in charge of his administration. this dates back to his days as governor, he's just an actor, not someone to be taken seriously. >> a bad actor. >> he doesn't have a stellar career in a lot of cases. his possible breakout role was "king's row," that was towards

the tail end of his career. but -- so he was just an actor, not a heavy weight. after he was elected, you have the crisis over the university of california, the regents, who fire clark kerr, deemed as an anti-intellectual move, even though reagan had very little to do with that firing, but it does paint him early in his career as not serious and anti-intellectual. that's going to follow him throughout his career. his leadership style too, he seems disengaged a lot of times. people will come to him and, you know, present him with different policy options. both could leave thinking he green lit theirs. his inability to give people bad news, the inability to -- just the effort to avoid crisis and conflicts created the picture of someone who was disgaugengaged,

although i think he was very involved in the cold war. >> thank you for the presentation. very briefly, you mentioned general john hackett's book on the third world war. there are other world war iii fiction genres going on at the time. harry coyle in "team yankee" started. maybe you can go back and mention some of the other books going at this time. you did a lot job crediting larry bond, he's still around, unlike clancy, and the role that the harpoon game played. i was wondering if you had any contact with larry doing your research. thank you. >> larry was fantastic, he's a wonderful guy. i had the privilege of going out to northern virginia, interviewing them. chris carlson, his current co-author, unsurprisingly he destroyed me. i don't think i even sank one of his ships. and all of mine were two terms. that's why you don't play games with the designer of the game, basically. larry was great, he gave me a

lot of material, he's wonderful guy. i'm very grateful for everything he's given me on this project. >> sometimes novels turn out to be not that -- they don't seem to be that important, and then they turn out to be very prescient. two of them, 110 years ago, one was the war in the air by h.g. wells, then he came out with "the world set free." "the war in the air" was about the use of zeppelins by germans against new york city. basically nobody paid attention to it. luckily, as far as "the world set free," leo zalard read it, and luckily for us he decided to write to einstein and einstein wrote to roosevelt about the possibility of the use of the atomic bomb. sometimes these things turn out to be pretty important. >> i completely agree. i think that, you know, the importance of pop culture is

fairly understated in the study of history. it's something that's fun for me to study but is also valuable. >> the reagan defense buildup, didn't it increase the chance of nuclear war by threatening the soviet union, especially that irresponsible, stupid remark reagan made about the soviet union being able to be destroyed in five minutes? >> the comment in the opening mike about the bomb in 30 minutes didn't help things. you're right, tensions between the u.s. and the soviet union hit their peak in 1993. during naval exercises, there was the possibility of nuclear weaponry because the tensions were so high. he ultimately decides the system is broken, it's not reporting accurately, and refuses to report it higher. he had to send that report up, it's possible. it does go down to what the

soviet ambassador calls the uncompromising ideological defense. remember, he had called them an evil empire, we saw from evangelicals in florida remember talks about relegating them to the dust bin of history. this is aggressive language. we were certainly worried about it, especially when you saw the old liners in charge. yes, it heightens the possibility of war in the 1980s. >> i read quite a bit about the breaking of german and japanese codes in world war ii. but i never came across information if the soviet military code was broken during world war ii. >> i don't know. there's a very interesting book called "youth heroism and war

propaganda." i suggest perhaps you look at it, because what it talks about is the creation of stereotypes that lend to national cohesion in that period. and the relevance of that to reagan. now, what i find amusing in this is that we know from deep classified information about war games that were waged between nato, warsaw pact, the exchange of nuclear weapons was off the charts. in three or four days, hundreds of them would be fired by both sides. so what we're seeing in these kind of books, i met hackett before he died, a great officer, but here he's writing a book

about stopping the soviets. i think there was a fantasy about this, that we frankly still live with, because we still have nuclear weapons in the world, we still are numb to this. i wonder what you think about that, because the reality is when the war games occurred in classified settings, they would shoot those god damn things off and destroy humanity. that's not reflected in techno porn books like clancy does that are feel-good things, america wins, the bad guys lose, and it's a bunch of bullshit. >> hackett's book does have a limited exchange, a limited one. so there is an element of imagination in these books, perhaps inescapably, although i think the cultural takeaway is

that american weapons were so much better than soviet ones. in war games it's all simulation. but typically in these war games it all goes nuclear pretty quickly. we can look somewhat at the performance of the technology in the gulf war, you know, we beat the soviet technology pretty handi handily. so it's possible. the problem is it's hard to know for sure one way or the other. and you're right, we still have nuclear weapons and they're not going anywhere in the near future, certainly it's come up multiple times. i don't think fin has advocated for a zero solution right now. >> this is my last question. going back to the power of narrative, and what the gentleman before said about a book leading to albert einstein talking to the president, roosevelt, about the atomic

bomb, and the previous book he mentioned, what does the power of narrative have to do with the "star wars" initiative that was ronald reagan's presidency, and why was it not implemented if it could have made a big difference? >> so the first question on implementation, it never really got to where it was technically feasible or possible to deploy. it was a very expensive system. support for sdi really started dying down later into the '80s. it had initial support for a lot of different reasons. reagan was a true believer in it. weinberger was probably a true believer in it. others viewed it as a chip, something to trade for concession. as far as its origins with reagan, it's something he expressed interest in in his early days as governor, he toured facilities and talked scientists about it. it's hard to tell where he got

the idea for it. he was certainly the driving force in his administration. there's a role that science fiction plays in it as well. when he talk about s about it f first time, his speech was written by a bunch of science fiction writers in california. the fact that kennedy decides to use "star wars" to label it speaks to trying to tie it to a certain type of culture, saying it's a fantasy, but arguably kennedy made a mistake because everybody loves "star wars," so you probably shouldn't label things with popular movies, if you want to kill them. >> who won the cold war? the chicken hawks won. the idea of nuclear war, you light the board with a match after the first few games.

chapters play out. when i played the game in europe with u-com and nato, and when i did it at the pentagon, somehow the chicken hawks, the conservatives, got the idea that they won the cold war. so we still have nuclear weapons, the russians are out there with nuclear weapons. we had a chance to disarm. so what was the lesson that we should have learned from the reagan period? was it that the clancy idea was correct? or was it that gorbachev, the pope, solidarity, were the ones who really pushed it and the chicken hawks held back, believing they were somehow the winners? >> that's a tough question. there's a lot of parts to that one. so i think, yeah, the problem with the end of the cold war is it defies these easy narratives. so people understand that reagan

wins the cold war because reagan spent them to their grave. others say gorbachev, others say it would end no matter what and it's a blessing it ended peacefully. in reality i think it's a mix tour of all of these things. clearly you can't ignore the people on the ground, the people in eastern europe resisting soviet rule. the rise of catholicism in poland, solidarity, political resistance, plays a role in fighting soviet power. it leads to more openness. but part of that is also because of the economic pressure. and part of that is tied to the pressure the u.s. has put on them by spending more and forcing them to compete. because the soviets can't afford to resist when the u.s. goes into gran ada, because the soviets decide they can't afford to risk the u.s.'s wrath when

you see these uprisings pop up in eastern europe, there's a pullback as well. it's a mix of all of these things. it's george h. bush going around in '89, and '90, '91, it's boris yeltsin. it's sad that we want to break it down to one person did it buy themselves. a broad group of people can be credited for bringing about a stunningly peaceful end and demise of an empire. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. i was very happy to be here with you guys. each night this week during the democratic convention, c-span3 is showing american history tv programming. tonight's programs are about president ronald reagan. beginning at 8:00 eastern, a former aide talks about reagan's life and personality. after that, a look at dwight d.

eisenhower's behind the scenes mentoring the mr. reagan and the role the president played in the political revolution of the 1960s. then the influence that author tom clancy and president reagan had on one another, tonight on c-span3. thursday night, hillary clinton becomes the first woman to accept a mainly political party's nomination for president of the united states. and with c-span, you have many convenient options for watching the entire speech without any interruptions. watch her historic acceptance speech live on c-span. listen to it on the c-span radio app. watch it live or on demand on your desktop, tablet, or smartphone. hillary clinton's historic acceptance speech, thursday night, on c-span, the c-span

radio app, and c-span.org. house democratic leader nancy pelosi talked about education, energy research, and other issues in des moines, iowa earlier this month. first up, though, the chair of the national governors association, governor gary herbert of utah. this is about 45 minutes. okay, ladies and gentlemen. i think we're ready to begin. take your seats. welcome back, governors, and staff people. we're honored to have you here back for our last session here, our last plenary session this afternoon. we've had a great day. yesterday was great, the

presentations were wonderful. that will continue here this afternoon. we're honored to have you all here and back again. as always, we thank governor ranstead for his hospitality in the great state of iowa. we appreciate the governors for being here, thank you very much for taking the time. yesterday we had the distinct privilege of having the opportunity to hear from senator grassley, the chairman of the judiciary committee and iowa's senior senator. today we have another opportunity to hear from a congressional leader, democrat leader nancy pelosi. we're honored to have her here for us. i'll turn the time over to the vice chair of the national governors association, governor terry mcauliffe. >> thank you, governor herbert. thank you for being with us this afternoon. i am honored to introduce our next guest. she has been a friend of mine going back almost four decades.

she is a mother, a grandmother, and has been a great leader for our country for so many years, and a real advocate for working families in our nation. for 29 years she has represented the 12th district of california. she has led the democrats in the house for more than 12 years, serving as the house democratic whip, speaker, and now as house leader. the breadth of her work and accomplishments is too expansive for me to go through, but let me give you a few highlights that she has been involved in that affects all of us as governors. she led the house passage of the american recovery and reinvestment act in 2009, literally saving millions of american jobs. she has led congress in passing child nutrition and food safety legislation in 2010. she has made energy security her flagship issue, raising vehicle fuel efficiency standards and making an historic commitment to american home-grown biofuels.

i know you understand that, governor branstead. she's helped pass a gi education bill for veterans and increased services for veterans, caregivers, as well as the veterans administration. she has been born into a strong family tradition of public service. on behalf of the governors, it's my honor to introduce nancy pelosi, the leader of the house democrats. [ applause ] >> good afternoon, everyone. it's lovely to be here in the heartland of america. what a beautiful place to be, in iowa. is this the end of the presidential or the beginning of the next presidential? i don't know, governor branstad,

what do you think? it never stops, it's constant. i was coming here from omaha and it was so beautiful, sad, sadly beautiful to see signs of reverence, the flags flying at half-staff along the way, then coming by the iowa veterans cemetery, to be grateful for how fortunate we are are to have those so courageous, both globally and at home, to make us the land of the brave and the home of the free. thank you, governor, for your hospitality and your leadership. governor mcauliffe, i'll accept your compliments, your words, they were compliments to me, on behalf of all the members who had the coverage to go forth under the leadership of president obama.

congratulations to governor sandoval, stepping into the chairmanship, in 45 minutes, or as long as i speak, and then he becomes, governor sandoval. governor herbert, thank you for your tremendous leadership. i remember when you came in with terry, governor mcauliffe, to my office and talked about how we could work together, federal and state, state and federal, bipartisan, nonpartisan cooperation. i thank all of you, and governor herbert for his leadership on the esea legislation, education and fast act. the two things you mentioned today, they are law, thank you for making all of that happen. to the staff, i also thank the staff for the hospitality extended to be here. we may not agree on everything but i think we agree on this one thing. the leadership and dynamism of america's governors are one of

the greatest resources of america's democracy. do you not agree? that's an applause line. [ applause ] i feel very honored to be invited by a great governor, terry mcauliffe, to be introduced by a great governor. as he said, we go back a long way. he was practically a teenager when we had been working for a long time in politics. i'm so proud of his leadership in the state of virginia, creating jobs, improving education, in so many ways, making a big difference. and i know parts of the strength he draws and experience he brings is what he draws from so many of you. so thank you for being such a great leader, terry mcauliffe. again, we may not agree on every subject. we are united in a common purpose, and that is a purpose encapsulated in governor herbert's theme, finding solutions, improving lives. we know that a strong

state/federal partnership is essential to creating durable and meaningful solutions to the challenges facing our nation today. i know we have a time limit, so i'll try and stick to my notes. we are more successful when we draw on the best practices that flow from states. the great laboratories of our democracy. that's an applause line too. [ applause ] as we discuss state/federal relationships and piartnerships i want to acknowledge, thank you, governor branstad, for your focus on fuels and biofuels, a priority that iowa has taken the lead on. i'm reminded when i was speaker of the house, we gave the congressional gold medal to norman borlog. pretty george w. bush came and honored us by making the presentation. that was the one of the days we recognized the greatness of this state to feeding the world.

it was an honor for you to join us when we unveiled dr. borlock's statue a few years later in statuary hall. we shared our support for the energy standard and the understanding of the relationship between food, agriculture, and biofuels. i hope to read whatever is allowed for me to read to have the benefit of your thinking and of course grateful for another great governor from iowa who has been a leader on all of these issues, governor, secretary vilsack. iowa has been very generous to our country in all of these respects. i know you talked about opioids. i just want to say this. i thank all of you for your leadership on this subject. but just to put what happened in perspective, this is a good bill. it was bipartisan, as has been mentioned. it has good policy in it. but we really need the money

right now. in fact we've needed it for a while. we did the budget agreement last year. when we do our appropriating for the following year, there are priorities that are established, a cap that is placed there. but at that time, we didn't realize we would need $1.1 billion for opioids, $1.9 billion for zika, or hundreds of millions of dollars for flint. in the course of time, when these unusual emergencies occur, they are emergency spending. so it's over four months since the president asked, well over four mintz, since the president asked for the zika money, and a long time since he asked for the opioid money. so our disappointment, almost to the point of not voting for the bill, was, it's interesting policy, it's good, it's

bipartisan, but it doesn't have the money, and it's going to take months to get the money, and why should that be? and then when we get the money, it will be in a budget that is a lamb eat lamb budget. everything in there is about education, it's about all of the priorities that are necessities that are investments that actually grow our country, create jobs, and reduce the deficit. so we have to compete for the money. and i just don't think that we should. so hopefully we can all weigh in so that at some point, much sooner than the appropriations process, we can have this emergency funding. even if we have to pay for it not as an emergency, that we would appropriate it immediately, even if we have to fight over where the money comes from, but not to kick the can down the road. so congress has refused to provide the robust emergency resources urgently needed. governors of both parties have

been some of the most powerful voices for the need for congress to act on these public health crises. you know, governor, the need in puerto rico for the zika funding, it's long, long overdue, how can it be? your continued leadership of all of you and your advocacy for meaningful funding to fight zika and opioids will make a critical difference when congress returns. funding is very, very long overdue, and i just don't know why. your agenda here, going on to some other subjects you've talked about, is an agenda of the future, and i salute you for that. and much of the future will depend on our ability to take bold action today to ensure that our nation leads in innovation in this century. we must ensure that american workers, american products, and american ideas remain number one in the global economy. i want to just tell you for a moment, and then spring from it,

about the innovation agenda that we put together 11 years -- well, we started 11 years ago, presented it ten years ago. we -- it's called innovation agenda. we went all over the country, in a nonpartisan way, academics, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, union members, students, every aspect of an economy and a society to say, give us your priorities, how to keep america number one. from that, we passed the groundbreaking competes act that created arpa-e, an initiative to power high risk, high reward clean energy research and technological development. we invested in s.t.e.m., now we call it s.t.e.a.m., we added "a" for the arts, making college more affordable for all students, probably the largest college aid for gis since the gi bill. we expanded broadband across

rural areas with initiatives from the department of agriculture and commerce and modernized sbir, small business investment and other small business initiatives. i tell you that because it made a tremendous difference. but, you know, ten years have gone by and the world has changed after the first innovation agenda. ten years later, we must take inventory of what is needed for innovators to thrive. the progress of cloud computing, data storage, again, more broadband technology, smartphones and precision medicine over the past decade had put new possibilities within our grasp. we must seize the full potential of innovation and technology for all, all of america's families and communities. this spring, we again initiated innovation agenda 2.0, convening dozens of listening sessions all over the country, dozens, to solicit in virginia, i could go

around and tell you the states we've been. we did, as we did in 2015, we listened to all the folks, experts, academics, et cetera. and today, i want to give you an introduction of what we heard and confirmed to invite our views -- and i want to invite your views on how we can work together at the local, state, and federal level, to keep america number one. it all is predicated on the idea that everything starts in the classroom. governor malloy, innovation begins in the classroom. education is the greatest investment a family or a nation can make in its children. and thank you, governors, again, i thank governor herbert, thank you all for your leadership helping congress pass the every student succeeds act, very important. but as we talk about investing in education, remember this. this is a fact.

you might think some of this is opinion. this is a fact. nothing brings more money to the treasury to reduce the deficit more than educating the american people. early childhood, k-12, higher education, post grad, lifetime learning for our workers. that's why early childhood, the child esteem, all of that is so important. again, we must make college more affordable, reducing the burden of debt, strengthening our promise for world class education once again for our veterans. the prospects of big data and information technology have put us all on the doorstep of tremendous advances. and again, all of this has begun in the classroom. but for everyone to participate in it, they must be educated to it in the classroom.

big data, information technology, is a solution to every challenge that we all face. national security, homeland security. clean energy, transportation, agriculture and food. smart cities and housing, education and diversity. any subject you can name, we're in a new and different place because of information technology. and the cloud and the big data. you, thank you, thank you, thank you, governors, for advancing computer science education, because that is essential to our success, and indeed the success of every person and every family in our country, to participate in that success. we're also very proud of president obama's computer science for all initiative, proposing $4 billion for states to increase access to k-12

computer services and computer science. we must again, i keep making this point, be inclusive. we must be sure that every community and every child has access to high speed, always-on broadband, and the digital literacy necessary to participate in this progress. you know we have an opportunity gap in our country. some of it springs from an education gap. it will never be solved until we solve the education gap. the education gap is definitely affected by the technology gap, the digital divide. and we have to reduce that in order to not only haveirations keep america number one. as we embrace the transformational power of technology, we want to keep a sharp focus on issues of privacy and cybersecurity. two of my credentials, one, i'm an appropriator, so i understand that culture, when i talked

about earlier the monday coming from here or there, and i'm also the longest serving person on the intelligence committee in our country. i'm very concerned about the cybersecurity issue. i thank you, governor mcauliffe, for putting this issue front and center with your upcoming dga chairmanship. are we ready for that? we must give priority to serious investments in energy research and engage in public/private partnerships to rebuild america's infrastructure. building america's infrastructure, it's never been a partisan issue, recently somewhat, but it doesn't have to be a partisan issue. you know better than anybody, the deficit that is there, in the trillions of dollars, the opportunity that is there to build infrastructure, to create mobility, to move people to and from work, to and from home, school, and the rest, product to and from market where time makes

a difference, especially in agriculture products. and this infrastructure will create jobs from day one because of the construction that is necessary. we must have a tax credit to incentivize and enable the creation and deployment of cleaner, more efficient energy technologies. we must establish innovation hubs. and this is really important, i want to hear your views when we have a chance to chat. in every region of the country, there has to be a decision made to have them in every region of the country. lastly, we must confront the obstacles facing enterprising americans who want to take a chance on an idea, an innovation, a new business, but they are curtailed by lack of funding, whatever it is. there is a path for us to take them out of that valley and have them skip over it. working together, strong, state

and federal partners, we can ensure that america remains the global super power of entrepreneurship. we have a proud heritage as americans, our sense of community and our obligations to our troops. i always think of the vision of our founders that we are very blessed with the sacrifice of our troops, that we're grateful for forever, and the aspirations of our children. and we have a proud heritage, a heritage which has always focused boldly on the future. it is in that proud tradition that president kennedy challenged our nation to go to the moon more than 50 years ago. i know you know all about that, or maybe you weren't born but you've read about it. for me it was my youth, for you it's history. and he said this at the time, which applies.

the goals of this nation can only be fulfilled if we in this nation are first. and therefore we intend to be first. in short, he said, our leadership in science and industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort. that's what he said. i say from the declaration of our founders to humanity's first step on the moon to the present day, america has shown the world what it means to innovate, to lead, to be first. i thank you all for your leadership in this regard and i thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts with you this afternoon. thank you so much. [ applause ] should we have some questions now or did i go too far into the

next administration of the governors association? >> thank you, leader pelosi. >> thank you, we are honored to have you here, we appreciate, terry and i, the opportunity to meet with you. we have been working very well as a bipartisan organization. >> wonderful. >> we think we're a good example of bipartisanship here at the governors. you mentioned a couple of areas where we've been successful, the every student succeeds act, very bipartisan. transportation, the fast act. we have a long history of that. we go back to president bill clinton's administration, we had welfare reform that came out of wisconsin and michigan and utah, and helped us as a country i think have some significant inroads there. my question to you is, what do you see in the next congress, what are areas of bipartisan concern that we, the governors, can get involved with and help you in the congress to get some things done in this upcoming

congress? >> thank you, governor. in terms of the possibilities of us working together in the next congress, i always come back to infrastructure, because no matter what we have done and we've done some good things, we need to do more. and a lot of it is predicated on the fact that science and technology are moving so quickly. as i said before, it has never been a partisan issue. so we are trained to think in a way of nonpartisanship. what we would like to do is actually have nonpartisanship in the suggestions that come in. that's how we used to do it. we would say, if you want to compete for a -- well, that was in the days of earmarks which we don't have anymore, but if you want to have your initiative included in legislation, show the nonpartisan aspect of it in your community, what the engineering and technological support is for it, and what is

its impact regionally, regionally, not just i want mine for my county and i want mine, but what is the impact regionally. so this is nonpartisan, and it also crosses regional and political -- when i say political, i mean county, state, city, whatever, distinctions. so i think that that is an endless opportunity. tied to that, related to that, is the tax reform, because as you know, first of all, we want to reform the tax code. we want to make it more simplified, make it fair, make it do the job it sets out to do. and there are certain aspects of it, like build america bonds, which are very help fful in building infrastructure in our country. some of it springing from the american reinvestment and recover act. but also, i know a subject of

concern to you is the tax deductibility, bonds, and how bonds are treated. so infrastructure and tax reform abut. we can do them piecemeal, we can do one -- but if we can do it comprehensively, i think we would get -- and in a nonpartisan way, which i think we should be able to do. again, talking about what we can do, i hope it won't take until the next congress, but we have the e-fairness legislation, which you all come to see me, the mayors come to see and you say the rest, there say bill, the chaifetz bill, that says where it is delivered is where you pay the tax. chaffetz is a republican chairman in the committees. i was trying to get it in the omnibus bill last december. but the chairman of the full -- the committee had a different

bill. that would be the judiciary committee. so we're continuing to make that fight. but our support for that is totally nonpartisan. we rejoice in the fact that we can do that. so how are some of the things affecting you in terms of infrastructure, how do we pay for it and how do our decisions at the tax code level affect your ability to collect taxes from internet sales and the rest. i think there are plenty of opportunities, and you may have some suggestions, and again, continue on the education path, as i mentioned again and again, the infrastructure path, especially since now we know that we have to do things in a way that is cleaner, if we're going to be number one, we have to keep the air clean, if we're

going to recognize the connection between agriculture and energy and the rest. we have tremendous opportunities. i come right back to what i said earlier. information technology, big data, just subject every challenge that we face to what that computation and that speed and all the rest can make a tremendous, tremendous difference. so i think that that will sort of melt away some of the partisanship. because what we're talking about is not partisan, none of this has any ideological bent, right? we all want to take advantage of what science and technology can offer to help solve our problems. if you have any suggestions, priorities, again, you brought your priorities before, education and transportation, and you got those done. thank you, governor. >> governor branstad? >> first of all, i want to thank you for the role you played in

honoring dr. borlog. >> thank you. >> and that was one of the highlights for me to be there when that statue of dr. borlog was unveiled in statuary hall. also your support for renewable energy, which is very near and dear to my heart and the people of way. so we appreciate that. to some degree you've already touched on this, but tax reform, comprehensive federal tax reform is an important issue, and it obviously affects us because -- and you talked about this a little bit, that tax deductibility of state and local bonds. we are concerned that the congress in doing comprehensive tax reform recognize the important role the governors and the states have in terms of controlling our own state tax authority and not being preempted. so i would just ask you to see

what you can do to make sure that -- first of all that we do see comprehensive tax reform, and that we do it in such a way that doesn't curtail the state's ability to meet our obligations. >> thank you, governor. i look forward to working with you on that. it is -- one of the things that is out there is to have a limit on what you can deduct. when there is a limit on the deduction, then that has an impact on the state and local bond, tax-free bond part of it. so let's continue to work together, because, you know, it's one of those things about the tax code, there's probably nothing that arouses more comment, shall i say, than when we go to do that. and it has an impact, as we know. and i want to congratulate you, because actually the reason we were able to do norman borlog's

statue was an action of the state of iowa, whose statue will be in statuary hall. i would like to take a little credit for being speaker when we gave a medal to norman borlog, what a great man. >> last night we had an event at the borlog hall, they converted the old main library here in des moines to the borlog hall of laureates. we had xi jinping when he visited our state in 2012. i think they spent over $30 million to restore and renovate it. anyway, that's one of the wonderful things that's going on in des moines. that along with the papa john sculpture garden. we hope you get a chance to see those before you leave town. >> thank you, i hope to, and if not, i'll be back. thank you, iowa, thank you all, because what dr. borlog did was

really biblical, to feed the hungry in the world through science in a new and different way. so beautiful. thank you. >> governor malloy? >> thank you. it's great to see you again. >> lovely to see you again. >> great to be with you and fun to be with you. i just want to say that. you touched on a number of subjects, not the least of which is the opioid situation. and i know you understand this, that money is necessary today, not tomorrow. in fact we're way behind where we needed to be in the fight of this opioid abuse. a person is dying every 20 minutes in the united states as a result of overdosing on opioids. and the problem is he tell going bigger as fentanyl is being introduced on a broader and broader basis and used as a substitute for opioids. so anything you can do to further that. and i agree with you, this is an emergency as epic as a grade

flood or a great forest fire or a great damage to infrastructure that may be caused by some other means. and so anything you can do, we would greatly appreciate it. i know you'll get it. we need your help and your pushing, you're right, don't stop. on the transportation side, that was my question that they assigned me, so you and i made the point, so let me just get to transportation. one of the outstanding issues on transportation is we have a five-year plan that was longer than many thought it would be, but it's only funded for three years. can you comment on where we go from here? >> i think we have to think in a bigger way. we really do. i mean, we had to accept what we had to accept there. but when you're talking about the infrastructure that we're talking about, the short fuse, it's not -- it just doesn't work, these projects take a long time, and we have to know that there's something after, because

every project is not just an end in itself, but it's part of a regional plan. and so i think it would never be too soon for us to start working again on an infrastructure bill. we talk about infrastructure, and people think transportation all the time, and that's really important, whether we're talking roads, bridges, high speed rail, mass transit, and the rest. that's essentially -- it's very important. we're also talking water. some of our water systems are maybe a hundred years old. they're made of brick and wood. they're not even hygienic, i mean, from a health standpoint they need to be changed, so much that when i first came to congress and we were doing transportation bills, now it's about broadband and the technologies, the infrastructure to enable us to have the broadband for the future, and so

it's not just about what our immediate needs are in terms of transportation one way or the other. it's about, again, water systems, broadband, and so much more. so the opportunity -- let me take it away from just strictly a federal and local expense. i have been told by some investors and the rest, major league investors, that the biggest emerging market in the world is the infrastructure, building the infrastructure in the united states. there is so much need, over 2 trillion, some say 3 trillion by the american society of engineers, it's in the trillions of dollars. there's a never going to be enough appropriated dollars, even a public/private, state/federal match to meet the challenges that we face.

so we have to be thinking creatively in how we do public/private partnerships, how we perhaps have an infrastructure bank to leverage the dollars that we can invest to attract other dollars to get the job done. so this really challenges our imagination. and again, it's related to the tax code as well. so some suggested repatriation of funds to come home at a reduced tax rate to be used for the infrastructure bank in order to -- in order to facilitate the investment that we need to make. so, again, it's not to be limited. we have to think much more creatively about bonding, about investment, public/private partnership, how we use resources that might not readily be available, but for that purpose would be. >> let me just say that there is bipartisan testament to the need on the transportation side.

every round is heavily competed for by just about every state in the nation. we have everyone on record saying that we need help in building the transportation infrastructure that will allow us to compete with europe and asia. so any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. >> i thank you, and i welcome any suggestions you may have on the innovation agenda, on the infrastructure. and they're all related, and they're all related. but coming from where i do in northern california and seeing this all over the country, i'm telling you we have a new fresh way of looking at all of these things through the eyes of information technology and big data. and it's, again, all of the things we want it to be in terms of mobility, cleaning the air and the rest. but from day one, there are jobs. there are jobs. and we need to be the education to be commensurate with it. and we need the investments we make in education to be aligned with what the job market needs

so at the same time we're lifting everyone up in our society. >> i think we have time for two more questions. my question related to cybersecurity. obviously it's a big issue for all of us at the federal level, at the state level. we have so much data at the state level. we're all being attacked. how do you see a framework where the federal government works with the state to make sure we're included as we move forward on this? >> thank you for your leadership on this subject, and thank you for your question. you know we have put out resources to the states for cyber -- for security, for homeland security. i think it would be important -- i know it would be important for us to work together. because some states just take the resources, but they don't have cybersecurity as a priority in how they allocate the resources. so perhaps we can work together to figure out how to put forth some formula with flexibility,

of course, that says you really have to be investing in this. and again, the technology advancing the way it is will facilitate some of that. so it's not a drag on the homeland security, but an enhancement. the provisions that we have now in the law know that you're familiar with them, i think could use some shall we say just sit issing down and going over them and saying what actually works best so that states know that these resources are for this purpose, and the federal government knows what the states need. again, the intelligence world, we always talk about needs and leads. what do we need to protect the american people? you may know something as we tell you what we think you should do, you may have a lead that is better. so i'm not absolutely assured

and maybe you are that communication has been what it needs to be to make sure that you get sufficient funds, but that those funds do not ignore the cyberpiece of homeland security because it's -- we're all vulnerable. it's a tremendous security exposure that we have. and know that the states and your great laboratories of democracy, privacy that it's been since the beginning of our country. privacy and security. how do you balance them? and that's the job that you have right on the front line in your states. if i just may say on that score i have always again, an intelligence person always talked about that balance. franklin roosevelt said -- excuse me, benjamin franklin, going back further said if you don't have both, you don't have either.

security and civil liberty, privacy. but i think that right now a third piece is entered into that. and that is security, privacy, civil liberties, and american brand name. i don't mean just so we can sell american products overseas. what i mean is that we must sell american products overseas because we have to be the categorical great technology of the world. if people say well, i'm not going buy american because nay have a back door and all of that, then that diminishes our security is. so i think we should all just recognize as we balance the equities of the importance of america prevailing in the world in terms of who dominates in terms of technology being sold

throughout the world. again, let us at some point sit together as we did before and talk about the specific language on some of the mandates that go with or don't go with the cybersecurity. but it's a big issue. it is a gigantic issue, and i thank you for taking it on. >> thank you. the last question will go to our newest governor. john bel edwards from the great state of louisiana. >> you didn't say the best governor in the state of louisiana. >> i got too many to fight here. >> he'll tell you that later. >> leader pelosi, thank you for being with us today. >> thank you. congratulations to you. >> thank you. consistent with the idea that states are laboratories for democracy, the national governors association promotes flexibility. but it seems like often from congress we get a one size fits all approach without the flexibility that we would need to be effective laboratories, probably because we can't be trusted or that's the sentiment

with a lot of folks in washington and congress. and so how can we move past those trust issues and get to where we can have fair accountability, but also get the flexibility that we need to shape these programs the way we think we can deliver the best results? >> so terry, this is the newest governor coming with the most traditional question that governors always ask about flexibility. so you learned very fast, governor. let me just say the balance again that needs to be there. and that is we write a bill for a purpose. for example, say title i for children in economically disadvantaged areas or something like that. so you expect that the money that is sent would be for that purpose. it's not even a question of trust. it's a question of what is the purpose of the funds that go around. can there be more opportunities for waivers adjusting to

individual situations in states and the rest? i think there is an attempt to do that. but if you think for a minute that it's about lack of trust, then we should address that it's really more about let us address the purpose for which this was legislated and appropriated if we're talking about funds and how we can have the judgment, the discretion being used in a way that benefits the children. i guess with everything that we talk about here, what we want are results, are results. and that is -- that's the point. so let us -- i mean, that is the -- how many times have i been here over time and have heard that question. so clearly we have not addressed it sufficiently because it continues to raise its head. but it is about maintenance of effort that we don't want to send money that is going to

support something that was there before and not do the new effort. so in any event, it is a challenge and we in writing of the bills to determine what is the purpose, what are the resources, and are there other needs that the governors have that we're not addressing that they want the flexibility to go into this pocket. so, again, this is about the state/federal partnership. and i again respect that you are the laboratory of democracy and that great things spring from the states. and many of the things that we have at the federal level started in the state, including the affordable care act in massachusetts under governor romney. i want to just acknowledge governor padilla for his leadership. he has so much going on there. it's so wonderful that you're here, governor. >> thank you, leader.

i just -- there is not a question, just i want to say to my colleagues here and everybody here what i told you privately, that i thank you for your leadership. in puerto rico working out of the crisis that we inherited is not the perfect law, but is something that we need. and you have been a great leader. puerto rico appreciate that, your leadership. lydia velazquez leadership, pedro luis's help, paul ryan helps. so thank you. >> yes. >> on behalf of the people of puerto rico. and i have to tell everybody here with my colleagues here that leader pelosi, puerto rico fans are great friends. any time you are state of need, you will find a great friend. i am a witness of that. thank you. >> thank you, governor. we do listen. so i want you to know, we do listen. i do listen and i do enjoy being with all of you today.