another. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, courage, winston churchill taught us, is what it takes to stand up and to speak. courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen. this afternoon, i have done all of the speaking. be assured that my government and my president, that we are back in the business of listening, listening to our allies. ladies and gentlemen, it is no accident that europe was my first overseas destination as vice-president and also the president's. it is no accident that we have also returned several times since then. the united states needs to europe, and i respectfully submit, europe needs the united states. we need each other more now than

we have ever. [applause] so i view this week's anniversary as providing a welcome opportunity to reaffirm the bond and our peoples forged long ago in the fires of diversity -- the bond our peoples forged. europeans and americans look to each other before they look to anyone else. now, as then, we are honored and grateful to be by your side in the struggles yet to come, so, again, i am here to state unequivocally, president obama and joe biden strongly support a united, a free, an open europe. we strongly support what you are about here. we wish you godspeed, and may

god bless you all, and may god protect all of our troops. thank you all very much. [applause] thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [applause] >> thank you very much, mr. vice president. it was great for future cooperation. listen and talk to each other,

very important, and i would like to thank you for repeating the most important words from the last week. europe needs america. we remember the 20th century. the first world war. the second world war. we were fighting side to side, victory together, democracy, and as today, america needs europe. we will remember that this is a good beginning of our partnership and cooperation. thank you very much, once again, mr. vice president. [applause] >> thank you.

>> defense secretary robert gates warned that the united states will not be able to maintain its current military force without pentagon funding. he spoke at the presidential library in abilene, texas, marking the end of world war ii in europe. he was joined by a congressman. this is about half an hour. >> one of the benefactors of victory in europe today. it is an honor for me to be with you today to celebrate the occasion of that anniversary of our victory in europe, and i do not have to tell most of the people here today, but i often in life and my colleagues in washington, d.c., that there is something very special about

in leighton -- enlighten my colleagues. it was here that dwight eisenhower developed the character and lessons that served him as commander of our allied forces in europe and led to that victory in world war ii. today, 65 years later, our country faces a different enemy, al qaeda, with a similar goal of destroying our lives. in these most challenging times, we have turned to lead that fight. it is my privilege to introduce to you our keynote speaker, secretary of defense dr. robert gates. he began his distinguished career as an eagle scout in wichita, kan., where he was born and raised. in january earlier this year, and listened to secretary gates as he spoke and was honored -- i

listened to secretary gates. he closed with a memorable statement that says a lot about his values and the values we find in the communiques -- communities in our state. "my youth in kansas was rich with good and modest people. surrounded by such people, character and integrity, kansas values, and kansas, sens begin the bedrock of my life -- kansas commonsense became the bedrock of my life, no matter how far i travel but braque -- traveled." he has traveled very far. he has had a 27 year career and begin the director of central intelligence in 1991 until 1993. he has been commissioned as an officer in the air force, has served on the boards of nonprofits and businesses,

receive medals and awards, and served as president of texas a&m. in 2006, dr. gates was selected by president bush as the 22nd secretary of defense. president obama asked him to remain in 2008, making him the only secretary of defense in u.s. history who was asked to stay in that office by a newly- elected president. ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor to introduce and welcome our speaker this afternoon, o was raised with kansas' commonsen commonsense. ladies and gentleman, secretary of defense robert gates. [applause] >> thank you.

thank you, congressman, for that kind introduction. thank you to the eisenhower library for the honor of being your speaker on this occasion, the 65th anniversary of the allied victory. i know there are a number of veterans from world war ii who are with us. we're grateful to youor what you achieved an sacrificed to ma it -- achieved and sacrificed to make it possible for us to gather today. [applause] i am pleased to be here for several reasons. it is always a treat to be someplace other than washington, d.c. -- thenly place in the world you can see a prominent person walking down lover's lane lding his own hand. [laughter] it is even better to return to my home state of ksas, a place of little pretense and ample common-sense.

i am honored and humbled to be at this wonderful institution on this occasion and to be ofociated, and with the legacy dwight d. eisenhower. this is my second visit to the library and museum. my first was with my sixth grade class from wichita, 54 years ago. with just under five decades in the corporate sector, i consider myself a person of few illusions and not that many of unalloyed heroes. general eisenhower has been source of wisdom and inspiration. he is one of my heroes. another is general george marshall, his partner in command, whose portrait hangs behind my desk, too. eisenhower was a low-maintenance leader of simple tastes, modest

man, and small entourages, in contrast to what happens in the upper levels of washington and other elite settings now. one article describes a visit by eisenhower to the front lines of the european theatre of operations. they noted there was no fanfare, no motorcycle escort, no flowering banners, only a convoy of three cars. there was one for the president, one for the press, and one spare. he set up his modest trailer. despite the presence of an elegant and abandon chateau nearby, he maintaid the symbol surrounding. he was flummoxed by the pentagon. it is now referred to as the puzzle palace. soon after the war, he made a

mistake of trying to find his office by himself and got very lost. "one had to give the building is grudging admiration. it had been defined to confuse any any that might infiltrates it -- any enemy that might infiltrate it." he was not alone in this. one woman rushed up to a pentagon guards as saying she was in labor and needed help to get to a hospital. the guard said, madam, u should not have come in here in that condition. she answered, i was not in this condition when i came in here. [laughter] the occasion that brings us together this afternoon is the 65th anniversary of the allied victory in europe. it was an achievement that would not have been possible without ike's strategic visionnd a remarkable skill at managing the personalities of his top generals.

one top historian said, eisenhower had to deal with as fractious and dysfunctional a group egomaniacs as anyone had .ver seen -- he was focused on to win the nazis and not each other -- on killing the nazis and not each other. i would like to discuss the approach he took and the choices he made to secure what was called "the long peace" that followed." -- followed. his dresses kept us prosperous and free for nearly six decades -- his choices that as prosperous and free for nearly six decades. they also helped provide and pay for our national defense. president obama addssed the nation from west point, where he

laid out the case for a new strategy t achieve our objectives in afghanistan and pakistan. [train whistling] i am accustomed to this. the union pacific runs right through the middle of the a&m campus. eisenhower spoke of the need to consider options. in light of the broader consideration, the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- this excet was panned for being insufficiently and browsing in a churchillian sense. i believe he would never approved -- he would have approved.

[train whistling] faced with the pre-eminence security threat of his time -- the soviet union -- he was a strong warrior. he had no illusions about the nature of the soviet adversary, which he once called "global in scope, rose in purpose, and city is in method. -- insidious in method." no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. during his presidency, he resisted pressure to intervene militarily in vietnam and the middle east. this restraint was not just his hatred of war and all of its attendant costs and horace. -- horrors. it came from an understanding that even the united states,

near its zenith in strength and prosperity, did not have unlimited political, economic, and military resources. expanding them in one area -- a protected war in the developing furthermore, eisenhower strongly believe that the united states and, indeed, any nation could only be as militarily strong as it was economically dynamic and physically strong. he lamented the cost of maintaining a high level of readiness. as he put it so memorably, a large arms industry is new in the american experience. we recognize the imperative needs of the development. yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. eisenhower was wary of seeing

his glove republic turned into a muscle bound state -- wary of seeing his republic turned into a muscle-bound state. this view of his passionate belief that the u.s. should spend as much as necessary on national defense but not one penny more, and with his peerless credentials and standing, he was uniquely positioned to ask hard questions, make tough decisions. we have firsthand documentary insight into how probing and ruthless this five-star general could be when it came to forcing the military establishment to justify its priorities. its programs and priorities. consider one account from march, 1956. eisenhower sat down with his top defense advisers to discuss the

pentagon budget. it shows he became exasperated that, "no one ever comes up and says let's get rid of something ." the observed that it took the army0 years to get rid of horses -- he then observed that it took the army's 60 years to get rid of forces i questioned why the army should have a 1500-mile ballistic missile program since, the army does not have the equipment to see where they are hitting. he told h senior defense team that he wanted the pentagon cut down to "a spartan basis," lamenting that people he had known all of his life were asking for more and more. "i say th patriot today is the fellow who can do the job with less money." whenever he was asked to fund something, his response usually took the form of a question -- where is the money going to come from and what will you cut in

its place? the other question was about priorities. he said it was troubled by the tendency to pilot program on top of a program to meet every possible contingency. looking back from today, what a fine so compelling and instructive -- what i find so compelling and instructive is that really choices were made, parties were set, and limits were enforced -- really tough choices were made, priorities were set, and limits were enforced. the attacks the september, 2001, opened a gusher of this defense spending -- of defense spending which has nearly doubled, not accounting for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. this brings us to the choices we have today as a country.

given our difficult economic circumstances and powerless this will condition, military spending on things large and small can and should expect closer a harsher scrutiny. the gusher will stay off for a good period of time. on one level, it is a simple matter of math. the fact that we're in a war and facing an uncertain world, we must sustain the current military force structure. this typically requires regular growth in the defense budget, ranging from 2% to 3% above inflation. in this year's budget request, the defense department asked for and hopes to receive just under 2%. it is highly unlikely that we will achieve the real growth rates necessary to sustain our current force structure. some argue that the answer is simply to press harder for a

bigger overall budget. they point out that defense spending to date is a function of gross domestic product, roughly 4.5%, relatively small in historical terms during a time of war. they would be right. i do not hesitate to make thatpoint during my trips -- make that point during my trips to capitol hill. we face certain economic and fiscal realities. we need to overcome steep, institutional, political institutions and challenges. anyone outside of the five walls ofhe pentagon -- many of those are outside of the five walls of the pentagon. they had asked to cease funding for certain equipment.

there are heavy up-front costs -- about $3 billion. multiple studies show the military has ample airlift capacity to meet all current and feasible future needs. the leadership of the air force is car -- they do not need and cannot afford more c-17's. correspondingly, the air force, marines, and 80 do not want the second f- -- and navy do not want the second f-35 engines. yet a battle is underwayo prevent them from putting these back in in the next few yrs. i strongly recommend a veto if either of these items is included in the budget legislion next year. leave aside the sacred obligation we have to america's wounded warriors, but health care costs are eating the

department alive. it increased from $19 billion when decade ago to roughly $50 billion, about the same but it of the foreign affairs budget for the department of state -- about the same budget of the of foreign affairs but it -- of the foreign affairs budget for the department of state. many working-age military retirees, who are earning a full-time salaries on top of their full milit pensions, are opting for tricare, even though they could get health coverage through their employer, with the taxpayer picking up the tab. the department has attempted modest increases in premiums and copays, to help bring costs under control. it has been that with a furious response from the congress and from veterans. the proposals routinely die an ignominious death. the resistance to dealing with it stems from an admirable

sentiment -- to take good care of our troops, their families, and veterans, especially those who sacrificed and suffered on the battlefield. they must routinely add 0.5% pay raises. the all-volunteer force, which has been a brilliant success in terms of performance, is a group that is older, more likely to have spouses and children, and costlier to retain, recruit, house, and care for than the draft of young single men. those are the political and mographic realities that we face. the limit what can be saved and where -- the limit what can be sad and where. the department of defense can approach to america's elected reesentatives and ask for increases every year, until we have done everything possible to make every dollar count.

unless there is real reform in the way the art and the defense does its business and spends taxpayer dollars -- in the way the department of defense does its business and spends taxpayer dollars. we're focused on permit programs to make sure we're buying things in the right quantities. -- on procurement programs to make sure we are buying things in the right quantities. we need to meet our real world needs. about $330 billion were terminated. we also begin to overhaul the processes for acquisition and contracting. earlier this week, i observed the physical realities will preclude the navy from reaching its goal of 330 ships, if each is over budget and cost billions of dollars. without exercising real ligence, if nature takes its

course, major weapons programs will devolve into pursuing the limits of what technology will bear, witut regards to what our real world enemy can do and regards to cost. it has led to $20 million howitzers, $2 billion bombers, and billion to $6 billion destroyers. for example, the navy wanted 32 of t next-generation destroyer. because of increasing costs, we will three. -- will build three. the air force wanted more than 200, we built 20. the changes we have made in the procurement are renamed -- arena represent a start. more is needed.

the defense of art must take a hard look at every aspect of how would is organized -- the defense department must take a hard look at every aspect of how it does business. is this respectful of the american taxpayer at time of economic and fiscal distress? is this activity or arrangement the best use of limited dollars, given the pressing needs we have to take care of our people, win the wars we are in, and invest in our abilities to deal with future threats? no real progress towards savings is possible without reforming our budgeting practices and assumptions. too often, but it's are divvied up each year as a straight-line -- bgets are divvied up each year as a straight-line projection of the year before unlikely -- they are very rarely -- of the year before.

they are very rarely reexamined. consider the broad category that encompasses about $200 billion worth of the daily activities of the military -- from flight training to mowing the grass. over the last decade, expenses have about doubled, wi large creases in the administrative and infrastructure support. the departme's spending on contract services has grown by some $23 billion. the one area of real decline in overhead is the area where we actually need it -- full-time contract and professionals, whose numbers plunged from 26,000 to about 9000. we ended up with contractors supervising other contractors, with predictable results. another category ripe for scrutiny should be our overhead. allhe activity and bureaucracy that supports the military

mission. according to one estimate, overhead, broadly defined, makes up about 40% of the department's budget. militarye 1990's, the saw deep cuts in overall force structure. the army was cut by nearly 40%. the reduction flag offices, generals, admirals, what abouthalf that. the department's -- was about half that. the department's number of senior executives grew during that's period. almost -- that same period. almost a decade ago, the defense reason -- the defense board estimated that there is a gap between the an action officer that is as high as 30 layers. they have stratton's -- that of latin and streamlined the upper echelon -- they have flattened and streamline the

upper echelon -- streamlined the upper echelon. there were steep cuts in our forces in europe. we have 40 generals, admirals, or cilian equivalents, yet we sold our allies over the bloat in nato -- we scold our allies over the globe in nato. -- the bloat in nato. a request has to go through five headquarters to be validated and dealt with. more and more responsibility, including decisions with strategic consequences, is being exercised by young captain's and colonels on the battlefield -- captains and colonels on the battlefield. the depart the study identified 37

positions out of more than 1300 active and reserve that could be reasonably converted to a low rank. not one was downgraded. going forward, some questions to be considered should be -- how many are in the business to reporting to or supervising other headquarters, as opposed to overseeing activity related to real-world activities or missions? assistant secretaries become deputy assistant secretaries, to become a flatter and less costly organization. and finally, how many are coordinating redundant functions? how many could be combined or eliminated altogether? in considering these questions, we have to be mindful of the

iron law of bureaucracy, that the definition expands proportionately with the seniority of the person in charge and the quantity of time and staff available. 50-page powerpoint presentation is being one result. -- presentations being one result. . we need to evaluate the criteria upon which requirements are based and the wider, real-world context. should we be up in arms over a temporary, projected shortfall of fighters and disorders when we possess more than 3200 tactical aircraft? does the number of warships we have put america at risk? . .

they the kinds of questions that we must all be willing to ask and answer in order to have of balance military portfolio curatorial world requirements and defense budget that is physically and politically sustainable over time. therefore is the defense department began the process of preparing next year's fiscal 2012 budget request, i am directing the military services, joint staff, the major functional and regional commands, and the civilian side of the pentagon to take all hard, unsparing look at how they operate. the goal is to cut our overhead

costs and transfer those savings to force structure and modernization within the budget. to divert sufficient tale to tooth. tail to two to provide 2% growth, have the resources needed in a time of war, and make investments into an uncertain future. simply taking a few percentage point off the top of everything on a one time basis will not do. these savings must stem from the areas that can be sustained and added to from -- over te. what is required going forrd is not more study. nor do we need more legislation. it is not a great mystery what needs to change. what it takes is a great political will and willingness, as eisenhower possess, to make hard choices, traces the well fiscally empower people -- choices thatill fiscally empower people both inside the

pentagon and out. i am not the first person to make this case or in this effort. a person employed in a redundant task is one who could be fighting terrorism or nuclear proliferation. secretary crumbs fell said that on september 10th, two dozen 1 -- secretary rumsfeld said that on september 10th, 2001. what might have been considered a noble or worthy endeavor in the past is now a path that can no longer be denied or postponed. it is a path, in the final analysis, to defend the security, prosperity and freedom of the american people in a complex and dangerous new century. it is a calling to uphold the spirit of sacrifice of the men whose service and triumphs we honor today, and it is a mission

or the of the son of kansas to lead our forces to victory 65 years ago, and his legacy continues to sustain and protect us today. mouches thank you. -- thank you very much. [applause] >> of nets, a debate among the republican candidate for senate in california. it took place thursday at the museum of tolerance in los angeles, and was hosted by kabc in los angeles. it is just under an hour. ♪ >> the republican u.s.

candidates debate. >> thank you for joining us. this is the u.s. senatorial primary debate featuring the three leading candidates for the republican nomination, tom campbell, chuck devore, and carly fiorina. we are at the museumf tolerance and the representatives of the league of women's voters who have provided the guidelines for tonight's debate. joining me are three colleagues, warren armstrong, mark mathews, and john north. weave drawn straws for the order in which the first question will be answered. warren armstrong, your question to tom campbell followed by chuck devor and carly fiorina. candidate, if you will each have 60 seconds to respond.

what are your conservative credentials that separate you from the other candidates? >> may i first began with the word othanks to the league of women voters, to abc, and to the museum of tolerance. i'm so pleased to be here. i served in the administration of former reagan. i served five terms in the united states house of representatives. and the united -- and the national taxpayers union foundation ratede the single highest of the house of representatives. i could not be no. 3 -- #one and all of them. there is ron paul and congress as well. barbara boxer

this and that goes back not just the last year when he was running for governor in support of the largest tax increase in u.s. history at the state level, but in thirty-two cents a gallon gas tax hike on top of america's highest gas tax. i think that leaves something to be desired when it comes to conservative principles. and so i am the only person who is unambiguously opposed amnesty. i think that is saying something for conservative principles as

well. i worked in the reagan and ministration. i worked for caspar weinberger in the pentagon. i'm a lieutenant colonel in the army reserve and i've been serving in the legislature for six years where i have developed a perfect record against big government and against lower taxes. -- for lower taxes. >> thank you very much for having us this evening. it is a wonderful place where we're reminded always never to forget our is of the holocaust. it is also wonderful is by sayio

more offshore drilling, what he is consigning california to is more supertankers, you have to tanker it in fm nations that hate our guts and use the money that we send them to fund

terrorists who are trying to kill us. supertankers are moreaccidents . secondly, the accidentident than the gulf mexico, that tragic accide happened i5,000 feet of water with a semisubmersible rigs. we have shallow waters off the coast of california and the rig are have scaffolding that go clear down to the ocean's surface. it is completely different. the rigs off of california cannot sink at all. i am very disappointed with the governor. it was my bill last year that the state senate passed that would have opened up the first new off shore lease in 40 years in california. >> you can call me carly. we've known each other for a little while. most of us -- first of all, it is a tragedy what is going on in the gulf. it is a human tragedy. weost 11 lives. is an economic tragedy and certainly an environmental tragedy and we should make sure that this never happens again,

and it turns out that no only did we have a technology problem but we also foreseeable have a regulatory problem. nevertheless i believe off shore drilling is absolutely necessary. you must take advantage of every source of energy that we have in this country. i would say that 20 years ago we could have chosen to drill in anwar and an environmentally responsible way. a place that i far away from population, that is not off shore, but extreme environmentalists prevented us from doing that. i think we need a comprehensive energy policy in this country and we nded now. >> i've always opposed putting new drilling platforms off the coast of california. i am very sorry to see what is happening in the gulf and i think update -- a position of consistency over the years should matter for something on this. i did think that we control from the coast. the slant of drilling is infinitely more technologically

capable than it was even a year ago. i appreciate the attention my two colleagues have given me. the only better thing would of been less attention. the people who signed the no new tax pledge, if you think about it, george h. w. bush who pursued the sake, you should not read my lips after role. people who did not sign the pledge include ronald reagan, howard jarvis, you do not know what the future is going to be. take a look at my record. you will not find that i increased taxes on the american people in the income tax area or any other area for the budget purposes in all the years i was in congress. i've they only found three specific and i will deal with them next time. >> miss fiorina, the arizona immigration law is condemned by mexico, my other countries, by many of the state's governors, and by police forces even though it is been modified.

you supported or condemn it? >> it is also supported by at least 60% of the american peoplee the highest percentage of that the people of arizona. i have consistently supported the law. the vilification of the people of arizona clouds the issue. the real issue here is that the federal government has failed to do its job. as the federal government's job to secure the border and the federal government has failed to do so, and so unfortunately the good people of arizona are trying to protect their own citizens and have done what they felt was necessary. i believe that instead of calling for comprehensive immigration reform as bopper boxer and from what -- as barbara boxer in president obama are doing, they should step up and do their jobs. president obama, in trying to state -- and tried it -- instead of trying to change the subject, i do it -- should do his job. he needs no new legislation to secure the border.

>>he guest worker program needs to be part of the american economy. it is very important for california to benefit from guest workers who come here for a period of years -- excuse me, a period of months or a season and then must leave or they will not be invited back. we have high-tech forhat and agriculte, vises and an e- verify program to milk -- that requires employers to check and make sure there's not a fraudulent use of the social security number. of border fence across the border and serious, serious employer sanctions. do i support what arizona did? arizona is totally within its rights in doing what did. the state of california should watch and see. i've been attacked from the left because i have supported arizonas rights and i want to make sure that arizona is -- i want to make it quite clear that arizona is acting constitutionally. all the bill does is say that

when you have reasonable suspicion on an otherwise legal stop, ask about the immigration status as well. >> i support the arizona law and i am the only republican up here who unambiguously opposes amnesty. one of my opponents, miss the arena, was going all over the map on this issue where she was actually ascribing to racist overtones, republican concerns about controlling our borders. the last job i had in the army national guard and califora is that i was the deputy j-1. i helpeplan the mission that augmented the national guard down on the border as we were helping the border control -- the border patrol get control of our borders, as we were building a double fenceith the road in between it. that worked. and now what has happened is illegal immigration has crossed over into arizona because the california border is far more secure. we know fences work. the virtual fences are virtually worthless. we must complete a physical

barrier on rigid barrier on our southern border. >> decide -- despite significant rain and snowfall this winter and spring, the entire staf california still faces a severe water crisis especially in the central valley where drought and environmental regulations have crippled farming and there he been other problems. what specific action should congress take to keep the water flow into all the cities and the farms and still protect the ecosystems of the sacramento delta? >> there is nothing more important than the economy of california been getting industry and agricultural moving again and water makes that happen. we needo open up the floodgates once again. that was done back for the snail darter in the 1970's and this could be done in the context of the delta. we need to build more reservoirs and and bill -- and build an expanded dam, the site reservoir north of the delta.

those of the steps to take our 48-year-old -- last time it was touched -- water infrastructure into the present system. if we do not do that, we will continueo have a sequence of year -- dry years that are wet and during the years that are dry, if you do not make it worst by having a government-sponsored drought. those are the steps that we should take for the long term. i am sorry to say, but senator boxer did not help when senator feinstein tried to. >> this is an issue the requires some government actn and i believe some balance with the endangered species act. we need to have people at least as important as fish and clearly that is not happening with the endangered species act. senator jim demint offered a one time, one year narrowly drafted exemption to theanger species act so that we could get the pumps turned on in the central valley. he was attacked by senator feinstein for his move.

i am proud to count senator jim demint as one of his supporters -- some of my -- one of my supporters. i agree that we need more storage and conveyance in the state of california, but we ought to do it with the bond -- would that we ought not do it with a bond that has been so larded up with pork that it has doubled in cost in the last week. unfortunately ms. fiorina supports that water bond. it supports money for it called course in los angeles and bike trails in tahoe and water taxis in tahoe. i thought we were opposed this type of irresponsible spending. >> one of the reasons i have stepped forward to run for the u.s. senate is because barbara boxer is a failed senator. she has failed california and there is no more clear example of this than what is going on in our central valley. that part of our great state is struggling with almost 40% unemployme because barbara boxer does not understand that families are more important than

sh. we all want to protectur environment but common sense tells is there must be a balae. to turn the water back on in the delta requires one very simple plane. it requires an amendnt to pass the u.s. senate to override the biological assessment that was written by a nameless, faceless bureaucrat accountable to no 13 barbara boxer, chairwoman of the public works committee, couldut forward that amendment. she has revoked -- she has refused to vote for an amendment. she has refused to stand by. the first thing i will do is walk into senator dianne feinstein's amendment and turn the water back on. >> in the interest of time, we will limit our responses now with this poron to 30 seconds. >> let'should hedge fund manages continue to be taxed at a lower rate than most of the rest of americans, and if so, why? >> i don't think we should be raising taxes on any activity in

america right now. we of a problem with too many taxes, not too few. if you look at hedge funds in particular, to the degree that we increase regulation and taxes on hedge funds, we're going to drive the activity off shore to other nations where they get the profits and there will be no regulation whatsoever. so i am opposed to it. >> career politicians never deal with the problem in front of them for the problem in front of us right now was the crisis on wall street. taxing hedge funds would not have prevented the wall street meltdown. it would not have prevented bill brock -- the main street meltdown either. we have 20 agencies that is supposed to be overseeing wall street and they have failed in their duty. we have fannie and freddie that have 50% of the heap -- of the u.s. mortgages. they arender u.s. conservatorship right now and they are being propped up by the taxpayer, and yet an sec official has eight hours a day

to watch pornography courtesy to of the american taxpayer paying em $220,000 a year. >> the taxation of what is called carried interest should not be adjusted. it is exactly the wrong time to do that in the united states. in the health care bill, the president suggested that he finances this month stress at a of a health-care bill in part by taxing those who invested you make more than $250,000 and filing jointly. >> we have gotten off to a pretty good start. taxes, water, immigration, energy issues. we will be back in a few minutes with more. welcome back. we continue our debate between the three candidates for the u.s. nomination on the republicans had three we will start with john north.

>> back to immigration. there are an estimated 12 million illegal immigration in this country. what do you do with them? the round them all up and then send them home and offer anyone a pathway to citizenship? >> you address that question only after you have secured the border. you're only inviting more people across the border illegally. it was for that -- a mistake the president ronald reagan made, that president jimmy carter made, and a senator -- and a mistake that senator john mccain made. all oleaster use secure the border. i might use this occasion to respond to my good friend chuck devore. i never for amnesty. when you make the statement that you are the only one who is unequivocably opposed to that, i do not know the source r that. amnesty is a serious mistake. it takes the opportunity that is earned by those who obey the law, waited their time, and gives that to somebody who broke

all. the first that is to get that border secure and notice how the democrats running the senate and house and the president had said, let's call it comprehensive and it is not comprehensive unless we have a pathway to citizenip, and because you will not secure the border, you will have more illegal aliens enter in and you will attract them by their reasons of the suggestions better in the bill. >> the federal government has twjobs here. it is the federal government's job to secure the border and create a temporary worker program that works. and the federal government has failed and both of its responsibilities. and once again, career politicians like barbara boxer are trying tohange the subject by claiminghe arizona law is not constitutional. president obama is trying to change the subject by saying he needs comprehensivemmigration reform to do his job. that is why we do not need comprehensive immigration reform to do what needs to be done. the truth is that there are all kis of people trying to change the subject, and i have to

respond, chuck devore spent a lot of timeischaracterizing my words but i think that extreme rhetoric on both sides of this debate is not helpful. when he is quoted this morning as saying that if you see a group of men standing outside the home depot, looking for work and they are speaking spanish, then they should be asked for their papers. that is not helpful. we have many men, hardworking american citizens who perhaps speak spanish looking for work because we have unemplment in this state above 13%. >> i find it all little bit amusing that carly fiorina has now made three references to career politicians and if you notice, she cannot actually answer the question was posed to her much like a career politician. [laughter] let's be very specific. i do not believe in amnesty. double and ignited it like, chuck, as you know. >> well we just made some news here tonight.

all of us are now firmly on record against amnesty. that is good progress am glad you've moved towards my position. what we need to do is the following three anything that we do must be fair and follow the rule balal. what we need to do is ensure that people who are already here have the opportunity to go back out of the country, get a visa to come back into the country, and they cannot get their citizenship until everyone who has been waiting patiently and legally overseas has that opportunity to become an american citizen. whatever we do icannot be unfair to those people who have been falling -- following the law. >> was the financial market crisis a failure of deregulation policy, and if you think it was, do we need tighter regulation? >> it was absolutely not a failure of regulation or deregulation. it with you to government distortions of the marketplace,

specifically fannie mae and freddie mac, two govnment- sponsored entities that were given carte blanche with a taxpayer money to indulge i what is known as moral hazard, so what they're doing is playing with other people's money backed up with an implicit taxpayer guarantee. that call didn't -- that caused investment in these exotic derivatives. it caused an inflationf housing prices and eveually caused the crash. the problem with the bailout of wall street is that it did not address the fundamental problems that were caused precisely by the government. i note with interest that both my opponents, both of my opponents supported the bailout of wall street. in the case of carly fiorina, while she was chief economic adviser to john mccain, and in the case of tom campbell, on the front forum. i was the only one that came out and staked out a position against the bailouts before they happen. >> mr. campbell? dollar once again my good friend has a selective memory for the

federal reserve board took the toxic -- toxic assets off the bank's balance sheets. it was supposed to be that treasury would do it with the supposed tarp money. instead, the federal reserve did. that step was the right step to take but that -- so the banks would not lend otherwise. by contrast the bailout for that tarp money was redirected in a bait and switch to bail out general motors, the bailout aig, to bail out freddie mac and fannie mae. all those points of the bailout and those are strongly opposed. was there a failure regulation? the failure was when congress told freddie mac and fannie mae and i remember this statement from barney frank, roll the dice, he said. roll the dice. support those mortgages even if they're not commercially acceptable to support. go ahead. and we got into trouble. those mortgages that should not have passed commercial tests were then able to gather into a security, sold the banks, and the rest is sad history.

>> ms. fiorina? >> i don't often agree with tom campbell. he agrees with barbara boxer too often for my taste. bui agree with him that chuck devore has a selective memory. the wall street crisis was partially a reflection of a failure in regulations. for example, if glass-steagall were put back in place today, something that mr. campbell favors, the wall street crisis was still have happened. we had 20 or more regulatory agencies not doing their job. fannie and freddie are a huge part of this problem. one of the things that has happened in the dead of night is that the ceiling for conservatorship of fannie and freddie was raised from $400 billion to an unlimited ceiling. in other words, the u.s. taxpayer is on the hook. we cannot solve the wall street -- wall street crisis unless we ensure transparency on wall street, accountability for people to take debts that are

tooisky. i have called for many years for anyone that takes a bailout to resign and tender the resignation of their entire board. >> let's stay with this financial pain, if we can. how much power or control should the government have over wall street? >> insofar as power or control over wall street, what we're trying to do is on as the forces of the free market. government is a port taskmaster of the free-market. government always ends up playing to those people who can influence it. those people with the big mpaign donations -- for example, in the case of carly fiorina, she was talking about o's taking bailout money resigning. that should include the individuals who contributed to your campaign which you never called for their resignation, funny thing. but in any event, what we need toddresses the fundamental issue tt is les regulation, less red tape, and less taxes

that will get this economy moving. government does not have a monopoly on common sense. government is not going to rescue us from this current malaise. >> miss fiorina? >> the problem, of course, is that wall street leading up to the crisis was not a pure free market. the problem is that the mtgage market was influenced by political agendas, fannie and freddie were influenced by political agendas from both repuicans and democrats. fannie mae and freddie mac were entitl to borrow money at far below going market rates because they had an implied guarantee from the government. wall street was creating a whole set of extremely complex financial instruments. neverthess, the governnt now needs to understand what went wrong and fix it. we do not have too few regulating agencies in washington. we have too many, 20 ps.

but what is far boxer and president obama's answer to these government agencies that failed in their jobs? never mind those failures. let's create yet another agency, the consumer protection agency, hire a bunch of federal employees, let's ask the american taxpayers to fund those employees and somehow magically that is cortisol the problem. >> we should never have repealed glass-steagall, we should never have embraced too big to fail. i was a member of the house of representatives for five terms. in 1999, the leadership of my party and the president of the united states as congress to repeal glass-steagall. that allowed the base to get bigger. investment banks and commercial banks could stand up under the banking holding company until they became too big to fail. only five republicans voted no. i was one o those guys. the mistake is that you allow the federal guarantee to get beyond a very narrow area. there i on our own personal

savings and checking account federal insurance, and there is a role for the federal government to ensur the fdic in particular. freedom to succeed and responsibility if you fail. break up these huge conglomerations that have become too big to fail, limit the federal guarantee just to the deposits under fdic, and let the free market decide who the winners and who the losers are. >> what i would like to ask you about is the environment. in november california is going to be asked to vote against the landmark green house emissions law, and do you belie there's global warming? and do you believe it can be controlled? >> i think we should have the courage to examine the science behind global warming. even people who are convinced that global warming is real are also convinced that a single stat or a single country acting alone can make no difrence. i believe it is a disastrous

flop. i believe the cap-and-trade will be east relief -- equally disastrous. the lock is a killer. while shells would we have bipartisan support for a proposal that says it should be suspended until unempyment in california reaches 5%. if that is not and and mission that it is a job killer, what is? we must have a compresso -- a comprehensive immigration policy and instead of punishing producers with fuel and punishing producers of fuel, let's innovate so that we can ad in the 21st century. >> the evidence is not as conclusive as the united nations thought it was. indeed the number of flaws i their research is so embarrassing that they've announced they will have to go back. but the right questions are still the same. is there a change in our environment due to human behavior which can be ameliorated by any of these proposals? those facts are not yet established. not at all.

as for the law, we should delay its implementation until the unemployment rate is at a reasonable level. the proposal was not only cap and trade. there could have been another way of implementing it. the california air resources board decided not to choose the alternative. instead, the imposed cap and trade. i am unequivocably opposed to that. it requires a monitor -- think about it -- at every place in the state that the midst carbon mark -- dioxide, there must be a monitor to watch and determine whether you're producing beyond your limits. the degree of intrusiveness will be unparalleled in california history. >> i voted against 8032 on the floor of the assembly. it's distressg to hear tom campbell talk about this issue. he has backed a number of carbon taxes as a way of curtailing our emissions of greenhouse taxes.

quoting no higher an authority than carly fiorina on carly fiorina, she supported cap-and- trade during the campaign of 2008. i am glad that we have some converts over to the sensible conservative way of thinking. the fact is that if california were to employment 8032, it would require a 30% reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions in only 10 years. if we got rid of all the electrical production, you would not make the no. 3 is the guy rid of all pvately owned automobiles, you would not make the number. if you eliminated california off the face of the year, and one year's worth of economic growth from china, you would make up the difference. we need to solve this problem through innovation and through wealth creation, not through red tape and putting people out of work. >> warren armstrong? the dollar back to mr. campbell now? >> if you guys cannot keep it straight, we're in trouble. >> i think we jped, but that is all right.

>> ms. fiorina, we go to you. despite some of the highest unemployment in e country, many central valley leaders believe that their region is being neglected. a majority of the federal stimulus dollars went to northern and southern california. what can you do to make sure that all of california receives proper representation and its fair share of federal funds? >> i reject the premise of your question because you assume that the federal stimulus program has been helpful to california. i am sure it has created a job or two but the reality is that the unemployment rate in california has climbed since the implementation of whatever federal stimulus dollars have come to california. that is not how we're going to get the economy back on track. i have lived the american dream. i started out as a receptionist. i typed, i fil, i answered the phone. the people who are going to get the american dream back on track are small business owners, family businesses, innovators and intrapreneur, and we're making it too hard for them to

succeed. let us cut the size of government 3 let us cut taxes. let us cut regulation and let hard working men and women do what they do best, create the american dream for themselves and their families. the federal government does not create the american dream, although they can destroy it. we did not get hold of our government, take it back, make it listen to make it work, we will continue to have record unemployment in the state. the dollar the federal government cannot solve this problem. the very basis of the question, what can the federal government do? how can we get federal dollars? we need less red tape, less government programs, more innovation, more hard work, more individual innovation and responsibility. if you look at the central valley, you'll see one of the most agriculturally productive areas on the planet. you see enormous natural resources, and then you see the federal government and state government bureaucrats blocking the proper uses of these resources. i have sponsored now five bills

to lift california's obsolete ban on modern nuclear power per fresno wants a modern nuclear power plant. we cannot get it to them yet because the democrats, the liberals keep blocking it. so this has got to end. we've got to get out of the way and let people get back to work. the federal government is not going to bang -- bring prosperity by putting our children and children under mounting debt that we cannot possibly pay back. >> when i met with the fresno good government association the week before last, they brought to my attention something that is quite shocking. individuals word about water but also clean air and transportation have to travel to los angeles to meet the director of the regional division of the relevant federal agency. it is remarkable. as a result, the question w asked to me as the next senator, if that is to be, would you support giving us the chance to have administrators of these vital programs right here in the central valley?

with a 20% unemployment and eight of the counties that constitutes the greater san joaquin valley, when you deal with the burdens of creating opportunity, she should at the very least offer the peoplwho are so burdened the chance to speak to the representatives of the federal government in their own county. that is an easy start. the more important, immediate start, of course, is water. do not forget the clean air and transportation -- transportation needs as well. >> a couple of lightning round questions now. should people on the no fl watch list be allowed to purchase a gun? >> know. >> yes, if they have not been convicted of a felony. toward this orina? >> yes. >> my goodness. >> that is why tom campbell has

a poor rating from the national rifle association right there. >> the lightning round offers a chance to make short answers, but go right ahead. >> if a person is on the no fly list, at least y can ask until they are off the no fly list. i cannot believe what i'm hearing. but until they're off the no fly list and then exercise your second amendment right. that is not an fringementn anybody's second amendment rights and seems owen -- somewhat unusual to take the position. >> so a bureaucrat or eight until -- or an intelligence officer caabridge your rights without a trial. at a very interesting. >> i know people who have been on the no fly list, and it's been way too large. i know people whoave been on it, who had been stopped, and if we permit anyone who is on that no fly list to have their second amendment rights taken away from them, that is a terrible problem. you're seeing an example of an issue where tom campbell is far too close to barbara boxer from our taste. this is one of them.

>> how about miranda rights for people who are accused of terrorist activity? should they have them or not? >> an individual who is an alien combatant ought to be sent to guantanamo. you should not be giving miranda rights to people who have valid, important information that can be used, and this is an incredible mistake the obama administration is making. the boys are they a citizen or not? if they are a citizen, yes, and if they are foreign combatant and picked up off the battlefield, i don't expect a private to be raised - reading osama bin laden his miranda rights. or the christmas day bomber ould not have parental rights given to him. he was not an american citizen. the new york timesomber -- the times square bomber is a citizen and so was appropriate to give him his miranda rights. i personally hope if he is

convicted, he is also accused of treason. we need to give the government more options to take someone who has demonstrated that they are in league with a foreign terrorist organization, to be tried in military tribunal and send to guantanamo. >> if you jumped in on mine, i'm quantitate 10 seconds to get the information -- you get the permission from the times square suspect before you give him the minda rights. you reverse that and you're losing the opportunity to get valuable opportunity. >> we have to take a break right now. we will be right back. we're back at the museum of tolerance in west los angeles with a three republican candidates vying for the seat currently held by senator barbara boxer. we continue this debate with our colleague, john north. >> if one if you have a chance to become u.s. senator, you will have to deal with the issue of

afghanistan, along this war we abandoned. they're more than 60,000 troops there now. more are on the way and more are likely to be called for free which you support increased deployment and use of force, the reason why we're supposedly in afghanistan? i believe it is mr. cpbell. >> i do sport the reason we are in afghanistan very good judgment should be made on the advice of the military professionals, general mcchrystal in particular. and the president at least in large part appears to be following it. in addition to our presence in afghanistan, we have the related and very consequential context next of pakistan and the harbors -- the areas of safe harbor that have been offered to terrorist cells in pakistan who are affecting the afghan situation as well. and there the issue has been brought up by the use of drones. the answer is yes, by all means. they are saving american lives. they are going after the terrorist in the place where

they are. we will come to an understanding with the pakistagovernment. has difficult and intractable is dealing with the pakistan situation is, it must be brought to the pakistani origin as well, and you solve both. >> when i work for president reagan as a specialist for foreign affairs, i had the opportunity to go to the tribal regions of pakistan. i've seen pakistan with my own eyes. i've visited the refugee camps that existed at the time. i'm very concerned about the current policy president is putting forward. it springs from this whole false notion that president were shortchanged the afghan war to go into a rock. to the contract -- to the contrary, afghanistan is not for robbery is a very different place. it is bigger and more mountainous. they are more literate. the land does not have natural resources or an industrial base. its main chief means of survival

is opium and foreign aid. it is going to take as 100 years of blood and treasure to build a nation in afghanistan. i tnk what we should do is focus on human intelligence, drone attacks, and intelligence operation speci forces operations to continue to remorseless sleekly old leadership of those who would seek to harm us. -- remorselessly kill the leadership of those would seek to harm us. >> i think what assemblyman devore just said that is he does not support the military's recommendations in afghanistan. i certainly do. i think it is vital that we are successful in afghanistan and the nine terrorists a fake -- the nine terrorist safe haven. i think it's good that president obama has stepped up drone attacks into afghanistan. i certainly support that he finally tk the recommendations of his generals. i am deeply concerned that he

established an arbitrary deadline which we are all aware be seeing as having difficulty. i chaired the external advisory board for the central intelligence agency. i served on the intelligence business board. i know our military men and women and our intelligence services as well and they are all absolutely committed to being successful in afghanistan because they know how importunate is to deny terrorists a safe haven. i believe we now must do what is necessary to succeed there. that means we must follow the recommendations of very, very fine leaders like general petreaus and mike stanley mcchrystal. >> mr. campbell, you feel that requiring americans to have health insurance is unconstitutional? >> i believe it is beyond the commerce power of the united states federal government. the difference is very important. an individual shall not be forced under the federal government's authority to carry

an insurance policy if the individual does not have all the elements that the federal government has, if that person subject to a fine, and if they ve more elements than the federal government wants under this new law, they must pay an excise tax of 40% of the additional value. that isccused -- an intrusion on individual liberty, on the best judgment thatn individual or company might want to make about what policy ought to be for them what can the federal government do and what the state governments can do is very clearly delineated in our constitution. the state or the people are the repotory of all rights not specifical given to the federal government. that is our 10th amendment. it means a lot to me. i would vote against bills because they expanded the role of the federal government. and for those people who would say how can you soove this otherwise? individuals can be taken care of and should be. we could and should have taken care of those pre-existing conditions and those too poor to afford their own health

insurance. when you send tt mandate out, you're exceeding the constitutional limits. >> the short answer is that it is unconstitutional. for that reason i signed a pledge to repeal obama care for months ago. carly fiorina signed it the day after it passed and tom campbell soup co signed a pledge. to go back to the previous estion of what is going on in afghanistan, is important that we understand that the taliban and al qaeda does not present an existeial threat to the united states. they do not have an industrial base. they do not have armies. they are terrorists. now because of the fact that afghanistan has no means of national support for a large army, where is the end game? are y proposing that just pay and afghanistan until they develop a modern economy and a modern democracy? for heaven's sake, their constitution was drafted by the french as part of the nato mission ended in binges out strong -- it envisions a strong central government which is like

afghan culture and tradition. i've studied this issue. we need to kill our enemies. we do not need to build a modern nation state where one has not extended for 100 years. >> there are so many problems with this health care bill that we must repeal it. lest the star with the fact that it ought not -- it does not solve any of the problems that said it would solve. i battled breascancer last year. that is why my hair looks a little strange. i lost the ball on the course of chemotherapy and it made me an involuntary expert on the health care system. the truth is that this health care bill increases the cost of care. it increases the cost of health care insurance. it has increased our federal debt by $500 billion probably. president obama just established a deficit reduction commission. i was agast the establishment of that commission because i think it is code for increasing taxes. but he did say let's put everything on the table. mr. president, barbara boxer --

put repeal of the health care on the table if you're serious about reducing the deficit. >> warren armstrong? >> mr. devore, many historians consider the killing of 1.5 million armenians by the ottoman empi shortly after world war i as the first genocide of the 20 century. how would you it buys the president regarding his next chaitman? >> i support the resolution and i've supported companion resolutions on the floor of the assembly in california. it was the first genocide of the last century, and perhaps not on coincidentally, at all hitler himself referred to it saying, who remembers the armenians? the fact that we have not had an accounting with the turkish government on this issue is one of those things that leaves open this chapter of history. it is time that we have on modern accounting. if the current government says

that they are not the direct descendant of the ottoman empire, then what did they have to worry about? why don't the a square of the account with history and knowledge the objective facts on the ground that a genocide occurred and then moved on? i think it is very important that we do this. >> of course it was genocide. it is tragedy that w're tied up in political not in washington, d.c. instead of able to speak the truth. i think it is yet another reason why people lose faith in their government, of course it was genocide. here we are in the museum of tolerance, all wonderful place that calls on us to never forget. never forget those who were lost in the genocide, whether it is holocaust or whether it is what happened to the armenian people. and i must say, in this regard, and it may be the only time i say it, but i agree 100% with what mr. devore just sa.

[laughter] [applause] >> in this museum, there is a representation of the armenian genocide. and that issbecause it did occur. and you must speak tth or you run the risk of it happening again. there was are many in genocide. there -- there was armed -- there was an armenian genocide. there were members might help prent a recurrence. sadly there are other genocides, also rwanda, memories of those as well in this museum. we must continue to face the reality. there are evil people and that america is a good nation. we should never apologize for taking the step that we as a good nation stand up a call evil when we see it. i was so disappointed when president bill clinton refuse the word genocide -- refuse to

work -- use the word genocide regarding rwanda, and he said that if we use the word, we will have to do something about it. >> we're going to go to some 32nd answers. >> to court to kp this in order, right? >> we are going to try our best. we will give you an equal amount of time. >> my question has to do with iran. secretary gates apparently does not think that the sanctions or the administration policy is working very what needs to be done? how far do we need to go if the policy is a failure? >> of course the sanctions are not working. it is obvious that what we're doing is not working. yesterday's or the day before we retreated to the display of our secretary of state repeal -- revealing how many nuclear warheads we have in order to demonstrate some sincerity

about nuclear non-proliferation, and meanwhile, president of ahmadinejad as saying we don't care what anybody says. we're going to go ahead and build a nuclear weapon. we should and i've called on barbara boxer to do this for some time, reconcile the two bills and send them to the president immediately so that he can begin to enact sanctions on refined polar route -- refined petroleum so that we continue to cut off access to financial resources to the iranian revolutionary guard. we must be prepared to do what is necessary to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. >> in september 2007, israel bombed syria's nuclear site and destroyed their capability. in 1981, israel bombed iraq's capability. we must send this message now clearly that israel in its own defense -- all existential defense uses military force to defend the nuclear capability of ron, the united states will stand with israel.

sadly president obama is sending the act -- exactly the opposite. he is saying that we should give sanctions one more try as thgh sanctions will ever turn ahmadinejad back on as planned to be the leader of the rejection of state, a man who is declared that israel has no right to exist and that the holocaust never happened. >> a nuclear armed iran is the world's problem. it is america's problem. when i work for the pentagon, one of the things i had the opportunity to do is to do a classified work and red to operation praying mantis. it was the largest naval exercise sce world war ii. it destroy t iranian navy. i know about wielding a big stick. sanctions do not often work because carly -- because leaders like carly fiorinacircumvent the rules when they use offshore entities. she exported hundreds of millions of dollars of high-tech equipment to the islamic

republic of iran. that is why we have to use force and covert means to encourage the means -- the people of iran to rise up and throw them all. >> we're very close to running out of time. we have time for 32nd closing remarks from each candidate. please try to with your to that 32nd time frame. let's begin with mr. campbell. >> i'm very grateful for this opportunity. i am asking for your support to be the next united states senator from california. one sue compels us more than any other. 12.6% of californians are out of work. the reason thathe federal government is expanding too much, the interest rates going to rise, inflation is. happen, and all because people in washington continue to run the prting presses. replace senator barbara boxer, one of the biggest spending senators that congress has ever seen as an individual rating. the single most fiscally irresponsible member of congress. thank you.

i'm tom campbell and ask for your support. >> america is at a press of this right now. we are spending beyond o means to sustain i all americans want is that we live within our means. we follow the constitution. unfortunately we have not been getting that from barbara boxer for 28 long years on capitol hill. this is the year that we can end her reign sending someone to washington, d.c. that understands that the federal government exists to secure our unalienable rights not to try to protect us from our own stupidity and greed. >> i have been fortunate toive the american dream. my husband has lived the american dream and we worry now about whether our two granddaughters will have that chance. i've traveled all up and down the state and i've met people who like me have had enough. we have had enough of barbara boxer. we've had enough of out of control government spending, out

of control government taxing and out of control government regulating. we need to take the government back, make it work, and we can do that by marching with our blood and reducing and finally defeating barbara boxer in november. there is one candidate on the state's second defeat barbara boxer in november. she knows it. i ask for your support 3 march with our vote for it take o government back. make it listen. make it work. >> we thank you, candidates, and we are at a time for you may applaud now. please be sure to vote on june 8. thank you. ♪ ♪