instead, our budget built in historic welfare reforms in the 1990's. we and to empower state and local governments, communities and individuals, those closest to the problem, and we aim to promote opportunity and a probability by strengthening job training programs to help those who have fallen on hard times. my mentor, jack kemp, used to say you cannot help america's poor by making america poor. the mountain of new debt the president has helped create, much of that barred from china or simply printed at the federal reserve, has made america poor. those unwilling to lift the debt our complicity in our acceleration toward a debt crisis in which the poor would be hurt the first and the worst. our budget lists the debt, fosters a growing economy, and ensures that a government program makes good on their important promises.

instead of letting our critical health retirement programs go bankrupt, our budget saves and strengthens them the that they can fulfill their missions in the 21st century. the president likes to talk about medicare. we welcome the debate. we need this debate. but the president will not tell you that he has already changed medicare forever. his new health care law puts a board of 15 unelected bureaucrats in charge of cutting medicare. we should never turn the fate of our parents and grandparents over to an unaccountable board and let them make decisions that could deny them access to their care. my mom relies on medicare. we all are and all our seniors a better program, one can actually count on. our budget keeps the protections that make medicare a guarantee promised seniors throughout the years.

it makes no changes for people in or near retirement. in order to save medicare for future generations, we propose to put 50 million seniors, not 15 unaccountable bureaucrats, in charge of their personal health care decisions. our budget and our seniors to choose from a list of coverage that works best for them, that is required to offer at least the same benefits as traditional medicare. it says that if a senior months to choose traditional medicare plan, then she should have the right. our idea is to force insurance companies to compete against each other in order to better service the -- server -- in order to better serve seniors. we disagree with that characterization.

our plan offers the best way to guarantee quality, affordable health care for all of our nation's seniors for generations to come. the president also likes to talk about taxes. we welcome this debate. we need this debate. the president remains committed to working americans. it is to chase ever higher government spending. we believe there is a better way forward. the tax code should be fair, simple and competitive. we propose a total overhaul. we lower rates across the board. revenue goes up every year under our budget. the economy grows. we propose to close the special interest loopholes that primarily go to the well- connected and well up here we in washington did not need to micromanage people's decisions

to the tax code. this passed the house earlier this spring. they have gone another year of the budget. the president has hunkered down. people are right to look at how polarized it has become. they're wondering if we have ever fix this mess. the political class needs the pessimism. they have given up on american renewal. they say america's time for leading the world as post. the task is to manage the nation's decline. i reject such defeatism. america has been here before. we did not give of then and we won't give up now. maybe the senate to not remember 1980. so many of washington had given up on the american people. they expect you to tell your children that the american people no longer have the will to cope with their problems. the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities. america did something that we as

a people are famous for. we refuse to listen to our betters. we voted for a man, more than that an idea. the idea that if we took power from bureaucrats and return it to the people, americans working together to restore the principles of american exception ellison and build a future that they can be proud of. these principles are not exclusive to one political party. the patient centered medicare programs has a long history of bipartisan support. medicare reform is based on choice and competition. in recent years, i have worked for democrats to advance the same kind of reforms.

tax reform space on lowering rates goes back to the reagan administration. the democrats served as a co- sponsor. more recently, this is the best means to simplify the tax code. it makes sense that these ideas have attracted leaders of both parties. patient centered medicare offers the only guarantee that medicare can keep its promise to seniors for generations to come. progress tax reform of going great wall closing loopholes that primarily benefit the well off can eliminate fairness and ensure a level playing field. this coalition must attract americans from all walks of life. progress will require the removal of certain partisan roadblocks. a far health care law -- a

flawed health care law that must be replaced. only with the right leadership in place can we move forward with ideas that renewed the american promise of leaving our children with a stronger nation than what our parents left us. look. it is rare in american politics to arrive at a moment in which the debate revolves around the fundamental nature of american democracy and social contract. that is exactly where we are today.

one approach gives more power to unelected bureaucrats, it takes more from hard-working taxpayers to fuel the expansion of government and commit our nation to a feature of debt and decline. this approach is proving unworkable. congress and this path fails to do justice to either subsidiary or solidarity. our budget offers a better path. it is consistent with how i understand my catholic faith. we put trust in people. they are returning to power families. this is the belief that all people are born with a god- given right to human flourishing. protecting this equal rights of all persons is required for solidarity. trusting citizens to determine what is in their best interests. and to make the right choices about the future of our country. the choice before us cannot be more clear.

continuing down the path we're on would mean becoming the first generation to break faith with the american generation. but there's one thing you hear me said, this will not be our destiny. americans will not stand for a shrug condition of our future. we will get back on a path to prosperity. it is not too late to get this right. thank you very much. [applause]

>> i like to think the audience members and students to submit it. if you still have questions, and their people from the lecture he will take these questions. where to start off with a couple of questions we ask from students to the congressman. if you have additional questions, please pass into the end of the aisles. you spoke a bit during your speech about the letter from the faculty. they are clearly concerned about the moral dimension. and whether the tax cut will this for torsion lay the to

those who are wealthy. there is a generational issue as well. can you say a few more words? >> to cannot let people out of poverty do not have a growing economy. we have to put the policies to maximize economic growth. we also need to have upward mobility. we want to make sure that our safety net is required to get people from this. you have to have programs that work to do that. what we saw in the 1990's, i have to tell you, in wisconsin and worked really well.

we did this to meet the unique needs of the county and city. we got involved. this work so much better than i think you're having before. -- than we were having before. these are levels that are quite unsustainable. food stamps went up. our budget if you just take the top comic it is proposed to grow spending at about 3% a year. hardly draconian i would argue. more to the point, want to get to a system that is fair that makes the same kind of income. when we raise the individual tax rates, we are hitting such small businesses really hard. eight out of 10 businesses pay their taxes as individuals. in wisconsin, nine of the 10 filed in taxes as individuals. because the partnerships. their top effective tax rate is

48.4% in january. overseas, which in wisconsin and let superior, the canadiens just lower their tax rate. 65% of net new jobs come from the successes of businesses. the driver of wisconsin and look at the industrial park. the odds are it is successful with maybe two and a 15 employees who are paying that. when we think we're hitting the guy in the yacht, where getting a successful small business. we do not want to have revenue problems. we're saying get rid of the loopholes. every person who them park money in a tax shelter, that its hero. takes away the tax shelter and it is 25%. what we're saying is that there are better policies that make us competitive to help us grow our economy. will we take a look at our poverty fighting strategy is, of what is the objective facts but it to treat the symptoms of

poverty to make it easier to live with that or is it to the region to live with that bill -- will we take a look at our party fighting strategies, what is left of the objective? but we treat the symptoms of poverty to make it easier to live with? we are not saying you're stuck in your station in life. this is antithetical to our american idea. >> the house is dealing with the education funding. there are cuts to the bell program.

our students are very concerned about the impact of what it will do to close off access to higher education. what do you have to say? >> this is washington. we keep this at $5,500 but do not have the increase, we keep the award at $5,500. the progress has increased tremendously. we need to look at tuition inflation. when you get the spending on these programs, you will see a direct correlation with this. rather than have taxpayers subsidize the situation, of let's look at why tuition is growing at such a fast pace relative to anything else we buy.

let's not keep paying for a fast increase. let's look at why it is buying up faster. that is a big deal. we keep this. that is the way washington works. if he did not sign up for the proposed increase in to increase it at a slower rate, that is a big cut. that is that the way it works and families and businesses. it seems to be the way it works around here >> we are facing a dollar trillion deficit. the thing is to be done. you were a member of that committee. you did not vote for the plan. what part of the plan did you vote for? >> i have a great respect for allen. they are great people.

it did not fix the problem. i did not want to tell them i just voted for a plan to fix the problem when i know it did not fix the problem. you cannot prevent a debt crisis if you do not deal with the health care entitlement problems. we offered an amended some symbols which was rejected. it tended to deal with medicare reform and medicaid reform. those ideas were rejected. we pass a plan that leave the country to fall into complacency. only to know that we're going to have a debt crisis. affair going to fix the problem, let's fix the problem. >> this is close to your home. how did these statistics play a role in your vision for the

budget? >> we had this issue. >> i was in racine a couple of days ago. it is a manufacturing town. and manufacturers have the greatest skills. look at what they're looking at. they're looking at our energy prices. they are looking at debt hangover. they're looking at a system that will blow up in their face in january the first. they are holding back. if these increases kick in in january and bring their tax rates up as such tirades that

they're paying twice the rate of their competitors, it makes a really hard to compete. when we taxed our competitors hire, they win and we lose. the best things for kenosha and for all of us is to have a system that is really competitiveness. you and i were talking off line. we have the gm plant. this industry just that decimated where we live. a lot of people do not have the career anymore. one of my friends for has all but they get a job just like their folks did. they had this real awakening. this is what is behind as job- training reforms.

we have 49 different job training programs. we did not even measure if they work. how do we get skills to our population so that we can stay out of the curve? right now we have these programs that have all the bureaucracies and red tape from washington. let's clear that out and have a system that is responsive so when a person is down on their but, they have a shot to getting back on their feet to make something of themselves and be proud. most people believe in the american dream. make yourself what you want to be.

make your kids better off. because of the debt crisis, this is where we are. both parties made a budget in the promises that the government cannot keep. the sooner we are honest about that, the better we can have economic policies that make our companies more competitive. these are the things that matter the most. they raise their individual tax rates. i think this is the number. there back in the debt crisis. these businesses what to know that they stick in wisconsin. the are really sensitive on these things.

you have to make sure that you are competitive on your taxes and. that is a key source done -- keycorp son to get this back on pat. >> -- he cornerstone to get this back on track. >> why are spending cuts required? >> i think i get the gist of that. deficits are deficits. we have a big one. what people like me are worried about is we do not want to chase ever higher spending with ever higher taxes. this is a spending he driven crisis. on the current base line, they are going above the 40 year average rate. spending is projected to

literally explode. for the last 60 years, we have taken 20 cents out of every dollar to spend on a federal government. by the time kids are my age, we will take 40 cents out of every dollar. at the end of the time it is 80 cents. we have a spending debt crisis coming. there is no way you can tax your way out of this. the system crashes in the 20 30's. what we want to do is get the spending under control. we have to restructure its so it makes good on the promises. you want to have tax policies that keep it for the international economies. camera revenues come in? of course they can. -- can new revenues come in? of course they can.

>> you mentioned your plan is to raise trillions of dollars by closing loopholes and ending tax breaks. it is a serious and courageous politicians. >> we do not want to do this with a health-care law was written. in a back room where we cut a deal, it is from here. we want to have hearings and the ways and means committee to go through all of the corners of the tax code. we want to put everything on the table. we want to find out what makes the most sense. there is fiscal space left for tax expenditures. we want to have hearings to decide which ones are the best ones to keep. this is not just what loopholes

of the tax code but who gets them. the people in the top two brackets get almost all the tax shelters. that is where you should start right away. this means more of their income is where revenue comes in here. it gives you the ability to bring your rate down. it is not just what but to as well. if we do not have some plan that we're going to hoist, that is the wrong way. we want to tell everyone who cares to make your case. let's have openings basin equity and fairness. -- based on equity and fairness. >> we navigated for fiscal consolidation. are you concerned what that is going to do to the economy?

>> since ron paul started subsiding, i used to get a lot of from paul questions. timmy the foundation -- the foundation is money. i worry about what we are building up with their monetary policy. i believe we should get more toward a monetize policy. that is not a crazy things to say. i think our monetary policy should be focused on a single mandate and price stability. we should stand as necessary signals, because if we do that, i think that will help us keep interest rates from blowing up in getting away from us. we want to have a monetary policy that is clear and transparent and focus on a

single mandate of price stability. i do not think he can help employment if you have a schizophrenic dole mandate. -- dual mandate. if push comes to shove, our fiscal policy is on a collision course, and it can in really ugly. this is why i think the sooner we can have a sound monetary policy focus on price stability, the better we can stabilize the horizons to show that the dollar will be good in stable. there are currency will maintain itself as a reliable thing of value. one of the most insidious things a government can do is change is currency. it is spanish the purchasing power of people who live on a fixed income. that is what we want to sock from happening. i'm worried that this of the last option if we keep going down the path we're on.

>> technology plays a large role in our economy. low-skilled workers have been falling farther and farther behind. do you have a proposal to help those tax hikes you have to get the basics right. as a federal representative, i try not to get deep into micromanaging education reforms. i think we should break those special interest arrears and making it harder to reform our schools. we can make sure that kids get the best possible education. that is really important. that is the seed of upward mobility. i think the better government has a very good role to play in the job training aspects for a person who is older and life. this is really important. this is where technology comes into play.

we need technology to flourish. but got to stop kicking out the really smart people. people get these ph.d. is. there be set and and they leave. what we want to do that tax and what to have more human capital. immigration policy on this along with better tax policy. if we get those basics right, it to make sure that we can still dominate the world economy like we have in the past. >> somebody said if he could recapture fiscal commission vote, would you change your mind? greece has deteriorated quite rapidly. how close do you seize the u.s. being to the greek situation?

>> no. you think i'm going to give you some data on that? we talked to a lot of experts. the story i get from the folks that we consult on this, everyone wants to know when it is coming to america. the consensus i get is the reserve currency. that buys as time. that baez's a unique opportunity. year passes issues. -- europe has -- that buy us a

unique opportunity. europe has its issues. these are not working in a keep redoing them. we do not have this. we have this divided government. i think they're watching to see what happens. they see, i want the market snow that fell least one half of the political equation is putting serious ideas on the table on how we will prevent this debt crisis. we would drive the debt to prevented from happening. we're going to wait and see what happens. in 2013, they will look to see if you get this under control. it will not take much for them to start turning on us if they believe our political system will continue collapsing.

s&p downgraded not because of our data but because of a political observation. if we had this gridlock, i believe there is a bipartisan consensus to be had. it is not willing to be this. the ideas they're having broadened the base. there are democrats and republicans to have historically seen eye to eye. that is the basis for a bipartisan consensus.

>> number one, this is a principle that often gets overlooked. it is something that is to be connected with solidarity. it's simply means much more distant government. subsidiary without solidarity means much more individualism. these things are in harmony with one another. people of good will can disagree on where the need to be between the two. if you go through all of these things, people of good will can disagree about how you balance the two. subsidiary, it is related to the concept of the application of that social idea.

that means government and institutions closest to the people govern and served best. it keeps the human interaction and place. it is not some cold, distant bureaucrats sitting in washington that sees you as a decimal point on a spreadsheet. it knows you and knows your problems and sees the suffering you are experiencing that has the resources to help you. that to me is the key to all of this. i worry with the debt we have

been having and we have been spending our power out to the federal government, we are doing damage to the principal subsidiary the. so we can better serve the common good. if you have too much government, you displace the civil mediating institutions that we call civil society. the churches, those civic groups, the ways we interact with each other and our communities. you make it harder for the space to be filled and that does damage. to me i think we have gone too far in one direction. the cultural problems, relic his son and the rest has been manifested by these policies.

while at intended as they are the results are not very good. let's go back our roots and see what made the country great. local involvement and control. let's try to reapply the so we can get back to the idea of america. our rights come from nature and got, not before government. the role of government until now is to promote equal opportunity so we can make the most of our lives and pursue happiness however we define that for ourselves as long as we're not infringing on others' rights to do the same. the role of government should not be moved to were trying to equalize the results of our lives. if you believe in equal outcomes -- versus equal opportunity you have to have a larger government. the problem is you run out of other people close the money to spend did you have a debt

crisis. that is what we have to avoid. >> it looks like we are running out of time so i have one last question for you. what about the characteristics of an idea. i do not even want to get into a hypothetical situation. >> i have an important job where i am right now. i feel america is in a unique moment and we have to get it right. do not underestimate the importance of all this. has about these things. quite frankly we have important work to do in the house and i take that very seriously. >> i would hope everybody will join me in thanking you for joining me. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the house of representatives

tomorrow will vote on a bill to extend the current interest rates on federal student loans for one year. you can see the debate on c-span at 9:00 eastern. in a few moments joe biden on foreign policy. the chief prosecutor at guantanamo bay talked-about the military commission system. after that, student camp first several live events to tell you about. the house ways and means subcommittee will look into medicare's a premium support proposals and the long-term solvency. that is at 9:00 a.m. eastern. them president obama speaks to the troops at fort stewart

georgia. here on c-span, they are went to air the oral arguments on the constitutionality of arizona pesek law. the court will decide whether arizona has the authority to enforce its own immigration law or whether that is the exclusive role of the federal government. he considered tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m. eastern -- you can see that tomorrow night in a cloud p.m. eastern. >> i have always cared about the country. the greatest generation gave me a kind of a platform that was completely unanticipated. i thought i ought not to squander that. i ought to step up not just as this is an any journalist, but if i see these things, i try to start this dialogue.

>> and his latest, tom brokaw urges americans to redefine the american team. sunday, your questions for the former anger and managing director of nbc nightly news off. his turnabout the greatest generation and today . >> joe biden questions mitt romney's for policy. it is one of the series of campaign speeches. hughe this is a little less than an hour.

>> good morning. it is a privilege to be here with you this morning. i am the campus coordinator of the new york university students for barack obama. [applause] i am also a senior fellow with a campaign in new york. i began volunteering with organizing for america last summer as part of the organizer program in new hampshire. i thought it would be another internship but i was totally wrong. at the fallen -- the opportunity to work with volunteers and began building the neighborhood teams that would be the true heart of the grass-roots campaign. i was so engaged by the work i did i really could not imagine having to stop when i returned to school. i connected with people here in new york and was tasked with organizing a team of students. i got together with my friends to reach that to their friends to continue to reject your others and glasses and other clubs on campus and we all work together to create a team of

motivated students. this year we have made thousands of all calls, registered hundreds of new voters and its several trips to the important battleground state of pennsylvania. we know how important this is not only for our generation but for the entire country. when president obama and vice- president joe biden took office in 2009 the united states was tangled and two boards in the middle east and the animes saw our nation as week after eight years of bad decisions overseas. 142,000 troops were stationed and iraq. the president and vice president fulfilled their present -- their promise to bring all of the troops home. [applause] osama bin laden was brought to justice almost one year ago.

both the president and the vice president have worked tirelessly over the last three and a half years to strengthen our alliances abroad. national-security and foreign- policy are near and dear to vice president's heart. as a senator from delaware he served as the chairman of the foreign relations committee and has continued to display his commitment to the success of our foreign relations as vice- president. rce president himself today. it is without further ado i am honored to say to you the president of the united states, mr. joe biden. [applause] >> you did a great job. >> thank you. >> hello, how are you? great to be with you. [applause] what a great introduction. i hope to she remembers me when she is president. it is great to be before such a

distinguished audience at a great university. i were to start off by doing what they say you should never do, apologizing. now, it is not something you peak -- you students know that the chief of staff was a president here at nyu. that is the only reason he got the job as chief of staff. he figured he can deal with this great university he can deal with the country. it is great to see one of the great, great patriots, one of the finest general said had ever in my 39 years of working in foreign policy ever met, general clark. [applause] i want to stay parenthetically, i ran for the united states senate when i was 28 years old.

nobody in my family or my dad had never been involved in public life. as one of my colleagues said, i am the first united states senator i ever knew. i ran at the time because i thought the policy that we had in vietnam, i thought it did doubt makes sense, the notion of dominoes and so forth. i came to washington as a 29- year-old kid. i was elected before i was eligible to swan. i had to wait until i was sworn in because i was not eligible under the constitution. my image of the military commanders at the time was, if you ever saw the old movie -- if you ever rented it, slim pickens is on the back of an atom bomb dropping out of a airplane yelling yippie kai yea. dr. strange love was the movie.

if you ask me to is the most impressive man and woman i have met in government, six of them would be men, women wearing the uniform. it is a different military. this guy was not only a great warrior, this guy is a diplomat discuss -- described as an incredibly bright man. he understands the role of the military within our system. he understands the constitution. thank god there are other block -- thank god there are others liken that are still a round today. thank you for being one of the folks who changed my impression from my younger years. it is a pleasure being here. [applause]

automobile industry. i have spoken about retirement security in florida and leading the world again in manufacturing and about the tax system and the unfairness of it and how to make a pair up in new hampshire today, this is the fifth in a series of those speeches and i want to talk about an american president was the single most import responsibility. that is keeping our fellow citizens safe in our nation secure. in a time of such extraordinary challenge and change. he said all is changed.

changed utterly. the terrible beauty has been born. the world has utterly changed during your young life and your early adulthood. it is not the world was. the question is, how are we going to deal with this beautiful -- this beautiful. this change that also has with it some of the potential difficulties. i miss fundaments -- on this fundamental issue, the contrast between president obama, his record and gov. romney and his rhetoric cannot be greater. 3.5 years ago when president obama and i took office, our nation had been engaged in two boards for the better part of a decade al qaeda was resurgent. osama bin laden was at large. the our alliances were

dangerously frayed in our economy, the foundation of our national security was in the press a piece of a new depression. president obama began to act immediately. he set in motion a policy to end the war in iraq responsibly. he said a clear strategy and an end date for the war in afghanistan has been going on for less than a decade. he cut in half the number of americans who are serving in harm's way. he decimated al qaeda's senior leadership. he repaired our alliances and restored our standing in the world. he saved our economy. he saved our economy from collapse with some unpopular but bold decisions that have turned out to be right including the rescue of the automobile industry. all of which has made us much stronger not only at home but abroad.

if you are looking for a bumper sticker to sum up how president obama has handled what we have inherited, it is pretty simple. osama bin laden is dead and general motors is alive. [applause] governor mitt romney's national security policy in our view would return us to a past we have worked so hard to move beyond. in this regard there is no difference between what gov. mitt romney says and what he has proposed for our economy than he has done in foreign policy. and every instance of our view he texas back to the failed policies that got us into the miss that president obama has dug us out of and the mass that we have got ourselves into in the first place. gov. romney is counting on collective amnesia of the american people.

americans know -- americans know we cannot go back to the future. back to a foreign policy that would have america go it alone. shout to the world are either a -- you are either with us or against us. lash out first and answer the hard questions later. waste hundreds of billions of dollars and risk thousands of lives on a war that is unnecessary. see the world in a cold war prison as out of touch in the 21st century. on this and everything else president obama has demonstrated he is in touch with our times. he has acted boldly strengthening the ability to contend with new forces facing this century and to attend the challenges around the world have been neglected over the past or

previous eight years. under president obama's leadership our alliances have never been stronger. he returned to europe to its natural place as a partner of first resort in dealing with global threats while reclining america's place in asia as an asian pacific power. a region where exports are producing new jobs and driving our economic recovery. we forge a new relationship based on emerging interests with china, russia, b brazil, turkey, south africa, all of which are helping advance american security. we reduced our reliance on nuclear weapons, achieved agreements with russia and brought the world together to secure nuclear materials from getting in the hands of terrorists. we have isolated countries like iran and north korea.

we have taken far more terrorists of the battlefield and the last three years than the previous eight, putting al qaeda on a path to defeat. at the center and the president has said danziger presence overseas, and torture, and in doing so demonstrated that we do not have to choose between protecting our country and living our values. as a consequence of those decisions, enhance the security of our own soldiers abroad and the power of our persuasion around the world. we plan for conflicts in the future with a new defense strategy, supported by the entire defense department senior leadership. our military will be more agile, flexible, better able to confront aggressors and have strong partnerships to share the burden in smart investments in

cutting edge capabilities. we proposed a budget that will fund the strategy and keep faith with our wounded warriors. led the fight to free libya and the libyan people from the -- from gaddafi using our military assets to clear the way for our allies to step up -- stepped up to meet their own responsibility. the result was something of a general and others before him saw time and time again but rarely achieved. general burden sharing and in and to the gaddafi regime. we are now ratcheting up the pressure on other brutalizes, people are brutalized like assad and syria. putting america firmly on this side of freedom around the world.

we made the g-20 in the form recognizing the realities of the 21st century. we refocused our development policy on developing the capacity of our -- other nations and steadily combating climate change. that is the essence of our record. the question is, where does gov. romney stand? how would he keep our citizens safe in our nation secure? in the face of the challenges that we now understand are ahead of us, what with gov. mitt romney do? the truth is, we do not know for certain. we know where the governor starts. he starts with a profound -- a profound misunderstanding of the

responsibilities of a president and the commander in chief. here is what he says. if we want somebody who has a lot of experience in foreign policy, we can simply go to the state department. but, that is not how we choose a president. a president is not a foreign policy expert. in my view, the last thing we need is a president who believes he can subcontract our foreign policy to experts at the state department, or for that matter any other department or agency. here is how it works. i have been around for eight presidents of the united states. i hate to admit. i know i did not look that old. eight presidents. that is not how it works. president obama has built a great national security team

from hillary clinton to betray us to leon panetta to dempsey. -- no matter how experienced the team. no matter how wide the advance of -- advice of counsel. the box literally stops on the oval office. one of the toughest decisions land on the desk. as often as not, his of baez's are in disagreement. disagreement among themselves. they are all smart people but they disagree. the seldom are completely unified. as another general said rigid i cannot think of any consequential decision where the president had more than 75% of

the facts. it never works that way. almost every significant case it falls -- calls for a final judgment call to be made by the president. a call of the vice president can make, the secretary of defense cannot make. only the president can make. i literally get to be the last guy in the room with the president. that is our arrangement. i can give him all the advice that i have and make my case, but when i walked out of the room, he sits there by himself. the president sits there by himself and has to make the decision. often reconciling conflicting judgments that are made by very smart, honorable, informed and experienced people. the president is all alone at that moment.

it is his judgment that will determine the destiny of this country. he must make the hard calls. i suggest president obama has made hard calls with strength and steadiness. he had clear goals and a clear strategy of how to achieve the goal. he has a clear vision for america's place in the world. ultimately he makes the decision. it seems to me governor mitt romney's fundamental thinking of the foreign-policy is fundamentally wrong. that may work -- that kind of thinking may work for a ceo. i assure you, it will not and cannot work for a president.

it will not work for a commander-in-chief. thus far, gov. mitt romney has not made many foreign-policy focus decisions are pronouncements, foreign policy has not been a focus of his campaign. now, if you are -- will excuse me a point of privilege, i can understand why the president -- what governor mitt romney does not want to make it a focus of his campaign. but it is. these are critical issues. how do we fairly assess the use of governor mitt romney on foreign policy? what are they? a think a fair way to this -- others may disagree on whether or not i am being objective as possible rejecting the fair way to do this is look at the few things we do know about governor mitt romney. we know governor mitt romney criticizes the president was the policy. he never offers and a specific

alternative. we know when the governor goes and does venture a position, it is a safe bet that he previously to a core is about to take an exactly opposite position. he will end up landing in the wrong place. we know that when he agrees with the president of the united states says he has done, he then goes on to miss characterize our record to create what is a nonexistent contrast. most importantly, we know that the extent that gov. mitt romney has shown any policy vision, it is through the loss of a rear view mirror. in my view, he would take us back to a dangerous self -- less

safe and less secure. to make the points i believe are honest to make is to illustrate propositions and compare president obama's record and gov. mitt romney's rhetoric. let's start with iraq. when president obama ran four years ago he promised to end the war responsibly. he kept his commitment. he brought home all 150,000 of our troops and developed a strong relationship with the sovereign iraq. last december governor mitt romney initially applauded to withdraw -- he went on to say that the credit should go to president bush.

three months later he reversed and saying, and a car he would have led tens of thousands of u.s. troops behind. president obama develop a clear strategy to end the war in 2014. while building the capacity of the afghan security forces and its people. the withdrawal date was the best way to get the afghans to step up and take responsibility for their own country. we know that it does not happen. why step up attack? we know. it is unlikely to recur. as i have said, we cannot want

peace and security in afghanistan more than the afghans. our nato partners embrace the president's strategy. so the governor romney. the transfer their with responsibility. he said this is the right time line. two months later, he was against the president's plan, calling one of the biggest mistakes. now, and i want to be straight about this. he seems to want to keep american forces in afghanistan indefinitely. i want to quote him "it is my

desire of my political parties a desire not to leave." i am not sure the exact context. i am not sure exactly what he meant. he does have responsibility about what he meant. he may have a reasonable explanation. the american people deserve an explanation. where he has expressed a clear point of view, he has been consistently second the past. in my view, it is wrong. we came to office with president obama. we set our relationship with russia. we had important disagreements with moscow. we will continue to have disagreements with moscow. in the wake of the reset, we

negotiated a major nuclear arms reduction treaty that has made this. in addition, president obama convince russia to cancel the cell of russia's very sophisticated s300 radar system. russia joined the united states. it was the toughest ever sanctions against iran. it is the only other source. now the sole source that

hopefully only temporarily. just a month ago he called. without question, our number one geopolitical foe is russia. as my brother would say, "go figure." sometimes, it even refers to russia as soviets which we view as a mindset. i think it is fair to say when it comes to russia, based on only what we know, governor romney is in a cold war mindset.

the governor aggressively attacked a new starts. the treaty that president obama negotiate with moscow. he attacked it. that treaty reduces a number of strategic weapons and russia's arsenal and allows inspection of arsenals to resume. any constraints on this capability. seven of romney was part of a very small group of holdovers. it is way out of the mainstream. let me tell you why. the entire republican foreign policy establishment disagreed with him starting creme -- starting with henry kissinger.

secretary state jim baker. in president george h. w. bush. all support it and strongly support and get passed to some recalcitrant republican senators. gov. romney's apparent determination to take u.s. relations back to the 50's also causes them optimistic the facts. he charges it to appease moscow. president obama has been complied a missile defense. he's either willfully misinforms are totally and

misunderstands. president obama >> asked me to secure allied support for a missile defense system. the first visit i made. who do we asked to host these new componentcomponent? poland. they all said yes. they approached our new one. this is more effectively than the missile defense program. it also provides better protection for the united states

of america. robert gates served in republican administrations said "we are strengthening, not scrapping missile defense in europe." nothing speaks more powerfully to the differences between president obama and governor romney them one of the defining moments of the past four years. the governor romney was as what he would do about o osama bin laden. he said "there would be very insignificant increase in safety" and then we went on to say if he was brought to justice.

he then went on to say "it is not worth moving heaven and earth, spending billions of dollars just to get one person." hear his how candid and obama answered. he said "if i had osama bin laden in our side, i will take him out. i will kill him. we will crush al qaeda. this has to be our biggest national security priority." i said we followed the sob to the gates of. i was a little more direct. here is the deal. president obama always means what he says. he said it as the candidates. he kept that commitment. just a few months into office, sitting in the oval office, i

spent 46 hours a day with this president. that is why i've got to know him so well. he turned to leon panetta who is headed the cia. he made it clear what his priority was. on june 2, 2009, he ordered leon panetta "in order to ensure that we have expended every effort, i direct you to provide to me within 30 days a detailed operational plan for locating in bringing to justice osama bin laden." it was the president's highest priority. then he made what it the most

courageous decisions i have seen the president make in a long time. he authorized a very high-risk mission to capture and kill osama bin laden. even though, and i was one of six people who for four months or so was the only one who knew about the possibility of this location, even though at the end of the day there was no better than a 50/50 chance that osama bin laden was present in the compound. despite the reservation, was the only full throated throw from moving when we did. myself included. president obama said afterward when he made the decision that this is a very difficult decision.

it included an enormous risk. add so much confidence of them to carry out the mission that of the risks were outweighed by the potential benefits -- benefit of us by our man. does anybody doubts had the mission failed it would have written the beginning of the end of the president's term in office? this guy has a backbone like a ramrod. for real. on this debt issue, we know what president obama did. we cannot say for certain what governor romney would have done. unlike say that lik governor romney comment they felt like it was worth moving heaven and earth to get been lavin.

-- osama bin laden. i said before osama bin laden is dead. you have to ask yourself why governor romney them present, could he have used the same slogan? ?- in reverse ta people of going to make that judgment. it is a legitimate thing. look. on a few core issues, there's no real difference between governor romney in president obama. in my view, governor romney misrepresents the president's approach. let me give you some examples. iran pose a nuclear program is the clearest example. is determineda' to protect it. he has been clear and concise

promising that containment is not our policy. when he took office, the effort to pressure iran was second nature. his influence was spreading in the region. american leadership was in doubt. i would argue we are not much respected by our friends and not really feared by enemies. president obama understood that by seeking to engage them, by going the extra diplomatic mile, we would demonstrate that iran was the problem. the president smart diplomacy turn the tables on pteron and secured the strong is unilateral and international sanctions and history.

all the major powers, including russia and china, participated. now iran is more isolated. international community is more united in their effort to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons than ever before. they have deep difficulties acquiring equipment for the nuclear missile program. it is increasingly cut off. there and able to do the most basic business transactions. the economy has been grievously wounded. of the worst is still to come. in june, a european embargo on imports of oil kicks in. as a result of this unprecedented pressure, iran is back to the negotiating table. you cannot protect what the end result will be. they're back to the table. the governor romney has called for a "very different policy" on

iran. for the life of me, it is hard to understand what the governor means by a very different policy. here is what he says. he says we need "crippling sanctions." apparently unaware that through president obama's leadership we achieved just that. he emphasizes his need for a credible military option. apparently, ignorant of the fact that is exactly what our policy is. the only step we could take that we are not already taking is to launch a war against iran. that is what governor romney means by a very different policy. he should tell the american

people. he should say so. otherwise, the governor's tough talk about military action is just that, talk. it is counterproductive talk. folks, talk about a war has consequences. let me tell you why. it unsettles world market. it drives up oil prices. when oil prices go up, the coffers filled up. it undermines the impact of the sanctions as are in existence. this kind of romney talk is just not smart. president obama has said "now is the time to let our increase pressure sink in and to sustain the international coalition we have built. now is the time to keep the timeless advice from teddy

roosevelt, speaks softly and carry a big stick." i promise you the president has that big stick. i promise you. president obama understands what governor romney apparently does not. it is necessary for america to be strong and smart at the same time. no country is more concerned about a nuclear iran than israel. rightfully so. no president since harry truman has done more for israel's security than barack obama. our administration provided a record level of security assistance. it recently intercepted the rockets coming out of gaza.

they saved homes, schools, hospitals, and the men, women and children who inhabit them. we're collaborating right now on longer-range missile defense systems like heroes. in time israel into our radar system. the u.s. is engaged in the most consisting comprehensive consultations ever. you know this better than anybody. we're conducting the largest joint military operation in the history of their relationship. president obama said that to the gravest threat. the effort of the rest of the world to delegitimize it as a state. often stood up alone.

israel leaders have called president obama's supports and cooperation unprecedented. governor romney said relations in 29 states and israel but "hit below." he went on to accuse president obama of "rolling israel under the bus." that is just one list of untruths. it is repeatedly debunked by reporters. it is most of bunt by israeli leaders.

it is more unlikely that the governor is falling back on one of the favorite tricks. distort them as characterize your opponents mission. keep repeating the distortions over and over again. even when every objective observer says you are wrong. keep repeating in the hope that it will eventually stick. president obama has reshaped american foreign policy. to contend with the challenges of the president and also to face the threats of the future. i believe he has done a with strength and wisdom. the governor romney was to take us back to a world that no longer exists with policies that are dangerously divorced from reality. it is more misguided because of all the peril of our time, america's promise and has never been greater. in the 20th century, the wealth

of a nation was judged by the size of the population. to the strength of its army. the abundance of the raw materials in the land-. these measures still matter. america still prevails. more than ever before, you know better than any of us the true wealth of a nation is to be found at human-resources. and there ability to build and compete. by that measure, america is also uniquely blessed. we believe our job is to help provide our people and environment in which they can

cisco the incredible potential. if we do our job, i believe our nation will be more secure. america's strength depends ultimately on the strength of the american dream here at home. it means that advanced research and development will catch up to the rest of the world. all of these help increase the ability of american businesses to invest in energy and cutting edge manufacturing. no one is better positioned.

no nation is better positioned than the united states. it also means welcoming people from around the world which is always been a source of new blood. it means hard work. it treats of urgency for all the citizens. these are the investments that will grow our economy. to keep america strong at home. it is needed for america's future.

like many of you who have traveled, students and incidents, we all have the same kind of feeling when you get home. the same intuitive feeling. there's no country like america. there is no potential like america. i was asked earlier how i would testify in america with a group of high school students. i said one word "possibilities." i am absolutely convinced i am more certain after serving 40 years in government and i was when i was the idealistic young senator. i am more confident that there is no country better position then to leave the country in the

united states of america. only a free state in the course of iran. looking forward and not in the rearview mirror. thank you ladies and gentlemen. they got protect our children. -- may god protect our children. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> the house will vote on a bill to extend the current rate on federal student loans for a year. you can see that debate here on c-span beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern. in about an hour-and-a-half, we will focus on defense issues with rep mckeon. after that, more about foreign policy from republican senator marco rubio and vice-president joe biden. several live events to tell you about tomorrow on our companion network. the house ways and means committee will look at medicare premium support proposals. that is at 9:00 a.m. eastern.

them president obama speaks to the troops at fort stewart georgia. here on c-span, we will air a supreme court oral arguments on the constitutionality of the immigration law. >> this bars american base and bribing officials overseas to obtain business. this is under investigation for allegedly suppressing an internal investigation into a mexican bribery in 2005. then saki talks about the

history of japanese internment camps. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern c-span. >> born in a north korean war camp, it is the only world he had ever known. he is also the only one to have ever escapes from camp 14. >> his first memory was going with his mom to a place near where he grew up in the camp to watch somebody get shot. shooting public executions in the camp were held every few weeks.

>> this coincides with the passage of fire will passage of power, of volume for in the years of lyndon johnson. >> now the chief prosecutor for the military commission at guantanamo bay appeared he spoke at the institute of real politics about the ongoing against terrorist suspects.

>> good morning, ladies and gentlemen, i'm delighted that you're all here. i'd like to welcome you all to the institute of world politics and we are honored to have a very special guest here today, general mark martins, who is going to be discussing a fascinating issue which deals with actually some of the classic policy questions concerning the conflict between our constitutional liberties and our national security. and this has to do with the effectiveness and the legitimacy of military tribunals for the

prosecution of insurgents and terrorists who have been captured as irregular forces out of uniform on the battlefield. people who, by presenting themselves in such a fashion, have not particularly conformed with the laws -- the international laws of war and therefore who have put themselves in a certain kind of a jeopardy when it comes to the nature of how we go about prosecuting them. nevertheless, there is an abiding interest in the united states in ensuring that there is justice that is meted out for all, including the exoneration for those who may be innocent. but we also have the challenge of trying to maintain the protection of national security and protection of classified information so this is a policy our government has wrestled with over the past several years. there's been a supreme court decision about this, there has been legislation and more importantly, the president himself has been involved in ensuring that military tribunals are indeed a legitimate way to go when it comes to handling

insurgents and terrorists of this type. so we have today, really one of the premier authorities in the united states government addressing this issue, general mark martins, who is chief prosecutor of the military commissions. he became -- it was last september that he became the chief prosecutor. in the previous year in afghanistan, he was commander of the rule of law field force, afghanistan, and had a dual hat role also in the nato rule of law field support mission. the prior year, also in afghanistan, he had served as the first and interim commander of joint task force 435 and then was its first deputy commander upon senate confirmation of vice admiral robert haywood. in these roles, brigadier

general mark martins led the effort to reform u.s. detention operations in afghanistan and provided field support to afghan and international civilian rule of law project teams in contested provinces in the country. prior to his deployment to afghanistan, he led -- he co-led the inter-agency detention policy task force created by president obama in january of 2009. general martins has an extremely distinguished career, background prior to these deployments in the war zone. he graduated first in the order of merit from west point in

1983. he served as a platoon leader and staff officer in the 82nd airborne. he became a judge advocate and served in a number of legal and non-legal positions. he's been deployed to zones of armed conflict for more than five years, including service as chief of staff of the u.s. kosovo force, staff judge advocate for the first armored division and the multinational force, iraq. he was a rhodes scholar, graduating with first honors, a graduate of harvard law school, magna cum laude. he also holds an mlm in military law and masters in military strategy. he has numerous awards, including the defense superior service medal, the nato meritorious service medal, the department of state meritorious honor award, the legion of

merit, the bronze star, twice, the army meritorious service medal and others. so it is a great pleasure and an honor to have you, general, to join us, and to speak with some authority, with great authority, about these matters. welcome to the institute. [applause] >> thank you, john, for those generous remarks. great to be in this historic building this esteemed institute, having a conversation today about reformed military commissions and the challenge and the project of legitimating that institution which i believe is a very important institution for our national security and our entire justice process. and as john, the president here mentioned, there is a challenge in balancing imperatives of

national security and the implementation of the rule of law. he mentioned i was an infantry lieutenant in the 82nd. i just got back from west texas. i was out in texas tech law school, trying to make time to get out to different venues to talk a little bit about military commissions. i was out teaching some classes for a former judge advocate general of the army, walt huffman, out of texas tech law school now in lubbock, and it brought back to memory my time there as a lieutenant with my platoon sergeant, sergeant first class smiley. we were out in a field exercise all day one day in the hot texas sun and it was a little after midnight when we finally got to bed beside our fox holes. had this grizzled two-time vietnam veteran next to me, airborne sergeant first class and i'm a green infantry lieutenant. we go to sleep, two hours later i'm nudged by sergeant smiley and he says, sir, look up in the sky, tell me what you see. i looked up in the sky and saw a heaven full of west texas sky and i said i see a heaven full of stars, platoon sergeant?

he said, sir, what does that tell you? i wasn't sure where he was going with the question so i said -- i did want to impress him, so i said, well, sergeant first class, astronomically it tells me there are billions of stars and hundreds of billions of planets, some of them may have life on them. theologically it tells me that we are but small and insignificant and god is great. meteorologically it tells me that with a clear sky we're going to have a great day of training tomorrow -- pause -- thinking i had overwhelmed him with this profound response -- what does it tell you, sergeant? sir, it tells me that somebody told our tent. that was the last time i set out to try to be profound. it was a good, grounding moment of the kind you can only get in the airborne infantry. let me talk a little bit about military commissions. we are dealing here with an institution that, in its previous two iterations, were flawed. they were flawed.

we worked hard on reforms and believe strongly that these military commissions can be fair and can do justice. i'll talk a little bit about some of the procedural protections with some emphasis on the reforms that have come in the 2009 military commissions act and then i'll talk about -- i'll talk about some of the actors in this system, some of the officials, because it's very comparable in a lot of ways to court systems that you know about but worthwhile to talk a little bit about some of the different officials in the system, and then i'll raise

several -- just to get you thinking so we can start the conversation and maybe you'll be warmed up, i'll raise some of the criticisms and what i believe are now decisive counters to those criticisms. ok. so military commissions. in military commissions, an accused is presumed innocent. the prosecution must prove the accused guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on specified elements of offenses. the accused is to be provided notice in writing. the charges have to be written down of what he's charged with. an accused has a right to legal counsel and a choice of counsel. any accused facing an offense for which the death penalty is authorized by congress receives counsel at government expense, and someone who has experience in death penalty matters, so- called learned counsel, under the statute. an accused may not be required to self incriminate, a right against self incrimination. there's a right against the

introduction of statements obtained as a result of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the standard of admissibility for statements of an accused is voluntariness under the 2009 -- this is one of the areas that is an important reform of the 2009 act. an accused has the right to see all of the evidence the government's going to present. this is discovery. you're familiar with this in our criminal, civilian legal system. that's fairness. you got to see what the proof is, you have to be able to confront it meaningfully, confront that and challenge that evidence.

you have a right to cross examine the government's witnesses. an accused has the right to compel, using the authority of the government, witnesses on his behalf. they have to appear in order, if the court has jurisdiction, the ability to compel anybody for the government, same is available to the accused to compel witnesses in his behalf. the accused is protected by exclusionary rules of evidence that prohibit the introduction of information that is overly prejudicial or not probative or would otherwise be fruit of a poisonous tree, different types of exclusionary rules that, again, are similar to those in civilian criminal practice. protection against double jeopardy, can't be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the

same charges. protection -- has a right to represent himself if he is competent and if he has been very clearly put on notice of the right to counsel and his opportunities. you can't be forced to be represented by a lawyer. and the right of appeal upon conviction, to a court of review, military commission court of review that congress established in the act, as well as the federal district -- federal appellate court for the district of columbia circuit, federal circuit court. so it goes through the federal system, our article 3 federal courts, to the supreme court. so these -- it's a broad, comprehensive body of protections and i've merely just summarized some of them, and with the -- again, the reforms in the 2009 act, prominently including the prohibition on the introduction of cruel inhuman degrading treatment, statements obtained as a result of cruel, inhuman degrading treatment and the modification of hearsay rule. there is a slightly broader

aperture for the introduction of hearsay evidence than in a federal civilian court because the judge is put on notice by the statute to take into consideration operational and intelligence factors that involve the collection of evidence on a battlefield where you may not have the ability to bring all the evidence into court because the place where the crime occurred or where the individual was captured or arrested is beyond the jurisdiction of the court in a far away place. there are hearsay exceptions in our civilian criminal court that allow for exceptions. hearsay, this is an out-of-court statement offered so you don't bring the witness into court but you offer a document or somebody telling you what someone else said. these things are disfavored. they don't tend to be brought into court because you want,

again, the accused to be able to confront and cross examine the witnesses against him so our law, anglo american law, disfavors hearsay. many legal systems do. hearsay exceptions exist, though, when you have a type of out-of-court statement that has inherent reliability. there may be indicators within it that make it more reliable. it's a regularly produced business record or it's a dying declaration of somebody, you know, the declarant is no longer available but he made a comment that has some historical

indicators that it may be reliable, and it's introduced for a certain purpose at trial. military commissions allow for a slightly broader aperture of hearsay for the things of operational reasons, battlefield emergencies where evidence tends to disappear would make it in the interest of justice to allow the introduction of probative -- that means it provides proof of something -- relevant, it's material, it deals with the issues at hand in the court, and lawfully obtained. it has to have been obtained through lawful operations of forces. so again, a statement, an out- of-court statement obtained as a result of cruel, inhuman degrading treatment would not be admissible under this rule. the 2009 act narrowed, although it's still a slightly larger aperature for hearsay than you would find in criminal court, it did narrow the standard that was there in the 2006 military commissions act by requiring the party, either the prosecution or the defense, that was offering the hearsay, to establish its reliability. previously, it had been flipped, so it was the challenging party had to establish why something was -- that the moving party, the introducing party was offering was unreliable.

and i think that's a significant change, as well, in the direction of fairness. congress, another important reform, is congress wrote in the 2009 military commissions act, the sense of congress, that the resourcing of the defense function in guantanamo was important to the legitimacy of the tribunals and they should be resourced. it also stated that the opportunity of an accused that obtained witnesses and evidence should be comparable to that of article 3 federal civilian court so the notion of resourcing the defense, ensuring they have the ability and wherewithal to mount a defense and to test the evidence, that was -- and form a relationship with counsel, competent counsel, this was something that the court or that the 2009 military commissions act and congress felt strongly about and then another reform and the president here mentioned this in passing, classified information procedures, the 2009 act incorporated the classified information procedures act that is used in federal court.

so very -- and this goes to the balance that he also spoke of between national security and the insurance of our cherished civil liberties and how we do things as a country and commitment to the rule of law, that we are going to both protect our secrets. there really are secrets. there are sources and methods of intelligence that help protect us from future attacks that could be compromised if they were brought out in open court. troop movements, methods and ways in which these unbe -- ununiformed, irregular forces operating in the shadows of international boundaries disguised as civilians so they're not in a uniform,

carrying arms openly and operating in accordance with the law of war, information about how they're operating, how they're using new off-the-shelf technologies that are so powerful and give them such capabilities that they didn't have before, ways in which to track them down really could harm the public interest and the national security. so the classified information procedures act congress first passed in 1980 for the federal civilian system which gives a judge tools in order to ensure that the accused has the right to challenge the evidence the prosecution is bringing -- this is that discovery right that i talked about -- key to our system, right? you can't be convicted if you haven't had a chance to test the evidence. but to require that either the prosecution or the defense, if it's going to introduce classified evidence, that it put the court on notice in advance and give the court and the

parties an opportunity to figure out how to reconcile those sometimes conflicting interests, that of allowing confrontation, which is necessary in order for us to have a fair trial and get accountability, under law, for crimes. so that law enforcement, if you will, interest, and the national security interest, protect the classified information. and the classified information procedures act, cipa of 1980, says to the judge, figure out how to do both wherever you can and there really are ways to do it. you can summarize the evidence in a way. you can have an excerpt of a document that products the sources and methods but ensures that the accused sees what the part of it that is condemning him or inculpating him gets to be reviewed and tested and this has been in operation in the federal courts since 1980. there are a lot of cases it gets -- a lot of litigation over it because these balancing things are things that require judgment, but it's a body of law that is now well established.

the 2009 military commissions act took advantage of the fact that the federal courts have been using this since 1980 and incorporated it almost entirely. what it did, it incorporated it and then codified, enshrined into codified law the judicial changes to cipa or interpretations to the classified information procedures act of 1980 that have happened since 1980. so we have federal classified information procedures in our military commissions that protect our national secrets but also ensure that we can, with a full, fair trial process, hold people accountable under law. so those are the major reforms. the protection -- let me talk a little bit about who is part of a military commission. well, i'll start with me. i'm the prosecutor, very much in the tradition of a public prosecutor in the united states

legal tradition, represent the government in the prosecution of alleged criminals. has a lot of discretion associated with it. you have to decide what to charge, who to charge, whom to charge within your jurisdiction. you have to figure out, you know, do you perhaps talk to somebody about an offer to plead guilty such that he can cooperate with someone else. you've got to determine which

issues on appeal may be raised. there's a large amount of discretion, well tilled soil here in discussion of the prosecutorial function and why we have it in our system, and we have it because you need to -- you need to give judgment calls to particular prosecutors to determine what are the most serious and beneficial prosecutions to bring, what comes with that, though, is a great responsibility with all that discretion. we don't give that kind of discretion out unless it's for the purpose of doing justice. so there's a strong doctrine of public prosecution which means that we're officers of the court, we're not just seeking

to win at all costs, we're trying to see that justice is done and that's an important part of our tradition. actually, a couple of hundred years ago in the united states, we had a tradition co-existing with that of private prosecution. private parties, non- governmental, non-state actors would actually prosecute the case before the court and this has been supplanted and through the 19th century and currently with this public prosecution doctrine which requires that prosecutors turn over exculpatory evidence.

this is another right that accused have. if we find something that makes an accused look less guilty or tends to show that if he is guilty, he's less -- should be punished with lesser punishment, that's something we have an affirmative and continuing obligation to turn over. so that's the prosecutor. in many ways, the engine of the system gets it going, starts it by charging the individual and is subject to this public prosecution ethic that i've talked about. there is an official known as the convening authority and the convening authority has a number of functions. i'll analogize it to federal civilian legal practice and legal practice that you may be familiar with in state courts. the convening authority does serve a grand jury function, a testing function.

once i have endorsed charge against somebody and, say, these are violations of our code of crimes. congress has codified 32 crimes that are violations of the law of war, i see that they are charges and that we have the evidence against all of the elements of the offense, i, then, forward them to the convening authority who is an official who has to separately, with legal advice, he has competent counsel, he's supposed to look at them independently and determine if he agrees with that. if he does, he will then refer is the term, he will refer the charges to a military commission for trial. so convening authority in the function i just described functions something like a grand jury, it's oversimplistic to say it is the grand jury for the system because he has other duties which include actually assembling that commission and i'll talk about that in a minute, and then he has a clemency function on the other end, if there is a conviction, he gets to see whether or not clemency is warranted after the commission has done its sentencing job. so that's the convening authority. this is very similar to any of you in the military, the military justice system, which is under our uniform code of military justice of 1950 and subsequent legislation that created our court's marshal for prosecuting our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines for violating the code of justice, the convening body in that system is a commander.

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> good afternoon to all of you. i'm strobe talbott and it's my great pleasure to welcome you all here to brookings today and a particular welcome to those of us who are going to be viewing this event on our webcast. and we've got a lot of other media here as well, which, of course, is a great compliment to our two guests of honor. we're also especially pleased to have five distinguished members of the diplomatic corps here today, as well as four brookings trustees. and it's always an honor to have a member of the senate come down from the hill to think tank row, so it's a double honor when we get two senators. and the fact that they represent different parties testifies to their bipartisanship, which is a rare, if not endangered, commodity in this city today, one that we here at brookings do our best to foster and protect. senator marco rubio is a member of the senate foreign relation committee. he is a member of the select committee on intelligence, and he has already established himself as a vigorous advocate

of intense and widespread u.s. engagement in leadership in the world. he is an internationalist, and from that perspective he is going to be talking to us today about american foreign policy and the challenges facing american leadership. he will be introduced by joe lieberman, who is a longstanding friend of this institution and, i might add, a very good friend of quite a number of us here today. and joe, we're going to miss you when you leave the senate, but i have no doubt that you will remain a forceful voice in the national and the international arena. when senator rubio finishes making his remarks, marvin kalb of our foreign policy program is going to moderate a discussion here on the podium and then engage as many members of the audience as he can for the remainder of the program. so, joe, over to you. [applause] >> thank you.

thank you very much. thanks, strobe talbott. thanks to brookings. and a special thank you to bob kagan for orchestrating and inspiring this event today. i am really honored to have been asked to introduce senator marco rubio, a rising star in the next generation of america's foreign policy leaders. marco came to the senate at a moment in our history when america was looking inward, focused on our economic woes. it would have been very easy for him in that political climate to have given attention only to domestic issues. and i would guess that many people advised him to do exactly that, including probably a media consultant or pollster or two. but instead, marco sought membership, as strobe has said, on the senate foreign relations and intelligence committees and has devoted much of his time and

energy to foreign policy and national security. he has not done so because there are votes to be gained, but because of his steadfast belief in the importance of american leadership in the world and his understanding of how much that leadership determines our security and well-being here at home. marco rubio's foreign policy is principled, patriotic, and practical. it grows, i believe, from his own life's journey from tyranny to freedom, but also from his dedicated study of history and contemporary challenges. his foreign policy, as i've come to know it, puts him in a proud bipartisan tradition that links together our greatest republican presidents like ronald reagan and our greatest democratic presidents like harry s. truman.

it is a tradition that recognizes that america is defined not by the land under our feet or even by the blood in our veins, but by our founding values, first among them being freedom and equality of opportunity whose promotion and protection will always be our first national purpose. it is a foreign policy tradition that is bipartisan and idealistic and recognizes that there is evil in the world, that we should not be afraid to call it by its name, that we have enemies who cannot be negotiated into peace, but must be confronted with our strength. and it is a bipartisan foreign policy tradition that recognizes that the survival of liberty and prosperity in our country ultimately depends on the

expansion of liberty and prosperity throughout the world. in word and deed, marco rubio has become a leading advocate for freedom fighters and political dissidents throughout the world, from venezuela to iran, from syria to north korea. you can regularly find him on the floor of the senate speaking out for those whom dictators seek to silence. at a moment when america faces many serious challenges, both here at home and throughout the world, and when it has become fashionable to suggest that our best days are behind us and we ought to pull back, senator rubio brings to the public arena a contagious personal optimism and an abiding and patriotic faith in america's destiny.

ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce to you senator marco rubio of florida. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you, senator lieberman. you know, one of the best things about working in the senate is the opportunity to learn and to know from colleagues whose statesmanship is an example for the rest of us. in my brief time in the senate, i've had the chance to know joe lieberman and learn from him. he represents a view of america's role in the world and the tradition of democratic leaders like franklin roosevelt and harry truman through john f. kennedy and "scoop" jackson. in my every experience with him, it's been evident that joe lieberman is a statesman who takes positions on every important national issue because he believes they best serve our country's interests and values. so, thank you, joe, for your introduction and, more importantly, thank you for your example. i'm privileged to serve with you.

i want to thank brookings for this opportunity. i wanted to contribute today a few thoughts on the current debate over america's role in the world in this, the 21st century. and i wanted to give this speech today to share with you my observations of someone who has a long-term interest in foreign policy, but now finds himself in the role of foreign policy-maker. i'm always cautious about generalizations in politics, but until recently the general perception was that american conservatism believed in robust and muscular foreign policy. that was certainly the hallmark of the foreign policies of both president bushes and of president reagan. but when i arrived in the senate last year, i found that some of the traditional sides in the foreign policy debate had shifted. on the one hand, i found liberal democrats and conservative republicans working together to advocate our withdrawal from afghanistan or staying out of libya. on the other hand, i found myself partnering with democrats, like bob menendez or

senator casey, on a more forceful foreign policy. in fact, the resolutions i co-authored with senator casey on syria and the resolution i co-sponsored with senator menendez condemning fraudulent elections in nicaragua were held up by republicans. and so, i recently joked the other day that today in the u.s. senate, on foreign policy, the further you move to the right, the likelier you are to end up on the left. and i found this sentiment to be true not just in the senate, but back home as well. for example, many of my loyal supporters were very highly critical of my decision to call for a more active role in libya. now, the easiest thing for me to do here today is to give a speech on my disagreements with this administration on foreign policy, and i do have many, but i wanted to begin by addressing another trend in our body politic, one that increasingly says that it is time to focus less on the world and more on ourselves.

now, i always begin by reminding people of how good a strong and engaged america has been for the world. and in making that argument, i have been recently relying heavily on brookings fellow bob kagan's timely book, "the world america made." he did not pay me to say that. [laughter] he begins this book with a pretty useful exercise. he asks readers to imagine what world order might have existed from the end of world war ii until the present if america -- absent american leadership. could we say for certain that it would look anything like america's vision of an increasingly freer and more open international system where catastrophic conflicts between great powers were avoided? democracy and free market capitalism flourished? where prosperity spread wider and wider, and billions of people emerged from poverty? would it have occurred, if after the war, america had minded its own business and left the world to sort out its affairs without

our leadership? almost surely not. as bob persuasively argued, every world order in history has reflected the interest and the beliefs of its strongest power just as this world order still largely reflects ours. now, of course, many of these things were not achieved by us on our own. they weren't achieved because we succeeded in all our owl international endeavors. they weren't achieved because everyone always agreed with everything we did. and they weren't achieved because we were the most popular country on earth. they were achieved because the united states had a vision, the will and means to do the hard work of bringing it into existence, and then of maintaining it. we had the will and the means to defend its norms and institutions and the security of our partners, face down its challengers, assist other people in attaining their liberty, keep trade routes open, and support the expansion of free-market capitalism that accelerated the

growth of the global economy. and we did it without coveting other countries' territories or seizing their assets or robbing them of their opportunities. the purpose of the institutions we established, from the united nations to the world bank and the i.m.f., was to spread peace and prosperity, not to certain narrow american interests. other nations consented to our leadership because they saw what the economic and political values of the american worldview had achieved for us and they wanted the same for themselves. they followed us because they believed that our way, the american way, the principals of free people and free markets, was the best way to advance their societies. but as bob also points out, we haven't ever really solved this role. and despite our worries, doubts, and occasional resentment, we're proud of it and we should be. as bob's book highlights, a number of facts are worth

repeating here today about the post-world war ii world america made. for example, the global g.d.p. has risen 4% annually since the end of world war ii, four times faster than the average in past centuries. four billion people, mostly outside of europe and north america, have been lifted out of poverty during that time. the number of democracies in the world have proliferated nearly tenfold. and we have had the longest period of peace between the great powers ever. now, before anyone accuses me of claiming that america has ushered in the biblical promise of a new heaven and a new earth, let's stop and remember that the world america made is better, but it is not perfect. but it is vastly more peaceful and prosperous than any other age in recorded history. so, this is the world america made. but what is the role for america now? is now finally the time for us to mind our own business?

is now the time to allow others to lead? is now the time for us to play the role of equal partner? well, i always start by reminding people that what happens all over the world is our business. every aspect of our lives is directly impacted by global events. the security of our cities is connected to the security of small hamlets in afghanistan and pakistan and yemen and somalia. our cost of living, the safety of our food, the value of the things we invent, make, and sell are just a few examples of everyday aspects of our lives that are directly related to events abroad and make it impossible for us to focus only on our issues here at home. the next question i'm asked then, is why doesn't someone else lead for a change? why do we always have to be taking care of the problems of the world? isn't it time for someone else to step up? and i always begin my answer to that question with a question of my own. if we start doing less, who's

going to do more? for example, would a world order -- or china, at least as we know china right now, was the leading power, be as benignly disposed to the political and economic aspirations of other nations as we are? now, look, i still have hope that behind the curtain of secrecy that veils the chinese state that there are voices that advocate for the peaceful and responsible rise of that nation, voices that reject the idea of a global power as a zero-sum game. we hold out hope for a new china of tomorrow, but for now we must deal with the china we know today, a china which enjoys its closest relationships with countries like north korea and iran. so at least for now, it would be foolish to be confident in the idea that china can be counted on to defend and support global, economic, and political freedom or to take up the cause of human rights. by the way, the rest of the world has -- especially their neighbors -- have figured that out too and they would prefer

not to take that risk. the short answer is that at least not yet anyways, there is no one else to hand off the baton to, even if that were a good idea. on the most difficult transnational challenges of our time, who will lead if we do not? the answer, at least today, is that no other nation or organization on earth is willing or able to do so. so, finally i'll be asked, if we still have to lead, can't we at least be equal partners with somebody else? in fact, shouldn't we rely on other nations to carry more of the burden? after all, we all know that they resent us telling them what to do, right? well, in this new century more than ever before, america should work with our capable allies in finding solutions to global problems, not because america's gotten weaker, but because our partners have grown stronger. it's worth pointing out, by the

way, that this is not a new idea for us. our greatest successes have always occurred in partnership with other likeminded nations. now, america has acted unilaterally in the past, and i believe it should continue to do so in the future when necessity requires, but our preferred option, since the u.s. became a global leader, has been to work with others to achieve our goals. so, yes, global problems do require international coalitions and on that point, this administration is correct, but effective international coalitions don't form themselves, they need to be instigated and led, and more often than not, they can only be instigated and led by the united states. and i believe that's what this administration sometimes fails to understand. yes, there are more countries able and willing to join efforts to meet the global challenges of our time,

but experience has proven that american leadership is almost always indispensible to its success. you can see this in the actions of -- or sometimes lack thereof, of the world trade organization or the u.n. security council, and when american influence is diminished, for example, by the one nation, one vote formula of the u.n. general assembly or the u.n. human rights council, we see absurd and often appalling results. multilateral international organizations can be a forum for forming international coalitions, but as we have repeatedly seen over the last few years, the more difficult the problem, the likelier bad actors will spoil meaningful solutions within the current system of international organizations. for example, we can't always rely on the un security council to achieve consensus on major threats to international peace and security. as we've seen on north korea, on syria, on iran, china and russia simply will not join that consensus when they do not perceive the problem as a threat to their narrow national

interests. instead, they exercise their veto or threat of a veto to thwart effective and timely response. the security council remains a very valuable forum but not an indispensable one. we can't walk away from a problem because some members of the security council refuse to act. in those instances where the veto power of either china or russia impede the world's ability to deal with a significant threat, it is the united states that will have to organize and lead coalitions with or without security council resolutions. and this concept, by the way, is neither novel nor partisan. president clinton acted exactly in this way in kosovo with the support of congressional leaders like senator lieberman. everywhere we look, we are presented with opportunities for american leadership to help shape a better world in this new century. and we have to view these opportunities through the context of the fact that in

every region of the world other countries look apprehensively at the growing influence of newly emerging powers in their midst and look to the u.s. to counter balance them. in some instances, these emerging strategic realignments are not inevitably destined for conflict. for example, if china chooses to conform its rise to the international order, there is much to be hopeful for in the pacific region. on the other hand, there is no reason for optimism about iranian designs on regional dominance in the middle east. and it's indeed in that region where multilateral cooperation is most urgently needed right away, whether in bringing an end to the bloodshed and the assad tyranny in syria or in helping egypt overcome economic hardships and move towards the establishment of a true democracy, or in addressing the threat posed by a nuclear iran. america shouldn't try to solve any of these problems alone, but neither will any of these challenges be addressed without

strong and creative american leadership. now other nation has the influence, relationships, or the reputation for seeking lasting solutions to intractable problems than the united states has. iran's nuclear ambitions, by the way, are more than just weapons. iran wants to become the dominant power in the middle east. but given iran's history of human rights abuses, fomenting sectarian conflict and sponsorship of terrorism as a tool of state craft, the world must never allow that to happen. fortunately, preventing a dominant iran is a goal we share with virtually every other nation in the region. now, certainly we welcome russia and china's cooperation in facing this challenge, but the prospect of a nuclear capable iran is so unacceptable that we must be prepared to act with or without them. and we have a host of willing partners in every region of the world who share our concerns and are relying on our leadership to compel iran to abandon its

ambitions. now, preferably, we can succeed through coercive means short of military force. we should be open to negotiations with iran, but always remember that they should not be deemed a success when they only lead to further negotiations. stronger pressure shouldn't be postponed and the expectation of our forbearance will encourage iran to act in good faith. nothing in our experience with iran suggests that it considers such gestures anything other than a lack of resolve on our part. ultimately, however, we must remember that their ambitions so far have come with a high tolerance for pain. therefore, even as we work through the united nations and with the international community on sanctions, and on negotiations, we should operate on a dual track. we should also be preparing our allies and the world for the uncomfortable reality that unfortunately, if all else fails, preventing a nuclear iran may tragically require military solution.

the goal of preventing a dominant iran is so important that every regional policy we adopt should be crafted with that overriding goal in mind. the current situation in syria is an example of such an approach. the fall of assad would be a significant blow to iran's ambitions. on those grounds alone, we should be seeking to help the people of syria bring him down. but on the foreign relations committee, i've noticed that some members are so concerned about the challenges of a post-assad syria that they've lost sight of the advantages of it. first, iran would lose its ally and see its influence and ability to cause trouble in the region would be correspondingly reduced, but hezbollah would lose its most important ally too along with its weapons supplier. and the prospects for a more stable, peaceful, and freer lebanon would improve. secondly, the security of our ally, the strongest and most

enduring democracy in the region, israel, with whom we are bound by the strongest ties of mutual interest and shared value and affection would improve as well. and so would the prospects for peace between israel and its arab neighbors. finally, the nations in the region see syria as a test of our continued willingness to lead in the middle east. if we prove unwilling to provide leadership, they will conclude that we are no longer a reliable security partner and they will decide to take matters into their own hands, and that means a regional arms race, the constant threat of armed conflict, and crippling fuel prices here at home due to the instability. the most powerful and influential nation in the world cannot ask smaller, more vulnerable nations to take risks while we stand on the sidelines. we have to lead because the rewards of effective leadership are so great. forming and leading a coalition with turkey and the arab league nations to assist the opposition by creating a safe haven and

equipping the opposition with food, medicine, communication tools, and potentially weapons, will not only weaken iran, it will ultimately increase our ability to influence the political environment of a post-assad syria. the spread and success of political and economic freedom in the middle east is in our vital interest and it will certainly present challenges, as newly enfranchised societies elect leaders whose views and purposes oppose and even offend ours. but in the long-term, because governments that rule by the consent of the governed just be responsive to the material needs and demands of their people, they are less likely to engage in costly confrontations that harm their economies and deprive their people of the opportunity to improve their circumstances. the expansion and success of political and economic freedom is critical to our interests in every region of the world and nowhere more so than in our own hemisphere.

it's no coincidence that the rise of economic prosperity in the western hemisphere is directly related or directly coincides with the democratic gains of the previous two decades. mexico, peru, and colombia are three examples of nations that have weathered the global economic downturn in a stronger position than ever. our goal for our region should be pretty straightforward. our coalition of neighboring democratic nations that trade freely and live peacefully with one another. other than overcoming our own past indifference and the lack of focus on this goal, there are two other challenges. the first is venezuela and the other alba countries whose overt -- and their overt anti-americanism. now, they make a lot of noise and we can't ignore their anti-democratic abuses or their growing closeness to iran, but our greater challenge, really, is a second and more subtle one and that's the effort of some nations to replace our influence with their influence and to use protectionism and unfair practices to pursue that aim.

the anecdote for both of these problems is to reengage energetically in the region. first, we must be a clear and consistent advocate for freedom, and to be free isn't just limited to elections, it's a way of governance. in venezuela, nicaragua, bolivia, and ecuador, elected leaders have used their power to undermine fundamental freedoms by attacking the press, the courts, and their political opponents. second, we need to commit to being a reliable partner as our neighbors cope with significant security challenges. both mexico and colombia, they need our continued commitment to win their respective wars against criminal organizations. and we must also make it abundantly clear that we will not tolerate iran exporting violence and terrorism to our hemisphere. third, we must reject protectionism and instead embrace the ultimate goal of a free trade area of the americas. the recently approved free trade agreements with colombia and panama was a good step.

we need to move forward to bring both canada and mexico into the transpacific partnership. and fourth, we should move aggressively to form a strong energy partnership with canada, mexico, brazil, colombia, and a post-chavez venezuela. a stable western hemisphere displacing an unstable middle east and an increasingly belligerent russia as the center of the world's energy production would create countless jobs for americans and energy security for the world. in asia, the question of whether china's rise will be peaceful and respectful of their neighbors is one of our biggest long-term challenges, but we must make it abundantly clear that we are firmly committed to our defense agreements and firmly committed to our allies to the freedom of navigation on our seas, and the growing strategic importance of asia actually heightens, not diminishes, the importance of europe. u.s.-european cooperation is a valuable compliment to our work with our east asia allies.

see, all of us, asians, americans, europeans, have a common interest in seeing china evolve in a peaceful and democratic direction and we have a common interest in seeing china abide by the rules of the international economic order. the united states, europe and east asia represent 71% of the world's economy. that's a lot of leverage and we should use it to address problems, such as china's disregard for intellectual property rights, gross human rights violations, its unfair trade practices, its currency manipulation, and the looming presence of china state-owned industries. in addition, this u.s.-eu partnership is critical to a more realistic approach to russia. i know some here might disagree, and certainly the president would, but i feel like we've gotten precious little from russia in return for its concessions on nuclear weapons. the reason is because russia's domestic politics shape its

foreign policies. an autocratic russia tends to be more anti-western and to act in ways that make it harder to integrate russia into the global community and the free international order. now, putin may talk tough, but he knows he's weak. everywhere he looks he sees threats to his rule, real and imagined, and so he uses state-owned media to preach paranoia and anti-western sentiments to russians. he faces a rising china to the east and hostile islamic forces to the south, but he tells his people that the biggest threat they face is from nato. some of our allies in europe increasingly feel that our recent reset with russia tended to ignore, and in some cases, undermined them. we need to reenergize and lead a united coalition with european nations to tackle issues ranging from missile defense to the continued enlargement of nato. furthermore, if we are successful in forming a western

hemisphere energy coalition that takes advantage of the shale gas revolution, we will be able to help our european allies, reduce their coerced dependence on russian energy, as well. a reenergized u.s./european coalition can help empower those forces within russia, working to end corruption and open their political system. and if that happens, then we will be closer than ever to the bipartisan american vision endorsed by both the clinton administration and the bush administrations of a europe, whole and free. faced with historic deficits and dangerous national debt, there's been increasing talk of reducing our foreign aid budget, but we need to remember that these international coalitions that we have the opportunity to lead are not just military ones, they can also be humanitarian ones. in every region of the world, we should always search for ways to use u.s. aid and humanitarian assistance to strengthen our influence, the effectiveness of our leadership, and the service

of our interests and ideals. when done so effectively, in partnership with the private sector, with faith-based organizations and with our allies, foreign aid is a very cost-effective way, not only to export our values and our example, but to advance our security and our economic interests. one of the programs that i am proudest of is the effort that began under president george w. bush with robust congressional support, and it's continued under president obama, and that's to combat aids in africa. millions of human beings are alive today because the united states, and others in the global community, are paying for their anti viral medication. this investment allows us to say, without any hint of exaggeration, that by 2015, the world could see the beginning of the end of aids, something that was unthinkable just a few years ago. we need to continue this kind of foreign aid investment, not just in pepfar, but in malaria

control and vaccine programs and in agriculture initiatives so that we can make similar strides in preventing hunger and establishing a healthy global community. this was by no means intended to be a comprehensive analysis of our challenges and opportunities around the world, after all, we could dedicate entire speeches to the emergence of functional states in africa, or the challenges supposed by the arab spring. my purpose was not to catalog our interests in every corner of the planet, my purpose was to argue that the world is a better place because of america's engagement in it, and it will continue to get better only if we continue to engage. now, i disagree with the way in which the current administration has chosen to engage, for while there are few global problems we can solve by ourselves, there are virtually no global problems that can be solved without us. in confronting the challenges of our time, there are more nations than ever capable of contributing, but there is still only one nation capable of leading.

and i disagree with voices in my own party who argue that we should not engage at all, who warn that we should heed the words of john quincy adams not to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. i disagree, because all around us, we see the human face of america's influence. it actually begins not with our government, but with our people. millions of people have been the catalyst of democratic change in their own countries, but they never would have been able to connect with each other if an american had not invented twitter. the atrocities of joseph kony would be largely unknown, but in fact, millions of people know about it because an american made a film and distributed it on another american innovation, youtube. and even in our military engagements, the lasting impact of our influence on the world is hard to ignore. millions of people have emerged from poverty around the world in

part because our navy protects the freedom of the seas, allowing the ever-increasing flow of goods between nations. and long after the last american soldier has left afghanistan, god willing, there will be a millions-strong and productive and independent afghan women, because today, they are the first girls in generations to attend school, thanks to the generosity of the american people. we do these things because we're a compassionate people, but we also do it because it's in our national interest. because perhaps more than any other nation on earth, we understand that a world that is freer, more just, more peaceful and more prosperous poses less of a threat. now, look, i know this is a time of great uncertainty, a time when many wonder if america is in decline. and, once again, as bob kagan points out in his book, however, there have been other times when we felt less than confident about the future.

we need to look no further than the decade of my birth for an example, in the 1970's, we experienced setbacks against communism in asia, the collapse of trust in government, the oil shock, stagflation, high interest rates, soviet expansion, the hostage crisis in iran, and disco music. [laughter] americans were worried that something had permanently changed for our country. we couldn't be certain our standard of living would improve generation after generation, and even less certain that we could maintain america's primacy in world affairs. then, as now, a serious school of thought emerged to confirm these worries, and it gained attention in our national debates. we had a nice run, but nothing lasts forever, the argument went. our problems are too numerous, our resources are too depleted, our economy too dependent on dying industries, our public institutions too inadaptable, and our rivals too

potent for us to keep pace with, much less stay ahead of. and now, they said, back then, the most important responsibility of public officials is to manage our decline intelligently and to mitigate its consequences at home and abroad. we know now, of course, that that's not how it turned out. by the end of next decade, few were speculating about what the world would be like without american leadership, because we were, once again, in a unique interpolar moment when american power and influence seemed virtually unchallenged. well, now we're worried again, and that's understandable. the pace of change in the world is so fast, and the challenges we face are so numerous and serious that many americans worry that we can't sustain our way of life at home, much less maintain the burden of leading the world. the financial crisis, the steep drop in the value of our homes, a deep recession and excruciating slow recovery, high unemployment, stagnant wages, record budget deficits and public debt, a lack of confidence in the ability of our government and political system

to solve problems, soaring energy prices, too-long wars, new and complex threats to international peace and stability, and the rapid rise of china as an economic competitor and a rival for global influence. there are plenty of reasons to worry. and yet, with all these problems, there's absolutely no reason why america cannot remain a global super power in this new century, as well. we have a huge head start in dealing with the challenges of transforming. we have the advantage of concentrating more of our energies, resources, productivity and innovation on figuring out the future. our continued power is possible, but it is not self-perpetuating, it will require us to do what every generation of americans before us has done, confront and solve the pressing domestic challenges of our time. it may not seem that way, if you follow the daily news coming in from around the world, but this

new century is a time of great promise. it is not the promise of a perfect world, not one without injustice, violence, conflict, hunger or disease, it is the promise of a better world, better than the one we have today, better than the one we have ever known, a world where democratically elected leaders govern as responsible democrats, and avoid armed conflicts with their neighbors, a world where oppressing women or selling children is not culturally acceptable anywhere, a world where aids is a disease of history, and starvation is no longer part of our future, a world of extraordinary innovation. the generations born since the spread of the worldwide web are the most skilled collaborators ever. and now that everyone, everywhere, can talk to anyone, anywhere, at any time, they can talk to each other and come up with new ideas that are still unimaginable to us today. above all else, the 21st century provides us the opportunity for more freedom, a world where more

people are free to grow their economies, free to pursue their dreams, free to become prosperous. i left my last page of the speech. does anybody have it? a world where more people are free. free to grow their economies. free to pursue their dreams. free to become more prosperous. this is the promise of this new century, but it will not happen if we are not engaged, it will not happen if we do not lead. why does it have to start with us, some say, why do we have to do it? we find our answer in the words of a non-american in an address to congress in 2003, british prime minister, tony blair, said, "i know it's hard on

america. and in some small corner of this vast country, out in nevada or idaho or these places i've never been to but always wanted to go, i know out there there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happy, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, 'why me, and why us, and why america?' "and the only answer is, because destiny put you in this place in history in this moment in this time, and the task is yours to do." and so it is, for this century is a time of tremendous challenge, but it is also a time of tremendous promise. this is, indeed, the world america made, and it is freer and more prosperous than it has ever been, and it can be even better. as americans, we cannot make that happen ourselves, but the world cannot make it happen without us. thank you very much.

[applause] >> thank you very much, senator rubio. this program is being webcast, i want to repeat that again, and if you want to reach us by twitter, the hashtag is b.l. rubio. now, we do not have a great deal of time, and i know that you're both in a rush to get back to the hill. but, senator rubio, i'd like to, you start by speaking of your long-time passion for foreign policy, and clearly, in your speech, you've demonstrated that, and you've made this point about the continued role of a strong america, and a leadership sponsored by america. how concerned are you, however, because this also comes through in your talk, about the rise of

a new isolationism, perhaps sponsored by a number of people in your own party? that's why i'm raising it. >> well, i'm not sure that this inward-looking tendency has been new, i think, as bob points out in his book, and i point out in my speech, and many of you have written, it's also been a tendency of america to not want to get engaged in the world if we don't have to. we don't really enjoy getting engaged around the world and telling people what to do. we've done so because history has called upon us to do that. so i think that, combined with some of the domestic issues that we're facing today, and the challenges that i outlined lead to the natural tendency of saying maybe it's time to look inwards once again. i think it's the responsibility of policymakers like ourselves to remind people that there is no such thing as just an american problem. that every aspect of our lives is directly impacted by things that are going on around the world, i think that's always been true, but that's increasingly true, given the global nature of our of economy today. and so i think that's why it critical for us to explain to

people that, in fact, everything they're going to do today, from the price of the food they're going to eat to the quality of air they're going to breathe is directly related to decisions being made overseas. >> ok. let me, then, be specific and ask you about afghanistan, which is a subject you barely touched on in the talk. but if you take a look at the latest polling data, it's clear that more and more americans are getting fed up with the continued american involvement in afghanistan. are you confident that the afghan armed forces will be able to pick up security for themselves in a time frame that is "acceptable" to the u.s.? >> well that partially will depend on us, and largely depend on them. but partially, it will depend upon the commitment that we make to ensuring that that comes about. so, for example, i think there's been tremendous progress in some of their elite forces, some of their special forces that conduct specialized operations, and there's great reason for optimism there. as far as the rank and file of their military forces, there's more concern.

and part of the concern -- or part of the instability about its future -- is because folks in the region are not quite clear what our long-term commitment is. in essence, if you're in the region and you think the americans and nato are going to be gone in a few years, you start hedging bets, you start figuring maybe this might not be smart for me to be too cooperative. because the people who are going to be running this, the taliban, in a few years in their mind, are going to make us pay the price. so part of it is this long-term agreement that, hopefully, the details will be announced soon, that you may be more aware of, hopefully will start to give some certainty about the role that the countries are going to play in that region. >> i think what i'm trying to get at is, in other words, you're saying that our remaining in afghanistan is more important than the desire of the american people to get out. >> well, i think the desire of the american people is a reflection of the fact that we've lost lives and treasure there, and you cannot put a dollar figure on that in terms of the number. people have seen loved ones lose their lives or be injured, and so clearly, people are reflecting that. there's a certain level of

natural fatigue at conflicts. i think it's critical, once again -- and i don't believe the timeframe in afghanistan is an indefinite one -- but again, i think it's critical for public policymakers to clearly explain, and persuasively explain, to the american people why our engagement there is so important. not only does it honor the sacrifice and the work that's already been done, but strategically, it's important on a number of fronts. in addition to having a functional afghanistan that no longer is the place where future attacks against the united states could be coordinated from, for example, our presence in a strong and stable afghanistan will provide us many more options to deal with increasing uncertainty in pakistan or in other nations in the region. >> and you think a strong, stable afghanistan is a good, strong, stable possibility? >> i don't think it's going to become canada, but i certainly think that it has the opportunity to create for itself a functional nation state. but again, a lot of that will be dependent upon our commitment to helping them get there. >> you spoke about the importance of american leadership, especially in the middle east.

let me ask you, and try to bring in senator lieberman as well -- you speak about the u.s. helping to create a safe haven, providing food and medicine, communication equipment, and then you add "potentially weapons." now the word potentially does not seem to me a clear definition of american leadership. so what do you mean, "potentially weapons"? >> well, since my speech -- >> and what kind? >> sure. i'll answer that first. first of all, we have to ensure that whoever it is, if ultimately we equip them or our allies equip them, we understand the nature of who they are, their ability to protect these weapons from falling into the wrong hands. they have to show us some increased structural capacity. in essence, you can't just give that over to a force that's largely disorganized, and can become -- you know, the weapons could fall into the wrong hands in a global marketplace. so i think we need to see some progress in terms of the development, and more organization around -- >> how long? >> well, it all depends. i mean, it all depends on how long it takes for them to organize, but it's a catch-22.

>> but where does american leadership come in? >> well, american leadership comes in helping them get organized. one of the criticisms that i hear is we don't know who the opposition is. they're not well-organized, or they're not well-coordinated. and i know you had a chance to visit, so you may want to comment. some of that is what we need to help them with. i mean, certainly they're disorganized and not well-organized, because two years ago, none of them were involved in this endeavor. this is something that sprung up from the grassroots. so i think you've got to help create that capacity before you ultimately make a decision like weapons. and let me just say, it doesn't have to be the united states. there are other nations in the region that i think would be willing to step into that void, and help along with this effort. and you may want to comment -- >> senator lieberman, i'd like to ask specifically -- you have spoken about support of the use of american airpower in syria. am i right? >> yeah, that's correct. >> ok, what about boots on the ground? do you go that far? >> no, no, i don't. there's no need for american boots on the ground, because there's very broad willingness among the syrian opposition to take the fight to assad.

i will tell you that -- and i admire marco for how explicit he's been about syria, and how we're called in to do something. this is a classic exhibit, an illustration of exactly what senator rubio was talking about, which is almost everybody in the region, except iran, believes that, one, assad's brutal slaughter of his own people has to stop, and two, if he falls, it will be a devastating body blow to iran, which almost everybody else in the region wants to see happen. but no one else in the region will assert any leadership unless we do. that's what they told john mccain and me when we were there. and i agree with what senator rubio said. at some point, we have to work to get the opposition better organized. they've come a long way in a year, having grown up in a

country where assad didn't allow any opposition to take shape. but at some point, we simply have to say, we're going to help them, we're going to give them weapons to defend themselves, and that will make them strong and more organized. >> wait a minute. we are going to get them -- the u.s.? >> we and the rest of our allies. there's a lot of willingness to be involved here, but no boots on the ground. and frankly, in our direct conversations with the political and military leaders of the syrian opposition, really, what they asked for -- effectively all they asked for was weapons. give us the weapons to defend ourselves. we're not going to give up, but we will not be able to bring down assad unless the rest of the world helps us. >> you've both talked about the link between syria and iran, and i want to take up a phrase from your speech, senator. you said, "if all else fails, preventing a nuclear iran may

require a military solution." do you have in mind the use of american military power to bring down that nuclear iran option? >> well, when we get into tactics of -- >> oh, this is beyond tactics. >> i'm always very cautious about talking -- i'm very respectful of the role the president has as commander in chief. my point is, my bigger point is, that ultimately, we would hope negotiations would work. i mean, we don't have a really good track record of negotiations with iran, but you would hope that would work. you would hope the sanctions would either discourage them from continuing, or empower some voices within that regime that are arguing that they shouldn't go this far. that's what we hope, and we should try everything we can to avoid that. but there is the reality. i think we have to come to the conclusion that an iran with nuclear weapons is an unimaginable thing. we cannot sound permissible, and that no option should be off the table because of that. i think the president's basically said as much in the comments that he's made. so certainly yes, look, i think we are the most powerful military force in the world, and it's difficult to imagine a

successful engagement that doesn't have significant u.s. engagement. but once again, i mean, while that should be discussed, we're hopeful that a negotiation will work. i'm not necessarily overly optimistic about it. my bigger concern is that a reliance on negotiations would lead us to somehow postpone sanctions or walk away from some of the other things we're working on. >> one final question, because i know you're both anxious to get back to work, as we say up on the hill. >> not really. [laughter] >> this is much more engaging than postal reports. >> i left that out of the speech. >> one country about which you've spoken very warmly is israel, and people talk about the possibility of israel taking direct military action against iran, perhaps even sometime this year. would you, as a great supporter of israel, back israel in that kind of operation? >> well, look, the leaders of israel have the same obligation as leaders of any country have, and that is to ultimately provide for the national security of their own people. so i'm not in a position to sit here and dictate to israel's

leaders what they should or should not do. let me just say this. i think that the clear, and more concise, and more persuadable the american position is on this issue, the less likely they may be to do something like that in the short term. but ultimately, i think we need to be very clear, as i've outlined in the speech, that while we would prefer for negotiations to work, and for the sanctions to convince them, it may require, tragically -- as i use the word, because we always want to avoid armed conflict as often as possible -- but the notion that iran would have a nuclear capability is so horrifying that no option should be off the table. and i think the clearer the united states is on that, the better off the region of the world is going to be. >> ok. we've got time, i'm told, for two questions. i see about 20 hands immediately. but let me start here with gary, and in the middle there, you. go ahead. >> senator, hi, and thank you for your remarks, by the way. i'm garrett mitchell, and i write "the mitchell report."

and two things struck me at the outset -- >> gary, please, on the short side. >> yeah -- that you cite bob kagan's book, and as you know, it's on obama's table also. and as i listen to the litany of things that you talked about, it seems to me that on the sort of fundamental issues, there's not a lot of space between your vision and the vision, for example, that president obama is talking about. so my question is, after having been here for a couple of years and looking at this, do you get the feeling that the distance between your vision, for example, and the president's vision is on the fundamentals, or is it at the margins? and is it a reflection of the notion that to govern is to choose. >> let me take the second question as well, then you can answer those. in the middle there, please. thank you. >> hi. chris malatorres at the center for global development.

you spoke about the western hemisphere, and your hopes and concerns. and i know you kind of omitted -- or you didn't talk about -- haiti and kind of u.s. involvement, and i was hoping you can -- and i know it's an issue that was kind of close to you, and you've been very vocal about. i hope you can maybe talk a little bit about your hopes for haiti and future u.s. engagement. >> thank you. go ahead. >> the second one i'll just take first, because i visited haiti in january, and so i'm hopeful that the situation there will continue to improve. obviously they have some structural issues in that country, particularly in governance issues. as you recall, their prime minister has now been forced to resign. the president's been ill. there's been all kinds of rumors floating around about what the future of his government may portend. we always hope that there will be establishment, that the democracy there will take even deeper roots and become functional. right now, that country has an -- i shouldn't say overabundance of n.g.o.'s, but certainly a deep n.g.o. presence in the country, and the government sometimes feels threatened by it.

so the most important issue in haiti, apart from the immediate aftermath of the earthquake, is the establishment of long term, sustainable prosperity, and how do you begin that? and for haiti, they're starting from scratch on virtually everything -- from their educational systems to the transportation systems. but there is some good news beginning to emerge. there's an industrial park that the clinton initiative has been involved in, where some american companies are looking to go to some of the underdeveloped parts of the country, and start to create industry, which hopefully will create jobs, which hopefully will start creating the fundamentals for an economy. the other fundamental challenge haiti has, however, is, you know, property rights, and who owns title to what land. i mean, it's hard to do business there. so i think we could hopefully provide some technical support in terms of creating a registry where people can register their property rights, and would safer in terms of investing in that country, and the feeling that it's going to be protected under rule of law. and then ultimately, it's education, which, it was striking to me, is it's such a strong societal value. you know, families in haiti, even the poorest families, you see their kids that get to go to school dressed in the most impeccable uniforms, because

it's a reflection of how they value education, and how important it is for them. i know it's cliché just to say that, but if we can empower the new generation of children in haiti to have a knowledge base where they can then be employable in skills and trade, et cetera, and we can combine that with the return of some of the diaspora that's been trained in the united states and in florida, maybe you can begin to see a little bit of reemergence there, and a little bit of progress that so far has been slow coming for a country that really hasn't had a golden age -- certainly hasn't in the last two or third decades. on the first question, about the differences in policy -- look, i always try to keep foreign policy nonpartisan as much as possible. i think it weakens our hand in the world. and maybe it's because i'm new here, but it's also been my perception that when you deal with foreign countries, and when you deal with foreign relations, the nation as a whole has a strong hand if our divisions aren't partisan -- or certainly, you know, irresponsibly stated. that being said, i think there

might be a fundamental difference of opinion, and i outlined that in the speech. it's not that we should be engaged, but rather, how we engage. and i think -- and maybe that's evolving, but i think the president's administration has somewhat often had an overreliance on institutions, global institutions, whether it's the security council, or the united nations, to take the lead on some of these initiatives. and i use libya as one example. we did engage in libya, and we engaged pretty significantly on the front, and probably for the first 17 hours, four days, and then we kind of backed off, and allowed our allies to go in and do much of the work. and ultimately, it turned out fine. my argument was not that it didn't work out at the end. my argument is that if the u.s. had been more engaged energetically, the job would have been done sooner. and what that would have meant is the following. you would have had less militias running around than you have right now, which would have been much easier to get a national, central government formed. right now, they're having a real challenge getting these militias to turn over their weapons. you would have less destruction to the infrastructure, because the conflict would be less protracted. you would have less injuries and death, which ultimately is counterproductive for this society. and we would have more influence

on the outcome, even though i must tell you, i visited libya probably about a month after the fall of gaddafi, or three weeks, and i was taken aback by the amount of pro-american graffiti on the walls, and the people that would come up to us in the street and say, "thank you, president obama. thank you, united states, for what you did for us." and clear recognition that the u.s. had been engaged and involved in the effort. and i applaud that. if we had done even more, i think we would have even more influence on the way it's going to turn out. so look, they still have a bunch of challenges. they were going to have a bunch of challenges no matter what the nature of our involvement was going to be, but if we had taken an even stronger involvement early on, the engagement would have been shorter, cheaper, and i think, ultimately, more effective. so that's an example of where i would disagree tactically on the direction the president's taken, and even now on syria, where i think the region is waiting for american leadership. the friends of syria are real. i think it's 80 countries now -- close to 80 countries. but again, you need the center of gravity to instigate this coalition and move it forward with a defined plan in mind.

and in the absence of american power, and american influence, and american leadership, it's hard to do that. and so i think that's the case i would make to the administration. >> senator rubio, i wish -- i really do -- i wish we had much more time to continue this discussion, and we're very, very pleased that you did this speech here at brookings, and so pleased that senator lieberman could be with us as well. >> i'm pleased you found my page. i couldn't have memorized the tony blair quote, so thank you. >> and thank you all so much for coming. if you would all be seated until the senators leave, that would be much appreciated. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]