monday's debate will be different. the topic is foreign policy. spoiler alert -- we got bin laden. [applause] world affairs are a challenge for every candidate. some of you guys remember after my foreign trip in 2008, i was attacked class as a celebrity -- as a celebrity because i was so popular with our allies. i am impressed with how well governor romney has avoided that problem. [applause] just so everyone knows, in our third debate, we will not spend a whole lot of time interrupting each other. we will also interrupt the moderator just to mix things up.

finally, let me say i have been doing some thinking. i have decided for our final debate, i have to go back to the strategy i used to compare -- prepare for the first debate. i am kidding. i want to make you sweat. [laughter] in all seriousness, i could not be more honored to be here this evening. i am honored to be with leaders in both the private and public sectors, particularly the extraordinary work done by the catholic church. [applause] it is written in scripture that tribulation produces perseverance, and perseverance character, and character, hope. this country has fought through

very tough years together. we have come as far as we have mainly because the perseverance and character of ordinary americans. it says something about who we are as people that at the middle of an election season, opposing candidates can share the same stage. people from all parties come together to support a worthy cause. i want to thank governor romney for joining me because i admire him very much as a family man and a loving father and those are two titles that will always matter more than any political ones. [applause] we may have different political perspectives. i am certain we share the hope that the next four will have the -- four years will have the

same decency and the same willingness to come together for a higher purpose that are on display this evening. may we all in the words of al smith do our full duty as citizens. god bless you, your family, and the united states of america. thank you very much. [applause] >> we come to the main event. [laughter] we turn to our host for closery remarks and benediction. ladies and gentlemen, the arch bishop of new york.

[applause] >> it does traditionally fall to the host of this evening to call it tonight. -- call it a night. thank you everybody for your gracious company this beautiful evening. what a unique honor to welcome and thank president obama and governor and mrs. romney. [applause] our two candidates claim both of your parties, the republicans and democrats, are tents, containing

extraordinary perverse, even contrary an opposite groups. you two do not have anything over the catholic church. we have both biden and ryan. [laughter] governor romney, thank you i was hoping the republican didate might be governor christie. i would have looked a lot better sitting next to him. mr. president, i trust you will be able to report to mrs. obama that i ate my vegetables and salads. if she had been first lady when i was growing up in the '50s, i would not be in the shape i am in. as many of you may know, i just returned from rome a couple hours ago, where i am bur dissipating in the senate of --

participating in the senate of distance. thanks to the jet, i will be able to return to rome after the conclusion of this evening's meal. [applause] by the way, just before i left this morning, " bennett to it -- pope benedict the 16 pulled me aside and asked me to deliver a message to both candidates. mr. president, governor romney, do you know what the holy father asked me to tell the two of you? neither do i.. he said it in latin. [laughter] when you think about it, only this dinner could bring together two men of the same colin who -- same calling who disagree on almost everything, both of whom think they are the world's experts on everything, who do not usually even like being in the same room together. roger and chris matthews.

it is amazing. [applause] the al smith dinner, in thanking all of you for your presence and support, might i suggest this annual dinner actually shows the united states of america and the catholic church at their best. think about it. here we are, in an atmosphere of civility and humor, posted fittingly by a church which claims joy is the infallible sign of god's presence, men and women, young and old of every ethnic and racial background, democrats, republicans, independents, catholics, protestants, jews, latter-day saints, people of no particular creed, people of wealth, but some folks here as well who barely get by, the guests from westchester and the bronx, staten island, grateful all of us to be people of faith and

will americans. loving a country which considers a religious liberty our first and most cherished freedom, convince faith is not just limited to an hour of sabbath worship, but affects everything we do and dream. [applause] privileged this evening to be in the company of two honorable men, will call to the noble the location of public servants -- called to the noble vocation -- whose love for god and country is to pass -- surpassed only by the love of their own wives and children can to are as happy as i hope they are to be here this evening, probably much rather be home to be with michelle and their families. that speaks volumes. all of us recall a man of deep catholic faith and patriotism

who had a tear in his irish eyes for what we would call the un's of the world, the unemployed, uninsured, unwanted, unwed mother, the fragile unborn baby in her womb, the undocumented, the unhoused, the unhealthy, the unfed, the under educated. government, al smith believed, should be on the side of these un's. [applause] but a government, he also believed, partnering with family, church, parish, neighborhood, organizations in the community, never intruded or opposing.

when all is said and done, it is in god we trust, not in god -- not in politics. al smith, the happy warrior, and a warrior on behalf of the un's so close to jesus, women of new york who will be declared saints. [applause] so tenderly close to a blessed mother, theresa, who reminded us all to remember the five- figure-- five-finger gospel. as often as you do it one of these, the five-figure gospel, the least of my brethren, you do it to me. god bless -- here is my closing benediction. simple, heartfelt.

god bless the memory of al smith, god bless the un's, god bless all of you, our two candidates, america, and thank god for this great evening. good night, and god bless. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, let's have a warm, rousing ovation for our speakers, our cardinal. [applause]

>> thank you, governor. >> good to see you. >> that was great. >> four good speeches. >> thank you. great. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, we focus on the presidential candidates foreign-policy with matthew lee and guy taylor with the washington times. a law professor will be in our studio to discuss his recent peace does -- discussing the relevance of the elect or college. alan simpson will join us by phone. and we will look at trends in wages and benefits. and a policy analyst with bloomberg government. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> i have to be honest with you, i love these debates. these things are great. i think it is interesting that

the president still does not have an agenda for a second term. don't you think it is time for him to put together a vision of what he would do in the next four years? he has got to come up with that over this weekend because there is only one debate left on monday. >> so let's recap what we learned last night. the tax plan does not add up. the jobs plan does not create jobs. his deficit reduction plan adds to the deficit. everybody here has heard of the new deal. you have heard of the fair deal. you have heard of the square deal. mitt romney's trying to sell you a sketchy deal. >> watch and engage monday as the president and mitt romney meet in their final debate, from boca raton, florida. the previous starts at 7:00

p.m., followed by the debate at 9:00 p.m. and you're reaction. live on c-span, c-span radio, and online at c-span.org. >> there is a movie theater i write about. i had gone to visit it. it has been there since 1947. and it showed films from all over the world from the united states, from england, from india. to me, it symbolized the resilience of the country and the openness of the country in spite of all violence and trouble people have suffered over the last decades in pakistan. and during one of the protests against a video that insulted the prophet muhammed, during one of those protests, people turned against the movie theaters and burned them. i do not really see that as a protest against the west. i do not see that as a protest

against the united states, even though "avataar" was one of the movies he could have gone to see at this the it. you had islamist activists who had not liked these movies way before this prophet mohammad film. and so they grabbed an opportunity to attack. and they whipped up a bunch of young people. there were teenagers involved that stole sodas from the snack bar. and i argue in that piece that what they were really attacking is the nature of their own country, which perhaps they did not understand. i tried to say that with respect. who am i to say what your country is about? but i do know from having studied history and listen to pakistanis themselves, that it is that the first place. it was born of a more diverse place than it is today. lots of different cultures, lots

of different traditions, lots of different ways to be. that movie theater symbolize pakistan. and that is what people burned when they set it on fire. ." >> more sunday at 8:00 on c- span's "q&a". >> bill clinton was at a rally for president obama in parma, ohio today. the event was held inside the field house on the western campus of cuyahoga community college. bruce springsteen was at the rally and we will show you part of that concert. >> are we going to send betty sutton back to congress? [applause] folks, we need her in congress. ohio needs her.

her district needs her. america needs her. we have to have a congress that will work to keep this country moving forward, and i hope you will make sure in this new district that you get enough votes out. it is all about turnout. if you do it, she will win, and we need her. [applause] i am glad to be back. i want to thank the mayor for welcoming me, and the congressman for what he is doing for all other democrats. my friend, mervyn jones, the son of stephanie tubbs jones, one of the best friends hillary and i have ever had. county executive, thank you. i have a native of cuyahoga county working for may. me. rita davis.

i want to say thank you to her because i want you to now i am keeping my ohio ties alive and well. i've done a lot of things in my life. i wrote a book called back to work, and i counted all the things i had done to make a living. i had 20-something jobs before i was elected president, but this is the first time in my life that i got to be a warm-up act for bruce springsteen. [applause] i am qualified, because i was "born in the usa," and unlike one of the candidates for president, i keep all of my money here. [applause] now, -- [applause] >> we love you, bill!

[applause] >> look, ohio is always a dogfight. i noticed a couple of things. the republicans were real clever in ohio. first they passed the voter suppression stuff, the voter i.d. and everything, and then you proved that it is not that hard for the citizens of ohio to put on the ballot a referendum to reverse with the legislature does if you do not like it, which you did do. [applause] as soon as they saw that coming, you have to give them credit. they've repealed that stuff, and they burrowed get of -- getting rid of early voting but they said if local commissions want to do it, they can do it

we democrats, we said sure, let everybody vote. then the republicans in this county said no, we want long voting lines because maybe some of the democrats will go home. this was not complicated, but they lost in court. thank god somebody believes that we should not do anything to restrict the americans' right to vote. look, this election is coming down to the end. after the last debate, it is pretty straightforward. president obama says the choice is whether you what my administration to have four more years -- when i came in we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, i had to stop the slide and depression, it continued for

a year, we put a floor under it, and we are building the base of prosperity. romney says we messed it up, he did not fix it, throw him out, put us back in. and when you ask any question, he says see me about that after the election you have to understand. i am a jobs guy. i am a jobs guy. i am a jobs guy. what about this, see me after the election? would you have signed the lily ledbetter equal pay law? no answer. he could not even say whether he would sign a law that is already on the books. why? >> he's a liar. >> no, what he wants to do is

convince the moderate voters that he is a new man without explicitly disemboweling a -- disavowing a single solitary commitment he made in the two years he said he was severe conservative mitt romney. now, he says i know people are upset, i know the economy is not back, and he discovered that middle-class incomes were flat and declining against inflation. anybody that has been paying attention has known that for more than 30 years. the only time middle-class incomes rose as much as the income of the top 20% is when i was president. i know about that. [applause] so, you have a decision to make. ohio has a decision to make. so, i just want to review the bidding here. in the last 51 years, 52 years,

the democrats have had the white house 24 years. the republicans, 28 years. the economy has produced 66 million private sector jobs, not government jobs. they have actually equal us in government jobs. private sector jobs, the score is democrats 42, republicans 24. that is a 52-year score. now, let's look at what happened when president obama came into office. the country was reeling and everybody needed work. he said let's put america back to work. the senate republican leader said no, my number one priority is putting you out of work, mr. president, and you have to give it to them, they worked hard at

that. they worked so hard to keep the unemployment rate above 8%. they were crushed when it dropped to 7.8%. did you see that? all of the sudden, they had talked about the unemployment rate for 3.5 years as if it were scripture. it was right up there with the tablets that moses brought down from mt. sinai. [laughter] then it dropped below 8%, and they say the whole thing is rate. -- was rigged. you can understand that. we have all worked hard for something and just almost gotten there, and it broke our hearts. they came so close. they almost kept unemployment above 8% all the way to the election, but they failed, and i want you to know that the drop from 9.0% to 7.8% does not sound like much, but it is the

biggest one-share drop in unemployment in 17 years. so, you just have to decide. [applause] governor romney's argument is fire him and put me in because we are not fixed. it is true. we are not fixed. when president obama looked into the eyes of the man who said i had so much hope four years ago and i do not now, i thought he was going to cry, because he knows it is not fixed, but the question is which path will fix? what the american people have to decide is whether they believe people like me, who are a little bit on the outside of this, that this was the biggest economic crash since the great

depression, continue for a full year after the president took the oath of office. we were going downhill. he had to stop that, put a floor under it, and then the long road back. if you do not blame president bush for the crash -- let's just say it just happened. [laughter] no, really. if you do not hold the job loss and 10th, then you cannot do what mitt romney is doing, and hold it against president obama. september out from 15, 2008, through feb., 2010, when we were just really, and the president was trying to stop a depression. what happened? in the last 32 months, our economy has produced 5.3 million private-sector jobs.

that is twice as many that were produced in the seven years after the dotcom bubble burst and the crash happened under the bush administration. [applause] now, if we are plainly moving back, why in the wide world would you dump a strategy that is working for one day you already know will not work? i know the average voter in ohio has all he/she could shake -- could take -- say grace over tried to pay the bills, but there was an article by "the financial times of london," hardly an arm of the democratic party, right? if you look all over the world, america is outperforming all the other industrial economies, when little bright light that says we can get out of this. [applause]

so, i do not want you to tell any undecided voters that we think things are hunky dory. we do not. i want you to tell undecided voters that it is a long, slow climb, but we are climbing, not going in the other direction. i will give you one other example. since we started growing, the economy has added half of 1 million manufacturing jobs, growing manufacturing jobs for the first time since the 1990's. when i was president, we increase manufacturing, and for eight years we lost every single year. now we are growing again. there is no more clear example of this than what happened in the automobile restructuring. i do not like it when it is called a bailout. it is not fair. it was not. no banks would finance this, so

the government came out and helped with loans and an investment in the stock of general motors and chrysler, but labor and management give up concessions and said we will work together and make this productive again. now, what happened? the first thing is all of the other car companies, all of these foreign manufacturers, the japanese and german car companies with plants in america supported this. why? they know what general motors and chrysler went down, the auto parts supplier would go down, and they would be left in the soup. as a matter of fact, the only person that knew anything about it that did not support it was governor romney, who said we ought to let them file for bankruptcy, break the union, those hundreds of thousands of jobs, shrink the auto industry, and see what happens. barack obama said no, it is important for america to

manufacture jobs -- cars. he said it is important for america to keep its auto parts supply chain. he said it is important to remember that one-in-aid jobs in -- one in eight jobs in the state of ohio are tied to automobiles, and he saved those jobs, 1 million of them. now, there are two and 50,000 -- 250,000 more people working in the automobile industry than there were the day the automobile plan was signed. i will tell you something. i love ohio. it is an old school place. [applause] we like our families, we like our communities, value personal loyalty -- when you were down, you were out, and you're economy was threatened, the president had your back. you have to have his back now. [applause]

this is not complicated for me. if somebody saved my economy, i would be for it. i would not let these secret super pacs and people who want to have their special privileges and let the federal government influence be either. this is not complicated. we are not where we want to be. middle-class incomes are not yet rising, but we are gaining jobs, and the last thing we should do is return to a strategy that got us in trouble in the first place, cut taxes on higher-income people and deregulate the economy. if you look at financial regulation, we have the best capitalized banks we have had in 20 years. they are beginning to loan again. are there problems? yes, but they will not drive the economy off of the tracks again because of the bill the president signed that governor

romney wants to get rid of. now, let's talk about one or two issues that are also important. we have to build a modern economy. we have to create jobs that will be available in the 21st century. you do not have to walk away from the old energy economy in ohio. you do not have to say you do not care about the coal miners to embraced effected you now have more than 24,000 people working in a clean energy economy, and you want those jobs, too. if you want that to be part of your future, and obama says all of the above. he put a fortune of our money in to try to develop clean coal technology, but he wants to make wind and solar competitive, wereh esident romney, wher he elected, would repeal all of that. now, let me give you an example. most americans admire what

germany has done. they are frugal, have the highest percentage of their work force in manufacturing, the best job training programs in the world -- day, on a bright, sunny day last spring, generated 66 megawatts of electricity from the sun in a country where the sun shines on average as much as it does in london. that is the equivalent of 20 nuclear power plants. deutsche bank, and not bring peace, not the sierra club, -- not greenpeace, not the sierra club, deutsche bank, said they got one quarter of 1 million jobs out of that. our capacity is twice there's, our population is three times theirs. if we did what they had done, we would have 3 million jobs in this area. we cannot afford to walk away

from a modern economy. obama says forge ahead, romney says get rid of it and walk away. in iowa, republican farmers like the fact we help people build windmills. it supplements their farm income. i imagine there are some in ohio, too. on a windy day in texas, 25% of the electricity now comes from wind the bush energy department, not the obama energy department, says there is enough wind blowing from canada to electrify fight america many times over if we build a modern electrical grid. obama says press ahead. romney says walk away. you have to decide whether you think we can go -- you cannot go back to the economy we had when i was present. -- when i was president. we have to build a new economy based on the opportunities that are available for tomorrow. [applause]

now, that brings me -- let's do this a little closer to home. i talked about a book a lot called "the new american prosperity," where a really good writer went around america and found things that were working right. he ask himself, why is san diego the human genome capital of america, no longer just the best navy town? why does orlando have 100 computer simulation companies? why does pittsburgh had a legitimate chance to become the nanotechnology center of america, and why is the skyhook ahoga community college partnership with the cleveland clinic -- cuyahoga community college partnership with the cleveland clinic have the possibility to solve the problem of what you do with people whose

jobs are gone, and the answer you work on his train people to do the jobs in health care that are going to be there because of the aging of baby boomers, because of the changing of health-care delivery. train people. [applause] that is really important. so, what does the president say? double down on the stuff it is working. invest in education and training. there are already 3.4 million jobs posted in america that are not filled because there posted in areas where people are not normally trained to do what is now open. we need to build community college that works in america, and barack obama will do it -- networks in america and barack obama will do it, and his opponent will not. he will cut spending. [applause] look at this. one of the most formidable problems the president faces

for the long term, not the short term, is in the last 10 years we dropped from second to 16th in the world in the percentage of young adults with college degrees, and we all know why, because college is going up at twice the rate of inflation, and people thought they could not bear the debt load. when the economy crashed, lots of people dropped out, even though in romans are back up now, because they could not bear the -- enrollments are back up now, because they could not bear the debt load. the most important thing president obama and the congress have done in the last four years that nearly nobody knows about -- i want you to listen to this -- reform the student loan law. [applause] here is what they did. they said look, we have this old model of doing student loans where we can pay banks and 90% guaranteed to loan money at market interest rates, and they get 90% of the money of the student default.

it is a pretty not -- crazy model. the kids cannot repay them and they drop out. we set aside a loan reserve, the school tell us who is eligible, we will loan the money direct, as interest rates will be lower, and now every single student has the option to pay the loan back as a low fixed percentage of their income for up to 20 years. [applause] now, think about what this means. this means nobody will ever have to drop out again because of the debt problem. nobody. and, it means if you get out of school and you want to go to a rural ohio and be a teacher or a firefighter, or a law- enforcement officer, where you get out of medical school with a debt of two hundred thousand dollars, the average, and you want to be a family practitioner in a small town in rural ohio or inner-city cleveland, you can do that

because your repayment obligation is determined by your salary, not the other way around. [applause] believe it or not, i cannot believe people do not know this. believe it or not, this is $60 billion cheaper over 10 years than the old system, so, what did they do with the $60 billion? they used it to guarantee increasing pell grants to keep up with inflation and nature tuition tax credits will be there for middle-class families. so, president obama's position is get it fully implemented by the end of 2014. now, 2013. they move it up year. when is governor romney's position? repeal the law, give the money back to the banks, mixed in loans more expensive, increased the dropout rate because it will be harder to repay and

more costly, and give the subsidies back to the bank. it is a clear choice. if i were a student in any college or university in america, on that alone i would say i have to reelect barack obama, president of the united states. [applause] let's talk about the health care deal. in health care, president obama took the recommendations of experts and the aarp, which is not in the habit of sticking it to seniors, otherwise they would not have many members, not to cut medicare, but to reduce the increased rate of payments over the next 10 years because they say we are doing a better job of controlling inflation. what happened? we added eight years to life of the medicare trust fund, without using a voucher for the program, the way governor romney

and congressman ryan want to do, and privatizing it. it closed the doughnut hole in the senior drug program, and it left enough money over from the savings to make affordable insurance available to more than 30 million people, most of whom have pre-existing medical conditions. [applause] now, this. what is governor romney's position? repeal that, give money back to the insurance companies, even though they do not need it, even though they had a guaranteed profit of 12%-to-14% on the program, bring the life of the medicare trust fund down from 2014 to 2016, so it runs out of money in four years and it could use the voucher earlier. it is a big difference. obama made medicare stronger,

not weaker. did not believe all of that hype. and, what else happened? republicans say you have to spend 85% of insurance premiums on health care. what has happened? we have $1.3 billion in refunds to americans and lower health insurance rates. health insurance companies around the country have lowered their rates because of this. i have some numbers about the ohio numbers. in ohio, 143,000 people have gotten refunds on their health- care premiums because of the health care law the other side derides. -- the other side derides. 143,000. you have 3 million americans under the age of 26 that are on insurance for the first time because they can be and their parents health insurance plan

and it could put people through community college. they said it will bankrupt america, the congressional budget office says it will save $110 billion over the next 10 years. it is cheaper than the status quo, and we have had the smallest increase in health- care premiums in the last two years in 51 years. [applause] now, the last thing i could tell you is i had a lot of fun at the democratic convention talking about arithmetic. i listened very carefully to the vice presidential debate, and to the second presidential debate. mr. romney says i am going to do all of this, cut taxes for the middle class, not interested in rich people, they will pay the same percentage of tax they pay now. what does that mean?

he thinks we are dumb. [laughter] if you cut everybody else's taxes and people in the high come -- high income bracket pays the same, it means we pay the same, too. right? in the debate, without saying so, he got caught with a fact. he hates to get caught admitting anything. so, we keep saying show us your budget. where are your numbers? the president has given you a budget and said you will not like all of it. it adds $2.50 of spending cuts for every dollar of revenue, but we have to do something of the about revenue. -- something about the debt. here are my numbers. where are your numbers? this guy ran bain capital and is a business guy, and he is hiding his budget? that ought to tell you something.

well, he is hiding his taxes, too, but he is hiding his taxes in the years when he turned -- earned ordinary income. he is given the two years when he was just running for president. and, he is hiding whether he would have signed the lily ledbetter act. he does not want you to think about him. he wanted to think the economy is terrible, i am a jobs guy. as president obama said, if i brought you a deal, fun my new -- fund my new business, i will give you the budget in the future, you would not give me one red cent, and we should not give him one vote on that. [applause] and mr. paul ryan, you have to give him credit. he tries to come up with the numbers. he said in the debate, well, we do, we repeal deductions on the corporate side of $1 trillion.

you could easily do that and cut rates $1 trillion and make us more competitive. then he says we have another $1 trillion identified on the personal side. they will not say what they are, but let's just give them that. the last time i checked, five- two leaves 3. so, they have admitted that they will increase the debt by two dollars trillion, then by two -- by $3 trillion and more by forcing it on the defense department that they have not asked for. how will they get the money? they will either raise taxes on the middle class, and if they do not do that, they will but the budget. in the rise in budget, for example, they cut the medicaid program by about 25%. -- in the ryan budget. that is not a political loser. it is just about four kids. i am sick and tired of poor people not being able to work

their way into the middle class. most poor people are already working. they're just not making anything. secondly, medicaid is not just for poor people. it is for seniors on medicare who have lost so much money that medicaid pays for their nursing homes. they will cut it by 25%. and, medicaid is for middle and upper-middle class families whose children have autistic conditions, where multiple sclerosis, or muscular dystrophy, or developmental disabilities, and they would have to go broken have to quit their jobs if nobody helps them to take care of their kids. [applause] now, that is what is going on. so, the obama policy and the obama budget, not only better economics, it honors our values and enables us to go forward together, share prosperity and a middle class economy where poor people have a decent chance

to move their way into it. it is just better economics than trickle-down and winner- take-all. it is not only better and morality, it is better economics. i have worked all over the world. everywhere i go, places that are doing well, they have an effective private sector and a good government working together to share prosperity. if that is the only strategy that will work. that is why we have to reelect barack obama. that is why we have to build a 21st century economy. that is why you have to say no to all this hide and seek stuff. [applause] you'll never have to play hide and seek with the president's budget or tax returns, or the college loan program. you do not have to play hide and seek with the health-care bill. we are coming back. do not go back. we are coming back. thank you, and god bless you

all. [applause] ♪ ♪ i knew much more than than i do now ♪

♪

♪ ♪ oh, you look so beautiful

tonight in the city of blinding lights ♪ [applause] okay. it is my honor. i hope the crowd is warmed up. i am. [applause] to bring on one of the most

important forces in american music in the last 50 years. one of the coolest dudes i have ever met, and a guy who reflects our real american values, the incomparable bruce springsteen. let's hear it for him. [applause] >> hello. [applause] >> i get to speak after president clinton. that is like going on after elvis here. that is all.

i was frantically calling the e street band, saying quick, i need back up. human speech has been monopolized. if he had brought the saxophone -- [applause] if he had only brought that saxophone. you would see a real jam up here. [applause] i had better start off by singing something anyway. ♪

we busted out of class had to get away from those schools we learned more from a three- minute record than we ever learned in school tonight i hear the neighborhood drummer sound you say you are tired and you want to close your eyes funnel your dreams down we made a promise swore we would always remember, no retreat no surrender like soldiers, no retreat no surrender we swore blood brothers against the wind

hear your sister's voice across the open yard maybe we could from some place of honor all we made a promise swore we would never surrender, no retreat no surrender ♪ now, on the streets tonight, the lights grow dim but i want to sleep beneath peaceful skies

in my lover's bed with a wide open country in my eyes. myse romanittic dreams in head we made a promise rememberd always no retreat, no surrender. like brothers on a stormy night... no retreat baby, no surrender ♪

[applause] president.or the thank you. all right. >> because of restrictions opposed by the obama campaign, we are about to show you three minutes -- we were not allowed to show three minutes of bruce springsteen's performance at this event. see the presidential debate monday night live on c-span, c- span radio, and online at c- span.org. watch and engage. coming up next on c-span, three senate debates. first, tonight's debate in wisconsin between tommy thompson and tammy baldwin. in hawaii, a debate between the senate candidates. followed by the debate in new

jersey senate race with the incumbent and his republican challenger. >> it starts as an economic argument. when men are adapting more easily. i cannot -- just to stay with this period of history. and it is education and credentials. women seem to be getting those skills and credentials at a much faster rate than men are and they seem to be more nimble. in the book i talk about how that changes marriage and our notions of fatherhood and what men can and can do in families and how young people make -- a young people have sex and make decisions. tucker carlson joins hanna rosin to discuss "the end of men" on "after words."

>> tommy thompson faced tammy baldwin tonight. this debate is hosted by wisconsin public tv. the political report rates the race as a top -- a tossup. >> let's welcome, thompson and tammy baldwin. [applause] >> several times over the next hour the candidates will speak with each other on the issues. these will be one on one

conversations. charles and i will not participate in either way. >> instead it is a chance for them to challenge their opponent for more details on their position and have a healthy exchange of ideas. >> you can join in by going to wisconsinvote.org. our first topic, and jobs and the economy. >> i know a lot of people that did lose their jobs for outsourcing and other reasons. so i think jobs is the biggest key right now for a wisconsin. >> i am concerned that once i graduate, am i going to be able to find my career? >> it is my age that is pulling me down. nobody calls you back.

>> with that backdrop, we ask our first question. economics 101 is about supply and demand. it's demand that promotes hiring. what is the best way to an increased demand for products and services and to stimulate the economy? you have 90 seconds. >> first, thank you very much for having us here tonight. thank the audience for coming. thank you. when i was governor, i was faced with a similar situation. i worked with democrats to cut taxes 91 times. we created a state that was very open for business. we were able to create 742,000. working together, we were able to establish a state that was on fire. in regards to economic growth and development, job creation, unemployment below 2%, everybody that wanted a job

could have one. that is my record. i am a reformer. my opponent on the other side -- a paper company. there was a rule put in by the epa that would cost the paper company 7500 jobs. some of those jobs here. my opponent, voted with the epa and those jobs could be lost next year because of the epa rules and regulations. the paper industry is a very crucial to this area, the state of wisconsin, and i want to tell the people of this state, just like i have always fought for wisconsin, create jobs and opportunity, i will continue to do so. i will not give epa the

opportunity to close down paper companies in wisconsin like my upon it does. >> congresswoman, your turn. >> i want to thank you for sponsoring this debate and the audience as well as the television audience for participating. if you ask about demand and the impact on jobs. right now, the middle class in this state is struggling. the census bureau figures say that median income has gone down 14.5% of the last decade. we are not talking about the recent recession, we are talking about the decade. and i think we need a plan moving forward for jobs, deficit reduction, taxes, etc. that keeps the middle class and the strength and the growth of the middle class at heart. when people have extra money in their pockets, they will spend it in small businesses across this state. growth is one of the key, having people with discretionary income is key to growth. i agree we are in the heart of the paper producing region of wisconsin. that is why i introduced bipartisan legislation earlier

this year, got wrapped into a larger bill, signed into law by the president that levels the playing field and stops china's cheating. that is the real threat to our paper industry. senator kohl and i met with lisa jackson and urged for more time. i hear from my opponent about his time in the 1980's and the governor's mansion, but for the last seven years he has been a partner at one of the most part -- powerful lobbying firms and washington. >> i think we can continue this conversation in our next segment. as we start -- said at the start, during parts of the debate, the candidates press each other on these issues. meanwhile, we step out of the way.

>> we will sit on our hands. the idea is to get the candidates to be more interactive. these on moderated segments run six minutes. we are not kidding -- charles and i are not involved. we turn them loose on this question on how to grow the economy and jobs. there is no direction on who speaks first or less. we will not run interference. the floor is yours. >> wisconsin is a state that makes things -- ships, paper, tools engines. and manufacturing has taken a hit in recent years. it is why i championed bipartisan legislation are referred to earlier, to level the playing field, to crack down on china's cheating, whereby they subsidize the paper industry to the tune of billions of dollars. but that is not enough. we have seen too many of our jobs out sourced. we have to get rid of the perverse incentives in our tax code that leads folks to bring jobs overseas.

my opponent not only refuses to repeal those but has a huge addition to that in his proposal that i have heard him talking about throughout this campaign. lastly, we in manufacturing need to promote buy america policies. when we are securing our homeland security, and securing our defense, we ought to be using u.s. tax dollars for u.s. jobs. it is something i have been pushing but we have more to do. that is just the manufacturing economy. we also need to protect the very investments that we need to grow. that is education, innovation, that's infrastructure. and unfortunately, the paul ryan plan that tommy thompson has

campaigned on throughout this campaign is one that would give an of enormous tax break to the very wealthy, pay for it by increasing middle class taxes, and cut the their investments we are talking about in order to grow our economy -- investments like education, infrastructure, and research and innovation. >> thank you. i cut taxes 91 times when i was governor. she has voted for 155 tax increases. i cut regulations. she went to bat for epa is the paper industry. the paper industry is going to lose 7500 jobs because my opponent did not have the courage to stand up against epa. i can assure you that will not happen. birthrate, we have a chance to build a pipeline -- number 3, we have a chance to build a pipeline from canada. 20,000 jobs could be created. the pipeline from -- my opponent is against the pipeline.

i do not know why. possibly hundreds of thousands of jobs. we can drill oil and bring it down and become energy independent. my opponent is opposed to that. my opponent is on the extreme side of the democratic party. she talks about one bipartisan bill, but the truth of the matter is, she voted 98% of the time with her political party. she did not cherry pick. this is the only example. she did not do anything for 14 years. her 14 years in congress has been about passing three bills. one bill changing the post office in madison's name. that's nice but it does not create any jobs.

the truth of the matter is -- i cut taxes. i cut regulation. she increases regulation. i create jobs. she drives jobs out of the state. >> i want to reflect what again that tommy thompson talks a lot about his time in the 1980's and 1990's when he was governor of the state. but the fact remains that for the last seven years he has been a partner at a powerhouse lobbying firm in washington d.c., representing interest that have tried to write their own rules. i know we will be talking shortly about issues like the deficit and taxes, where this comes into play, but outsourcing is one of the key concerns in growing jobs in our economy. and his firm has represented companies from china as well as

out sourcers. he refuses to bear down on the perverse tax incentives that lead, incentivize people to bring jobs overseas. i want to once again press down on this. he said a number of things that are untrue. with regard to the epa and the regulation that he keeps referring to, senator kohl and i conducted a meeting with the administrator of epa on behalf of our paper industry just a couple of months ago because this rule was being announced and we were concerned it was not going to be fair to wisconsin paper manufacturers and we are pressing for changes just so we can protect our air and water, which paper workers, by the way, cherish as much as you and i do --

>> you can talk all night and you can talk untruth. the resolution was in front of congress. it was in congress to postpone the epa to keep the jobs in wisconsin. you voted against it. you talk about taxes. i was in wisconsin creating jobs. i was an individual to help create jobs. >> we are going to move on. we appreciate that. we are moving to another issue that separates a voter and candidates alike. as we traveled the state, we discovered that the future of health care and medicare was at the forefront of their minds. >> healthcare is the most important issue for me. i work in health care. everyone should have access to health care regardless of income. >> care seems to matter to us the most, my husband and myself

because he has health problems. >> i hear of so many people that are falling through the cracks, especially the elderly who cannot afford their medicine. >> medicare-medicaid need to be addressed. you have a baby boom coming. you will have enormous health care costs and needs. >> this is a question is specific to each candidate. we have heard the campaign commercials that feature both of you making statements about health care. governor thompson, you are quoted as saying, "who better than me to come up with programs to do away with medicare and medicaid?" congresswoman baldwin, you said, "i was for government takeover of medicine." what did you mean by that? >> i have received more letters on the issue of health care than any other from people who were battling insurance companies abuses, being cut off after one chemotherapy treatment, cutting the second one on the credit card, the third on a home-equity loan and many going bankrupt.

i heard from parents unable to get children with pre-existing health conditions any coverage at all. and these abuses and practices and needed to be reined in. frankly, they were with the affordable care act to a great extent. so specifically, there is a role for the federal government. i find that your clip your show before asking the question talked about both health care in general and medicare specifically. medicare is a program run by the government. i was raised by my grandparents. i got to see at an early age the difference that medicare and social security, but particularly medicare, made in our families economic security. it is one that -- it is a program that is not just a program but a promise and one

that i've got to keep. we need to strengthen and extend the solvency of medicare, not voucherize or do away with as tommy thompson said. >> what did you mean when you were asked, who better to do away with medicaid and medicare? >> what i meant is very simple. i was able to reform welfare. became a model for the country. my opponent voted against it. who better than somebody like me to be able to preserve, protect, and improve medicare? my opponent has been in congress for 14 years, has not lifted a finger, put in a proposal to save medicare. medicare is going broke by 2024, bankrupt. i want to save it.

i want to make sure the seniors in america and wisconsin especially are protected. able to have medicare. and i also want young people to be able to have medicare when they reach 65. if you do nothing, it goes bankrupt in the year 2024. that is the answer my opponent has. i want to be able to come up with a system that protects medicare for all seniors, and all those over the age of 50 in the year 2020 are going to have the current medicare. but those 50 and under in the year 2020 are going to have a choice, not a voucher. that was yesterday's news with somebody else, not me. my program would allow you to have an opportunity to choose medicare if you want to or the federal employee health benefit program, the same insurance that the congressmen and senators and the president of the united states have. >> again, we get to go into a 6 minute unmoderated in our next segment.

again, we will not be taking part in this. >> since she started last time and took up 4/5 of the time, i think i will answer. >> go ahead. >> she talks about national health care. she expects you and america to allow the federal government to direct your hospital, your doctor, your pharmacy. she does not believe that obama-care went far enough. she has said that many times. she was the federal government, ladies and gentlemen, to run your health care program. now, i don't think anybody in america would like to see us take the same kind of program that canada has and run it. i'm opposed to that because it would be trillions of dollars. and i know that does not bother her because while she has been in congress, the debt has gone from $6 trillion to $16 trillion.

i believe sincerely, ladies and gentleman, a health care system where you, the individual, have the opportunity to pick your doctor, your hospital, to be able to determine exactly what you want in your health insurance, to be able to put that out for a bid and allow insurance companies to bid on it. to put individuals in a position where they can take care of themselves. 93% of the cost of health care goes to get you well after you get sick. only 7% is used to keep you well in the first place. that is a mistake. let's change it and keep people healthier. when i was governor, i started the best health care program in the country. to this day, i started seniorcare, which is the best elderly program for seniors and america. democrats supported me. my point was opposed to it.

>> that is not true. it is about time for me to jump in on this. i like mcallum a started that. we start with the record on medicare. when tommy thompson left wisconsin in 2001 to join the bush to ministration, he ran medicare. you could say he ran it into the ground. when he came, medicare -- when he came to the administration, medicare was approaching bankruptcy in the year 2029. when he left, it was 2020, nine years closer to bankruptcy. that is his record as secretary under george w. bush. let's talk a little bit about that. i believe strongly that seniors need access to affordable prescription drugs.

part of the affordability is making sure that medicare can someday negotiate with those drug companies for better prices. the v.a. gets discounts of 40% to 60% over what our seniors get. they should for our veterans, but we should be doing that for our seniors. under his watch, it was made illegal for the federal government, for medicare to negotiate with the drug companies for lower prices for our seniors. the bill was not paid for. if you look from today, 10 years forward, it is going to add $1 trillion to our national debts. i believe you pay for things. i support the policy of having seniors have access to affordable drugs, but you have to pay for it. that is one of the reasons why we are in the mess we are in. all on larger issues of health care, i supported the affordable

care act. >> you can keep talking but why don't you tell the truth? >> i am telling the truth. >> the truth is that medicare under part d, which you voted against, at 90% of seniors support. you also have to realize that the bill you are talking about is introduced by bill clinton, who is a democrat. it was put in by tom daschle. mr. gebhart put it in. you had your time. let me speak. only then, it was passed in part d on a bipartisan basis. i am not in congress. you are. you voted against part d. >> you are the mess -- mastermind of medicaid part b but you have nothing to do with that? >> it was tommy thompson that passed part b that allow you to do that. it was tammy baldwin who voted against it. >> the sale and point here, --

the salient point, as secretary under bush medicare moved in nine years closer to bankruptcy. it was an important program but it was not paid for. it costs us $700 billion and $800 billion over 10 years. we did not change one guaranteed benefit in medicare. we strengthen them. >> used all $716 billion out of medicare -- you stole $716 billion out of medicare. >> the aarp says your allegation is simply not true. >> you took it for obama-care. who else he would like to see more money taken out of medicare to fund obama-care? i do not know if anybody does.

>> you are going to have 30 seconds for follow up and respond. you talked about the sweetheart deal with medicare part d. under the affordable health care act there was talk among democrats, let's get rid of this. we do not like it. had an opportunity when the democrats controlled the house and senate to say, let's get rid of it. why did that not happen? >> i would -- i regret it did not happen. i have introduced legislation to get rid of the sweetheart deal. i started working on this issue when i first came to congress to try to, even before there was a medicare part d, i joined in legislation to allow medicare to bargain with the to companies.

this is something i will not relent on. on the affordable care act, we move forward, make it work for the american people and fix what is broken. that is one of the things i pledge to work to fix. >> you call yourself the architect of medicare part d. so why didn't you push for the government to negotiate with drug companies? >> it was not my responsibility. we put in the proposal without that in there, then senator bachus and bill thomas put that language in. it was first introduced by the democrats in the 1999 congressional session. they passed it. i don't vote in congress. i am a secretary. i administer the programs that congress passes. i do not vote on it, i do not write it or introduce it. >> thank you. before we return to more to win it, i want to remind you that you can join in online by going to wisconsinvote.org. now, another question for the candidates, this time in the issue of taxes and spending. in national debates have brought the middle class front and center.

each of you take a position on how to tax individuals and treat corporate tax and its loopholes. the question is -- how specifically does your platform protect the middle class? >> first off, i cut taxes 91 times. my opponent voted for 155 tax increases. during the discussion on affordable care, there are 21 tax increases in the affordable care act. most of those individuals are going to hit the middle class. there is a proposal in there that you are going to get taxed on your health insurance proposal. 87% of the responsibility for $47 billion is going to rest strictly on the middle class, the lower income class. i do not think that is right. my opponent ordered for every single one of those 21 taxes, taxing the middle class of

america. take a look at my schedule. what i was governor, i cut income taxes three times. i cut property taxes by over $1 billion, not once but twice. my opponent was in the assembly at that time. most of the democrats voted with me, congresswoman balwin voted against it. property tax is a huge tax on middle class. she voted against it. my -- every chance my opponent gets to vote for a tax increase, she will vote for it. 155 tax increases, 21 in obama- care. most of those impact adversely on the middle class. >> congresswoman baldwin. >> on the issue of taxes, there is no stronger contrast between myself and my opponent. i introduced the warren buffett rule to address the fact that people making over $1 million a

year were too often paying at a lower tax rates, like our nominee on the republican ticket, romney, paying a lower rate than hard-working families like nurses and construction workers. tommy thompson has embraced and campaigned for many months on the ryan plan, which according to the tax policy center, increases the tax cuts for our very wealthiest by $265,000 on average for millionaires like himself. middle-class taxes. recently. >> that is a falsehood. >> is is not the exchange time. i support a middle-class and small business tax cuts, but the program i told you about my opponent supports, the ryan plan, raises taxes on middle- class families who buy roughly

$1,300. lastly, i talked already about the perverse incentives in our tax code that prompt companies to bring jobs overseas. i want to bring those to an end. my opponent wants to double down. >> we now move into the 6 minute unmoderated section. >> feel free to talk to each other. >> you are absolutely wrong. i have a tax bill that is different than paul ryan's. the truth of the matter is, my bill does not reduce taxes on the wealthy at all. my bill allows for individuals to make a choice whether or not you want a flat tax. you put down your gross income. you can do it in half time between the green bay packers and chicago bears. put in the percentage. you cannot scam the system, but

you have enough time left over to go get a glass of beer out of the refrigerator. or you want to do of the deductions? fine. you have a choice. no changes whatsoever. you make a determination. she keeps throwing out that i'm for the millionaires. i have no tax whatsoever to lower that. she's making the stuff of whole cloth. >> let me b specifice, at the republican state convention, you said, i am going to be the 51st senator to pass the ryan budget. the days before your primary, you ran an ad on the radio saying i will be the 51st senate vote to pass the ryan vote. cannot say, i have nothing to do tothe ryan budget which gives tax breaks to millionaires like yourself an average of $265,000 and to pay for it, raises middle-class taxes.

this is the joint economic committee and the tax policy center. let's move on. >> let's not. you take up the time. the truth of the matter is, i have had my tax plan up on my web page since i started. it was not the ryan plan. it is the tommy thompson. you might even like it. no, you wouldn't, because it does not raise taxes. you only want to raise taxes. by lower taxes. i do not raise them. in regards to the warren buffett rule. the buffett rule would raise enough money to run the government for 11 hours. it would cost 75,000 jobs. -- 750,000 jobs. i would say that is a pretty expensive tax. >> the issue is the fairness in the tax code. it is why introduced the buffett rule.

it is wrong that people who make over $1 million a year who should not pay at the same tax rate is hard-working middle- class families. the corporate tax size is rigged. there are a couple problems and play. one is that too many of congress and my opponent is included in this have taken a pledge to washington d.c. lobbyist by the name of grover norquist whereby they have sworn that they will not ever ask those with the most privileged to do more, to do their fair share. you signed the pledge. >> that is a falsehood. and he signed the progressive tax bill.

here is somebody that teamed up with the most liberal, far reaching, far out, taxiest people in congress. she introduced a budget, ladies and gentlemen, that would increase taxes by 3.9 trillion dollars -- $3.90 trillion. >> which is less than the ryan budget. >> and obama says, that will raise taxes on the middle class. nancy pelosi, who has to turn left to talk to my opponent because she is so extreme, she said, we cannot do that. i'm telling you, my opponent can only see one things -- raise taxes, increased spending. that has been her mantra ever since she has been in congress. >> a couple of things. first of all, i do believe, given the challenges facing our nation, that for everyone to

have a fair shot, everyone does have to do -- >> you agree $3.90 trillion increase in taxes is something that we need? >> the romney plan is $5 trillion. >> over 10 years. >> correct. >> the $3.9 trillion. that was one year. >> it was not. that is ridiculous. let's move on. why is the system rigged? we read stories of the fortune 500 companies, some of the most profitable corporations of our time paying zero or next to zero in taxes. why is it rigged? because the wealthy have a legion of lobbyists putting in special tax breaks. we know our tax code is loaded with them. [both talking at once] >> you have been in congress for 14 years, you have not closed one loophole.

all you do now because you are running for the senate -- >> have worked to expand the child tax credit. >> all of these corporations that you talk about the you have never put in any legislation whatsoever. you just have not. now you want to come out and say corporations are bad. therefore, we have to close loopholes. i was not in congress. you are. i was in wisconsin creating jobs, something you probably do not understand. >> it looks like you're getting comfortable with the unmoderated area. [laughter] if it becomes clear that iran has nuclear availability, under what circumstances, if any, would you support putting u.s. soldiers on the ground in iran? in this question first goes to the congresswoman. >> thank you. the ambitions of iran to gain

the capacity to build a nuclear weapon is an enormous threat to our world, to our country, to the region and is certainly to our ally israel. in fact to them, it is an existential threat. and this is a threat that i take enormously seriously. and we cannot let iran become capable of making a nuclear weapon. it's why i believe that the president, all options on the table approach is the right approach. we have looked at it carefully over the years of conditions have changed. and dealt cooperative way and in high collaboration with senior israeli intelligence and military officials and u.s.

intelligence and military officials. i believe right now we are at a point where we are in agreement that the crippling sanctions i supported are doing, are beginning to do their job. but we cannot let iran become capable of manufacturing a nuclear weapon. and so, i absolutely support israel's right to defend itself. we leave the military option on the table. but you never go into a war without having an exit strategy and a plan for victory. >> governor thompson. >> we are in a very unsafe world today. iran is run by the ayatollah. and the prime minister by the name of ahmadinejad, who has some real mental problems. he does not believe the holocaust existed or ever happened. he believes that he can wipe out the country of israel.

he believes that if he gets a nuclear bomb, he can close the strait of hormuz. closing the strait of hormuz would close down all oil production coming into the world. we would have an economic disaster i believe without a doubt that more severe sanctions we can have, the better off we are. my opponent voted against sanctions in 2001, 2006, 2009, 2010 and received $60,000 from an organization that supports iran. i cannot believe anybody would take money from an organization supporting that madman in iran and takes $60,000 for her campaign. that is why she was against the sanctions. because she is running for the senate now, she believes that she would now have to vote for sanctions, which she did for the first time this year.

i think it is because she got a belief that she is running for the senate, she had better do that. but i also believe we can never allow iran, ladies and gentlemen, to have a nuclear bomb. >> it looks like you are ready to jump in. go for it. >> first of all, i have voted for sanctions starting when i first came to the united states congress on iran. you have your facts wrong. i did, indeed, on two occasions -- >> four. >> you are incorrect. believed that there was a prospect in iran for regime change from within. many of those who look at the region carefully saw that there were hundreds of thousands of pro-democracy protesters who took to the streets and stood up to a ahmadinejad and the ayatollah khomeini.

and i felt that very important that we send a message to those people that we wanted them to succeed in regime change from within, especially when we are talking about stakes as high as sending wisconsin young men and women into harm's way, i would sure rather see that regime change happen from within. you have probably read the same histories i have. they were brutally beaten back by the iranian government. i think we missed an opportunity for regime change there. it so we had to go back to the tactics of crippling sanctions, crippling sanctions. that is where we are right now. i want to add one thing. i was so disturbed after having heard some of your rhetoric around my position on iran to have read a report hours before

taking this stage that you have tens of thousands of dollars in investments in companies that do business with iran, including a company that teams up with iran doing uranium mining in africa. i find that shopping. -- shocking. if you want to be tough on iran, we have to isolate iran. we have to make sure that companies do not do business, to make sure that they are isolated in the world stage. that is one of the ways that we are going to be successful i still hope without war but with tough sanctions. >> iran is building a nuclear capability. 175 feet in the ground. you would not be building a peaceful, nuclear energy plants

175 feet in the ground. it is only a matter of time they get the nuclear bomb. we have to do everything we possibly can, ladies and gentlemen, to stop iran. my opponent, four different times, she mentions the fact -- it would of been nice if she did th she dide unrest when the -- did something about the unrest when the people were crying out for help. she did nothing. but he did send a letter to the palestinians when the israelis put up a blockade supporting the palestinians against the israelis. she received a $60,000 in campaign funds, $60,000, ladies and on and, for a campaign from a company that believes and supports no sanctions in iran. >> who are you talking about? >> i heard about this stock. let me finish. you want to interrupt me, joe biden, give me a chance. [crowd boos]

>> the other thing is, ladies and gentlemen, if she is talking about stock. i did not know about the fact that my stockbroker had purchased two shares, tw companyo stocks. i sold it today. i do not. i found out today and i sold it today. i do not tolerate, i do not agree with anybody doing business with iran, nonoe whatsoever. i think you should turn back the $60,000 you got from that company that supports no sanctions for iran. >> first of all, companies cannot give campaign donations. and i have never taken a campaign donation from a corporation or company. you know it is individuals.

maybe there is a super pac out there that i do not know about that is supporting you. just to say there is a company. you know you have misspoken. also, you know enough about campaign finance laws to know that people or companies cannot give and that sort of quantity of money. whatever you are saying, i have no idea what you are talking about but it is ridiculous. back to the issue at hand. >> are you saying you did not receive any money from the council for a living earth? >> council for a living earth? >> i am not familiar. >> they have been supporting you for 10 years. it was on the front page of the milwaukee journal this morning. >> i will have to look at that. i have never heard of the council for a living earth. but back to the security questions that are before us. the preamble to the constitution which should be the guiding document for all of us, talks about providing for the common defense and the general welfare. there is no for it -- no responsibility that i take more seriously than trying to do everything we can to keep

america safe. when i saw your shoot from the hip, think later approach, and not learning from the mistakes that were made in the past, it troubles me. >> i did want to ask a follow-up on a slightly different topic but related to foreign policy. i will go first to you, governor thompson. president barack obama has been recently described as the only nobel peace prize winner with a kill list. what is your position on unmanned drones, and the target killing of terrorist? >> i think unmanned drones are something that is absolutely necessary. we have to be careful that we do not kill absolute -- innocent bystanders. drones are used to take out many individuals from terrorist

organizations. they have been very successful in pakistan and in afghanistan and in libya. but the truth of the matter is, we have to have all our assets available. these individuals are terrorists. >> 30 seconds. >> congresswoman, what is your position on these unmanned drones? >> first, on the technology, i would say that drones are huge and important advance and, especially when you compare to the investment in cold war technology. this is important for surveillance and intelligence- gathering. and, as you note, they are used for strikes. i think with this new technology, we have to review

the rules of engagement. and we have not yet with this new technology. >> thank you for obliging me. so far we have worked three jobs, health care, and middle east policy. if there is to be any real movement in congress in these areas, there needs to be some form of bipartisanship in congress, something that according to many voters is a tall order. >> people on both ends of the issue, republicans, democrats, conservatives, liberals, need to come together, stop fighting. but i do not believe that either party has helped in recent years. i would like to see whoever is elected make some effort to improve relations between members of the two parties. >> they need to compromise. it is time we find some compromise. you're not. to get anything done if we keep fighting. >> with that, we wonder from each candidate, can you name and describe one policy decision on the part of your challenger that you would support?

we go first to you, governor thompson, but we just have one minute. >> pretty hard but i would certification liz support anything that we could do on a bipartisan basis -- i would certainly support anything we could do on a bipartisan basis to cut back on spending. if there is anything that we can do to hold down on spending, we have to do it. we have to learn to live within our means. we have learned that in wisconsin. i did it as governor. if there is some way that the congresswoman could show me a proposal that would save money at the federal government, i would support her. i have not seen any yet, but i hope someday i will be able to do that. >> one congresswoman? >> let me start by saying that there are many things upon which tommy thompson and i agree.

it may be surprising to those in the room, we have worked closely over my years in the state legislature and when he was secretary. with regard to this campaign, i believe he supports the dream act. i do, too. i believe i heard him at the last debate say that he believes we should bring our troops back from afghanistan as quickly as possible. if that is what i heard, i am in strenuous agreement with him on that. we talked about senior care briefly early. i am a huge proponent of senior care and have fought both when he was bush's health secretary and after he left to make sure that wisconsin would be able to keep the waiver they need in order to keep that operating. we have worked together. that is why i will be successful because i can see the common ground and i have always reached out for it. >> are done with the unmoderated part. we are going to move to the

topic of education. the u.s. is falling behind the world when it comes to math and science competency. in the midst of talking about cutting budgets and eliminating programs, what is the best prescription for making u.s. students math and science literate? >> well, i love this question. i was a math major in college, a double major in mathematics and political science. i used to say that and there would be an audible gasp in the room. i believe very strongly that the key to economic growth in this country, as i said earlier and we talked about jobs, are investments in education and innovation and research. we make things in this state.

we have seen that decline. we need to start doing that again, and that means we need engineers and scientists and other innovators and entrepreneurs. i agree with the president that we need to make an emphasis -- 100,000 youths across american schools. >> education is really basic. we have to do everything we possibly can to improve the education quality, the graduates, college graduates and vocational training in america. when i was governor, i was able to pick up 2/3 of the cost of education, the biggest increase ever so that local property tax payers could have a break and we could put more money into

schools. i increased the money for the university of wisconsin. i set up vocational programs for individuals that are not going to university, for skills training, so that individuals can become a plumber, whatever the case may be. because that is the jobs out there that are going because we do not have the individuals that are skilled to do it. math and science is absolutely important and we have to put the dollars, encourage individuals to go into those programs, because that is our future, ladies and gentlemen. that is what i am dedicated to do. pell grants is one way we can do that. >> it is time for closing statements. we flipped a coin to determine the order. congresswoman baldwin chose to go last. >> thank you very much.

thank you for the audience. it has been a spirited debate. our country has some serious problems. we are $16 trillion in debt, $10 trillion of that is while my opponent has been in congress. we are over the gross national product, which means that we are placed in a category with other countries like spain, like greece. i want to change that. i am running, ladies and gentlemen, because i have three great children and grandchildren. i am running because of them, but more importantly, your children and grandchildren. we have always promised children and grandchildren and america that they will inherit a country that is stronger and fairer and safer. we can no longer say that. a baby born right now today is $51,000 in debt. so the debt was accumulated in

the last 10 years. in the last four years, that has gone up by $5.50 trillion. the people in congress have not even passed a budget in 3.5 years. that is malfeasance in office. the spending goes up, the taxes go up, and our country is facing a fiscal cliff. if we do not do something about it, ladies and gentlemen, we are headed for a fiscal abyss. who is the best person to do it, so when you cut taxes 91 times. or someone who raised taxes 155 times. someone who balance the budget 14 years ago with democrats? or somebody who has not passed any budget in 3.5 years? i am looking out, ladies and gentlemen, for the future of our great country. we can balance the budget, putting jobs back for 23 million americans.

just like they did when i was governor of the state of wisconsin. >> thank you. i want to start by thanking you, tommy, for joining me on the stage and also to our host and moderators, wisconsin public television, the audience, and those watching on television. it has been a privilege to be engaged in his u.s. senate campaign. as i traveled the state, i have had an opportunity to listen. people open up about their struggles. they are working hard, playing by the rules, trying to get ahead, but too many of them are just getting by. and i've listened to their frustrations with the disconnect that they see between the debates that are going on in washington d.c., in the tea party-controlled house of representatives, the disconnect

between those debates and their lives. they want -- what they want is somebody that will fight for them. not for wall street and the big banks, not for the big health insurance companies or the big drug companies or the tea party, somebody that will go and fight for them. that is what i have always done and pledge to do as your u.s. senator. there is a clear contrast in this race. tommy likes to talk a lot about what he did as governor in the 1980's and 1990's. but the fact remains that he has spent his last seven years as a partner at a big, powerful washington lobbying firm that lobbies on behalf of those very same special interests that i have spent my career standing up against. there are differences on taxes, on how we would attack the deficit, on how to grow the economy. it all gets down to whose side are you on?

the people or the powerful? i ask you for your vote on november 6 and encourage everyone to participate in this election. >> we thank you, both candidates, for joining us. that is our debate. good night. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> i have to be honest with you. i love these debates. i think it is interesting the president still does not have a budget for his second term. you not think it is time per him to put a vision together for the next four years if he is elected. he has to do that over the weekend. there is only one debate left on monday. >> let's recap what we learned last night. the tax plan does not add up. his jobs plan does not add jobs. his deficit reduction plan adds

to the deficit. everybody here has heard of the new deal. you have a herd of the fair deal. you have heard of the square deal. mitt romney is trying to sell you a sketchy deal. we are not buying it. >> watch and engage monday as president obama and mitt romney meet again joe their final debate -- in their final debate. all live on c-span, c-span radio, an online at c-span.org. >> mazie hirono and linda lingle squared off in a debate. this debate is courtesy of kitv. >> here are the rules for

tonight's debate. when a candidate is asked a question, she will have one minute to answer. the opposing candidate will have 45 seconds for a rebuttal. a little bit later the candidates will have an opportunity to ask questions of each other. before we get to questions from the panel, each candidate has 90 seconds to answer this question. why are you running for u.s. senate? we began. >> you are probably asking yourself, does this senate race matter to me and my family? that is an important question. i hope you will listen to the differences between us. if you are a middle-class person, for example, note that my opponents priorities are

similar to mitt romney is. that is because they both support making sure that rich people, millionaires, get more tax breaks while middle-class taxes will go up. or if you are on medicare, noted that my opponent's plan is exactly the same as mitt romney's. they will change medicare and to a voucher system. -- into a voucher system. that will end up costing seniors a lot more money. you might ask, why do we not create jobs and get the economy going? my opponent has joined with the national republican party to uphold president obama's jobs plan to create 2 million jobs. or you may be asking yourself a larger question. what is the best senate for why? a senate that is tied to a narrow republican agenda opposing president obama or a senate committed to middle-class and the valleys, the right priorities.

you will be representing the aerospace center of california. you served on all of the major security committees. six years on the on the services, eight years on the intelligence, four on homeland security. congresswoman harmon has covered almost the whole world. i will introduce after word others. >> thank you. and haleh is probably our proudest role of the role that women play at the wilson center. the middle east project is one of our most important projects. and as a gift from the chairman and his wife makes much of our work possible. it is not just a gift of dollars, it is the gift of their time and energy and insights. i am thrilled today, very briefly to introduce a friend of mine. i spent many long years in congress -- in fact in congress, i call myself an escapee from congress.

i am now at a place that is bipartisan, very serious and focused that has civil dialogue and a very little resemblance to my last line of work. but at any rate, while the ranking member of the house intelligence committee, i met numerous times with halevy. when he was the director of the mossad. it was a difficult time for israel and us. and he always provided, and still provides wise counsel. one of the things that people may not know about him is that he was the principal secret negotiator of the israel-jordan peace treaty. it is easy to forget that role. but it is important to understand how crucial that peace treaty is now as the area is so volatile. there's a bit of good news today -- the new egyptian ambassador to israel came today to announce

that israel -- that egypt will abide by the peace treaty -- will abide by the peace treaty with israel. but we have relied on the peace treaty, israel has relied on it. and so have we, the peace treaty with jordan, for many years. and efraim halevy deserves enormous credit for that. as haleh said, we watched developments in the middle east very closely here. the president of the yemen came a few weeks ago to speak about a way forward for his country, which is trying hard to become a strong ally in the fight against terrorism, and has huge economic challenges. we just held the second of three meetings on how women are fairing in the arab awakening. last month, former deputy secretary of state and ambassador, tom pickering, and other national security officials, military officers and experts with decades of experience presented a report that they have written. a balanced non-partisanship

fact-based report on the benefits and costs of a military action against iran. a topic that i know we all are assessing. and i am sure that efraim halevy has views on. the report estimates that an israeli air strike could delay iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon by up to two years, but it would not replicate the success of earlier surgical strikes in iraq and syria. at any rate, it is a topic on everyone's minds. but me just say this, as our endless presidential election draws to a close, it is a pleasure and relief to me to have a very serious thinker about the world. as a serious thinker but a serious doer come to share his insights and provide even an hour of the ability to not watching negative advertisement

and to watch a very important presentation. i am not sure -- are you introducing aaron? oh, haleh is back to introduce aaron. i will just say that he is an enormously valued colleague at the wilson center. his voice on the middle east and many other topics is heard around the world. efraim says he has met multiple times on this visit with aaron, i said, once is enough. but apparently, not. and aaron does dazzle us with his insights. and there were on display just a couple of days ago. they are coming back to defend my attack on aaron, is that what is next? the complement -- are you coming back? what is happening? ok, welcome here. i am very much looking forward to your remarks today. >> thank you very much, jane.

>> i was told by the various cameras in the room that, if you could put on a new cure cell phones, blackberrys, whenever you have. it also interferes with our live web cast that is picked up around the world. so we have a very wide audience watching. as i said, and as jane mentioned, aaron miller is going to be moderating this session. and he has been at a wonderful colleague both for two decades he served as an adviser to the republican and democratic secretaries of state. helping formulate united states policy on the middle east and arab-israeli peace process. he served as deputy special coordinator for arab-israeli negotiations. senior member of the state

department policy planning staff and the bureau of intelligence. and he is the author of a five books on -- the most recent one "america's search for arab- israeli peace." he has a forthcoming book which is very exciting. can america have another great president? welcome to the wilson center. >> thank you very much. and jane, thank you very much. it is a pleasure to see you. it is an honor to be here. let me welcome you all again to the woodrow wilson international center for scholars and a little memorial to our 28th president and our only p.h.d. president. that is only important because i invoke the spirit of woodrow wilson, who believed in breaking down the barriers between the

academy and government. we need wilson more than anything else. now jane is committed to ensuring that that spirit stays alive and well as hamilton had. effective thought before effective action. deliberate and effective fought before effective action. and we would wilson and the liberal thinkers more than any time that i can remember. never have i seen a time period more complex, more potentially dangerous and more fraught with difficulties and perhaps opportunities during the course of the last 40 years. and if it is difficult for the united states, it is certainly difficult for the israelis. a wise friend once said to me that the israeli diplomat was embodied by the following notion -- the day the israelis fight the arabs and win,during the night the israelis fight

the nazis and blues. how indicative authority that representative is this notion is in terms of capturing the dilemma and the conundrum that israel faces as a small power, a very -- with a very big reach. what is not arguable is that you have a set of security challenges. israel is not a victim and should not be seen as a victim. but there's also the danger of trivializing the security challenges that it faces. no one that i know is a better equipped and prepared but by virtue of experience and temperament than efraim halevy to guide us through this maze at a very important time. he has three things. which i had more of them. one is clarity, the capacity to rise above detail. and gain a measure of perspective. the second is honesty. the capacity to actually assert what it is you believe.

and finally, integrity. to defend with consistency and principle, and to alter them when in fact reality demands that they be altered. so, efraim halevy, i am going to turn it over to you. he will speak for about 25 minutes. i can only say one thing, this is questions, not station identification. please tell us your name, and then ask your question. >> thank you very much. i would like to thank jane harman for her warm words. i would hope that many of the things that she said are as true as she thinks that they are. i will leave it for further judgment. i want to also want to thank aaron, who i have worked with

for a long time. and with whom we worked very closely on some of the key issues which have bedeviled the area for a long time. and i was very honored when you approached me and asked me to come to speak to you today. and i think you for the opportunity. i want to thank everyone else who is involved in making this event possible. i would like not to speak in a very ordered way, a very regimental way. i would like to offer a few thoughts in the next few minutes. on some of the major aspects of the situation in that troubled area where israel is destined to be for the next 2000 years at least. first of all, we had an event a couple days ago which i thought was not recorded here. a missile was shot from the strip to one of our cities in the south of israel. and it hits a children's

kindergarten, but thankfully it was a night and there were no children there. mention this because, had this been sent in a day, and this missile hit a kindergarten with children in it, the number of fatalities would probably have been very high. this would have led to, in my opinion, to an immediate change in the situation, not only for israel and the gaza strip, but also in the entire area. it would have been a changer, not a money changer, a regional changer. am saying this because we are living in the situation here in the middle east where individual events can have enormous effect on the a whole range of issues.

and as often in the hands of individuals to bring this about. this is the situation we are in. i will say by the way, in this respect, the fact that israel now has one means at its disposal, a system which was developed over years. in which we are able to at times detected these missiles before they reach the destination. and to blow them up in thin air. this has also been a moneychanger in the middle east. if we did not have these means, if we did not develop them of the last several years, we would be at the mercy of this kind of rocket attack. and we would have to resort to other means. we would probably have to move into the gaza strip. and were not for the support of the united states of america in

developing and financing key elements of this, it is a very critical time, again, we would not have been in a position to conduct our daily lives the way they are being conducted today. i am saying this because one of the aspects, one of the features in the middle east is that these individual he vents, which cannot be foreseen can have an enormous effect on the cost of history in the middle east. similarly, i would like to mention an event that took place just slightly over one year ago when the israel embassy in cairo was attacked by a mob. and the last stages of that event, five is really guards were behind an iron metal door. what was the only obstacle between them and the mob.

after several hours of an event that had been unfolding, israel did not have the capability at that moment in time to prevail on anybody in egypt to take action. to avert what has been a disaster that i will mention in a moment. at that moment, the prime minister of israel, who had been personally handling the crisis as prime minister, returned to the president of united states and ask for intervention. the president of the net. states was faced with the situation in which he had to make a quick decision. a, would try to take action.

to put it to test. and whether to bring about a change. to avert a disaster. and he had very little time to make a decision. i do not think it was an easy decision. what it have failed, it would not only have been the result will mention any moment, but it would have a very serious effect, in my opinion, on the over all capabilities and united states and the middle east if they had failed and at averting such a disaster. and the president took the decision and struck those who had to deal with it, and the five men were saved for an operation of the egyptian special forces and the spirited after the embassy. had this not happen, instead of

five deer persons arriving back in israel, we would of had five body bags. and in my opinion, this would have been a critical change in the situation in the middle east. again, one solitary event with enormous consequences. and decisions which are taken on the spot by people who ought to take decisions very quickly and have to wait things very quickly and have to determine very quickly how to act in a given set of conditions. past, we had a relative stability in the middle east. we had rulers, traditional rulers, we had monarchies, we had dictators. of one kind or another. but there was an element of stability. today, there is no such element

of stability. and in most cases, the powers that be in the countries in the middle east are to a large extent still fighting for their credibility and fighting for their capability to govern their countries. the result of this is that the actual sovereignty of the countries in the middle east is not preserved. for example, in egypt, when we speak of sinai, it is sinai part of egypt? yes. does the government of egypt have control over what is happening in sinai? and l. i do not have to say that any more about syria. it is quite obvious, quite

evident. the government and syria does not have the capability to exercise sovereignty throughout syria. just one week ago, a number of villages, very close to the israeli-syrian border that were , this presents a problem to us. this presents a problem to damascus. and therefore, it is more obvious now than ever before that the central government's loss and loss of control over a large portion of their territory. i mention all of the non. in the south it controls that part of love and on. of lebonon.ernment the ru

take the rock. as emerged from the situation after the events of 2003 when saddam hussein was overthrown. tuesday that the government of iraq has control of the country would be a very large exaggeration. the area and the north is quite prosperous and court successful. but in terms of control, is it controlled? i think it would be a fallacy to say that the forces in baghdad control in every part of the country. even in recent weeks, take the situation and saudi arabia. where there have been riots and uprisings in the east. river is a large shiite majority. --ere have a ban

there have been clashes. i would like to recall, where there is a lot of the oil of the kingdom which is concentrated there. so, even in a country like saudi arabia which enjoys relative stability, there are problems there and rising problems. so, we have this situation that we have to deal with, it is a tough situation for the governments in place, and also for other governments like the government of israel that has to determine what to do. n.v. of the situation with the palestinian authority or the authority doesn't control all of the territory which supposedly is under its government. the gaza strip is under the control of, sir.

and even in the west bank, there's still a very serious presence despite numerous efforts being carried out to subdue them. as far as the palestinians are concerned, they are split the middle. literally and geographically. and there again, the party does not control what is happening in the gaza strip. -- the authority does not control what is happening in the gaza strip. this is not taken into account when we look of the overall picture which presents -- which is presented to us in the middle east. the third point i would like to make is that we have in the area a clear, upsurge of religion as a major power and a major factor

in the governance of the country's. secularism in the middle east is in decline at the moment. for a very long time, secularism was succeeding. i would like to recall the famous -- a secularist party which govern the syria and a guarantee iraq for quite some time. and to a large extent, the government of hosni mubarak. it was not a government which was religiously motivated in the way it carried out its business and a daily affairs. today it is a major effect in the middle east. and the result of that, the divide between the shiites and nni.sudanes

this is a major political issue in the middle east. which the middle east has to deal with as they go along. this is not something to have some time ago. and turkey is still a separate secularist country. religion is something which has to be contended with. which has to be dealt with. and i would suggest to you that i do not think we have found the ways and means of dealing with religion as a political factor in determining its national

relations. we have also other aspects of the situation, which we have to be very clear about. first of all, i would like to mention the fact that russia is returning to be a serious actor or in the middle east. for over a decade and more, after the dissolution of the soviet union, russia did not play a major role. this is beginning to change. it began to change after the events in libya where russia suffered a second set back from its point of view following the setback it had any rock after the fall of saddam hussain and the fall of russian influence in

the middle east of the result of these two events. we are now witnessing the events of a russian come back in the middle east. in the way that russia is battling the regime in damascus to maintain the regime in damascus and maintain hassah in power. i would like to recall and mention that russia signed a very large deal with iraq for over $4 billion. it is ironic that after the united states had toppled saddam hussain, within a few years, the russians are beginning to come back to the middle east through iraq of all places. russia is a middle east power. alongside the united states, is

beginning to show its mettle in one way or another this catapults the middle east back into the realm of international politics, into what was once the big divide for so many years between the united states and the soviet union. the end of the cold war, the fact that in desert storm, the first iraqi war, russia, the soviet union actually, fought alongside the united states, it was part of the coalition which confronted saddam hussain, if you will remember that particular event in history, an interesting event. after that, there was a change. and russia succeeded into the

background for a few years. now they are coming back. the middle east is becoming again a scene of international conflict. it is something which cannot be ignored and cannot be denied. and then we have iran. i do not mention iran to direct my duty as an is really geared we do not mention iran. we have iran which is now undergoing a very difficult time period in its history. it has resumed its program for attaining military nuclear capability. it has confronted the world at large. it is confronted both the west and the east. i welcome back to that in a moment.

and the back of the matter is, that iran is facing the world as a whole in defense. notwithstanding the fact that it is now undergoing the plan of sanctions which are effective, which are not only affecting the economy at large, but also the business sector. and the financial set up in iran. the rapid devaluation which has been losing value in the tens of tens of percentages. the official rate is half of what the factual rate is today. i said in israel the other day that it would certainly rise, there were the be a run of the

banks. and i do not know what would happen if there would be such a massive devaluation of the american dollar. i cannot imagine there ever would be the devaluation of the american dollar. i do not know to what it would devaluate. at any rate, the situation in iran is rapidly developing. there are serious problems in iran. very serious problems. just last week the spiritual leader of iran spoke three times and one week purity doesn't often speak -- in one week. he doesn't often speak in such succession. and discounted effective sanctions on iran. it is obvious he is speaking like that because the population at large is now feeling

the brunt of what the sanctions are. the problem is what to do about iran. how to deal with iran. and i mention again what i said a couple minutes ago, as far as iran is concerned, there is a more or less, a united the international front against -- allowing iran to obtain nuclear capability. we say, you know, the 5 plus 1 are going to meet. the fiber the members of the security council. including russia and china. the one is germany. it is not just that the ad states does not want them to achieve nuclear capability. is also russia and china. but do not want them to achieve the capability. how to engineer this operation,

this tool, effective put it that way, to get the iranians to change their policy on this, i think it is a major challenge for international diplomacy. a major challenge for diplomacy of the united states. i would like to mention two aspects of this, two fax. the business between tehran and moscow -- i do not think the russians would like to be under the threat of potential threats of an iranian nuclear capability. there is room of course for a very intensive and a very, very professional effort to get the iranians off the hook.

and thereby get us all off the hook. how to do this is a major test of international diplomacy. how to bring about is a major test for the capability of minds and brains in washington and around the world. i think that it is doable. in the end, the iranians have shown, on several occasions in the past, when they realized this is not in their interest to continue with the level of confrontation which they have a developed over the years against the entire world, they have found ways and means of backing down. i would like to mention two other aspects in the conclusion of my opening remarks. the relations within the middle east and the entire world of

gone through a lot of problems in the last couple centuries. and the peoples of the middle east have had various types of relationships with powers. besides their basic interests, economic and geopolitical, there have been three or interests which have been very important for people of the middle east. one has been to try and to preserve their way of life. and of their way of life was not to be of the democratic system. not having parliament they -- not having parliament elected the way they are here. maybe some of you would think this would not be desirable.

the back of the matter is, i cannot imagine such a presidential campaign in cairo or damascus, or even in tehran. it is a question of culture, basic culture. and we have not found the ways and means of how to engage in an intercultural dialogue. i would like to recall a few years ago there were approved by united states to bring democracy to the middle east by a republican administration during the previous presidency. it did not work. it does not work in and not part of the world in that way. therefore, it is not a question of how to bring democracy to the middle east. it is a different system. for better or for worse.

number two, there's a basic problem in the middle east of the arab nations and also the iranian nations of dignity. they feel very deeply that they do not enjoy it dignity. i do not know how to describe what is dignity. i cannot give you a recipe of what are the components of dignity. but dignity has figured very high on the list of elements which are troubling countries in the middle east. a few months ago, i happened to be in a meeting with various people, including iranians, people from perron, not of the opposition. and this is a short time after the first round of talks the

renewed talks with five plus one and istanbul. they spent 15 minutes saying how wonderful those talks were. there were wonderful for three reasons. because of their dignity was respected. and, how was it respected? it was respected because the talks were conducted around the roundtable, which meant to say that every person around the table was not sitting at the head of the table. they were all equal. that is dignity. you might think this is childish, you might think this is not something we -- something of importance. it is. and in meeting with a country like iran, we also have to deal with their eccentricities, their concerns, personal and otherwise, national and otherwise, and sometimes, it is

not all that difficult to deal with it if you know how to deal with it. it is not too sick to to give up on substance, -- is not to say that you have to give up on substance. and if that is the third thing i want to say. atmosphere. there is in the middle east and atmosphere of despondency. people do not believe that anything good can come up what is happening. of what is happening in syria, egypt. there are no easy solutions. there are no solutions reasonable in th distance from today. ed the malice in

mouths in egypt, in tehran/ i will. i will stop here. i did not want this morning to start with the nitty gritty of a problem they come up problem become a problem see. i want to put things in perspective. one of the things we have lacked is perspective. we got with problems as they came along. -- we dealt with problems as they came along. we have to higher the level of the way we look at things. we are going to love to do with the situation for a long time to come. i do not think we are in the business of finding basic solutions to most of the

problems in the mill raised in the immediate future. thank you. -- i do not think we are going to find the solutions to the middle east and immediate future. thank you. >> i appreciate it. i will ask the first question. do you believe that iran, with a nuclear capacity, constitutes an existential threat to the state of israel? >> first of all, i will say and ago. i do not think that there is an existential threat to israel. i do not think that the threat of israel, the existence of israel is at stake. i do not think there's any power in world, that can bring

about the demise of the state of israel. i say this because, i believe in this. i think it is a matter of belief and not only of counting soldiers and bombs. i also think, i recall how israel was established. how it came into being. i was there. i was a young boy at the time. i arrived and what was then palestine in 48. the odds of them emerging from the world with independent -- it was 50/50. george marshall had been a celebrity the commander of world war ii, thought that the jews and pakistan had no chance in the war. -- in palestine and had no

chance in the war. we lost hundreds of people on the battle front. 1% of the population become a very large number of people. over 600,000 people. i do not think that the state of israel will cease to exist. i did not mean this is a joke. so how can we divide a nuclear capacity of iran? we should do everything in our power. but i do not accept that tomorrow morning if iranians announced that they have a nuclear capacity you counted down to the end of israel. that is the essence of the stigma that there is an existential threat. and i say it in a very clear, practical terms. if you sit there is an

existential threat, if you sit tomorrow morning the iranians have a nuclear capability and you countdown to the end of the state of israel -- this will never be the case. never. how we protect israel and that event? i will not go into details. but they have numerous capacities to deal with that situation. militarily and strategically and otherwise. we will take the necessary steps to see to it that they are not able to do it. i think there is a policy in using the sense of an essential threat to israel, because it means to say that the iranians have it and their capacity to destroy israel. they have nuclear capability. we as israelis or the world are telling the iranians. if you get the bomb, you will

have the capacity to destroy israel. he will be in reach of your aim to destroy israel. i think is wrong. to have one side telling the other side, there could be a situation in which you could actually kill me. that is not a way to run a war and a strategic program at all. so you will say to me, some of what i have said in the specifics, yes. but i cannot go into specifics. i did i would not be able to go back to israel. but i can assure you, that we have been and dire situations many, many times in our history. and we will over,. what i like is to be in such a situation? and l. i would rather prefer does not to happen. but i would also like to try to convince the iranians that from their point of view, the situation of their getting a

nuclear capacity is a threat to them. and this necessitates two things. it means to six that we -- to do this. and we have to talk to them. rea to dialogue with them. i am a great believer in talking to people. i would never have been married high not spoke to my future spouse and convinced her -- had i not spoke to my future spells and convinced her. you have to talk to people. you ought to speak to their minds, feelings and so forth. and not just hammer them on the head. you should hammer them on the head as well. >> thank you, efraim halevy. >> do i need a microphone?

>> here. >> it is all fascinating. your three points about the system. i think this is crucially important. my question is, how important is it in order to achieve these things to put a muslim face and weber response we now have to be part of a group led by a regional organization or a country like turkey. that has, one would hope, cultural and a distinctive understandings. >> i do not think we have to have a muslim face. i think it is important to impress upon the other side that, just as they need to survive in this world,

economically and otherwise, they have to talk to us as well. they have to recognize us as well. i do not think we have to speak to them as though we are muslims. i do think that there have to be muslims on our side of the divide that are part of the party, yes. i think turkey is very important. i think everything should be done to bring turkey on board. i think this is also do a bulkier it means tuesday that we also have to preserve our dignity. -- i think this also means that we also have to preserve our dignity. faugh you have a vast about "in this country to deal with people. -- you have a vast ability in this country to deal with people. trying to bring them around.

and i think it is doable. we have done it in the past. we have signed a peace treaty with egypt, jordan, we had an agreement with the palestinians. we did not do it otherwise. we talk to them secretly, sunny- secretly. i think this is the way to do things. i think despite the tendency of the people to say that in the muslim world you have these strands of suicidal tendencies, no, they are not suicidal. although they send their children and to the battlefields during the war, they are not suicidal. they sent the children into the war, they did not themselves go to the battlefield. >> i have a question. we have over 60 people in the rooms watching you. this one comes from egypt.

they want to know, how does the rise of the muslim brotherhood in egypt affect security ?ooperation and is reall >> we have a peace treaty with egypt. and the egyptians are adhering to the treaty in a very strict terms. there are areas in which there is daily contact between israelis and egyptians to do with security problems in the cyanide. i think the president has made it clear that egypt will abide by these implications. i think we have to except the fact that egypt has the right to decide on its own system of government. and it has the right -- businesses of government have egypt have the right to choose

their government. i think this was the right thing to do. i did not say because it was the muslim brotherhood i will not do this. he took the initiative. he said the tone for what might happen in the future. i think that they need to be encouraged. there is a way of inducing people using inducements. and the method of saying what the penalty might be if it went the wrong way. if that is the way relations are conducted. i have no reason to believe that the muslim brotherhood is intent on entering into a

confrontation with israel at the moment. i think that is the last thing that they should be interested in it. they have problems in egypt today which are gigantic, social, economic and others. and i do not sense there is any great need to go a true war with israel. i do not think it will be true for a long time to come. we should do things and take initiatives in order to develop a relationship with the egyptians. by the way, i will say that the muslim brotherhood is a movement which is not restricted to egypt. the muslim brotherhood goes throughout the middle east in our countries. and one of the branches of the muslim brotherhood happens to be presently growing part of

palestine which is gaza. and i have said that we should find ways and means of dialoguing with the muslim brotherhood in daws said. and that is not -- that has not been a very popular view. what's weird dialoguing with the muslim brotherhood in cairo, i do not know why we are inhibited to talking to their sister organization and other parts of the world. >> i am muhammed. i had the ambition that before the changes that took place in the middle east, the israelis are not happy with it. now with the arab spring, more

arab countries will experience the arab spring. we do not know which ones. those leaders which are new -- muslim brotherhoods are not. there can double much more than the leaders before -- they are accountable much more than the leaders before. is it not the time now about time to that peace plan on the table, it is it the right time now to do you think? thank you. >> first of all, i have not come never thought that we should be happy with what is happening in the arab world. our capacity to influence what is happening in the arab world is very limited.

whether it is good or bad for us, what is happening in the arab spring is immaterial. we ought to deal with it how it is. in the future they might be better than they are. this is the way it is at the moment. i think that there has to be a new movement year between us and the countries surrounding us. the days in which there was a united arab front against israel have gone. and each country in the arab world has its own interests. this began with the is really treaty. it continued with the palestinian agreement that we have.

it continued with the peace with jordan. there have been constant rounds of negotiations between us and syria, just last week, this week i think it was, there was a revelation that one year or two ago, the united states was brokering a kind of effort to bring about a new initiative to settle the problems in israel and syria. this was confirmed in washington. we should always be on the alert to try to get these things done. i think that the palestinian problem needs to be attended. the problem is that -- whether israel's policy is good or not good concerning the palestinians, the palestinian world is split at the moment. it is but did -- it is split geographically and politically. those willing the west bank are not ruling gaza.

it is not within israel's capacity or our task to try to bring about the unification between the two. i do not think we should be involved and that. we would have to deal with the problem as it is. fifth i do not think -- might view is that, with all the respect we have for him, he did not have the mandate to sign off on the entire palestinian people today. i would like to say that it has been six years since the elections for the palestinian parliament. and in the last elections 2006 they had the majority. i would like to mention, the fact that they participated in the election and 2006 was against the wishes of israel and the palestinian authority. and the power that forced both

israel and the palestinians to to participate -- that they should participate notwithstanding the fact that they did not renounce violence and 2006, considered to be a condition for going to be part of a political process. and this was done under the republican administration of george w. bush. the fact is that there is no, unfortunately at the moment, a legitimate representation of the palestinians, which can deal with the situation. this is something which has to be corrected. and can be corrected. whether we can do it on the basis of the arab initiative, i am aware of the arab initiative. it has various parts of it.

of like to draw your attention to the road map, promoted by the united states and adopted by both israel and the palestinians and the year 2003. and it was reaffirmed in 2004. in that road map, there's a preamble which says, what are the basis for a resolution of problems. and one of the elements mentioned there is the initiative. it mentions specifically as one of the elements which is the basis for reaching an agreement. i say yes, that could be part, but not the only element. it cannot be the only basis of this. what it needs to be is a genuine effort on both sides to reach a solution. a solution is usually being compromised. -- a compromise.

i do not think there is a practical possibility. who represents the palestinians and who can actually implement the agreement once an agreement is made? i cannot see the capability of implementation on the side of the palestinians at the moment. >> another question >> there is another question. we have enormous experience in dealing with jordan. in the monarchies, the moroccans, the saudis, and the jordanians, so far, have faired much better in the face of the arab spring than the so-called faux republics or presidencies. are you concerned about the future of jordan? >> first of all, i think partially the monarchical system of government is a very good system. in biblical times, we had a monarchical system in the jewish people, and i sometimes wonder, looking at israeli politics, that it might be a good idea to bring back the king or something to rule us. or something to rule us.