clients every day. thank you. >> thinking. that concludes today's meeting in washington d.c. thank you all for joining us here today and thank you all who joined us. [applause] >> in a few moments, secretary of state john kerry gives an address at the university of virginia. in an hour, a defense -- department of defense briefing on sequestration. after that, it review of the 2012 presidential campaign with strategists from president obama and mitt romney. secretary of state john kerry is calling on congress not to make senseless reductions in foreign aid to automatic spending cuts scheduled to begin march 1. the secretary spoke at the

university of virginia in charlottesville. he was introduced by virginia senator tim kaine. this is an hour. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you so much. hello, uva. it is great to be back on the grounds. i want to say to president sullivan what a treat it is to be here with you. thank you for hosting this great occasion. to my friend robert hurt, served with him in state government and now we travel to washington together. i look forward to good work together, especially if on this occasion to introduce secretary kerry and to introduce uva to the secretary. as i walked onto the stage i had a memory. on this stage with my dear friend, uva board member alan -- in a debate for lieutenant

governor, a primary debate for lieutenant governor in the february of 2001. the first debate i've ever been in as -- >> [indiscernible] [laughter] >> so good to have you here, alan. so good to have the first secretary of state being the founder here, the cornerstone was laid by not only in thomas jefferson but james monroe, another secretary of state. it is fitting that the secretary would be here. we know john kerry's track record. decorated veteran in vietnam, prosecutor, started in local government, as do so many others who serve. the state government in massachusetts. nearly 30 years as a u.s. senator.

the only committee that he served on from the day he became a senator, until its last day in the center of the foreign relations committee. he grew up with a father in the foreign service. it is a family calling. i will count it as a joy but as a bittersweet sadness that my service in the senate, i got to serve with him on the foreign relations committee for one week. [laughter] i am the junior senator on that committee. i sit far out on the wing on that committee. it was the first committee vote i cast was to confirm him as the new secretary. senator, you are coming to a place that believes deeply in the values that you share, as robert mentioned. president jefferson strongly believed in the connection of this wonderful exemplary nations

to a world community. we have been a global leader. i always like to think about the global leadership that tries to balance military strength. secretary kerry knows the importance and limits of that spirit diplomatic strength, the strength of our economy, the strength of our moral example, after balance those things. this university has been educating and training people to understand that balance since its very beginning. i spoke this morning with a whole group of very talented young rotc students, many who are getting ready to graduate in commission on the three programs operating on the status. -- on this campus. the university has put 1079 people into the peace corps in its 51 year history. numerous people over the course of the university history have gone to work in the state department's. then we can go broader, teach for america, or the students who have trained over generations to

get jag program degrees, military law degrees here. this university is so committed to that global role that we are supposed to play as citizens and to keeping those balances of strength and balance. there's really no one today on this stage in our country where exemplifies keeping those invalid better than our speaker. we're so glad to welcome here to the ground and to the commonwealth. please give a warm welcome to secretary john kerry. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. good morning. thank you for an extraordinarily

warm welcome, charlotte. i'm honored to be here. senator tim kaine, thank you for generous words of introduction. tim has only been on the foreign relations committee for total of a few weeks now. based on his testimony a moment ago, i can commend him on his voting record. [laughter] he has found himself new job security, because in virginia you have a single term governor for a full your years. he has traded one single four- year term for a six-year term with potential extension. [laughter] given the fact i traded several extensions for an four-year term and then i'm finished, maybe he knows something i ought to be listening to that i could learn a thing or two.

we did not overlap long, but i want to tell everybody we know each other pretty well from service as lieutenant governor and when he was governor of the state. i was lieutenant governor carol -- lieutenant governor in my state, so we have that in common, and before being senators. a quick story, i don't know what you do in virginia as lieutenant governor, but massachusetts, once upon a time, calvin coolidge was lieutenant governor. he was at a dinner party and they asked him what you do, he said i'm calvin coolidge, lieutenant governor. he said, tell me all about the job. he said, i just did. [laughter] it's a huge admiration for the path tim kaine has followed.

i know his sense of what america means to the world that was forged in the early days that the congressman hurt referred to about his catholic missionary work in honduras, just helping other people to live healthier lives. two weeks after the election, tim called and asked if he could serve on the senate foreign relations committee. you don't always get those calls in the senate. people stepping forward to volunteer in that way on the committee, it does not have an opportunity to bring bacon back home. so i know that in tim kaine, virginia has a senator who is going to make his mark on that committee and is going to make a mark for your common wealth and our country. and we're grateful for your service, tim. thank you very much.

[applause] also, i am particularly grateful for congressman robert hurt being here today. i have left partisan politics. it's wonderful for me to be able to welcome people in the complete spirit of non partisanship, not just bipartisanship. i'm confident you are going to make your contribution. thank you for your presence here today. [applause] president sullivan, thank you so much for welcoming me here today to this historic, remarkable campus. i feasted on the view as i walked across the lawn with president sullivan.

i have to say, you all are very lucky to go to school here. it is an honor to join you hear on the grounds. [laughter] [applause] this very beautiful monument to the potential of the human mind. i have to tell you, to stand here beneath the gaze of the sages of athens, those thinkers who gave us the idea of democracy, which we obviously still continued to perfect, not only in our nation but around the world, we are grateful for that. also, i was here a long time ago as an undergraduate. i played lacrosse on that field over there against you guys. my first act of diplomacy is literally to forget who won. i have no idea. [laughter]

i want to thank the folks in uniform. i want to thank the rotc and all those of you who have served and will continue to serve in some way for our nation. there's no greater declaration of citizenship than that. some might ask why i am standing here at the university of virginia, why i'm starting here as secretary of state making his first speech in the united states. you might ask, doesn't diplomacy happen over there, overseas, far beyond the boundaries of our backyard? why is it i'm on the foot of the blue ridge instead of the shores of the black sea? why i am here instead of in kabul?

the reason is simple. i came here purposely to underscore that in today's global world there is no longer anything foreign about foreign policy. more than ever before, the decisions that we make from the safety of our shores don't just ripped out words, they also -- don't just ripple outswards, but they also creates a current right here in america. how we conduct our foreign policy matters more than ever before to our everyday lives, to the opportunities of all the students i met standing outside, would every year they are here, thinking about the future. it is important not just in terms of the correct that we face but the products that we buy, the good that we sell, and the opportunities that we provide for economic growth and vitality. it's not just about whether we will be compelled to send our troops to another battle, but

whether we will be able to send our graduates into a thriving workforce. that's what i am here today. i'm here because our lives as americans are more intertwined than ever before with the lives of people in parts of the world that we may have never visited. and the global challenge is of diplomacy, development, economic security, environmental security, you will feel our success or failure just as strongly as those people in those other countries that you will never meet. for all we have gained in the 21st century, we lost the luxury of just looking inward. instead we look out and receive a new field of competitors. i think it gives us much reason to hope, but it also gives us many more rivals determined to create jobs and opportunities for their own people, a veracious marketplace that's

sometimes forgets morality and values. i know that some of you and many across the country which that globalization would just go away. or you remember easier times. my friend, no politician, no matter how powerful, can put the genie back in the bottle. our challenge is to obtain the worst impulses of globalization even as we harness its ability to spread information and possibility, to offer even the most remote place on earth the same choices that have made us strong and free. before i leave this weekend to listen to our allies and partners next week throughout europe and the middle east and in the coming months across asia, africa, and the americas,

i wanted to first talk with you about the challenge that we face here at home, because our engagements with the rest of the world begins by making some important choices together, and particularly about our nation's budget. our sense of shared responsibility that we care about something bigger than ourselves is absolutely central to the spirit of this school. it's also central to the spirit of our nation. as you well know and dr. sullivan reminded you a moment ago, our first secretary of state founded this great university. students in his day could basically only study law or medicine or religion. that was about all. thomas jefferson had a vision. he believed the american people

needed a public place to learn the diversity of disciplines, studies of science and at space, 4, form a common philosophy. -- flora, fauna, philosophy. he built this university in the image of 20 called the illimitable freedom of the human mind. today those of you will study here and teach here along with the taxpayers contributors, and parents who believe in your potential, you are all investing in mr. jefferson's vision. think for a moment about what that means. why do you spend many days and the dollars it takes to earn an education here or anywhere? why did jefferson what this institution to remain public and accessible, not just to virginians but as a destination from everywhere? i know that he was not thinking just about your getting a degree and a job. it was about something more.

jefferson believed we could not be a strong country without investing in the kind of education that empowers us to be good citizens. that is why founding this university is among the few accomplishments that jefferson listed on his epitaph that he wrote for himself. to him, this place and its goal was a bigger part of his legacy ban serving as secretary of state or even as president, neither of which made the cut. just as jefferson understood, that we need to invest in education in order to produce good citizens, i join president obama today in asserting with urgency that our citizenry deserves a strong foreign policy to protect our interests in the world. a wise investment in foreign policy can yield for a nation the same return that education does for its students. no investment that we may that is as small as this investment put forward such a sizable benefit for ourselves and for our fellow citizens of the

world. that's why i wanted to have this conversation with you today, which i hope is a conversation that extends well beyond the borders of charlottesville, will be on this university, to all americans. why talk about a small investment in foreign policy in the united states, i mean it. not so long ago, someone told the american people and asked how big is our international terrorist budget? most said 20% of our national -- 25% of our national budget. they thought it ought to be pared back to 10% of our national budget. let me tell you, i would take 10% in a heartbeat, folks. because 10% is exactly 10 times

greater than what we do invest in our efforts to protect america around the world. over 1% funds all our civilian and foreign affairs efforts. every embassy, every program that saves a child from dirty drinking water or aids or reaches out to build a village to bring american values. we're not talking about pennies on the dollar. where do you think this idea comes from that we spend? 25% of spend? it's pretty simple. as a recovery politician, nothing gets a crowd faster in a lot of places than saying i am going to washington to get them to stop spending all that money over there.

sometimes they get a lot more. if you're looking for an applause line, that's about as guaranteed as you can get. it does nothing to guarantee our security. it does not guarantee a stronger country. it does not guarantee a sounder economy or a more stable job market. it does not guarantee that the best interests of our nation are being served. it does not guarantee that another young american man or woman will not going to lose their life, because we were not willing to make the right investments here in the first place. we need to say no to the politics of a lowest common denominator and of simplistic slogans and start making real choices that protect the interests of our country. that is imperative. [applause]

unfortunately, the state department does not have our own grover norquist pushing a pledge to protect it. we don't have millions of aarp seniors who send in their dues and rallied to protect american investments overseas. the kids lose lives we are -- whose lives we are helping save from aids, the women we are helping to free from delores of sex trafficking, -- free from sex trafficking, the students who for the first time can choose to walk into a school instead of into it a short life with terrorism, their strongest lobbyists are the rare committed americans stand up for them and the resources we need to help

them. i hope that includes all of you here and many listening. you understand why every time a tough fiscal choices loom, the easiest place to point fingers is foreign aid. as ronald reagan said, foreign aid suppers for the lack of domestic constituency. that's part of the reason everyone thinks it costs a lot more than it really does. so we need to change that. i reject the excuse that americans just are not interested in what's happening outside their immediate field of vision. i don't believe that about anyone of you sitting here and i don't believe that about americans. the real domestic constituency for what we do, if people could see the dots connected and understand what we are doing, is really large. is a 314 million americans whose lives are better every day because of and when they have time to stop and pick about it, deep down they know our investment abroad actually makes them and our nation safer.

my friends, in this age when a shrinking world clashes with calls for shrinking budgets, we are not alone. it's our job to connect those stocks, to connect them for the american people between what we do over their hands the size of the difference it makes. over here makes won't why the price of abandoning our global efforts would be exorbitant and why the vacuum we will leave by retreating within ourselves will quickly be filled by those whose interests differ dramatically from ours. we learned that lesson in the deserts of mali recently, in the mountains of a pakistan in 2001, and in the tribal areas of pakistan even today. today's first years at uva we are starting the second grade when a small group of terrorists around the world and shattered our sense of security and our

stability, are skylines. so i know that you certainly have always understood that bad things happening over there and threatened us right here. knowing that, the question is this -- how do we together make clear that the opposite is just as true, that if we do the right things, the good things, the smart things over there, it will strengthen us here at home. let me tell you my answer. i believe we do this in two ways. first, it's about telling the story of how we stand up for american jobs to businesses. pretty practical, straightforward, pretty real on a day-to-day basis. second, it's about how we stand up for our american values, something that has always distinguished america.

i agree with president obama that there is nothing in this current budget fight that requires us to make bad decisions, that forces us to retrench or to retreat. this is a time to continue to engage, for the sake of the safety and economic health of our country. this is not optional. it is a necessity. the american people understand this, i believe it. our businesses understand this. it is simple. the more they sell abroad, the more they will hire here and don't. since 95% of the world's customers live outside our country, we cannot hamstring our own ability to compete in those increasingly growing markets. virginia understands this as well as any state in the union. senator tim kaine, stock tips to -- took trips to make this happen as governor.

international trade supports more than 1 million jobs here in virginia. more than one out of five jobs in virginia, which actually today is the story of america. there's a company near dulles airport, with the the help of the persistent advocates of our embassy in bangkok, it beats out the french and russian competitors to build the newest broadcast satellite for thailand. virginia's orbital is now teaming up with a california company called spacex operation technologies that makes satellite equipment. that's a deal that our embassy helped to secure valued at $160 million goes right back into american communities from coast to coast. that is the difference that our embassies abroad can make here and all. these success stories happen in partnership with countries all over the world because of the resources that we have deployed

to bring business and jobs back to america. these investments, my friends, are paying for themselves. we create more than 5000 jobs for every billion dollars of goods and services that we export. so the last thing that we should do is surrender this kind of leverage. these successes are happening in canada, where state department officers there got a local automotive firm to invest tens of millions of dollars in michigan, where the american auto industry is now making a remarkable comeback. in indonesia, thanks do with the embassy in jakarta, that nations privately owned airline does place an order for commercial aircraft, the largest boeing has ever been asked to fill. the indonesian state railroad is buying its locomotives from

general electric. >> more than 600 u.s. companies are doing business in south africa and where opec and the trade and development agency just opened an office to help close more investment deals between american companies and africa's booming energy and transportation sectors. a major south african energy company plans to build a multimillion-dollar plant in louisiana that would put more americans to work. let me tell you, this is happening. in cameroon and in bosnia and in other surprising places. in the shadows of world war ii, if you told someone that japan and germany would today be our fourth and its largest trading partners, someone would have thought you were crazy. before nixon's old opening with china, no one could imagine that

today it would be our second- largest trading partner, but that is exactly what has happened. 11 of our top 16 trading partners used to be the beneficiaries of u.s. foreign assistance. that's because our goal is not to keep a nation dependent on us forever. it is precisely to create these markets, to open these opportunities, to establish rule of law. our goal is to use assistance and development to help nations realize their own potential, develop their own ability to govern, and accomplish our economic partners. one of america's most incredible realities continues to be that we are a country without any permanent enemies. take vietnam. i will never forget standing next to john mccain in the east room of the white house. each of us on either side of president clinton as he

announced the once unthinkable normalization of our relations with vietnam, and efforts that john mccain and i worked on for about 10 years to try do. in the last decade, thanks in large part to the work of usaid, our exports to vietnam increased by more than 700%. every one of those percentage points our jobs here in america. in the last two decades, 1000 vietnamese students and scholars have studied spanish and taught -- have studied and taught in america through the fulbright program, including the foreign minister, who i just talked to the other day and who has feelings about america because of that engagement. the list goes on. as the emerging middle class in india, the world's largest democracy, buys our products, that means jobs and incomes for

our own middle-class. as our traditional assistance to brazil and decreases, trade there is increasing. brazil is one of the new tigers moving at a double-digit pace. it supports additional jobs here at home, many in the u.s. travel and tourism industry. when jefferson expanded our consular posts, precisely to promote trade, he never could have could the importance today. nor could be a predictable number of americans abroad that we help with passports, visas, with other problems that arise, or that will offer to those who want to grow their families to adoption or who find themselves in legal trouble or distressed far from home, or the role our diplomats play screening potential security threats and taking them off the radar screen before they ever reach your consciousness potential in the worst ways, or that we create a

new american jobs for every 65 visitors that we help bring to our shores. so we have to keep going. we cannot afford the kind of delay and disruption that stance on the horizon in washington. the exciting new trade negotiation that president obama announced last week between the united states and the european union will create the world's biggest bilateral deal with it comes to fruition, a trans- atlantic partnership that will match the scope and ambition of our trans-pacific partnership talks. but our work is far from over. seven of the 10 fastest-growing countries are on the african continent. and china understanding that, is already investing more than we do there. four of the five biggest oil and

gas natural discoveries happened off the coast of mozambique last year. developing economies are the epicenters of brokers and their open for business. and the united states needs to be at that table it. if we want a new list of assistance graduates, countries that used to receive aid from us, we cannot shy away from telling this story to the american people, to your members of congress, and to the world. let me emphasize, jobs and trade are not the whole story and nor should they be. the good work of the state department and usaid is measured not only in the value of the dollar, it's also measured in our deepest values.

we got your security and stability in other parts of the world, knowing that failed states are among our greatest security perhaps and the new partners are our greatest assets. the investments that we make support our efforts to counter terrorism and violent extremism wherever it flourishes. we will continue to help countries provide their own security, use diplomacy when possible, and support those allies and take the fight to terrorists. remember, i cannot emphasize this enough, i'm looking at a soldier in front of me with a ribbon on his chest, deploying diplomats today is much cheaper than deploying troops tomorrow. [applause] we need to remember that. [applause]

as senator lindsey graham said, it's national security that we are buying. it sounds expensive, but it's not. the state department's conflict stabilization budget is about $60 million a year now. that's how much the movie "the avengers" took in on a single sunday last may. [laughter] the difference is the folks we have on the ground doing his job are real super heroes. we value human rights and we need to tell the story of america's good work there too. we know that the most effective way to promote the universal rights of all people, their rights and religious freedom is not from the podium or from either end of pennsylvania avenue.

it is from the front lines, where ever freedom and basic human dignity are denied. that's what tim kaine understood when he went to honduras. the brave employees of state and usaid and diplomatic security personnel who protect civilians serving as overseas work in some of the most dangerous places on merit and they do it is fully cognizant that we share stronger partnerships with countries that share our commitment to democratic values and human rights. despite corruption in nigeria. they support the rule of law in burma. they support democratic institutions in kurdistan and in georgia, mindful from our own experience that it takes a long time to get democracy right and that it rarely happens right away. in the end, all of those efforts, all that danger and risk that they take makes us more secure and we do value democracy just as you

demonstrated here at uva through the presidential program that's training leaders in the emerging democracies. thanks to a decade of intensive diplomatic efforts alongside our partners, a conflict that took more than 2 million lives. the book about the holocaust, 6 million over the course of world war ii. we lost 2 million people in the longest war in africa in our time in the last years. and south sudan was born out of that act as a free nation. securing its future and peace for all of its citizens will take continued diplomatic efforts alongside partners like the african union. we can develop the capacity of the african union, the less the u.s. will have to worry. i've stood in south sudan. they still face the world's newest country and its government. those challenges threaten to reverse hard-won progress and

stability. that's why we are working closely with that nation to help it provide its own citizens with essential services like water and health and education and agriculture practices. we value health and nutrition and the principle of helping people gain strength to help themselves the cornerstone initiatives like feed the future. we help countries not only to plant and harvest better food but we also help them break the cycle of poverty, of poor nutrition, of hunger. we seek to reduce maternal mortality, eradicate polio, and protect people from malaria, tuberculosis, and pandemic influenza. i will tell you probably that the global milk initiatives and programs i was proud to have an aunt in helping to create like pepfar, we have saved the lives of 5 million people in africa through the efforts of americans.

[applause] today, astonishingly, we are standing on the edge of the potential of an aids-free generation, because we know these diseases don't discriminate by nationality. and we believe that relieving preventable suffering does not need justification. i think that part of our values. we valued gender equality. knowing that countries are more peaceful and prosperous when women and girls are afforded full rights and equal opportunity. [applause]

in the last decade, the proportion of african women enrolled in higher education went from nearly zero to 20%. in 2002, there were fewer than 1 million boys in afghan schools and barely any girls. now with america's health, more than one-third of the almost 8 million students going to school in afghanistan are girls. and more than one-quarter of their representatives in parliament are women. we should be proud of that, and it helps make a difference in the long haul. the fulbright program enables talented citizens to share their devotion to diplomacy and to teach their belief that all the earth's sons and daughters are to have the opportunity to lift themselves up.

today these exchanges bring hundreds of thousands of students to america from other countries and vice versa. in the last year alone, more than attend thousand citizens of foreign countries participated in the state department both academic youth professional and cultural exchange programs right here in virginia. virginians also studied abroad through state department programs. senator fulbright, i had a privilege of testifying as a young veteran from vietnam. he knew the value of sharing our proudest values made a difference in the long run. he said having people understood your thoughts is much greater security than to have been suffering. our assistance is not a giveaway. it is not charity. it is an investment in a strong

america and in the free world. foreign assistance lips other people abandon reinforces their willingness to link arms with us in common. when we help others crackdown on corruption, it makes easier for our own compliance against corruption and it makes it easier for our companies to do business. we build partnerships that mean we don't have to fight nuclear battles alone. it means working with our partners around the world and making sure iran never obtained a weapon that could endanger our allies or our interests. when we help others create the space they need to build stability in their own communities, we are helping brave people build a better more democratic future and making sure that we don't pay more later in american blood and treasure. the stories that we need to tell of standing up for american jobs and businesses and standing up for our american values

intersects powerfully to in the opportunity that we have now in this moment of urgency to lead on the climate concerns that we share with our global neighbors. we as a nation must have the foresight and courage to make the investments necessary to safeguard the most sacred trust we keep for our children and our grandchildren. and that is an environment not ravaged by rising seas, deadly superstorms, devastating droughts, and the other hallmarks of a dramatically changing climate. president obama is committed to moving forward on that and so am i. so must you be ready to join us in that effort. [applause]

can we all say thank you to our signers? [applause] so, think about all these things i've listed. think about the world as you see it today. let's face it, we're all in this one together. no nation can stand alone. we share nothing so completely as our planet. when we work with others to develop and deploy clean technologies that will power a new world -- six trillion dollar market waiting -- huge amount of jobs, when we do that, we know we are helping create new markets and opportunities for america's second to none innovators and entrepreneurs so that we can succeed in the next

great revolution in our marketplace. we need to commit ourselves to doing the smart thing and the right thing and to truly take on this challenge. if we don't rise to meet it, then rising temperatures and rising the levels will surely lead to rising costs down the road. ask any insurance company in america. if we waste this opportunity, it may be the only thing our generations are remembered for. we need to find the courage to leave a far different legacy. we cannot talk about the unprecedented changes happening on our planet without also talked about the unprecedented changes in its population. another great opportunity at our fingertips. in countries across north africa and the middle east, the majority of people are younger than 30 years old.

60% under 30. 50% under 21. 40% under 18. half of the total under 20. they look for the same opportunities and the same things that you do -- opportunity. we have an interest in helping these young people, to develop the skills they need to defeat mass unemployment that is overwhelming their societies, so they can start contributing to their communities and rebuild their broken economies rather than engaging in some other terrorist caught or other kind of extremist activity. for the first time in human activity, young people around the world act as a global cohort, including many of the people in this room. we are more open-minded, more proficient with the technology that keep them connected as no generation in history has ever been before. we need to help all of them and us to use this remarkable

network in a positive way. some may say not now, not while. we have while. it's too expensive. believe me, my friends, these challenges will not get easier with time. there is no pause button on the future. we cannot choose when we would like to stop and restart our global responsibility or simply wait until the calendar says it is more convenient. it is not easy. but responding is the american thing to do. i will tell you, it is worth it. these programs the vance peace -- which advance peace and security around the world, which open markets to american manufacturers, fostering stable societies to save lives by fighting disease and hunger, defended the universal rights of all people, advance freedom and dignity, bringing people together, nations together.

addressing problems that transcend the separation of motions, giving hope to a new generation in an interactive world of citizens. in all those things it costs us as scientists mentioned about one penny of every dollar that -- as i just mentioned, about one penny of every dollar that we invest. america, you will not find a better deal anywhere. i am particularly aware that in many ways the greatest challenge to america's foreign policy today is in the hands of our diplomats and policy makers in congress. it is often said we cannot be

strong at home if we are not strong in the world. but in these days of the budget sequester, which everyone wants to avoid -- or most -- we cannot be strong in the world unless we are strong at home. my credibility as a diplomat, working to help other countries create order is strongest when america at last put its own fiscal house in order. that has to be now. [applause] think about it. it is hard to tell the leadership of other countries that they have to resolve their economic issues when we do not resolve our own. let's reach a responsible agreement. let's not use this opportunity because of politics. as i have said many times before, america is not exceptional simply because we say we are.

we are exceptional because we do exceptional things. both where there are problems as well as where there is promise. both where there is danger as well as where there is democracy. i am optimistic that we will continue to do these exceptional things. i know that is who we are and it is who we have always been. as we ask for our next steps in this path, we would do well to learn a lesson from our own history. in the aftermath of world war ii, america had a choice, just like we do today, to turn inward. instead the secretary of state, george marshall, sought in both defeated and allied countries the threat of bankruptcy, homes and re -- homes and railways

destroyed, economies decimated. he had the foresight to know that there could be no political stability, no peace without renewed economic strength. he knew that we had an obligation to partner with europe, help them rebuild, modernize, give the push that it needed to become the powerful and peaceful trading partner it is today. after the war, my friends, we did not spike the football, we created another level playing field. we are stronger for it today. when i was 12 years old i had the privilege of living in germany, where my father, an officer, was called to duty. one day i visited the eastern side of berlin. the part that had not received any of the help from the united states and its courageous marshall plan. the difference was undeniable, even to my 12-year-old eyes.

there were few people on the streets, a few smiles on the faces of those were there. i saw the difference between hope, the spare, freedom, and -- hope, despair, freedom, and oppression. people who were given the chance to do something as opposed to the people who were not. as western europe regained its vibrant color, the place i visited was still in black and white. when i went back to west berlin, two things happened. first, i was summarily grounded for venturing without permission to the other side of the city. [laughter] second, i started to pay special attention to the plaques on the buildings that recommend -- that recognize the united states of america for lending a hand in rebuilding. i was proud. the marshall plan, imf, and other organizations led by the united states are evidence of our ability to make the right

decisions at the right time, taking risks today in the interest of tomorrow. we now face a similar crossroads. we can be complacent or competitive as markets bloom in every corner of the world. with or without us. we could be there to help plant the seeds or we can see the power to others. given the chance to lead a second great american century, we must not just look to the american landscape today. look at the days to come. we must marshal the courage that define the the marshall plan so that we might secure in the future freedom. let's remember the principles of jefferson's time. looking to independence echoing in our time. america's national interest is

in leading strongly and it still in doers in this world. let me leave you with a thought. when tragedy and terror visit our neighbors, whether by the hand of man or the hand of god, many nations give of themselves to help. only one is expected to. with the leadership of president obama i will work hard to secure for the congress the continuing of the lead of the separation. not because we view it as a burden, but because we know it to be a privilege. that is what is special about the united states of america. that is what the special about being an american. that exceptional quality that we share is what i will take with

me on my travels on your behalf. the responsibility cannot be reserved for responses to emergencies at home. it has to be exercised in the pursuit of exercising the disaster, of building markets. of standing up for our guidance. over the next four years i asked you to stand with our president and our country to continue to conduct ourselves with the understanding that what happens over there matters right here. and it matters that we get this right. thank you. [applause] >> his secretary leaves on sunday for a 10 day trip to the uk, germany, france, italy, turkey, egypt, saudi arabia,

united arab emirates, and qa tar. >> former cia director michael hayden says he has been pressed about that chinese effort to get to america. >> look, china is not an enemy of the united states. there are no good reasons for it to become an enemy of the united states. there are choices available to the chinese and to us. we keep our relationship competitive. now, that said, i have told you about chinese espionage.

their behavior is very disturbing. it should not be allowed to stand. the president -- there is an espionage danger and there is an instructive danger. >> we could be facing a cyber pearl harbor. do you believe that? >> i do not choose that phrase myself. there are several dangers that i am concerned. cyber pearl harbor is too easy. we could be facing a cyber pearl harbor. why? why has it not happened? >> what do we do about it? >> well i have to first answer the question of why it has not happened? there are great dangers out there. i fear that chinese presence on these networks is a matter of great concern.

what can we do? number one, we can follow the advice my dad gave me after losing a fight. quit whining come act like a man, or national quit whining, applicant man, and defend yourself. that is one. secondly, i would suggest an neustar that a bit in the new york times bit that chinese behavior is part of the portfolio -- again, not calling that an enemy. it is disturbing for us that if that pattern continues, we should make it later to the chinese that that will affect all of this. >> what does that mean?

that is a threat that you need to be prepared for. they are holding $1 trillion of our debt. >> i do not mean to be boss say they this -- blase, but are also dependent on us. >> what is the consequence? what do we do? stop buying their televisions and iphones? >> yeah. >> are you going to stop buying their iphones? [laughter] >> that design looks just like one of the u.s. companies. why should we allow them to export that back to the united states? we can control who gets visas. there are lots of ways we can make this relationship less comfortable to them. this is important. we need to take some actions.

you ask my view. >> in a few moments, the defense department briefing on how automatic in about 45 minutes a review of the 2012 presidential campaign with strategists for president obama and mitt romney. after that we will re-air the secretary of state john kerry's speech. several live events to tell you about. the georgetown university law center hosted a forum of federal, state, and local energy policies. also at 9:30 on c-span 3 the indian foreign minister discuss, u.s. and india relations.

here on c-span, we look at how the sequestration if it goes into effect affects federal workers. that is 2:30 p.m. eastern. >> from the start we told the approach that we were going to take which was pretty straight forward. we were there to fix g.m., the board and i. that was the mission, make this thing a vible company again. we were all -- vyible company again. we need your support and we need your input. so we changed a few things about the board meeting, we shortened them considerably. we stay wad from the details or did want get into the weeds about how you build a car but the bigger questions of financing, moral, positioning, marketing, that sort of thing.

the board was very support oif of that. we kept them informed and we just took off. >> leading general motors through bankruptcy and the government bailout ed whitacre on book tv. like us on facebook. defense department officials outline plans to furlough civilian employees if automatic spending cuts into effect next month. this is 40 minutes. >> good afternoon. thank you for joining us today and for your interest in the topics today on sequestration as well as -- moat of you know by

now in accordance with the law we notified congress about potential furloughs. with us today we have our undersecretary, bob hale, and i -- acting undersecretary, just -- jessicathey do have some comments that wright. they would like to start with, with respect to sequestration and the act that we took today on notifying congress about the furloughs. then they will be available to take your questions. >> ok, good afternoon. today the department of defense faces some enormous budgetary uncertainty unparalleled in my experience. the possibility for sequestration on march 1. it could mean 9% across all

accounts except military personnel, including wartime accounts. we will protect those accounts, but that means larger cuts to the base budget. the continuing resolution, if it stays in effect, has the money in the wrong places, too many dollars in the investment accounts and too few in operation and maintenance. the pattern here, there will be pressure on base budget operation and maintenance affecting continuing resolutions. finally, we are spending at a higher than expected rate in our oko budgets. two years ago we did not anticipate and tell operating tempo. we will meet those costs, the

sum of all those effects means we are seriously short on operation and maintenance funds. this will have serious adverse effects on readiness. we have taken short-term actions to slow spending and avoid more draconian cuts later. affecting many of our organizations already, sharp cutbacks in facilities maintenance, cutbacks, with sequestration lasting all year. they will have to have much more far reaching changes. there will be cutbacks and delays in virtually every department. it will mean cutbacks in unit buys, increases in unit costs. we will have to cut back training, particularly for

non-deployed units, leading to actions such as two-thirds of the combat brigades being at unacceptable levels of readiness by the end of the year, including those already deployed in afghanistan. most airports units would be below acceptable levels. we have decided to take one fewer carrier in the gulf. unfortunately along this list of items, with sequestration if it lasts all year are furloughs for civilian personnel. we feel we have no choice but to impose, the we would prefer not to do it. we are more than 20% short with seven months ago in the army. making up a substantial part of funding. reductions in support cost us

money. if you are lees -- furloughs are the only ways we have to cut personnel funding. we have established a general approach that we will follow. it is one of the approaches of last resort. we will also insist on consistency across the department so that all of our organizations will do so. about the same for the same number of days. there will be some limited exceptions to this, for example. we will not furlough citizens in, but zones or citizens required to make safety of life or property. 20 policeman on a base, they are not all automatically exempted from furloughs. they have to exempt some or all of them.

exempting employees paid with non-appropriated funds, we will exempt hour for a national employees. how would they work in general? first, there is a whole series of notifications. the first one was started today. it starts a 45 day clock ticking. until that clock has run out, we cannot proceed with furloughs. we will ask components to identify specifics exceptions. they will begin required engagements with local unions. they will notify unions with national bargaining rights. at some point in mid march we will send a notification to each employee that may be

furloughed before we can take any action. later on in april we will send a decision to employees. they have a one week time period to appeal the protection board. the bottom line is that furloughs would not start until late april. we certainly hope that if triggered, that in the interim congress would act to not trigger the sequestration. or take some short-term action while they are dealing with the broader issue. meanwhile, unfortunately we will have to continue our planning for furloughs. this is one of the most distasteful taxed -- tasks i have faced in my four years. we will work it out. with that i would like to turn it over and we'll talk more about furlough and planning actions. >> thank you, bob.

let me first say that our focus is clearly on people. civilians around the world provide invaluable support for national security. everyday they make countless contributions and sacrifices in support of national defence. -- defense. the effects of sequestration and the continuing resolution will be devastating. on our civilians, it will be catastrophic. these critical members of our workforce maintain and repair tanks, aircraft, ships. they teach our kids and care for our children. they provide medical treatments to all of our beneficiaries. they take care of our wounded warriors. they provide services in programs like sexual assault prevention and suicide prevention, just to name a few. let me be clear, the first, second, and third order on

sequestration will be fell in local command and local communities all over the united states. this is not a beltway phenomenon. more than 80% of our civilians work outside the washington, d.c. metro area. they live and work in every state of the union. if furloughs are enacted, civilians works -- will experience a decrease in pay. at least 20%. as a result, many families will be forced to make difficult decisions on where their financial obligations live. key benefits like life insurance benefits, health care, and retirement will generally continue. those programs and policies are mandated by the office of personnel management and applied consistently to all government employees.

loss of pay will only be felt by each employee, but it will be felt in the business communities where they serve, where their kids go to school and where their name -- and the neighborhoods they live in. the department will apply these of furloughs if necessary in a consistent and equitable fashion. with only a few exceptions. civilians will experience the impact directly to their wallet. service members, retirees, families, they will clearly feel the effect of these actions. if sequestration is not averted, associated furloughs will affect war fighters, veterans, and family members in untold ways.

let me talk about a couple of those ways. our goal is to preserve the accreditation of our schools. as we continue to work with the department of defense education activity and how they will implement a furloughs, we are committed in mitigating the impact of sequestration on the school year for our kids. regarding health care, about 40% of our medical providers are civilians. this furlough will affect them greatly. our goal is to mitigate the impact and provide quality care. we are thoughtfully working through that process now. certainly family members will

feel the impact of sequestration. our intent is to ease the impact, but it is clearly possible that operating will be curtailed. while it is our intent to preserve family programs to the greatest extent possible, some programs may be affected if the length of sequestration goes long and hard. we understand that sequestration will be significant. not only to our civilian employees, but to the servicemen and women and their families. it will affect local communities and local businesses. it will affect our dedicated men and women who have lived in the local communities throughout our nation and clearly overseas. we know this. that is why our guiding principle will be to lessen the

impact wherever we can. we are clearly grateful for the support and clearly grateful for the support of the men and women of our civilian force that worked to help the war fighter protection mission. thank you. >> you mentioned that every state would be affected. which ones have been affected the most? >> we have not done that research, to find out which state will be affected the most. clearly where we have the large bases and depots, they will be affected >> you may not be surprised, as justice said. >> what about sequestration in germ? >> probably both but speaking of furloughs specifically. >> could that be available?

>> we can get you that. i don't see why not. both the c.b.o. and the center for strategicbudgetary assessment take the defense department back to 2007 roles. why can the department of sort the kind of cut? what is wrong with that picture? you seal to have a lot of money back in 2007 and 2006. >> first of all, there is a timing issue. it will occur five months into the year. particularly in the operating side. we will have to take it within seven months and, without, frankly, time to get ready. more generally i would say that i am always troubled if we're

trying to determine the adequacy of these budgets on real dollar levels in a particular year, we need to look at the threats that we face the remain substantial. we owe it to the public's to figure out the amount that we think needs to be spent to carry out a national defense strategy, and we have done that. >> will this lead to determinations of existing contracts? or is it slowing down dollars for new contracts? >> i do not anticipate that we will cancel many of any contracts. it is more the latter. but i would not except that we would terminate existing

contracts. if you got a contract with us we're going to pay you. even under sequestration we will find a time to keep it to the vendors on time. >> if the base number of civilians that work for department of defense is 800,000, how many do you expect to be furloughed? and have you said what the estimated savings would be? >> we do not know the exact number, it will depend on those exceptions. 50,000 of them are foreign nationals. there will be exceptions to make it smaller. it will depend on the exceptions. that is a process we just started to ask command to identify.

>> the percentage that are likely to be furloughed, i realize you just started it but is it going to be more than 50%? >> i think so. >> temporary term employees that have already been terminated? >> this is an ongoing issue, 6,000-7,000 are being laid off or in the process of being laid off. i think you will see more. for those near term actions, particularly, there were mission critical exceptions. >> by the end of this month we would have a pretty good

idea. assuming this goes forward, which i sure hope it does not. >> these exemptions, can you tell us more? who is going decide --which employees are exempt? the you have any estimates on how many people might be exempt? >> we have power down services so that they can review their employees. >> i want to bring you back to our civilian work force. they contribute tons to what we do here in the department and worldwide.

saying that, if we have to do this furlough, like the secretary said, exemptions will be relatively small. we have asked services to come back with a plan. we will review the plan with the criteria outlined for exemptions. we do not yet have a number i can give you on who will be the percentage exempt. >> what will life on military bases look like with these closures and shortened hours? what do you expect to see? >> as i said in the opening comments, i truly believe that our civilians and add such a value to life on a military base. if furloughed, they will see a

reduction in some of the services, like for example commissary hours. life on military base, that will impact those individuals who use the commissary. until we find out how this is going to be applied, i cannot give you a daily routine of what a generic day would be on a military base, should we face such a catastrophic event as furloughing or civilian employees. >> our personnel are committed to carrying out a mission to defend the united states. i think that one thing you are going to see is a great deal of frustration. they will see that they cannot train as much as they need to.

their readiness will be degraded. if they are dealing with investments that will see disruption in the programs they are managing. so, there will be some aspects of daily life affected. i think that there's satisfaction with the mission will be adversely affected, which is important to these people, civilian and military. >> does the furlough apply to intelligence employees? as you know, the director of national intelligence said that those -- that furloughs should not apply to them. >> i do not know that a final decision has been made there. for department of defense employees we will insure consistency, but that is a decision that will have to be made and i do not know if they made it. i think it would be in conjunction with the office of management and budget. >> can you give us a ballpark figure?

>> i want to say 25,000. does that sound right, mary? i think i better get back to you. >> is there any indication on the impact of sequestration for on recruitment efforts? perhaps the command themselves or the ability for these services to recruit for the future. >> it would potentially affect the military processing stations because some of those stations are civilian employees.

so it could slow down the physicals that are performed. the recruiters are all military. they are exempt from furlough. the second and third order of the effect of giving someone in can slow the process. >> by the end of this process you have two-thirds, that would be unacceptable levels. will that affect future deployment? >> other than those currently deployed, yes, it would affect theirability todeploy to a new contingency of occurred. or if this goes on long enough

to afghanistan. >> entirely because of what is laying around? >> that is a variety -- there are a variety of reasons. two years ago when we put together the budget for this year we underestimated the army and the air force. >> can i just follow up on the readiness question? we have seen a lot of what appears to be scare tactics. the services are pushing out a message of security issues. what is the reality of readiness here? still at war, the message is the long-term effect. you might have to keep troops on the ground longer.

is this something that will be allowed to be pushed down the road? >> we have seven months ago and are short in the base budget by $35 billion compared to the president's request. it is probably close to twice that in the army. i can hope that several things happened. that is the results of sequestration, but also the current continuing resolution. we might see some action on either one. if neither of them get fixed and it goes through the year in its current form, we will have serious readiness of facts. -- effects. i don't know where we're going to getthese are legally binding the money. limits. we will have to cut back on training significantly.

>> when the service chiefs were pushed, they said they could move money around further. is that an option for readiness? >> we could try, but the only means of doing that was reprogramming, using very limited techniques. for every dollar that you add, you have to cut somewhere else. especially in an environment like this one, with sequestration cuts in investment accounts, there are not a lot of good sources. you have to get a member of congress to agree to this, at least all the committees. so, it cannot be anything contentious. it is not realistic to move multiple billions of legal limits on transfer authority. could some of this change? yes. congress can change the laws in

ways that make this easier. we are doing worst-case planning right now, that is a fair statement. but if the cr stays in effect for the whole year, we will see serious attacks. -- effects. i'm worried. >> if i can follow up and add, if we do follow these civilian employees, they are the ones that maintain our equipment in a lot of our depots. they have a lot of ranges on posts. if furloughed, they will not be there for that training environment. it is not the training dollars but it is the people to utilize and or perform the jobs they are required to perform. >> so the measures you're talking about are fairly

drastic. why wait until today to make these announcements. do you accept the criticism that the pentagon should have been we listed every major item we are talking about. we said we had to do furloughs.

we said there would be cutbacks in readiness. we said unit costs would go up. all the same things. what we didn't do with a detailed budget planning and i don't regret that. we wouldn't have known the effects of the continuing resolution. we wouldn't have known that congress is going to change the size and the. moreover, we would have incurred the productivity and we would v done it six months ago, so i don't regret not doing that. i think we did sound the alarm in every way we could. >> i am wondering what kind of contract you are having with the white house and with congress there is going to have to be some. so are you trying to offer any solutions? also, i am wondering, what other things would you be doing right now if you were not

spending all your time on this sequester. >> spending time with my wife -- i think i am hot the right person to answer. we are responsible for providing the nation's security as best we can within the resources that are provided. we are interested in monitoring closely. i think i would refer to you the white house, and to give you a more serious answer, although, i would be spending more time with my wife. you know, when i first took this job, actually, my deputy said you got an investment operating problem. you got to set aside some things that you want to do. i tried to do that in a couple of ways. one is to try to improve financial information and achieve the statements and another one is to bring about a course-based certification for the managers, and some other issues that are getting short shifted right now because they are totally consumed with

trying to help the department get through this, so i think longer-term issues that i believe would be good. i think the nation is not getting the attention they would otherwise get. >> if this is going to happen and it is going to hurt so bad, let me give you other options so we can get to this goal of deficit reduction that everyone seeks, i am just wondering, would that be a strategy to say, look, we are stair staring down the bell here, we are cool with this, so willing let's do it? >> i think the president has made proposals. the republicans have made proposals. think think the education of those or the bargaining is not the right thing to be speaking to that, although, i am in continuesly interested in the outcome. >> can you explain a little bit of the rational behind it? >> the force and the agrems would probably require some negotiation and in some cases,

particularly in japan, they are paid by the foreign government. that would not help us very much. >> yes. >> yes. >> these are japanese employees in japan on our bases. >> okay. what are the important benefit benefits? you mentioned 40% of the care is for civilians, that is going to cut into the services they provide. i think elected surgeries would be canceled or postponed? is that going to happen? and other times, you could actually throw that on to tri care. it is going to be effected, correct? >> everything is going to be affected. that is a guarantee. i think that everybody will be impacted by this action. and i think it is incumbent

upon us to try to ease that where we can. yes, 40% of our medical providers are civilian employees. a couple of things, because the war has changed, there are less of our uniformed providers that are in the war zone, and more so, uniformed providers that are within the confines of our medical treatment facilities, that is one, one benefit. it is incumbent upon us to review the plan of dr. woodson and the surgeons and the services as they come in in march, to decide how we are best going to provide care and access to care, and so we'll do that. i would like to be able to give you more specifics, but until i see those plans, i would be only speculating and that would be truly unfair. so after march 1st, i will have a better understanding of how

exactly we will provide the access and the care to our beneficiaries. >> we are all talking about through september 2013. what happens next year? does it suddenly get better in fiscal 2014? you mentioned risk before, but said that there was not enough time this year to do that. could the civilian work force be facing risk next year? >> well, i cannot rule it out. i mean, the budget control act actually requires the caps on digressionary funding be lowered for defense by 50 to $55 billion a year. if those come to pass, then we will have to look at a new defense strategy. that would be the first thing we would do. it would accept more risk and also accommodate a smaller military. that point, we would be talking

about the significant reduction as well probably in the civilian work force and many others. the other difference there, we would have time and the ability to do it in a manner that reflects a new tragedy as opposed to kind of across the board cuts that we face right now. >> that is the problem? >> yes. potentially, we can hope for a big-budget deal that has some accommodation. i devoutly would wish for budget stability right now, and i think it would benefit the department and the nation, but absent a deal of that sort, then, yes, i think we'll continue to face some uncertainty into the future. >> what kind of impact will be on the contractor? what kind of jobs might be lost? >> i don't, i mean, there are a lot of private sector agencies

that have job loss numbers. will let them speak for of the themselves. >> i can tell you, we need to take 45 or $46 billion, $4 to $5 billion of that will come from furloughs, if we end up doing them for a maximum period of time. there would be some additional savings for laying off temporary employees. it leaves me $40 billion or so that is going to be accommodated by cutbacks and purchase in the private sector. weapon purchase, service contracts, a lot of different kinds, so they will be substantial effects on the private sector as well, and -- i cannot give you job loss numbers, although, there are a a number of operate private organizations that have made estimateds. >> what specific changes in law would you like to see congress make to give you more flexibility to manage this challenge? also in fy14, what sorts of cuts are you having to make? us what the top-line, do you

expect? >> well, first off, the change i want the united states congress is to make is to pass a balanced budget. and to pass appropriations bills. that is what i wyck for christmas. i know it is late. i really would like it. that is what would solve our problem. in terms of a flexibility, you know, we are five months into the fiscal year facing a $46 billion cut. we would have to go after just about every dollar that is not obligated in order to get the cuts that quickly, and i know that have been suggestions that we can solve this problem by getting or giving flexibility. i don't think it would help that much as far into the fiscal year. fit makes it more likely to occur or persist, i think it is bad deal. the flexibility. as far as the future, at the moment, the guidance we have is not to count on the large cuts

that could occur under the budget control act. if congress does not make some change in the law, yes, we would have to, asaid, to the other question, we would have to look at at new defense strategy, a smaller military, that would include a smaller civilian work force, and a variety of other changes. >> what number you planning for? >> you know, i cannot give you that number until i release the budget, but it is not too far off from the numbers we were planning a year ago for fiscal 14. does that help. i wish i knew. they said in march. they will make this de, but i don't have a specific date. >> march, april? >> i believe they said mid-march.

>> let me try one more specifically on the service contractor work norse the department is described as part of the total force many times. it seems like you have a solid plan on the civilian work force and how you will handle that and how they will contribute. there is a similar detailed plan on the contract work force? >> well, it is managed differently in the sense we go out to the private sector and order services, and they, of course, manage the work force, so wee not be involved in that. we are developing a plan, we have increasing level of detail for what we would buy from the private sector. we're in the process of looking at all the investment programs. 2500. it takes a lot of work to fig dure -- figure out what we won't do, and in the service contract area. i won't tell you all of that is done. i think we'll be ready by march 1st. under the law, we owe a detailed spend plan by april 1st. that would give a more fidelity on the change. but in terms of managing the work force, that is really something that women be done by

the private companies. >> we'll let you finish. >> will we be getting it in piece? >> i think that is possible. for the budget, we need decision. we are getting those now after the state of the union message. we still have to put the budget together. they may not come out together. i don't know the, act timing of release. they may come out separately. >> okay. i just need a clarification. you have got some civilian exemptions and the same can be said. what percent of the available could be cut?

it is not just 20%. what is the potential pie that you are cutting? >> well, i see what you mean. well, you know, the problem is the investment, i would say divide $46 billion by five-twelths, but that would not be right. i don't know if i have that number in my head. i would guess we are a quarter obligated overall now. does that sound right? all right. we got three quarters left. we take $46 billion out of them. don't hold me to that too closely, please. it is probably in that ballpark because investment accounts ten to obligate more toward the end of the year. >> all right. thank you again.

>> in a few moments, a review of the 2012 presidential campaign with strategist for president obama and myth romney. in a little less than two mour, secretary of state john railroad kerry is speaking about foreign policy. after this we'll reair on how automatic spending cuts will affect civilian employees. >> we lack at the background check system for purchasing firearms. we'll be live at a gunshop and shooting range near virginia. in addition to interviews with the gunshop owners and live demonstrations, our guest will be larry pratt with gun owners of america, and washington times emily miller, author of

emily gets her gun. washington journal is life on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. the navy strategy, the naval strategy of southern states is commerce rating. one gun on a pivot right there between the mass, again, if you are going after ships, one is all you need. if you caught a merchant ship, the idea was to come alongside and put a prized crew onboard, take it to a port where a prize court judge could adjudicate it. sell it auction, you got to keep all the money. the ship owner paid the men, the ship itself, supplies the food, hires the officers, he peckses a return on his money. the crew expected prize money. without friendly ports where they could be condemned, and

then sold, you cannot make a profit off private ships. therefore, confederate died out almost immediately. it lasted about three months, slightly longer. entrepreneurs found out this e could make more money blockade running. >> historian looks at the civil war at sea saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern. part of american history tv, this weekend on c-span 3. now strategist for the obama and romney presidential campaigns review the 2012 race to discuss the primaries, debates, polling, conventions and election night. mod rated by nbc news white house correspondent chuck todd and hosted by the chicago institute of politics, this is nearly two hours.

[applause] good the evening. i am the student specific engagement chair for the student advisory council. my role consist of creating excitement and for political involvement in many ways and helping to provide anticipates avenues nor type of engagement across campus. it has become clear at getting students involved in politics is important for fostering good citizens and leaders. in fact, many of the students were involved in the presidential campaigns this past year. through internship, calling banks, even going door to door advocating for the candidates. even more students were indirectly involved in the campaigns whether we tweeted, facebooked or posted candidates making awkward faces. everyone knew about this election. in reality. the campaign became ten times more complicated when we zoomed

out and analyzed all the factors that are required to orc trait this at a national jail. it is an understatement when we say running the presidential campaign is one of the most difficult feats in the american political system. tonight's speakers are experts in this trade. sorry. in alphabetical order, these are our speakers, david axelrod shifted to political consulting in the mid '8os and wanted to become a key strategist for the obama campaign. his role as senior adviser ended in 2011 when he became senior rangist for the 2012 election campaign. he is the founder and institute director for the institute of politics. eric began as a reporter for the boston herald and served as assistant treasure for massachusetts. he became the then current governor myth romney's communication director and was the top aide and strategist for the romney presidential campaign.

larry has been involved in politics and campaigning for the past 30 years and has been a leading person for the most important political battles of the political party. he served as the director of paid media for president obama's campaign. tim served as college senior and quickly rose to prominence in campaigns across the country. he became president obama's deputy chief of staff of operations in 20009 and went on to become the manager of obama's re-election campaign in 2012. beth meyers started with the campaign in 1980 and has been in politics ever since and worked with governor romney since the 2002 campaign when she served as his chief of staff and was a top adviser for the romney campaign for the presidency. she is this week's inaugural fellows for the institute of politics.

>> general mali dylan rose quickly from being a clinton advocate in college to working on campaigns over the years. in 2008, she was the deputy campaign manager for his successful 2012 bid. matthew rose has been the lead strategist for the republican national committee and was a research analyst for the rnc in the 2,000 election. mr. rose was director of the opposition research for the 2004 bush campaign. stewart stevens has gone on to help elect more governors and senators than any other current republican media consultant. and has also worked on campaigns overseas. mr. stephons was involved in the media image for romney in 2008 and served as senior strategist for romney's presidential campaign in 2012. finally, our moderator for tonight, mr. chuck todd. a man who has had experience in journalism as editor, political

director for nbc news and is an on-air political analyst and is chief white house correspondent has give and viewer fan base as chuck-light. we'll cover on a mackerel level and will shed light on what went right, what went wrong and what went unexpectedly. we want to especially thank the strategist from governor romney's campaign forgiving our institution the privilege of hosting them. the caliber and expertise of tonight's guest is extraordinary and is a true honor being able to introduce them all for an enlightening discussion. ladies and gentlemen, i would like to thank you for coming, and would ask that you join me in welcoming our distinguished guest. [applause]

>> am i supposed to begin sneer. >> that is why you have the big chair. >> all right. i am a little concerned. eight people, 90 minutes, then as, i think matt said to me, oh, it is like another republican debate. eight people in 90 minutes. oh, it is a small republican debate, so you know, we'll do our best. don't suck up too much time on your answers because we want to hear from everybody. i want to begin with the thing i am curious about which is sort of when, when does somebody decide to run for president? how does that conversation take place? i want to start with stewart.

when did, when did you have the conversation with governor romney, and said, okay, i am in? a lot of us assumed he had been running for president, just the whole time. when, when did he decide to run? when did he tell you? when was it clear it was time to go? >> well, i think it is a great misconception that he planned to run immediately afterwards, and i think his assumption was that the economy would continue to improve or would improve, and that, you know, moderately successful economy, and running and losing in '08 was very liberating for him. he found that, you know, he could be very happy and ready to throw himself into the book. we kept talking around it, and we had a very busy, he wanted to talk about it.

we had a very busy 2010 client schedule, and a very myth romney way. he said finally, on election day, 2010, you cannot do anything for your client, why don't we meet on election day 2010? i said "okay, we can do that." so my partner and i, us where, met him. we met in bostonned a his condo on election day 2010, and that was, i think, when i got a sense he was really intending to run. this was serious. it was serious before. i got a sense was definitely intending to run. >> that he made the decision? >> yeah. >> david, covering the white house, i got that sense that you guys thought you were running against mitt romney. you always sort of viewed mitt romney as the face of the republican party. that is unfair?

>> no, in fact, after the 2008 election, we were mooing about the future and, he asked me who i thought the nominee in 2012 would be. i said mitt romney. i said it because i knew we were headed into an economic way, i have, and i spoke earlier with this group the opposite the riff presidential races that people tend to merg merge. you know, romney, a business background and so on, seemed like the kind of person who could emerge from that most likely. the thing is that that election, on election day of 2010, you know, that election sort of altered my thinking slightly. i thought he would be the nominee, but it with a are was clear to me that day, that there were forces that were in the republican neat were going

to control the nominating process, and that it was going to be challenging for any nominee to navigate those, those forces, and that they were going to have to make some difficult choices, in order to be the nominee. it was an element about that was injected by the 2010 race, buy always felt romney was the likely guy. >> was there after time you ever thought he was not going do it? >> yeah. i mean, he had a really relaxing 2009, and i am not sure i would have ever gone and said he is not going do it, but you know, ann had a health scare, and whatever -- he wouldn't do something if ann said it was not good. so i think 2009 was -- who knows, way was enjoying writing the book. at the time i think he was most likely to run was right after the scott-brown race when he sat down with eric and me and

said "we med to get another person up here." let's talk to matt, when he said wanted to move matt up to boston, i thought that was a good indication that he was serious about thinking about running. that was 2010. >> i was with governor romney in 2008 when he withdraw from that presidential campaign. it was as he backed down in washington, on the plane back to boston, mitt was very busy trying to acran people's lives. arrange people's lives. he did not sound like a person who was plotting another run. in fact, he seemed exhausted by the politics. but then, there were developments that happened not only to scott-brown race but chris christie victory in new jersey and the victory in virginia. it seemed like republicans were

playing defense, particularly on issues relating to the economy which was deteriorating, and i think mitt felt and said so in the announcement speech in 20 1, that he was compelled to get involved because he felt he had something to offer with respect to his skills on the jobs and the economy. that is why he got in. was there a precise moment when the light switch went on? >> i don't think so. i think it is a process. >> yeah. >> that! haps overtime. there are a number of factors that get taken into account. but certainly by the time, as i said, matt came up to take over the pac, we knew he was moving in that direction. you know, jim, were you dealing with congressional politics. a campaign junky, first and foremost, i got to realize that cover you.

what was your -- did you find yourself obsessively following romney, following the republican presidentials? take me inside of the white house when you had this discussion? >> well, i think he has it right. we assumed for a long time it was going to be romney. >> during the campaign, every friday we would rank the republicans from one to ten and romney never went below number one. he felt we viewed him, during 2010, cue see him make the steps and doing the steps that i felt the book was really good and smartly done. cue tell, we thought, he made a decision and he was going. he would be a formidable candidate. david was right. we did look at each other in the night and said can mitt romney get through this primary? it tended to be longer than we thought it would be. it was real question for awhile. could he get through it? >> what is the interview like with mitt romney? you are being interviewed for job to run the campaign. did you interview him? what were the questions for

you? >> well the first question, it was really in february of 2010, it was around the period when washington was getting crushed with the brutal snowstorms. ier there was plenty of snow out there even more than chicago has today. it really was not an interview as top of run the campaign at that point and time. it was, it was actually whether or not i would come up and he was talking about kicking it you up a notch. sometimes it is more important. presidential campaign are a little different than other campaigns. they are different in many ways. you go through this period when you are, where you are thinking about running for president. that is almost more important than the day that you finally come toll the conclusion and say "i am going to run." he wanted to kick it up a notch and see what the landscape was going to hold, and he had his book that he was just about to roll out and so i came up right

about that time and he asked me that day. i think i gave him the -- when someone offers you something, i feel like you have to say let me think about it overnight. i told him that. the next day we were off and running. it kind of progressed and just happened. you know, by the time i became campaign manager, i don't know that i ever sat down and had a normal interview. that was for better or worse. it just happened.

>> jim was putting the mechanisms in place. we were doing the early things that had to be done, but i think everyone got very, very focused, at least on the message side. that debt ceiling fight, our numbers were as bad as they were throughout the whole presidency. there was, you know, the predators in washington were swirling around. and our folks were nervous. it was clear that we needed -- that we were now in a situation where we had to fight and we had to pull out the nose dive we were in. but the mechanisms -- the

mechanisms were already there. there were mechanical things that had to be done. we knew they would have a big primary and we would have time to put things in motion, while they were busy. >> take me through -- when did you -- when do you have to start those things to build programs? >> i was at the d.n.c. at 2009 and 2010. a lot of work we did there was building a foundation for the re-election. there were a lot of things under the radar. building on some of the internal polling that we did, honing our 50-state strategy and training our volunteers and giving them something to do to empower them in an off year that a president doesn't normally done.

we built off of that once we got to chicago. >> when were you having to build this infrastructure here? >> i showed up in april on a full-time basis. we started and this is under david's insistence. we started very early, april, may, doing intensive research to get a handle of what people were thinking. this was before the debt ceiling stuff. we knew people were weary of the economy. we wanted to see how we would fit in and how they were following what was going on on the other side. by the time the debt ceiling hit, we had a good sense of the landscape and what our way was to move. the debt ceiling was a moment in which we were -- sort of the cohesion to move forward over what we were learning over the

summer. >> what was your assumption that the primary would be about? when you were preparing the announcement speeches and writing it at all that? the public and the media don't understand how important they are. you go back to obama's obama speech and italys out the entire message and campaign. what is the assumption that you're working on that will or the governor was working on that? >> we talked about this a lot. we had a premise that we wanted announcement speech that you could give the day before the germ election. that was our -- general election. that was our goal. we went and looked at the reagan's announcement speech and it was used as a model. it was a successful model that

candidate reagan could have given the day before. this was in 1980, the general election. we always believed that we had to force the primary to be about the economy. and mitt romney was going to be the candidate of the economy and to beat mitt romney you had to beat him on the economy. so every candidate was going to have to post up and be able to trump him on that. we were fairly confident that no candidate would be able to do that. and that the process of the primary was going to be resting on who would be the best candidate to defeat barack obama. in that sense, the primary, as much as possible, is not going to be one of these primaries that you spend the primary

talking about x then you have to shift about y in the general election. and that is the theory of it. if you read the announcement speech it was a speech that you could have given before the general election. >> i want to jump ahad on you but the interesting thing larry mentioned the research we were doing. i think we would all agree that we believed the race would be about the economy, in some form or fashion. the question is, what is the definition of what the economy was? all that research that we did in the spring of 2011 was largely about how people saw their economy in their own experience and the embattlement that the middle class felt and real anger -- anger about government but

anger about wall street. just anger about forces they felt were conspiring against them. we knew we had an objective too to define the economy in our own terms and wake up with that sense that all through the race, right to the last day that definitional fight over what the economic challenge was was essential to the whole campaign. >> that you guys were preparing to run that never ran? >> i know who you want me to say. >> no, i don't. >> like you can't worry about -- >> was it -- was there somebody who -- you remember that whole -- you know -- >> sometimes it is more important that you begin the process of running for president. when you're a primary you can't worry who is not in the game. people came to their own

decisions if they were going to get into the race. to stewart's point we were going to run the primary race that we were going to run no matter who got in. i think that winning the nomination is always tougher than anyone thinks it is, even if there is a frontrunner way out on front. i saw how brad brutal the process is -- how brutal the process is. i worked with president bush in 2004 and we had a way to look at it and study it. we always thought john kerry would be on top. there was a period where mr. dean came out of nowhere. there is always the inevidentability to come out of nowhere. at no point, do we sit around worrying about one individual getting in over another. you have to get in it. you can't worry about people who

are not in it. >> did governor romney express to you about, i wonder if so and so would get in it? >> he would speculate on people. rick perry got in heat and stewart always said there would be someone else is going to get in. so when rick perry got in we thought the field was -- >> that's when you knew? >> yeah. >> did someone run that you thought would run, all of you i'm asking. i know there was a moment -- i certainly believe there could have been a third-party candidate. >> if you look at who is in the race and you prepare for that. we all believed that mitch daniel would run. he looked like he was going to run. >> like he was looking for a way to run? >> yeah, and there was a space

for him. you can see how he would be big in the primary. i worked with him and he is really smart. we spent some time thinking about him. >> did governor daniels -- i mean he was openly talking a other people getting in, in a way that didn't make you guys very happy. eric, do you remember governor romney calling governor daniel are you in or out? >> no. we did not sit around talking about who is going to get in and who won't get in. there was speculation but it nevada influenced our -- it never influenced our actions. >> you did a couple weeks before

on the health care power point. explain the thinking of -- why you felt the need that you had to do it when you did it? >> blornt there's a lot of -- whether or not there's a lot of pressure in the party, whether or not the governor would change his position or what his position would be on health care. so it was important to get that off the table. go out and say what we thank you it is going to be and let the chips fall where it may. >> health care was one of the major obstacles to the nam nation that we had to wrestle with. because what mitt put in place in massachusetts and what the president did with his national health care plan. we thought there were meaningful differences. everybody wants to extend health

care to more people, the question is how do we finance it? the way we foonsed it we took money -- financed it at the state level and mitt said this is the man that made it work. let's redirect it and use it for people who need financial assistance in buying their own coverage. that is different than the financing mechanism in the president's health care plan. >> that is ok. >> so that's what we worked to convince the primary electorate of. i think we made a persuasive argument but far more persuasive was the economic position of the

economy. >> any time you guys were in a bunker on health care, you used romney's name to almost -- is that a fair observation? >> we did all we could to have him talk about his record. >> we admired what he did. >> thanks for your help. >> it was strategic. any time you're going to talk about health care you're going to mention health care. >> that was a good strategic decision to make sure people understood the similarities between the two plans. it was an easy place to go. you guys were very helpful. >> it was particularly important to do that why he was involved in the republican primary. one of our objectives to make the process as long and challenging and understooding that we thought he would be the nominee. ing the we could to do create

miss chief was good. there's no doubt about it, i think they cared it as well as they could -- carried it as well as they could. but a lot of angst was build around this health care plan. so it was a natural thing for his opponent to attack him. i do admire him for what he did there. but a lot of republicans didn't. >> it seems like you guys waited as long as you could to engage. i'm not talking about -- >> when we looked at the calendar and this is another story why there were 22 primary debates. >> one of the things we had -- just so you know, i want to ask you about the performing the process, everybody. >> but we looked at the calendar

and it was september. there were three debates in september and at that point we were engaged. at least for me, that's when i thought we came out and prepared for that and out we went. >> larry, so they had the primary debate. did you use the primary debates as organizing tools and how did you do that? >> it was a double-edged sword for us. in some ways our focus was really engaged and they wanted to get involved. they saw what issues were being discussed in the primary. we did have early on a lot of folks saying the president is going to be all right. he's fine. >> because the debates were taking the republican party too far. >> exactly. a lot of people didn't want to get engaged the way he had in

the past. they were going to support him and they didn't think they needed to get engaged. >> two words, michelle obama. she really motivated our base. to make our people how tough it is going to be. in the spring, when you kept going longer and longer, our people were saying, contributors say wake us up when this guy has a chance to beat us. >> what did you do on the debate nights, that these were national conversations on politics. on one side what were you trying to to do? >> we watched closely and they were good opportunities to kind of enter into the commentary and share, you know, our pokes and jabs underneath. it was also a chance for us to see how the message was

unfolding. there were things said in the debates that we kept good notes on. we brought it up later in the campaign. >> you were quoted at this before about the issue of immigration and going after rick perry. do you still stand by what you said when you said if -- >> he flip flops. >> no, you overreacted to perry. >> look, when your party is -- to win your party's nomination you have to go out and take it. at that moment in time, during the early stages of the primary process, rick perry was a very good opponent. you have to look at who that person is in that moment of time. we were running a campaign based on the economy. this is the governor of the state, at that point, every

single job in the country. we knew he could get into our space. you know we began the debate process where we started to -- i like to use the word contrast. we did some candidate contrast in those debates. >> very early it seemed like. >> we began with social security and his position on social security and what he had written about in his own book. >> i think he used the word "ponzi scream." >> he did. i think it came up in the debay. -- debate. by the third debate, when we opened thaup flank on immigration, i think that we were already -- we had already tugged the strings on governor perry and we didn't need to go into that space. so i stand by what i said.

but hiped sight is 20/20 and, you know. >> he seemed to be helping. >> when did you know that perry was done with? then it would be someone else you have to deal with? >> when he got out. i think governor perry was -- >> he was the only one that announced that had the ability to beat you? >> no, no, i disagree with that. i think there is a great under appreciation for the quality of the candidates that were in that primary. i think that -- for the republican primary voter senator santorum was more n'sync with that base than clinton was. obviously, santorum did not have

the apparatus that hillary clinton had. >> do you think if santorum had perry's money it is different? >> i go back to -- what do we know about the republican party? what do we know about mitt romney? [laughter] >> moderate man from massachusetts, right? >> i think that is a testament to his political skills. he didn't begin this with a national geographyal base, yet, he was able through those debates through sheer political skill to take position, that in many cases people disagreed with. to convince the republican party that he had the qualities that they wanted to be their nominee.

>> are you seeing where every week it was the new whack a mole. so we went from perry to herman cain was next. then that moment he blew up at the bloomberg debate. i think that ended -- who were these voters? matt, who were they that started are w trump and bachman. it seems like it is the same 20% of the electorate. >> i want to add on what he said. senator santorum, anybody who under estimates his ability to go out and alternative nomination. this is a guy who camped out in iowa. the guys and gals that worked the hardest tend to be in the later rounds and senator santorum had the work ethic to

go through the end. but a governor through the summer on paper was a good opponent. >> the minute you say that, that's right. [laughter] >> if we got into later on in the primary process and we were going to go head to head with him, he could take away some of the vote that we were going to gardner in a place like illinois. we won because of the sub burks in chicago chicago. then you mention the fact that we had -- i don't know 22 or 24 debates. >> 21 were on these horrible networks. the three or four good ones were on nbc, i know that. >> if you have 24 debates and speaker going witch is in all of them he's a good debate opponent.

this field had a lot of quality contenders. like i said in the beginning, no matter who the field is, you have to go out and take the nomination. someone is going to be the anti-mitt, the anti-kerry. you guys had a different situation in 2008, the anti-bush in 2000. it happens. that is the way politics is. so people in certain point tops campaign were not completely ready to close the deal and they went shopping elsewhere. i think during the course of the primary our campaign did a good job. you say whack a mole, whatever you want to call it. that was going on as well. >> by the way, i want to give you credit. one of the dumbest exchanges i had. you would say that newt is going to come and newt is going to pop in iowa. you already diskerry and sure

enough. >> you were the one guy saying newt early on. >> he's an immense ily -- immensely talented individual. there's a lot of talk a the rules in the r.n.c. and we're studying. campaigns never end because won't want campaigns to end. they end because they run out of money. super pacs took that quality away from a lot of these campaigns. nobody wakes up and says you know, -- it is because they can't keep their lights on, they can't pay staffers. super pacs elongated this race in a way that we've never seen before. romney, obviously, had super pac

help. but i think that -- >> that super pac going witch -- [inaudible] >> i can't gain this out but i think overall it served to keep candidates alive that didn't have the fund-raising ability otherwise, which is why campaigns end. that's an important point when you sit back and study the whole process. what was new about this cycle? >> you guys made a decision to go the super pac rout. when did it hit you? what did you see out there that you have to flip flop on super pacs? >> the reality is the system was set up in a way that we had to make sure we won and we were fighting against what was coming at us. it was clear on the other side,

in terms of the super pacs they were incredibly coordinated, they were organized. they spent an incredible amounts of money. they had ads and that really hurt us in 2010. >> jim, were you -- when you came out -- when guys came out and you said no on super pac. there was a lot of democrats complaining and you would get that call. a lot of congressional democrats would call and they are saying why are you doing this? >> i said this is a mistake we made. at that point, with it a right decision. it was true who we were and what we were.

but in the winter -- >> they were running a democratic super pac. >> correct. >> they were hoping they would get -- >> correct. an explosion of super pacs. there was the n.r.a. and all these groups. i wrote on my white board how much i thought they were going to spend. the number was $660 million and david looked at that and said we need to have a meeting. >> look, the reality is you can't play by two sets of rules. it was a frightening thing. looking at his white board was a chilling experience. so we had to make an adjustment. but getting back to stewart's point in the primaries there,

there was a guy who wrote a $10 million to newt gingrich who was flat out busted broke. one guy went to his, you know, checkbook and wrote a check and he's back in the game. it is a different game. >> when did you know you needed to be in the super pac game? was there ever a doubt that you guys were going to do this? >> i don't think there is ever a doubt. >> was it an added necessity or did you see it as a strategic advantage? >> it was just an inevidentability. jim got the luxury of pushing that off, jim and david. you guys were going to come to that decision sooner. >> did you think they would come to that decision? >> yes. >> when they saw the amount of

money and you guys knew you had to do it from the get-go? >> we knew we had to do it. >> there is a rule, there is some coordination but not really communication. >> you could communicate 120 days before the first broadcast went up. maybe it is 90 days. why that exists, i'm not sure. we put, you know, very much -- we played by the rules. but before the campaign existed our future existed. >> i think that this whole question of the impact of these new rules is something that is greatly under appreciated. also, this is the first time we've not had federal funding. >> on either side. >> right.

in 1987, we knew that incumbent presidents were advantaged in a nonfederal system because you have four years to raise this money. on our white board we had $1 billion, which is the amount of money that we knew obama campaign could raise as an incumbent president. the system is in a crazy -- >> just to give you guys an idea. i want to throw some numbers out there. for bush and gore, after their conventions each spent $64 million. i believe that was one week of advertising in the month of august for both sides in 2012. the word got out on bush and gore. people realized -- people knew where everybody stood.

i want to go to -- before we get to the germ election and to the romney folks. where was the scariest moments in the primaries that you thought you might lose this thing? was it the michigan primaries? was it ohio? what was the o.s. moment? [laughter] >> i don't think we were in fear of losing it but the o.s. moment for me was south carolina. >> losing it or the margin? >> putting going witch back into the game. -- going witch -- back into the

game. he outperformed in south carolina. we never thought we would crack the south carolina egg we did better in 2012 than we did in 2008. but it forced us to go into florida and turn on the jets. >> matt, stewart, any other different o.s. moments? >> i would say later on from a budget standpoint because that is what i was responsible for. there were moments during the primary process that got further and further along. there were big states that cost a lot of money and put up on tv. there were certain moments in our campaign that we took our bank down close to zero. when you do that, there's a lot riding on you perming well in that state.

-- performing well in that state. from a budget standpoint, there was a lot of decision making that i had to do and you start to think about staff that you might have to let go. that's just not -- these people -- they are human beings and it is brutal. that was the most brutal part of it. >> this is the post of the michigan -- >> south carolina was great. let's go down to florida. >> mine was the night we lost denver -- colorado, minnesota, and missouri. it was totally o.s. this is another month of this, really? i didn't feel like we were going to lose. i had fun in south carolina -- not fun but i realized that mitt is the kind of candidate that can come back in florida and hit a long ball and do great. but that three-state loss that night meant that we were going

to be -- >> the groundhog not seeing his shadow. >> stewart? >> michigan was a tough stretch, i thought. losing michigan would not have been a positive experience. we went into it -- >> in media it -- >> we went into it a very expensive state and it had a lot of symbolic ghosts and it was really hand to hand. you know, we did not win it by a landslide but we won it. >> so, larry they wrap up the nomination in april. i think there was a jobs report that came out that was in the toilet. >> you pick the one month. >> no, but did it surprise you how fast romney -- that the

party rational rallied around him so fast? every week we were keeping ourselves awake and let's see what is happening in this town? >> no, i think we were so -- we're such a bart zan country and we never thought after this thing, it is the nonromney primary electorate is not going to gal vonize. that's our theory all along. there is this narrow little band that will decide this thing. there was never any doubt that the party would consolidate quickly. >> jim, was the plan always that you would announce after a week or two that the president would do the formal rollout. if they wrapped it in march then you announce in april? >> we knew when we had to go. we knew exactly when we were going to go. we had that plan done by the end of the year.

our big e.s. moment was we were worried they were going to end it after new hampshire. once we figured out they were going go long and to larry's moment -- >> so the best o.s. moment was our oh, good moment. >> right. we spent a lost time getting ready for that. >> may was the announcement. >> we knew we were going to launch -- we were back from the election day. we thought we had the resources to start in may. we wanted to hit it all at once. >> it was my understanding that the mitt that romney got the mom nakes that super pac ads would start the next day. >> the big surprise to us, we thought the super pac ads would hit in january, february, and march when unprepared to deal with them. to this day, i still i'm

confused why that didn't happen. if i'm running a super pac that is not affiliated to the republican candidates an i see what is going on in the republican side i better do some air cover right now. the president is getting a free pass right now. >> this is proof that there was no coordination. were you wondering where the calvary in april? >> i think the whole impact of the super pac ads is a fascinating subject. >> you're doing a whole week -- >> it's like any new development, like, tanks or machine guns, you know. these things, what worked and what didn't work. i think -- what we discovered on our side to you are surprise and

disappointment, was there were is up push ads done on the rodrod side but the impact they dad -- side did not have the result that we expected it to have. the most obvious answer, i think was because it was not coordinated with the campaign. i always worked better, as all ads do when you coordinate with the campaign and roll it out with your press and whour ole campaign -- who will campaign apparatus. they could not do that because they were not coordinating with the campaign. so they would make different ads that were good as they stood alone but they are -- as david observed they were not districting one message. so the obama campaign outspent

it 2:1 in advertising. if you look on paper, it was leveled out by the super pac ads but it was not what we thought. >> when you made the announcement, i was reading a transcript with your running mate in richmond. i said to you, i assume that you were not rolling out the president's endorsing gay marriage that was not the rollout plan for the first week of the campaign. is that fair to say? >> that's fair to say. that was not the december plan. >> that was not on the white board? >> not on the white board. >> david, talk a that. i said do you know about -- it was the day before. we pretaped with biden and biden came out for gay marriage. i said you know this is going to make news on this.

were you aware how big that was going to be sucking up that week? >> once you showed me that we were pretty clear on what was going to happen. >> another gay marriage week. >> so first week of the campaign and this is not the message you planned on kicking off with? >> yeah, it was -- it was challenging but it also is true that we all knew having talked to the president that he was going to take that step. so, yes, we would have taken it in a different -- >> you were going to do it before the convention? >> yeah. >> you did not want a platform fight. >> he was ready to do it. either he was going to get a question or -- yes, the convention issue was coming up on us. there because lot of reasons for him to do it. we didn't plan on the vice

president doing it first. [laughter] once he did, the truth is once he did it forced the issue. the truth of the matter is, we didn't know how the politics would all net out but the president, the way he handled it in the interview, how he spoke to it. jen, you can speak to it more than i. >> all of a sudden you had people -- this did increase supporters? >> absolutely. it frankly brought in the people that were part of the process even in 2008. it brought in new people and frankly most people didn't know behind the scenes of the back and forth so this part did not affect our supporters. they thought this was something that they hoped the president would do and this made them want to get more engaged in the election. it was a boom for us. >> i put together a timeline to

figure out how to have this conversation with you guys. everyone wants to say the debate is this and the convention is this. i think the month of june was the most important month of the campaign. on the obama side he does the immigration executive order on the dream act. then the supreme court decision on health care. it because big financial month for you guys. that's when you -- i want to go to sort of all three of those issues. let's start with the health care decision. were you guys planning for a reversal? were you assuming it would be overturned? it seemed like to me you guys were caught off guard. >> no. >> no, i think we had -- >> we were caught off guard like

everybody by the mechanism in which it was sustained. the robert's ruling. >> we have not contemplated that. >> there was ain't lot of pregame speculation. >> you were not gaming it out? >> we thought it would go. we had -- sort of a water cooler situation on what it would be -- discussion that it would be. >> how important was that decision? >> we had our own water cool enan our own discussion. i think, you know, we contemplated what might happen. you couldn't escape the fact that this was a signature achievement of the president's first term. had it been reversed, i think it would have been negative affects

on us. >> i never understood that the argument would be a positive for him if it was overturned. >> we didn't either. >> i think i was wrong that it would have been positive for him because the argument would have been it would taken out a lot of the energy on the republican base. to overturn obamacare -- to keep it in the electoral factory you have to vote against obama. i think i was wrong. >> i would say two things. one, a win is a win. it was in a time where the president was getting beaten up. >> it is just our turn in the barrel. >> something positive happening

was good. second, our vote always coorl lated with the view of people's affordable care act. after the ruling, the affordable care act's favorability went up. there was a lifting of the ceiling there which was very real. >> june turned out to be a bigger fund-raising month than you guys expected. is that fair to say? >> yeah. >> i heard versions of this. did you change how you would do july? did it change the timing on a trip overseas? what did the june fund-raising boost free you up to do? >> one of the biggest challenging we had -- >> that was the first month you outraised obama. >> yeah. that was the first challenges we had and we had raised $87

million in $2,500 churnings. so a lot of the money we raised was victory money that we were using to grow the party and build out the infrastructure. we certainly, phased a financial disadvantage and -- every time i look at what didn't work out for us as a campaign or organization it is usually tied back to come bency. during this period, we were raising a lot of money but it was not money we could immediately send out the door and put on tv. >> a very small percentage of it in fact. we would have these morning meetings and these numbers came in and there's this perception out there that we're raking in the money. our donors would called and say

why are you not on tv, it was very frustrating to us. >> very few reporters would explain it. >> we could do these little numbers. >> look they raised $100 million. >> the only money we could spend on tv wfer the convention was primary dollars raised under the $2,500 limit. and that is how the system is currently structured. >> we need more of that money. >> in july, when you won a primary to go and raise primary dollars. >> you did not have that other -- you had the luxury in your primary, david, where you had these clinton donors who never gave you money in 2008 and suddenly they could max out tow you for the first time. you didn't have that.

>> the biggest difference is they had someone who was not going to -- they were not going to take federal financing versus mccain who was. so that gives them the ability to raise unlimited money and mccain was locked in. >> on the primary side, there was nobody that had a fund-raising list. there is knob that had new names for you. is that fair to say? >> there were some. le >> our theories were that, david, these guys made the decision of it is better to spend the money early than to spent it late. during this period where we're facing this challenge we did a few things. our goal was to use the money that we were raising in big chunks and have the r.n.c. set up an independent expenditure that ran ads over the summer.

that probably occurred -- they moved that timetable up earlier than they would have otherwise. >> you had more money. >> the other thing we had going on was super pacs. we believed, as david said earlier, at that moment there would be a lot of super pac activity. we needed the super pacs and the i.e. and also during this period, the governor signed off on a $20 million loan that allowed us to use primary money that we repaid back with general money through f.c.c. law. we saw what was going on. we worked to try to compete with what they were doing, but clearly they had more resources at the time. >> if i can take one minute and larry you could chime in because you and jim were -- this was a thing we cooked up together. i think one of the most

significant decisions we made was to bet on the front end of the campaign. i do believe and make we can have a discussion about it but in the month of october, ads made much less because there's so much coverage because the debates are so dominant. we had to define mitt romney before the conventions. it was better to -- larry's proposition to bet on a -- take money out of september and october and put it into may, june, and july. the other thing that happened in june was when we ran ads on mitt romney. >> we moved $63 million from spring into the summer. >> the al gore tv budget for the entire tv campaign you moved in

the account? >> david looked at him and said this is the right decision and we have to do this right now. jen was seeing that we were not where we needed to be with latinos and we dumped a large amount of money. we were, you know, we had to look at the president of the united states and say this is our best guess. >> jen, explain what the immigration -- i'm sticking to june, what the immigration executive order meant? >> it was so important for us. we knew that if we were going to win in florida, colorado, nevada, we had to have unique programs based on the type of voters in those states. we also had a lot of young people that were excited about

the dream act. young people were highlighting what they believed and why they wanted the administration to act. as much as we had so much going for us to communicate to latinos, the dream act was hard for us. having that executive order, really brought, not just the community to the front a little bit more but young people. it took them thinking good thoughts on the president to taking action and supporting the president. >> i'm only in july and i'm in trouble because i want people to ask you guys question. i'm going to take a couple of more minutes on my questions then i want to mix in some of these students. you can start lining up on the microphone. when did you have your first meeting? >> april. >> with the governor. had you started before that?

>> no. i had a list of candidates to get -- a big list -- >> take a look. >> do you like these guys? don't like these guys? i got some more. then he widdles it down from there. >> i know you're not going to tell us a lot about the process. >> go ahead. [laughter] >> what were some of the weird questions that maybe, a potential v.p. candidate had for you that surprised you? >> well, i tell you like weird moments were when i would meet with these guys and ask them really personal questions. i think the dynamic was interesting. i'm a woman asking them, i can talk about paul ryan. i sat down with him and said, tell me about your dating life in washington, d.c. [laughter] it was a bit of an awkward moment but that was -- they

originally gave me a room without a suite attached. i called down that we're not going to sit cross-legged on the bed and talk a this. so they gave me a -- an enormous suite which i found to be appropriate. [laughter] it was an interesting way to -- i didn't have to ask any really embarrassing questions. >> anyone that you met that you did -- >> some loose ends to tie up. i was aware that mitt had said he didn't want anyone to have an issue that was a distraction. so, you know, some of the things that we asked them about the perm questions or -- personal questions or in the public domain that needed to be

followed up on i did that in person. >> stewart or matt, how many people came to you and say could you please put me on the list? like, would you have republicans going i just -- i don't want to be vetted but i would love to be floated please. how does that happen? >> people call in and say -- i'm not much of a small talker so i don't get it as much as other people. >> donors all had opinions, right? >> yeah, they all had opinions. the whole v.p. selection process was excellently run by beth and a close process in the campaign, unless the governor brought you into deliberations and he did do that from time to time. but i was amazed at the fact there wasn't a lot of leaking.

i think the individuals who did go through that process respected the confidence in which their discussions of the campaign were held. and i think we ended up with the a great result. with the selection of paul ryan people thought we shot ourselves in the foot because we took the issue of entitlement reform, specifically medicare and the congressman's plans to transform the medicare system and put that at the top of the campaign. but we actually ended up winning seniors and we won seniors in florida. one of the positive legacies of the romney campaign is we showed republicans can take on these tough issues and win. >> you guys -- none of you thought it would be ryan, right? you went public about another candidate, right?

>> that was portman because i looked at ohio. >> i had the ryan thing pegged. [laughter] >> i didn't actually care. [laughter] >> what would have made a difference in ohio? would he make a difference in iowa? were there some people that popped more than others? >> sure. you can say that ryan was one of those people. the reality is ryan helped us in wisconsin. wisconsin was a place -- i think it was five elections before november. they had a recall. they were just tired. they were tired of volunteering, they were tired of elections so what happened to us is when ryan was picked it engaged our voters. they got a second wind and they were going to do more. the impact was less than people anticipated. >> let's go to a question. don't make a speech.

that's all i ask. no political speeches just ask a question. >> thank you all for having this event. my question is geared towards the romney camp. following the first presidential debate between the two candidates. there was a point that carried over where the momentum changed, at least in the media. i know that jim, following the election, there was a point where you talked about the accuracy of your polling numbers. does those numbers reflect in the same thing because there was a change on how romney was carrying himself and being depicted in the media. >> thank you for bringing up the denver debate. [laughter] >> i was going to get there. i was going to get there. it changed the structure of the race. and we saw that in our polling.

people who may have closed their mind to governor romney suddenly reopened it. and it made for a much better october than september. because in september, we were dealing with the fallout from the 47% video. so the denver debate was a real quick pivot for us. and we did experience a lift in the polling. we saw it in the state and nationally. we were receiving more donations. we re-energized republicans whose interest in the interest was flagging a little bit because of the 47% video. so all in all, that was one of the high points of the campaign. >> jim, did you see the hit in the polls and when did you stop falling in the polls? >> we saw in our internal numbers was they got back what they lost from the 47%. literally went like this, this, and came right back to where it was. but we never went behind.

we never went down less than -- never -- our lead never shrunk less than 2 1/2 points. we were pretty sure that we were ok the entire time. >> did you see an energy issue issue? >> we did. it was tough for our folks and so excited about the debate, they felt let down. they felt in part they were out there working so hard every single day and maybe they were concerned about how the president did in relationship to their hard work. so it was definitely tough. and rebounded quickly. but it took us some time to communicate. >> so correct me if i'm wrong about this, one of the unintended or unexpected things about this, we were a little complacent i think in september. september went better than we ever imagined. >> we or was the president complacent? there was this assumption that he was complacent. >> i don't think he was complacent. but i do think it's natural, you know, to feel like -- look, all i got to do is tie in this

debate. because we're in a good position. i just have to do well enough. and you never want to go into a debate with that attitude. mitt romney knew that his back was against the wall. he had to perform in that debate. had he not performed in that debate, the election was over. he had -- the conventions fell in our favor. the 47% tape was very, very tough. a lot of independents who leaned republican had gone away from him. and he had to perform in that debate. and the reverse was -- i don't think we were in quite the same position. but the second debate was the reverse. we had to perform. we knew we couldn't have a second bad debate. but what i was going to say is i think there was actually -- there was some increase in volunteerism after the debate. because people began to worry that maybe this thing was -- was actually at risk. >> matt, talk about this polling thing. i know this has been -- it's

among the great sort of -- what -- what were -- do you believe you were seeing different numbers than the obama campaign? >> well, i think there's this -- i don't even know if it's a debate anymore but there's a belief that many republican pollsters across the country were just using a model that at the end of the day just wasn't -- >> an out of date model? >> wasn't accurate for this election. so, you know, there was clearly coming out of that first debate, whether the numbers shift was as great as eric said or as what jim says it was equal to, it just did transform the race. and i think the day before that debate, i don't think anyone thought it was ever going to be close again. and after that debate, i think that there was a perception because the campaign and governor romney did perform well coming out of that debate. and i think that we had a good period of time in between the

first and second debate where people thought -- >> the longest gap between two debates in the modern era. >> it felt like -- >> time flew for us. we were having so much fun. >> it was extra long for us. >> polling, polling is not a betting mechanism in campaigns. it's used to direct campaigns and it's something that is sort of people forget. it's not to cover the spread. it's to guide you in the campaign. and if you look at the -- point one. point two, the nbc wall street poll, in the campaign, there was seven voters different in that poll. not seven points but seven voters out of a sample of i think 1,800 votes. that's a pretty close race. when you have seven voters' difference. we were behind those seven votes.

but a lot of interesting polling, studies that can be done, and analogies. but i think that neil did a fantastic job guiding us in this campaign. >> our pollster, neil newhouse, very depressing often talking to him. >> we wouldn't have gotten the nomination without neil. and the input they'd into our decision making. >> monday night knew how -- two principal campaign pollsters and john harwood will be moderating that discussion and we'll have a full discussion on that. >> let's go. the next question. >> hi there. the subject of the independent candidates came up briefly. and i was wondering if there was any point where either team was worried about the possible impact of gary johnson or ron paul making a serious market on the election and whether you took any action to mitigate that possibility. >> i'm going to reask your question and there was a point in the fall of 2011, jim

mensah, where you and i would have conversations -- i was convinced there was going to be a serious third party candidate of this americans elect. you were convinced of it. that it was a potential threat. why were you convinced it was a threat? >> if you look at 1992 and the incumbent president, you just don't know who they're going to take votes from. and at the time as david said earlier, we were going through a brutal time after the debt limit. and this was not a good time for us. and we looked at who those potential candidates could be. and some of them could drop on us. on the gary johnson thing, we did look closely at that. and jen and i had discussions about his pro-marijuana positions and what that did to us in colorado. >> you thought that could hurt you and take votes away from you guys. >> there was a theory that it could take young students. >> a marijuana ballot initiative in colorado. >> larry, you can speak to this, that no matter who we looked at at the end of the day, we didn't lose out.

because people were -- people didn't want to be for us, but didn't want to be for someone, they would default there. so they already had made a judgment about us. and so we ultimately concluded that an independent wouldn't hurt us. >> your floor was in the 40's. >> we had obama -- >> bush in 1992 had lower floors. >> there were obama voters and people open to an alternative. >> obama was over 40. >> and where we put a third person in there, it would split up those people looking for an alternative. >> did you ever run bloomberg? >> we did. >> yeah, we did. >> matt, did you ever think there was going to be that -- forget gary johnson or ron paul but that moderate, somebody that was going to split, the country is polarized and the bloomberg type or whatever? >> i don't think i ever really thought about that seriously. but to the questioner's questions, dr. paul, dr. paul is someone that we took serious from the beginning of our

primary right up to the day of our convention when mitt was nominated. and we were fortunate, dr. paul and his supporters are anybody that underestimates them dot-does it at their own -- them does it at their own peril. we were fortunate the governor m h developed a -- the governor had developed a relationship. >> and also between the spouses. >> and between the spouses. they had debated between the 2008 primary and 2012 primary and they had debated 37 times together. >> wow. >> they had grown i don't want to speak for them but the governor thought dr. paul was a nice man. we always took dr. paul seriously in the primary. and we were very happy that he stayed and -- >> do you think without that personal relationship that he might have been more tempted? >> i don't know. i don't know. but i think it's important in life to treat people with respect. because it pays off in the end. >> let's go to the next question. >> thank you. i would like to get the take

from both sides. in hindsight, is there anything campaign strategy wise, including super pac's and v.p. picks, that might have changed the outcome of the campaign or if there are other factors, noncampaign strategy relating to including demographics in the primary process and slowly recovering economy that were too great for any campaign camp to reverse the outcome of the campaign? and if the latter, which factor was more crucial? thank you. >> give the one moment. what -- one thing you would love to change and rerun the campaign. stuart. >> me? i like questions like that. [laughter] >> i love it. >> a really good question. i've had a lot of sleepless nights thinking about that. so can we just skip that? [laughter]

look, i don't think a campaign turns on one moment. i can -- on one hand you can say -- i don't know any campaign that was outspent 2-1 on television as we were where an incumbent has lost to a challenger. without some sort of scandal. if we could have won the primary earlier, i think it would have greatly advantaged us. >> if you could have -- if you could war game it that way. >> we were close to winning the primary earlier. though history will show that that's very difficult to do for a candidate to do. other than that, i think i'll just take that. >> eric, the one -- what would you like to war game? >> well, look, i think you got

to give the obama campaign a good deal of credit for increasing the turnout of women voters and young people, hispanic voters. even african-american voters. i didn't think you would be able to surpass what obama was able to accomplish with the african-american electorate in 2008. but they did. especially in ohio. and i think that accounted for their victory there. but ultimately, i think the reason that obama won is the economy got better. this was the central reason for the rationale for the romney campaign. and when mitt announced in june of 2011 the unemployment rate was 10%. in the last month of the campaign it was 7.8%. so their trend lines were going in the right direction and as the economy showed improvement, obama's numbers got better. >> that's no fun. that's the academic answer. david, what's the one thing you would not want to have changed?

like what's that one moment? is it the supreme court ruling? what is something you had -- what is something that happened in your favor that you feared, if that -- if that had flipped, taken the same question in reverse, what's the one thing you wouldn't want to go through this campaign without? >> let me say, i think eric's answer may have been an academic one but i don't think it was an inconsequential. if those jobs numbers had continued to churn along there at -- our great fear was that there would be a reversal and that the numbers would start going backward. and i think that would have put us -- >> like last month. >> that would have put us -- >> quit keeping track. >> put us in uncharted -- >> i can't count one month. >> in uncharted waters. so that was -- that was a concern. but the -- stuart said they got outspent 2-1. and technically that's true. and he made the point that he doesn't believe that the

superpack spending was -- super p.a.c. spending was helpful but it was immense. there's value to incumbentcy and no question about it. we looked at the president's campaign in 2004. he was in a difficult situation that was similar to ours. he worked very hard to turn it into a choice and make sure there wasn't a referendum election. we did the same thing. and we had the advantage of being able to plan and do our work over a long period of time while these guys were mired in a primary. and that was enormously advantageous. >> so you really go to that stuart question. that could have been the difference. >> that's true from a timing standpoint. and also, they paid us terribly high price for that nomination. i'm not criticizing because you can't be the president unless you get nominated. but this -- this was a difficult environment for those republican primaries and those debates were brutal. and in order to get through those, governor romney took

some positions and used some language that probably if he had no primaries, he would not have done. and that made it very hard. that -- that set up a difficult general election. >> any moment you would like to war game -- war game it differently? >> instead of a moment and david touched on it is i would like to have had about 10 fewer primary debates. they sapped the energy and they -- >> took time away. >> totally. >> larry. what's something you couldn't have done without? tactically? >> i think it's certainly been said, i think that the nominating process that romney had to go through was the great asset for us. one of the things that wasn't mentioned about our early tv bye, in addition to everybody focuses on the bain stuff but in addition to that, we had the earliest and longest hispanic media buy of any campaign in

presidential history. second, we also started a women's track of television at that time that went continuously through to the end. and both of those tracks really were -- a little less so on the latino thing and we ultimately came around to talking about governor romney. but certainly in the women's track, really focused on statements that he made in the nominating process that were hard for him to sustain. >> did you see this happening and could you -- >> yeah. >> let me go to another question. >> thank you all for coming. my questions for both campaigns but from the perspective of the romney campaign, on election day the reports about the favorable turnouts in certain suburban counties, colorado, central florida, virginia, that indicated romney had some strong turnout, but those reports turned out to be erroneous. so i wondered if you can speak about what the communication is like on election day and how do you change your policies and your -- the way you function in order to maybe maneuver and get some voters out? >> if could you let me know

when election day starts. and by the way, did you know we're still counting votes in some places? matt, you want to take that? >> i think that the republican party needs to and chairman preebus -- priebus, the chairman of the republican party, need to catch up on the voter turnout side. and again, this is another example, and i hate going back to it. but it is true. and i'm not trying to use it as an excuse or a crutch. but the power of incumbency, they had five years to work on their voter turnout plan. and our party really needs to focus on investing the resources as soon as possible and figure out the brightest, best new tools that we can use on the political side to not only catch up but to potentially exceed. so whoever gets the nomination

in 2016 has a party apparatus behind him that's as good as an incumbent. or as close as possible. i don't remember specifically election -- specifically. election day is a blur. i don't mean to answer your question on that. but i don't remember what you're talking about. >> jane, you were counting these votes, vote by vote, when did you know -- when did you know you were going to hit all your targets? maybe you weren't ready to say that the president was going to win re-election but when did you know, all the numbers we said we have to hit we're going to hit? >> i was pretty confident. and i was probably more confident than jim. but because we felt like our plan was pretty solid and our numbers were bearing out. but our election day started in september. and in iowa, early, where we had early votes. and we didn't do as much in early voting in 2008 as we did in 2012.

we stopped worrying about polling. because we were counting votes. and every single day, we would look at exactly who was voting in these states that had early vote and we -- we were able to say, look, we're not hypothesizing, these are the people we modeled and we felt those numbers were matching the numbers we expected to see. and that our planning was in place for what we needed. >> was it rhetoric when you guys would say, oh, they're just moving votes, did you really believe that? when they -- the early vote, when they would talk about the early vote numbers, and you guys -- and just the same vote as election day, was that campaign spin? or did you guys -- >> in the fog of war you don't really know what's happening because you don't know what's going to happen on election day. i mean, look, we haven't talked about the impact of hurricane sandy here. >> no, we haven't. >> sthri was a force that was negative for -- i think was a force that was negative for the

romney campaign in the sense that it was about -- what is the first thing you learn in campaigns, it's about agenda control and we lost control of the agenda. so look, every campaign needs to seem confident. in a world in which nbc, "wall street journal" poll again shows you seven votes' difference, we had reason to be confident. it was not specious for us to be confident. and there are predictive qualities of people following those who are confident. and one of the most interesting -- nate silver spoke, i think the most interesting part of it is the predictive qualities of people following those who are confident. and so -- >> still the election is over because stuart is quoting nate silver now. [laughter] >> i'm not sure i read all -- i read all nate's stuff and his books are interesting. and this idea that we were

overconfident has been overplayed. but the history of people flocking to the barricades to follow campaigns that say, hey, we have a shot, is not particularly great. it tends to be -- >> motivate people by saying, hey, we -- >> we could win. >> let's go, it looks like we're going tok with the last question here and then -- to go with the last question here and then wrap up. >> my question is to what extent you think social issues shifted attention away from the conversation about the economy that mitt romney really wanted to have? >> matt, you and i were talking about how quickly you guys tried to stop todd aiken when that popped and that you did it before -- there was some conservatives who were upset that you guys came down so hard. had you seen something? >> our goal all along from day one was to try to keep the debate and the campaign in mitt's wheel house and mitt's

wheel house was jobs and the economy. with the sprinkle of spending. and we tried our best to keep it focused on those issues because that's where we thought it played to mitt's strength. so any time there was a moment, whether it was related to almost any kind of issue, we always tried the best that we could to get it back to the economy and defuse the situation. sometimes we were successful in defusing the situation. sometimes we were not. but it was always our goal to try to do that. >> all right. let me -- i want to wrap this way. i've heard, i think, i know from the romney side, what's the one thing you would change about this process is fewer debates. so i didn't hear that. if i'm going to be at nbc we're going to plan a whole bunch of debates and our first one is coming up in a couple of weeks. just kidding. [laughter] we didn't talk about the conventions and i want to ask it this way on the conventions. we can -- there's all sorts of

ways -- talk about the substance about what you guys did at your convention. are they now too late and in four years from now, will the conventions, will they be earlier, should they be earlier and will they be shorter and should they be shorter and i want everyone to chime in on this. >> look, i think they are too late. we shrank our convention and decided to make it three days. and silly to be four. i think people will continue to look at that. you guys have less appetite to cover a lot of it. i think the whole convention system needs to be looked at. and i know the chairs of both committees are doing that. and i think that's very good. the other thing, you didn't ask us but i'm going to say it anyway, in the united states of america people should not wait six hours in line to vote. and that's the other thing the two parties got to come together and figure out how to run elections where people can actually vote. >> stuart. >> the only reason the conventions are late now is because people figured out the federal funding system that you got the same amount of money to spend if you got that -- >> federal funding is moot. >> in july.

so i think that people -- two points that are related. i think that the conventions should move earlier if we don't have federal funding. but i hope and pray that we can go to a system that has some federal funding and the system we have now is -- everything minus the corruption that we hated about the watergate system and we need some sort of reform in campaign finance that we have now. ultimately, history will show this tends to favor republicans. we take these limits off we tend to do better. but i think that these billion dollar campaigns which will be $2 billion campaigns are abomination. and that we saw it now when you had people campaigning in -- heavy fundraising schedules in september and instead of meeting with voters is not how the system should work. >> unbelieveable how many fundraisers both sides did in september. it was -- and where will conventions be in four years? >> there's two things that a convention does. the first is it's the official

nominating moment. and that's where these guys got wrapped up in the finance problem that they've been discussing. they weren't the nominee until the convention. and the second thing it does which is really different, but it's kind of the bigger thing for the electorate is it's a moment where people pay attention and focus and there's a chance to get across in a very significant way who you are. if you remember, the gore convention was a big moment. the clinton convention was an extraordinarily big moment. and so i think you can decouple those things. and get that kind of technical nominating thing back to the end of the primaries so it lets that process start. i kind of like the timing in terms of that -- the big moment for -- yeah. when you talk about what's the rhythm of a presidential campaign, you got the vice-presidential nomination. you got the conventions. and you got the debates. and i think to kind of have that big moment in the fall, when people pay attention,

makes a lot more sense than to do it in june when people just aren't ready for that. >> i think there's an awkward part in the campaign between the primary ending and the convention. and i think -- i think it's almost -- unless the federal funding thing changes, it's inevitable that they'll go early. because -- and i think that's a good thing. i hear -- >> you want to shrink that process. >> i want to shrink the awkward period between the primary ending and the nomination starting. and i think kicking it off in the beginning of the summer and getting voters refocused so that the general election isn't two months, the general election is four months is a good thing. >> jen. >> i think about how we use the convention. we tried to make it more than just about the people that were in the room. it was about grassroots organizing and pegging it to the convention. it was about what state we put it in. competitive state where we had a ton of voter registration. and so from that perspective, i

think for them to be successful for our parties, we have to build it bigger than just that room and those days for other people to feel engaged. and i think i agree from an organizing side, with larry, that if you have tellerer, for the purpose of organizing across the country, it's a lot harder to do in early summer when people aren't just engaged as you need them to be. >> no, no, i agree with these guys. and we actually got a lot out of our convention. >> more than you ever thought? >> more than we ever thought. it came up very, very well. these guys had to deal with the same lingering problems that they had throughout from their nominating process and different forces within their convention. they also had nature problems. because they had a four-day convention that became a three-day convention. >> i'm not a meteorologist but i can tell you that florida and north carolina guys are both in hurricane alley. and both of your parties i couldn't believe when you guys both -- it was inevitable that one of them was going to get dinged by a hurricane.

unbelievable. >> let me say this before we wrap up. two things. one is because it's a bugaboo of mine, and i would be remiss if i don't say it to -- for a second. i hope that we find a way to free ourselves from the tyranny of public polling which dominated the coverage of this campaign in a way that it hasn't been before. some two kids in keokuk and the poll is the a.p. story of the day. it is a very, very destructive thing. >> robo polling in general is what does it. >> the other thing before you go on to eric is i want to repeat where i started before these guys came out. which is i'm proud to sit on this platform with these guys. it's been a pleasure to be with them in these post-election discussions. and it reminds me about the fact that we may have different views. but we share a great passion for the process and the country. and so i would be remiss, especially since i dragged them all out here, if i didn't --

>> fun to watch these guys. it's like at this point, they're all cut from the same cloth. they just have two sets of ideologies but very interesting to watch them go. eric, where are you on the convention? >> i love the pageantry of conventions. i regret that post-9-11 they have the feel of east berlin. and a lot of barbed wire and concrete barriers. >> you can't go around and see people anymore. >> and of course there is no better platform for introducing a candidate and the principles of the party and in this case we used the convention as an opportunity to talk about the personal side of mitt romney which people -- and was missing from the campaign. so if you wanted to make a big splash from that, the convention is the perfect place to do that. >> matt, what are you going to tell mike priebus when he picks a window? he's going to go first. he picks first. so obviously democrats will go last. that's the way -- since an incumbent party. are you going to tell them to go early?

>> i am still very optimistic that conventions are important and i agree with a lot of what he talks about on using them as a tool to get your activists enganged and -- engaged and an opportunity to take over tv for two or three nights. i certainly believe that they should be shorter in the new world that we live in where people aren't accepting matching funds. but i'm pretty optimistic that -- >> how about earlier? >> yeah, i think they need to be earlier. but i'm still pretty optimistic that they're going to have a big impact on -- for many, many years and be a big part of the presidential campaign process. i think there's a lot of people right now that are kind of dumping on conventions and will they ever even exist? they will be one day. and i think they're an important part of the process. and i'm kst chairman prib. -- confident chairman pribus will do the right thing. thank you for everybody being here. thank you. great audience. [applause] and i apologize for everything

i didn't get to. i know there's a ton we didn't get to. and i apologize for that. >> we got five weeks to talk about it so come back. >> thanks again. >> former republican presidential candidate governor romney will speak to the conservative political action conference. a senior aide told reporters that the event will be an opportunity for him to express his appreciation to -- supporters and friends. referring to reports linking the chinese government to the hacking of more than 100 u.s.

companies, the former cia director says he is impressed with the bread and sophistication of the espionage efforts against america. he was that george washington university. >> i have a standing policy when i talk about china, they are not an enemy of the united states. there is no good reason for them to become enemies to the united states. there are logical choices to keep the relationship competitive, occasionally confrontational, never has to get to the level of conflict. all right? that said, i told you about chinese espionage and behavior is a very disturbing. and it should not be allowed to stand. the president uses the same taxonomy that you and i just

did. >> of the defense secretary said that we could be facing a cyber pearl harbor. >> i don't choose to use that phrase myself. there are dangers, i should have made that clear already. but cyber pearl harbor, let me give you the dialogue. we could be facing a cyber pearl harbor. why? why hasn't it happened? i have to answer the question, and i don't have a good answer. i see there are great dangers out there, it is a matter of great concern and we ought to do something about it. if you want to talk about something, what can we do? be advised that my dad gave me after losing a fight, he said to

quit whining and defend yourself. we can be more robust defending our networks, that's what. we can make it more difficult for others to access things we consider to be of value to us. secondly, i would suggest, and you saw that a bit in the new york times today that we make chinese cyber behavior part of the overall portfolio of our relationship with the people's republic. you have a pattern of behavior over here that is so disturbing for us, if that pattern continues, we should make it very clear to the chinese that that will begin to affect all of this. >> what does that mean? that is a threat you have to be prepared to follow through on. they're holding $1 trillion of that. >> it makes them as dependent on

us as we are on them. that is a wash. >> what is the consequence? >> china depends on us as the market. do we stop buying their televisions? >> yes, why not? they still want to design. that design looks just like the u.s. company that went out of business last year. why should we allow the chinese to come to the united states? there are lots of ways that we can make this relationship less comfortable to them. if this is important, you have to start taking action. are they painless? no. but that is my view. >> john kerry's first major

foreign-policy speech. in an hour, a defence department briefing on how automatic spending cuts known as sequestration will affect civilian employees. and we will rehear the forum on the presidential campaign with strategists for president obama and governor romney. later, the former head of the cia, the retired general. several live events to tell you about. there is a day-long form on local energy policies at 9:30 a.m. eastern. and the indian foreign minister is at the carnegie endowment for international peace to discuss relations. members of the democratic steering and policy committee look at how the automatic spending cuts scheduled to go into effect will affect federal workers.

>> from the very start, we told the board the approach we're going to take. remember, we were sent there to fix gm. that was the mission. make this thing a viable company again. we were focused and brought the message that we are going to design, build, and sell the world's best vehicles. we need your support and we need your input. so we changed a few things about the board meeting. we shorten them, we stayed away from the details, but the bigger questions of financing, morale, positioning, and that sort of thing. the board was very supportive of that. we kept them informed and we took off.

>> leaving general motors for bankruptcy, how that will occur on an american turnaround sunday night at 9:00 on afterwards. and look for more online, like us on facebook. the secretary of state is calling on congress not to make what he terms senseless reductions in foreign aid through automatic spending cuts scheduled to begin march 1. the secretary spoke at the university of virginia and was introduced by a virginia center. this is an hour. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you so much. hello, uva. it is great to be back on the grounds. i want to say to president sullivan what a treat it is to be here with you. thank you for hosting this great occasion.

to my friend robert hurt, served with him in state government and now we travel to washington together. i look forward to good work together, especially if on this occasion to introduce secretary kerry and to introduce uva to the secretary. as i walked onto the stage i had a memory. on this stage with my dear friend, uva board member alan -- in a debate for lieutenant governor, a primary debate for lieutenant governor in the february of 2001. the first debate i've ever been in as -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> so good to have you here, alan. so good to have the first secretary of state being the founder here, the cornerstone was laid by not only in thomas jefferson but james monroe, another secretary of state. it is fitting that the secretary would be here.

we know john kerry's track record. decorated veteran in vietnam, prosecutor, started in local government, as do so many others who serve. the state government in massachusetts. nearly 30 years as a u.s. senator. the only committee that he served on from the day he became a senator, until its last day in the center of the foreign relations committee. he grew up with a father in the foreign service. it is a family calling. i will count it as a joy but as a bittersweet sadness that my service in the senate, i got to serve with him on the foreign

relations committee for one week. [laughter] i am the junior senator on that committee. i sit far out on the wing on that committee. it was the first committee vote i cast was to confirm him as the new secretary. senator, you are coming to a place that believes deeply in the values that you share, as robert mentioned. president jefferson strongly believed in the connection of this wonderful exemplary nations to a world community. we have been a global leader. i always like to think about the global leadership that tries to balance military strength. secretary kerry knows the importance and limits of that spirit diplomatic strength, the strength of our economy, the strength of our moral example, after balance those things. this university has been educating and training people to understand that balance since its very beginning.

i spoke this morning with a whole group of very talented young rotc students, many who are getting ready to graduate in commission on the three programs operating on this campus. the university has put 1079 people into the peace corps in its 51 year history. numerous people over the course of the university history have gone to work in the state department's. then we can go broader, teach for america, or the students who have trained over generations to get jag program degrees, military law degrees here. this university is so committed to that global role that we are supposed to play as citizens and to keeping those balances of strength and balance. there's really no one today on this stage in our country where exemplifies keeping those invalid better than our speaker. we're so glad to welcome here to the ground and to the commonwealth.

please give a warm welcome to secretary john kerry. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. good morning. thank you for an extraordinarily warm welcome, charlotte. i'm honored to be here. senator tim kaine, thank you for generous words of introduction. tim has only been on the foreign relations committee for total of a few weeks now. based on his testimony a moment

ago, i can commend him on his voting record. [laughter] he has found himself new job security, because in virginia you have a single term governor for a full your years. he has traded one single four- year term for a six-year term with potential extension. [laughter] given the fact i traded several extensions for an four-year term and then i'm finished, maybe he knows something i ought to be listening to that i could learn a thing or two. we did not overlap long, but i want to tell everybody we know each other pretty well from service as lieutenant governor and when he was governor of the state. lieutenant governor in my state, so we have that in common, and before being

senators. a quick story, i don't know what you do in virginia as lieutenant governor, but massachusetts, once upon a time, calvin coolidge was lieutenant governor. he was at a dinner party and they asked him what you do, he said i'm calvin coolidge, lieutenant governor. he said, tell me all about the job. he said, i just did. [laughter] it's a huge admiration for the path tim kaine has followed. i know his sense of what america means to the world that was forged in the early days that the congressman hurt referred to about his catholic missionary work in honduras, just helping other people to live healthier lives. two weeks after the election, tim called and asked if he could serve on the senate foreign relations committee.

you don't always get those calls in the senate. people stepping forward to volunteer in that way on the committee, it does not have an opportunity to bring bacon back home. so i know that in tim kaine, virginia has a senator who is going to make his mark on that committee and is going to make a mark for your common wealth and our country. and we're grateful for your service, tim. thank you very much. [applause] also, i am particularly grateful for congressman robert hurt being here today. i have left partisan politics. it's wonderful for me to be able to welcome people in the complete spirit of non partisanship, not just

bipartisanship. i'm confident you are going to make your contribution. thank you for your presence here today. [applause] president sullivan, thank you so much for welcoming me here today to this historic, remarkable campus. i feasted on the view as i walked across the lawn with president sullivan. i have to say, you all are very lucky to go to school here. it is an honor to join you hear on the grounds. [laughter] [applause] this very beautiful monument to the potential of the human mind. i have to tell you, to stand here beneath the gaze of the

sages of athens, those thinkers who gave us the idea of democracy, which we obviously still continued to perfect, not only in our nation but around the world, we are grateful for that. also, i was here a long time ago as an undergraduate. i played lacrosse on that field over there against you guys. my first act of diplomacy is literally to forget who won. i have no idea. [laughter] i want to thank the folks in uniform. i want to thank the rotc and all those of you who have served and will continue to serve in some way for our nation. there's no greater declaration of citizenship than that. some might ask why i am standing here at the university of virginia, why i'm starting here as secretary of state

making his first speech in the united states. you might ask, doesn't diplomacy happen over there, overseas, far beyond the boundaries of our backyard? why is it i'm on the foot of the blue ridge instead of the shores of the black sea? why i am here instead of in kabul? the reason is simple. i came here purposely to underscore that in today's global world there is no longer anything foreign about foreign policy. more than ever before, the decisions that we make from the safety of our shores don't just ripple outwards, but they also create a current right here in

america. how we conduct our foreign policy matters more than ever before to our everyday lives, to the opportunities of all the students i met standing outside, would every year they are here, thinking about the future. it is important not just in america. in terms of the correct that we face but the products that we buy, the good that we sell, and the opportunities that we provide for economic growth and vitality. it's not just about whether we will be compelled to send our troops to another battle, but whether we will be able to send our graduates into a thriving workforce. that's what i am here today. i'm here because our lives as americans are more intertwined than ever before with the lives of people in parts of the world that we may have never visited. and the global challenge is of diplomacy, development, economic security,

environmental security, you will feel our success or failure just as strongly as those people in those other countries that you will never meet. for all we have gained in the 21st century, we lost the luxury of just looking inward. instead we look out and receive a new field of competitors. i think it gives us much reason to hope, but it also gives us many more rivals determined to create jobs and opportunities for their own people, a veracious marketplace that's sometimes forgets morality and values. i know that some of you and many across the country which that globalization would just go away. or you remember easier times. my friend, no politician, no matter how powerful, can put the genie back in the bottle.

our challenge is to obtain the worst impulses of globalization even as we harness its ability to spread information and possibility, to offer even the most remote place on earth the same choices that have made us strong and free. before i leave this weekend to listen to our allies and partners next week throughout europe and the middle east and in the coming months across asia, africa, and the americas, i wanted to first talk with you about the challenge that we face here at home, because our engagements with the rest of the world begins by making some important choices together, and particularly about our nation's budget. our sense of shared responsibility that we care

about something bigger than ourselves is absolutely central to the spirit of this school. it's also central to the spirit of our nation. as you well know and dr. sullivan reminded you a moment ago, our first secretary of state founded this great university. students in his day could basically only study law or medicine or religion. that was about all. thomas jefferson had a vision. he believed the american people needed a public place to learn the diversity of disciplines, studies of science and flora, fauna, philosophy. he built this university in the image of 20 called the illimitable freedom of the human mind. today those of you will study here and teach here along with the taxpayers contributors, and parents who believe in your potential, you are all investing in mr. jefferson's

vision. think for a moment about what that means. why do you spend many days and the dollars it takes to earn an education here or anywhere? why did jefferson what this institution to remain public and accessible, not just to virginians but as a destination from everywhere? i know that he was not thinking just about your getting a degree and a job. it was about something more. jefferson believed we could not be a strong country without investing in the kind of education that empowers us to be good citizens. that is why founding destinatios university is among the few accomplishments that jefferson listed on his epitaph that he wrote for himself. to him, this place and its goal was a bigger part of his legacy ban serving as secretary of state or even as president, neither of which made the cut.

just as jefferson understood, that we need to invest in education in order to produce good citizens, i join president obama today in asserting with urgency that our citizenry deserves a strong foreign policy to protect our interests in the world. a wise investment in foreign policy can yield for a nation the same return that education does for its students. no investment that we may that is as small as this investment put forward such a sizable benefit for ourselves and for our fellow citizens of the world. that's why i wanted to have this conversation with you today, which i hope is a conversation that extends well beyond the borders of charlottesville, will be on this university, to all americans.

why talk about a small investment in foreign policy in the united states, i mean it. not so long ago, someone told the american people and asked how big is our international terrorist budget? most said 25% of our national budget. they thought it ought to be pared back to 10% of our national budget. let me tell you, i would take 10% in a heartbeat, folks. because 10% is exactly 10 times greater than what we do invest in our efforts to protect america around the world. over 1% funds all our civilian and foreign affairs efforts. every embassy, every program that saves a child from dirty drinking water or aids or reaches out to build a village to bring american values.

penniest talking about on the dollar. where do you think this idea comes from that 25% we spend? it's pretty simple. as a recovery politician, nothing gets a crowd faster in a lot of places than saying i am going to washington to get them to stop spending all that money over there. sometimes they get a lot more. if you're looking for an applause line, that's about as guaranteed as you can get. it does nothing to guarantee our security. it does not guarantee a stronger country. it does not guarantee a sounder economy or a more stable job market. it does not guarantee that the best interests of our nation are being served.

it does not guarantee that another young american man or woman will not going to lose their life, because we were not willing to make the right investments here in the first place. we need to say no to the politics of a lowest common denominator and of simplistic slogans and start making real choices that protect the interests of our country. that is imperative. [applause] unfortunately, the state department does not have our own grover norquist pushing a pledge to protect it. we don't have millions of aarp seniors who send in their dues and rallied to protect american investments overseas. the kids whose lives we are helping save from aids, the

women we are helping to free from sex trafficking, the students who for the first time can choose to walk into a school instead of into it a short life with terrorism, their strongest lobbyists are the rare committed americans stand up for them and the resources we need to help them. i hope that includes all of you here and many listening. you understand why every time a tough fiscal choices loom, the easiest place to point fingers is foreign aid. as ronald reagan said, foreign aid suppers for the lack of domestic constituency. reasonpart of the everyone thinks it costs a lot more than it really does. so we need to change that. i reject the excuse that americans just are not interested in what's happening outside their immediate field

of vision. i don't believe that about anyone of you sitting here and i don't believe that about americans. the real domestic constituency for what we do, if people could see the dots connected and understand what we are doing, is really large. is a 314 million americans whose lives are better every day because of and when they have time to stop and pick about it, deep down they know our investment abroad actually makes them and our nation safer. my friends, in this age when a shrinking world clashes with calls for shrinking budgets, we are not alone. it's our job to connect those stocks, to connect them for the american people between what we do over their hands the size of the difference it makes. the here makes won't why price of abandoning our global efforts would be exorbitant and why the vacuum we will leave by retreating within ourselves will quickly be filled by those

whose interests differ dramatically from ours. we learned that lesson in the deserts of mali recently, in the mountains of a pakistan in 2001, and in the tribal areas of pakistan even today. today's first years at uva we are starting the second grade when a small group of terrorists around the world and shattered our sense of security and our stability, are skylines. so i know that you certainly have always understood that bad things happening over there and threatened us right here. knowing that, the question is this -- how do we together make clear that the opposite is just as true, that if we do the right things, the good things, the smart things over there, it will

strengthen us here at home. let me tell you my answer. i believe we do this in two ways. first, it's about telling the story of how we stand up for american jobs to businesses. pretty practical, straightforward, pretty real on a day-to-day basis. second, it's about how we stand up for our american values, something that has always distinguished america. i agree with president obama that there is nothing in this current budget fight that requires us to make bad decisions, that forces us to retrench or to retreat. this is a time to continue to engage, for the sake of the safety and economic health of our country. this is not optional. it is a necessity. the american people understand this, i believe it. our businesses understand this. it is simple. the more they sell abroad, the

more they will hire here and don't.-- here at home. since 95% of the world's customers live outside our country, we cannot hamstring our own ability to compete in those increasingly growing markets. virginia understands this as well as any state in the union. senator tim kaine took trips to make this happen as governor. international trade supports more than 1 million jobs here in virginia. more than one out of five jobs in virginia, which actually today is the story of america. there's a company near dulles airport, with the the help of the persistent advocates of our embassy in bangkok, it beats out the french and russian competitors to build the newest broadcast satellite for thailand. virginia's orbital is now teaming up with a california company called spacex operation technologies that makes

satellite equipment. that's a deal that our embassy helped to secure valued at $160 million goes right back into american communities from coast to coast. that is the difference that our embassies abroad can make here and all. these success stories happen in partnership with countries all over the world because of the resources that we have deployed to bring business and jobs back to america. these investments, my friends, are paying for themselves. we create more than 5000 jobs for every billion dollars of goods and services that we export. so the last thing that we should do is surrender this kind of leverage. these successes are happening in canada, where state department officers there got a local automotive firm to invest tens of millions of dollars in michigan, where the american auto industry is now making a remarkable comeback.

in indonesia, thanks do with the embassy in jakarta, that nations privately owned airline does place an order for commercial aircraft, the largest boeing has ever been asked to fill. the indonesian state railroad is buying its locomotives from general electric. >> more than 600 u.s. companies are doing business in south africa and where opec and the trade and development agency just opened an office to help close more investment deals between american companies and africa's booming energy and transportation sectors. a major south african energy company plans to build a multimillion-dollar plant in louisiana that would put more americans to work.

let me tell you, this is happening. in cameroon and in bosnia and in other surprising places. in the shadows of world war ii, if you told someone that japan and germany would today be our fourth and its largest trading partners, someone would have thought you were crazy. before nixon's old opening with china, no one could imagine that today it would be our second- largest trading partner, but that is exactly what has happened. 11 of our top 16 trading partners used to be the beneficiaries of u.s. foreign assistance. that's because our goal is not to keep a nation dependent on us forever. it is precisely to create these markets, to open these opportunities, to establish rule of law. our goal is to use assistance and development to help nations realize their own potential,

develop their own ability to govern, and accomplish our economic partners. one of america's most incredible realities continues to be that we are a country without any permanent enemies. take vietnam. i will never forget standing next to john mccain in the east room of the white house. each of us on either side of president clinton as he announced the once unthinkable normalization of our relations with vietnam, and efforts that john mccain and i worked on for about 10 years to try do. in the last decade, thanks in large part to the work of usaid, our exports to vietnam increased by more than 700%. every one of those percentage points our jobs here in america. in the last two decades, 1000 vietnamese students and scholars have studied spanish and taught

have studied and taught in america through the fulbright program, including the foreign minister, who i just talked to the other day and who has feelings about america because of that engagement. the list goes on. as the emerging middle class in india, the world's largest democracy, buys our products, that means jobs and incomes for our own middle-class. as our traditional assistance to brazil and decreases, trade there is increasing. brazil is one of the new tigers moving at a double-digit pace. it supports additional jobs here at home, many in the u.s. travel and tourism industry. when jefferson expanded our consular posts, precisely to promote trade, he never could have could the importance today. nor could be a predictable

number of americans abroad that we help with passports, visas, with other problems that arise, or that will offer to those who want to grow their families to adoption or who find themselves in legal trouble or distressed far from home, or the role our diplomats play screening potential security threats and taking them off the radar screen before they ever reach your consciousness potential in the worst ways, or that we create a new american jobs for every 65 visitors that we help bring to our shores. so we have to keep going. we cannot afford the kind of delay and disruption that stance on the horizon in washington. the exciting new trade negotiation that president obama announced last week between the united states and the european union will create the world's biggest bilateral deal with it comes to fruition, a trans- atlantic partnership that will match the scope and ambition of our trans-pacific partnership

talks. but our work is far from over. seven of the 10 fastest-growing countries are on the african continent. and china understanding that, is already investing more than we do there. four of the five biggest oil and gas natural discoveries happened off the coast of mozambique last year. developing economies are the epicenters of brokers and their open for business. and the united states needs to be at that table it. if we want a new list of assistance graduates, countries that used to receive aid from us, we cannot shy away from telling this story to the american people, to your members of congress, and to the world.

let me emphasize, jobs and trade are not the whole story and nor should they be. the good work of the state department and usaid is measured not only in the value of the dollar, it's also measured in our deepest values. we got your security and stability in other parts of the world, knowing that failed states are among our greatest security perhaps and the new partners are our greatest assets. the investments that we make support our efforts to counter terrorism and violent extremism wherever it flourishes. we will continue to help countries provide their own security, use diplomacy when possible, and support those allies and take the fight to terrorists. remember, i cannot emphasize this enough, i'm looking at a soldier in front of me with a

ribbon on his chest, deploying diplomats today is much cheaper than deploying troops tomorrow. [applause] we need to remember that. [applause] as senator lindsey graham said, it's national security that we are buying. it sounds expensive, but it's not. the state department's conflict stabilization budget is about $60 million a year now. that's how much the movie "the avengers" took in on a single sunday last may. [laughter]

the difference is the folks we have on the ground doing his job are real super heroes. we value human rights and we need to tell the story of america's good work there too. we know that the most effective way to promote the universal rights of all people, their rights and religious freedom is not from the podium or from either end of pennsylvania avenue. it is from the front lines, where ever freedom and basic human dignity are denied. that's what tim kaine understood when he went to honduras. the brave employees of state and usaid and diplomatic security personnel who protect civilians serving as overseas work in some of the most dangerous places on merit and they do it is fully cognizant that we share stronger partnerships with countries that share our commitment to democratic values and human rights. despite corruption in nigeria.--

they fight corruption in ni geria. they support the rule of law in burma. they support democratic institutions in kurdistan and in georgia, mindful from our own experience that it takes a long time to get democracy right and that it rarely happens right away. in the end, all of those efforts, all that danger and risk that they take makes us more secure and we do value democracy just as you demonstrated here at uva through the presidential program that's training leaders in the emerging democracies. thanks to a decade of intensive diplomatic efforts alongside our partners, a conflict that took more than 2 million lives. the book about the holocaust, 6 million over the course of world war ii. we lost 2 million people in the longest war in africa in our time in the last years.

and south sudan was born out of that act as a free nation. securing its future and peace for all of its citizens will take continued diplomatic efforts alongside partners like the african union. we can develop the capacity of the african union, the less the u.s. will have to worry. i've stood in south sudan.i've seen those challenges firsthand. they still face the world's newest country and its government. those challenges threaten to reverse hard-won progress and stability. that's why we are working closely with that nation to help it provide its own citizens with essential services like water and health and education and agriculture practices. we value health and nutrition and the principle of helping people gain strength to help themselves the cornerstone initiatives like feed the future. we help countries not only to plant and harvest better food but we also help them break the

cycle of poverty, of poor nutrition, of hunger. we seek to reduce maternal mortality, eradicate polio, and protect people from malaria, tuberculosis, and pandemic influenza. i will tell you probably that the global milk initiatives and programs i was proud to have an aunt in helping to create like pepfar, we have saved the lives of 5 million people in africa through the efforts of americans. [applause] today, astonishingly, we are standing on the edge of the potential of an aids-free generation, because we know these diseases don't discriminate by nationality. and we believe that relieving preventable suffering does not need justification.

i think that part of our values. we valued gender equality. knowing that countries are more peaceful and prosperous when women and girls are afforded full rights and equal opportunity. [applause] in the last decade, the proportion of african women enrolled in higher education went from nearly zero to 20%. in 2002, there were fewer than 1 million boys in afghan schools and barely any girls. now with america's health, more than one-third of the almost 8 million students going to school in afghanistan are girls.

and more than one-quarter of their representatives in parliament are women. we should be proud of that, and it helps make a difference in the long haul. the fulbright program enables talented citizens to share their devotion to diplomacy and to teach their belief that all the earth's sons and daughters are to have the opportunity to lift themselves up. today these exchanges bring hundreds of thousands of students to america from other countries and vice versa. in the last year alone, more than attend thousand citizens of foreign countries participated in the state department both academic youth professional and cultural exchange programs right here in virginia. virginians also studied abroad through state department programs. senator fulbright, i had a privilege of testifying as a young veteran from vietnam.

he knew the value of sharing our proudest values made a difference in the long run. he said having people understood your thoughts is much greater security than to have been suffering. our assistance is not a giveaway. it is not charity. it is an investment in a strong america and in the free world. foreign assistance lips other people abandon reinforces their willingness to link arms with us in common. when we help others crackdown on corruption, it makes easier for our own compliance against corruption and it makes it easier for our companies to do business. we build partnerships that mean we don't have to fight nuclear battles alone. it means working with our

partners around the world and making sure iran never obtained a weapon that could endanger our allies or our interests. when we help others create the space they need to build stability in their own communities, we are helping brave people build a better more democratic future and making sure that we don't pay more later in american blood and treasure. the stories that we need to tell of standing up for american jobs and businesses and standing up for our american values intersects powerfully to in the opportunity that we have now in this moment of urgency to lead on the climate concerns that we share with our global neighbors. we as a nation must have the foresight and courage to make the investments necessary to safeguard the most sacred trust we keep for our children and our grandchildren. and that is an environment not ravaged by rising seas, deadly superstorms, devastating droughts, and the other hallmarks of a dramatically changing climate.

president obama is committed to moving forward on that and so am i. so must you be ready to join us in that effort. [applause] can we all say thank you to our signers? [applause] so, think about all these things i've listed. think about the world as you see it today. let's face it, we're all in this one together. no nation can stand alone. we share nothing so completely as our planet.

when we work with others to develop and deploy clean technologies that will power a new world -- six trillion dollar market waiting -- huge amount of jobs, when we do that, we know we are helping create new markets and opportunities for america's second to none innovators and entrepreneurs so that we can succeed in the next great revolution in our marketplace. we need to commit ourselves to doing the smart thing and the right thing and to truly take on this challenge. if we don't rise to meet it, then rising temperatures and rising the levels will surely lead to rising costs down the road. ask any insurance company in america. if we waste this opportunity, it may be the only thing our generations are remembered for.

we need to find the courage to leave a far different legacy. we cannot talk about the unprecedented changes happening on our planet without also talked about the unprecedented changes in its population. another great opportunity at our fingertips. in countries across north africa and the middle east, the majority of people are younger than 30 years old. 60% under 30. 50% under 21. 40% under 18. half of the total under 20. they look for the same opportunities and the same things that you do -- opportunity. we have an interest in helping these young people, to develop the skills they need to defeat mass unemployment that is overwhelming their societies, so they can start contributing to their communities and rebuild their broken economies rather than engaging in some other terrorist caught or other kind of extremist activity.

for the first time in human activity, young people around the world act as a global cohort, including many of the people in this room. we are more open-minded, more proficient with the technology that keep them connected as no generation in history has ever been before. we need to help all of them and us to use this remarkable network in a positive way. some may say not now, not while. we have while. -- not while we have our budget. it's too expensive. believe me, my friends, these challenges will not get easier with time. there is no pause button on the future. we cannot choose when we would like to stop and restart our global responsibility or simply wait until the calendar says it is more convenient. it is not easy. but responding is the american

thing to do. i will tell you, it is worth it. these programs which advance peace and security around the world, which open markets to american manufacturers, fostering stable societies to save lives by fighting disease and hunger, defended the universal rights of all people, advance freedom and dignity, bringing people together, nations together. addressing problems that transcend the separation of motions, giving hope to a new generation in an interactive world of citizens. in all those things it costs us as i just mentioned, about one penny of every dollar that we invest.

america, you will not find a better deal anywhere. i am particularly aware that in many ways the greatest challenge to america's foreign policy today is in the hands of our diplomats and policy makers in congress. it is often said we cannot be strong at home if we are not strong in the world. but in these days of the budget sequester, which everyone wants to avoid -- or most -- we cannot be strong in the world unless we are strong at home. my credibility as a diplomat, working to help other countries create order is strongest when america at last put its own fiscal house in order. that has to be now. [applause] think about it.

it is hard to tell the leadership of other countries that they have to resolve their economic issues when we do not resolve our own. let's reach a responsible agreement. let's not use this opportunity because of politics. as i have said many times before, america is not exceptional simply because we say we are. we are exceptional because we do exceptional things. both where there are problems as well as where there is promise. both where there is danger as well as where there is democracy. i am optimistic that we will continue to do these exceptional things. i know that is who we are and it is who we have always been.

as we ask for our next steps in this path, we would do well to learn a lesson from our own history. in the aftermath of world war ii, america had a choice, just like we do today, to turn inward. instead the secretary of state, george marshall, sought in both defeated and allied countries the threat of bankruptcy, homes and re -- homes and railways destroyed, economies decimated. he had the foresight to know that there could be no political stability, no peace without renewed economic strength. he knew that we had an obligation to partner with europe, help them rebuild, modernize, give the push that it needed to become the powerful and peaceful trading partner it is today. after the war, my friends, we did not spike the football, we created another level playing

field. we are stronger for it today. when i was 12 years old i had the privilege of living in germany, where my father, an officer, was called to duty. one day i visited the eastern side of berlin. the part that had not received any of the help from the united states and its courageous marshall plan. the difference was undeniable, even to my 12-year-old eyes. there were few people on the streets, a few smiles on the faces of those were there. i saw the difference between hope, despair, freedom, and oppression. people who were given the chance to do something as opposed to the people who were not. as western europe regained its vibrant color, the place i visited was still in black and white. when i went back to west berlin, two things happened. first, i was summarily grounded for venturing without permission to the other side of the city. [laughter]

second, i started to pay special attention to the plaques on the buildings that recommend -- that recognize the united states of america for lending a hand in rebuilding. i was proud. the marshall plan, imf, and other organizations led by the united states are evidence of our ability to make the right decisions at the right time, taking risks today in the interest of tomorrow. we now face a similar crossroads. we can be complacent or competitive as markets bloom in every corner of the world. with or without us. we could be there to help plant the seeds or we can see the power to others. given the chance to lead a second great american century, we must not just look to the american landscape today. look at the days to come.

we must marshal the courage that define the the marshall plan so that we might secure in the future freedom. let's remember the principles of jefferson's time. looking to independence echoing in our time. america's national interest is in leading strongly and it still in doers in this world.-- endures in this world. let me leave you with a thought. when tragedy and terror visit our neighbors, whether by the hand of man or the hand of god, many nations give of themselves to help. only one is expected to. with the leadership of president

obama i will work hard to secure for the congress the continuing of the lead of the separation. not because we view it as a burden, but because we know it to be a privilege. that is what is special about the united states of america. that is what the special about being an american. that exceptional quality that we share is what i will take with me on my travels on your behalf. the responsibility cannot be reserved for responses to emergencies at home. it has to be exercised in the pursuit of exercising the disaster, of building markets. of standing up for our guidance. over the next four years i asked you to stand with our president and our country to continue to conduct ourselves with the understanding that what happens over there matters right here.

and it matters that we get this right. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] >> secretary kerry leaves on sunday for a 10-day trip. in a few moments, a defense department briefing on how automatic spending cuts, known as sequestration, will affect civilian employees. in about 40 minutes, a university of chicago forum on the presidential campaign, with strategists for president obama and mitt romney. after that, the former head of the cia, retired general michael hayden.

>> on the next washington journal, we will look at gun ownership in america, beginning with the center for public integrity. alan recently wrote about the background check system for purchasing firearms. live from the arsenal, a shooting range and gun shop near chantilly, virginia. an interview with the owner and live demonstrations. our guest will be larry pratt, executive director of gun owners of america. and "washington times" editor emily miller. >> if blockade is the principal naval strategy of the northern states, the principal naval strategy of the southern states is commerce rating. a gun on the pivot, between the masts. if you are going after merchant

ships, one is all you need. if you caught a merchant ship, the idea was to come alongside, and put a price crew on board. take it to a port, where a price court judge could adjudicate it. sell it at auction, and you got to keep all the money. because privateering defends -- depends on the profit motive -- the ship owner pays the men, supplies the food, hires the officers -- he expects a return on his money. the crew expected prize money. without friendly ports where they could be condemned and consoled, you cannot make a profit from privateering. therefore, confederate privateering died out almost immediately. it lasted about three months, slightly longer. maritime entrepreneurs found out they could make more money blockade running. >> a historian looks at the civil war at sea, saturday night at 10:00 pm eastern, part

of american history tv, this weekend on c-span three. defense department officials outlined plans today to furlough civilian employees if automatic spending cuts go into effect the first of next month. this is 40 minutes. >> good afternoon. thank you for coming. thank you for your interest in this topic today.sequestration, as well as -- in accordance with the law, we have notified congress today about furloughs. with us today we have our undersecretary, bob hale, and acting undersecretary, justin wright.-- jessica right.

-- wright. they do have some comments that they would like to start with, [inaudible] furloughs. then they will be available to take your questions.i will help them, in terms of getting questions throughout. >> ok, good afternoon. today the department of defense faces some enormous budgetary uncertainty unparalleled in my experience. the possibility for sequestration on march 1.by the end of march, it could mean 9% across all accounts except military personnel, including wartime accounts. we will protect those accounts, but that means larger cuts to the base budget. the continuing resolution, if it stays in effect, has the money in the wrong places, too many dollars in the investment accounts and too few in operation accounts.

the pattern here, there will be pressure on base budget operation and maintenance affecting continuing resolutions.the continuing resolution has not enough o&m money. finally, we are spending at a higher than expected rate in our oko budgets. two years ago we did not anticipate and tell operating tempo. we will meet those costs, the sum of all those effects means we are seriously short on operation and maintenance funds. this will have serious adverse effects on readiness. we have taken short-term actions to slow spending and avoid more draconian cuts later.

affecting many of our organizations already, sharp cutbacks in facilities maintenance, cutbacks, with sequestration lasting all year. they will have to have much more far reaching changes. there will be cutbacks and delays in virtually every department.-- every investment and program in the department, nearly 2900 of them. it will mean cutbacks in unit buys, increases in unit costs. increases in delays. we will have to cut back training, particularly for non- deployed units, leading to actions such as two-thirds of the combat brigades being at unacceptable levels of readiness by the end of the year, including those already deployed in afghanistan.-- excluding those already deployed in afghanistan. most airports units would be below acceptable levels.we

would see cutbacks in navy and marine corps readiness and deployments. we have decided to take one fewer carrier in the gulf. unfortunately along this list of items, with sequestration if it lasts all year, referred for civilian personnel.-- our furloughs for civilian personnel. we feel we have no choice but to impose, the we would prefer not to do it. we are more than 20% short with seven months ago in the army. much higher in some of the services, particularly the army. civilian personnel, making up a substantial part of funding. reductions in support cost us money.that is because of unused leave and severance pay. firms are really the only way that we have to quickly cut civilian personnel funding. we have established a general approach that we will follow. it is one of the approaches of last resort. we will also insist on consistency across the department so that all of our organizations will do so.

about the same for the same number of days. there will be some limited exceptions to this, for example. we will not furlough citizens in, but zones or citizens-- furlough citizens deployed in combat zones. we will not furlough citizens required to make safety of life or property.only to the extent they have to maintain safety or life, or property. 20 policeman on a base, they are not all automatically exempted from furloughs. they have to exempt some or all of them. exempting employees paid with non-appropriated funds, we will exempt hour for a national employees.confirm political employees are exempt by law. we will exempt foreign national employees. how would they work in general? first, there is a whole series of notifications. the first one was started today.

a notification to congress, along with a message about the secretary of defense to our civilian employees. it starts a 45-day clock ticking. until that clock has run out, we cannot proceed with furloughs. we will ask components to identify specifics inspections. -- specific exceptions. we will review those for consistency. they will begin required engagements with local unions.we will also -- they will notify unions with national bargaining rights. at some point in mid march we will send a notification toeach employee who may be furloughed. that starts a 30 day waiting clock furlough before we can take any action. later on in april we will send a decision to employees. they have a one week time period to appeal the protection board. the bottom line is that furloughs would not start until late april. we certainly hope that if triggered, that in the interim congress would act to not

trigger the sequestration. or take some short-term action while they are dealing with the broader issue. meanwhile, unfortunately we will have to continue our planning for furloughs. this is one of the most distasteful taxed -- tasks i have faced in my four years. we will work it out. >> thank you, bob. let me first say that our focus is clearly on people. civilians around the world provide invaluable support for national security. everyday they make countless contributions and sacrifices in support of national defence. the effects of sequestration and the continuing resolution will be devastating.

on our civilians, it will be catastrophic. these critical members of our workforce maintain and repair tanks, aircraft, ships. they teach our kids and care for our children. they provide medical treatments to all of our beneficiaries. they take care of our wounded warriors. they provide services in programs like sexual assault prevention and suicide prevention, just to name a few. let me be clear, the first, second, and third order on sequestration will be fell in local command and local communities all over the united states. this is not a beltway phenomenon. more than 80% of our civilians work outside the washington, d.c. metro area.

if furloughs are enacted, civilians will experience a decrease in pay. as a result, many families will be forced to make difficult decisions on where their financial obligations live. key benefits like life insurance benefits, health care, and retirement will generally continue. those programs and policies are mandated by the office of personnel management and applied consistently to all government employees. loss of pay will only be felt by each employee, but it will be felt in the business communities where they serve, where their kids go to school and the neighborhoods they live in. the department will apply these of furloughs if necessary in a consistent and equitable fashion.

with only a few exceptions. civilians will experience the impact directly to their wallet. service members, retirees, families, they will clearly feel the effect of these actions. if sequestration is not averted, associated furloughs will affect war fighters, veterans, and family members in on told ways. let me talk about a couple of those ways.the our goal is to preserve the accreditation of our schools. as we continue to work with the department of defense education activity and how they will implement a furloughs, we are committed in mitigating the impact of sequestration on the school year for our kids.

regarding health care, about 40% of our medical providers are civilians. this furlough will affect them greatly. our goal is to mitigate the impact and provide quality care. certainly family members will feel the impact of sequestration. our intent is to ease the impact, but it is clearly possible that operating will be curtailed. while it is our intent to preserve family programs to the greatest extent possible, some programs may be affected if the length of sequestration goes long and hard.

we understand that sequestration will be significant. not only to our civilian employees, but to the servicemen and women and their families. it will affect local communities and local businesses. it will affect our dedicated men and women who have lived in the local communities throughout our nation and clearly overseas. we know this. that is why our guiding principle will be to lessen the impact for every man. we are clearly grateful for the support and clearly grateful for the support of the men and women of our civilian force that worked to help the war fighter protection mission. thank you. >> you mentioned that every state would be affected.which is

furloughs, -- with regard to the furloughs, which ones have been affected the most? >> we have not done that research, to find out which state will be affected the most. clearly where we have the large bases and depots, they will be affected >> you may not be-- affected. >> we have state-by-state data. it is places like virginia. surprised, as justice said. places where we have large bases. >> [inaudible] >> maybe both. i was talking about furloughs specifically. >> is that available? >> we can get to that.-- get that to you. i do not see why not. >> what do you -- >> [inaudible] cbo and center for strategic budgetary assessment take the defense department back to 2007 roles.you are fighting a huge

war in iraq and afghanistan. why can the department of sort -- why cannot the department absorb that kind the kind of cut? what is wrong with that picture? you seem to have a lot of money, if you look act at 2007. >> first of all, there is a timing issue. it will occur five months into the year. particularly in the operating side.we will have expended roughly 5/12 of the money. we will have to take it within seven months and, without, frankly, time to get ready. more generally i would say that i am always troubled if we're trying to determine the adequacy of these budgets on real dollar levels in a particular year, we need to look at the threats that we face the remain substantial. we owe it to the public's to figure out the amount that we think needs to be spent to carry out a national defense strategy, and we have done that.

>> will this lead to determinations of existing contracts?-- will this lead to the termination of existing contracts? or is it more a slowing down of dollars for new contracts? >> i do not anticipate that we will cancel many of any contracts.we would incur substantial costs. it is more that we will not become got chills. mccaw -- pick up options. i would like to say to reassure them that we will pay you if you have a contract with us. even under sequestration we will find a time to keep it to the vendors on time. >> if the base number of civilians [inaudible]

estimated savings would be?how many do you expect to be furloughed? what would the estimated savings be? >> we do not know the exact number, it will depend on those exceptions. 50,000 of them are foreign nationals.we decided not to attempt to furlough them. so it will probably be 750,000 or so. there will be exceptions to make it smaller. it will depend on the exceptions. that is a process we just started to ask command to identify. >> are there going to be more than 50%? >> i think so. >> temporary term employees that have already been terminated? >> this is an ongoing issue,

60007000 are being laid off or are in the process of being laid off. i think you will see more. for those near term actions, particularly, there were mission critical exceptions. >> [inaudible] >> by the end of this month we would have a pretty good idea. we will be heading into more detailed planning at that point. assuming this goes forward, which i sure hope it does not.we will be going forward. >> these exemptions, can you tell us more? which employees are exempt? the you have any estimates on how many people might be exempt?

do you have estimates question --? . >> we have power down services so that they can review their employees. >> i want to bring you back to our civilian work force.i want to bring it back. they are hugely valuable. they contribute tons to what we do here in the department and worldwide. saying that, if we have to do this furlough, like the secretary said, exemptions will be relatively small. we have asked services to come back with a plan. we will review the plan with the criteria outlined for exemptions.we will go forward

from there. we do not yet have a number i can give you on who will be the percentage exempt. >> what will life on military bases look like with these closures and shortened hours? what do you expect to see? >> as i said in the opening comments, i truly believe that our civilians and add such a value to life on a military base. if furloughed, they will see a reduction in some of the services, like for example commissary hours. life on military base, that will impact those individuals who use the commissary.

until we find out how this is going to be applied, i cannot give you a daily routine of what a generic day would be on a military base, should we face such a catastrophic event as furloughing or civilian employees. >> our personnel are committed to carrying out a mission to defend the united states. i think that one thing you are going to see is a great deal of frustration. they will see that they cannot train as much as they need to. if they are dealing with investments that will see disruption in the programs they are managing. so, there will be some aspects of daily life affected. i think that there's satisfaction with the mission will be adversely affected,

which is important to these people, civilian and military. >> does the furlough apply to intelligence employees? as you know, the director of national intelligence [inaudible]as you know, he set the furlough should not apply to them. >> i do not know that a final decision has been made there. for department of defense employees we will insure consistency, but that is a decision that will have to be made and i do not know if they made it. i think it would be in conjunction with the office of management and budget. >> can you give us a ballpark figure? >> i want to say 25,000. is that right? all right. i had better get back to you. >> is there any indication on the impact of sequestration for the reported efforts?

>> the military processing stations, the testing that is given.will recruiters are all military. they are exempt from furlough. the second and third order of the effect of giving someone in can slow the process. >> by the end of this process

you have two-thirds, that would be unacceptable levels.will that affect future employment? will the slowdown? >> other than those currently employed it would be below acceptable levels. it could affect their ability to deploy to a new contingency of occurred. or if this goes on long enough to afghanistan. >> entirely because of what is laying around? [inaudible]costs were higher there? >> there are a variety of reasons.that is part of it. two years ago when we put together the budget for this year we underestimated the army and the air force.

>> can i just follow up on the readiness question?how much of this -- we have seen a lot of what appears to be scare tactics. on the surface they seem to be pushing out a message of security issue things. what is the reality of readiness here? still at war, the message is the long-term effect. you might have to keep troops on the ground longer. is this something that will be allowed to be pushed down the road? >> we have seven months ago and are short in the base budget by $45 billion compared to the $45 billion compared to the president's request.