useful, normal industrial purposes. it will be helpful to know how to put this program together. >> you can watch the rest of that on recession online. just go to www.c-span.org coming up, newsmakers with representative rob wittman. "q&a." >> our guest on "newsmakers" this week is representative rob wittman of virginia. he is the chairman of the subcommittee on readiness, which puts him in responsibility of the biggest line items in the pentagon budget. let me introduce our reporters who will be questioning our subject, donna cassata and rick maze.

>> the possibility of military action on syria is still looming. as the chairman of the subcommittee on readiness, what do you think the military is capable of doing in syria, in light of the sequester and the budget cuts? >> that is of concern to all of us. what opportunities do we have to make sure that if there is military action, that we can sustain that? even if it is a small strike, we have to look at if it turns into an enduring mission, if it turns into more than just a strike, if there is indeed the involvement of other countries. what could a military do? if you look at the current state of readiness, our readiness continues to degrade. it does concern me, if we do have more than just a surgical strike or an unbelievably strong effort, what it will mean for our military.

we are still engaged in afghanistan. those are deep concerns of mine. looking at not only what we are doing there, but the effort to take our forces out of there. i believe we will be pushed if we end up with an enduring mission in syria to be able to sustain that. the readiness elements where the money has most recently been taken out, and slowly put back in, are things like training, the operation and maintenance of our equipment, the operational capability of our systems that help collect the information our men and women need on the battlefield. those things concern me. it is not an initial strike. it is what happens if it is more than that. there is no guarantee this could not turn into an enduring mission. my concern is that is the direction it could easily turn into.

the readiness of our forces will be at the forefront. >> you are not a supporter of a surgical strike, or a strike of any kind at this point. are there conditions that would make you change your mind on that? >> i do not see anything now, or can envision something in the future, that would create a clear, direct, and immediate strategic threat to the united states. under those conditions, i do not see a situation where i could support a military strike. >> could i ask about the political elements? the president has been forceful in supporting a military action. senators john mccain and lindsey graham have been very outspoken in pressing for aggressive military action. they even suggested the president could act without congressional approval. what is the divide within the republican party? do you see the party closer to the position of a lot of rank- and-file house members, who say no military action, or do you see the party closer to the mccain and lindsey graham perspective?

>> i think the vast majority are closer to the house position. what house members look at as they make a decision is, the strategic interests, the questions there -- whether it is a clear, direct, and immediate strategic interest -- what would the mission be? it is not clear. the element of the readiness of our forces. does this turn into an enduring mission if other countries get involved? that is a real concern for folks. as i talk to folks throughout the congress, both on the house and senate side, i see that as the mindset of the majority of members there. even regardless of party. some look at it and say, we have a moral obligation or a moral imperative. what i have argued is, the moral imperative, based on the agreement that 98% of the nations of the world have placed themselves in, is worldwide.

it is incumbent on the united states, if we are going to do this, to bring other partners in to look at the diplomatic course of action. >> on concerns this might become an enduring mission, do you not have confidence that congress can affect the brackets around military action? asked the congress can define exactly what it wants to be done. congress cannot control the reaction of other countries and other players in that region. that is one thing we cannot concern. if there is a reaction from iran, or from russia, or the other actors in that region, we are going to be faced with, what do we do in response to that? that is something we cannot control. >> a reaction from iran would be a direct national threat to the united states. that would create a different situation. >> it could. it all depends on what they would do. they have said, or placed out there, certain scenarios they said they would pursue if we start syria. -- struck syria.

the question is what that would be. it really boils down to, what is the nature, if it were to happen, the reaction of those nations if we were to get further involved, if we were to pursue that strike and there was a reaction. >> is there a scenario you have looked at where you are concerned about u.s. capability, at least in the short term? >> we have asked specifically about their operations plan, their efforts, and what they would do. i did ask a question in the hearing in our readiness subcommittee on friday about if there was a formal operations plan. what are the readiness elements of the forces they would call upon? obviously, there was, based on that, immediate concern about the readiness of that specific strike. if it goes beyond that, that is where the real significant question is coming.

>> is your real concern sequester related? if there is a sequester in 2014, is there a problem? >> i think there is a sustainability problem occurring right now. as you know, in 2013, there was the ability to move some dollars around. the money moved from investment accounts to operational accounts, to make sure we can operate and train. pilots that were put on standby in the air force are back flying combat training to make sure they stay certified. we are able to catch up now. the problem is, you have used that seed money, you have used investment dollars, to fund operational accounts. if those operational elements get pushed, those resources are not there. it is not just what we face now. if you continue that in 2014 -- remember, it is $50 billion a year. you are going to quickly see the impact. it is not falling off a cliff,

but when you get to the point of seeing the impact, it is a precipitous drop-off in readiness. we are beginning to see those elements. we get secure readiness priests, -- briefs, and we see where things are trending. the trends are not good ones. the funding decisions made in 2014 in relation to the sequester, it sequester dollars -- if sequester dollars are not replaced in the defense budget the impact is going to be significant. even the impact of a cr -- that would equally be as troubling for the military. >> do you see any situation where the house would reverse sequester cuts in the upcoming cr? >> i do not know if it would be in the cr. it was certainly occur to me in the debt ceiling negotiations that it would be a place to talk about the balance to get that dollars back. the house has addressed this in the short term. the defense appropriations bill puts many of those dollars back

in, much of them into readiness accounts. i would push to say the dollars have to go back to those accounts. that only addresses it one year. the sequester automatically occurs in each subsequent year. i think we have to say here is the solution to the sequester through the military budget. -- for the military budget. >> you are looking for a four- year solution. >> i am looking for that in the debt ceiling negotiations. i would like to see at least a situation to address the automatic sequester cuts through the life of the cr. it looks like that might be about three months. i have been unfortunately displeased with what i have been hearing coming out. what you will have with the sequester levels is, you will have those automatic cuts that will be reflected in the cr if it does use the budget of 2012 automatic numbers.

that is what i have heard being proposed. >> are you concerned that a number of the defense hawks, especially members of the committee, feel they are shouting into the wind on sequester? i know there are a number of house republicans that are perfectly fine with the sequester cuts, and they accepted them. >> i can tell you almost everybody, to a person, on the house armed services committee, has been concerned. we have been talking to members to let them know the impacts, trying to boil it down to let them know what readiness means. what we cannot do if these cuts continue. we are having those conversations. for some, they look at it in a bigger perspective and say, the true threat of national security is the debt. i do not disagree, but what is the nation's capability to defend itself?

i think more and more people will hopefully bring themselves to understand it. i know there is an increased sense of urgency among members of the house armed services committee. when we completed our subcommittee hearing in readiness, we talked specifically about capability. all of us spoke afterwards and said, we have an obligation to go to our leadership within both of our parties to let them know how important this is, and to get commitments to them -- from them to do more in talking about what decreased readiness means for this nation, and what we would like to do as members of congress to address it. >> they are talking about more furloughs. you talked about how damaging that was to your district. do you think it is a necessary thing? do you think they could be avoided?

>> i think they could be avoided. my concern about reduction in force is this. it cuts out, in many situations, critical personnel we need on the civilian side. as you know under the strategic choices and management review, they have also talked about the uniformed services side, reduce force there. if you look at a marine corps that goes below the 189,000 proposed, reduction in force post-afghanistan, just that in itself is very troubling. what you will find is a number of missions that cannot be done at that particular level of marines. i am concerned about what it means in the long term when you have a reduction in force. i do not believe that is the way to go about addressing and managing the defense budget. again, it goes back to -- what

is the military capability under that scenario? cutting numbers means more than just having fewer marines, fewer soldiers, fewer sailors, fewer airmen. it means lost capability. it means increased risk when those men and women in uniform are called to go into harm's way. if we do not have the proper training, the equipment, they face increased risk. when they do go in harm's way, more men and women parish in trying to achieve the mission. that is never where this nation has been, nor where it wants to be. >> yesterday, the pentagon announced three possible places for an east coast missile defense site. do you think those sites are viable? >> we must address missile defense on the east coast. i want more time to look at the analysis about why they selected those sites, and the strategic significance of those sites, and what we are able to defend against if we have incoming missiles. i want to understand more about

the strategic elements and the tactical elements in those sites. those are the questions we need to ask. we need to make sure we have the full scope of capability here on the east coast, as to the different scenarios of the threat we face, and make sure we can properly address those threats through the placement of these batteries on the east coast. >> do you think the money is going to be there? you are facing budget cuts, sequester. >> it is going to be a challenge. no doubt about it. we have to look at the numbers we have, look at making priority decisions. he have had to make some very difficult decisions. we have to make sure we are vocal when it comes to competing for resources throughout the budget. i have talked to everybody in the committee, including leadership, to say we have to be more vocal about where the true priorities are for the needs within the nation's defense, and be vocal about making those

arguments as to why it is so critical for the nation. there are lots of great arguments for all different elements of government. it is incumbent for us on the house armed services committee to make those passionate and cogent arguments about why resources should be directed here, as we are in competition with all the other elements of government spending, especially in a resource-challenged environment. >> the vice-chairman of the joint chiefs has been making a passionate argument for base closing, something i know you do not support. he has said the department has 20% excess infrastructure, and that no business would be able to operate in this fashion. i think he used the word desperately. we desperately need to cut infrastructure. is there any circumstance under which you would support base closure? >> not at present. we have so much churn going on with determining the strategic direction of our armed forces. how do we make sure we have a long-term vision about what resources will be there?

under any scenario, a closure action costs money up front. as we are battling for resources, i want to make sure we take up the issue of the sequester. how do we have a long-term track for where the resources will be, where they are directed? at that point, we can get to having a discussion. i have never said it should be an absolute no in the future, but not at the present time. until other uncertainties are dealt with, i do not believe it is a good time to do that. we cannot predict what our base structure needs will be, how long-term funding will take place. we have to have the dollars there to do it right. where do the other resources come from? where did the resources come from now? the need is now. the most important issues we are dealing with are things like

readiness, where those shortfalls and accounts mean a lot. every penny we can find elsewhere is important now. let us take those priority decisions and put them in place now. at some point in the future, when we feel there is some certainty about defense budgeting meeting strategic needs, then, we can have the discussion on base realignment and closure. >> coupled with the base closing appeal from the pentagon has been their request to congress, often rejected, to raise fees on tri-care and health care and retirement. do you see any chance that the congress might go along with some change? >> there is a real concern about affecting the benefits of those who have served. i think we have a moral commitment as a nation to say this is the agreement, while not legal, under which you came into

the services, and we need to stand by that. we can look at the benefits to those who come into the military in the future. that has happened in the past. changes have come in for those who serve the country at a future date. at the pentagon, there is tremendous focus and push to look at those benefits packages. i have talked to a number of folks that do the analysis. i know the concerns about the long-term cost. the personnel line item is a big line item. the concern is the rate of increase of that. not just the element of the defense budget, but what does it mean if we pull back from what i believe is a moral commitment to our men and women that serve? to me, the impact is to what saving you might be able to accrue if you change those benefits. i am in favor of discussing what the benefits should be for

military members that come into the uniformed services in the future. but we have got to stand by the nation's commitment to those that currently serve. >> do you think the current package is overly generous? >> i think it is fair for what our men and women have been asked to do. think about the last 12 years. our men and women who served the nation have done a tremendous job. i do not believe we should pull back on the commitment we have made to them. also, understanding what they have done for this nation. under those scenarios, i think the benefits package is commensurate with what they have given to this nation. >> six minutes left. >> but i presume the people who served in the future are going to be just as dedicated and work just as hard. >> they certainly will be. but i want to make sure we have a frank discussion with them about what those benefits will be. the men and women today came in with a set of conditions, as well as their families

understanding that, and have planned their careers around those benefits. it is not a reflection upon anybody who serves in the future. it is about having a truthful and reliable commitment in the nation next to them, and the benefits they receive in return for serving this nation. that is critical for us. if we do not do that, we have issues with retention. folks come in and say, i was promised this, that something else happened, and i am gone. what about folks in the future? i might not go in because they said one thing and did something else. that element of commitment to men and women in uniform is, i think, critical. having that discussion with folks as they come in as to what benefits they will receive, having them understand that -- as of today, we will stand by the benefits. >> you think it will affect recruitment? >> i do.

many families that are what i call legacy families, where the grandfather, the father, the son and daughter serve this natio, they have said, we have always been a nation to stand behind our military men and women and the veterans. if we move away from that, it would break the trust our men and women have out there who serve this nation, and those military families who make it a legacy and make it their public- service commitment to serve this nation. i cannot see us walking away from that. and we will, if we affect those benefits. >> you mentioned retention and talking to military families. there has been almost a rash of admirals and generals who are leaving, not voluntarily. do you think that is a factor in all of this? >> the pentagon has put out there a focused reduction in flag officers and senior executive service folks within

the pentagon. i think based on the total reduction in force, the 100,000 reduction in force that will happen post-afghanistan, that they are beginning now -- i think that is a product of that reduction in force. i think that is probably a good thing, to make sure you have the right leadership structure so it does not become too top heavy. whether it is our great nco corps, enlisted men and women, or junior officers, is there a balance within the force structure? if there is not, that could also be a situation where the folks down the line say, where is the priority for everyone? the proper balance in the force and the reduction in the flag officers, i think, is something that necessarily needs to follow with the total reduction in force. >> some of those dismissals have been for cause, sort of a rash of generals and admirals that have run into trouble one way or the other. what do you think about that phenomenon? do you think the military is being too tough on people, not accepting any errors at all?

do you think they are doing the right thing? >> i think there is a high expectation for people who serve in uniform, especially flag officers. leadership is about making sure people are held accountable and help to those high standards met -- that our entire men and women in uniform are held to. i want to make sure that we understand that leadership is really about making those tough choices. i want to make sure people have due process. at the end of the day, our leaders are making those decisions because of the actions or inactions are the folks needing to be held to those high standards. i have no problem with them making those decisions. >> you mentioned flag officers. an issue that has come up this year in congress is an effort to take chain of command outside of decision-making on whether to prosecute sexual assault cases in the military. the senate has not taken up the defense authorization bill.

perhaps in the next month or so. where do you see that ending up this year? do you see the effort by senator gillibrand succeeding? >> there is resistance in the pentagon. i want to make sure we have the transparency there. having the transparency also makes sure that as the cases make their way up the chain of command, that people know that when i make a decision, i cannot hide it. i have to make sure i can explain the rationale behind it. to be able to explain not just folks within the services -- an explanation has to come across as thoughtful and as balanced to the military families involved. the transparency is extraordinarily important. that will go to the conference

committee, to look at the policies set in the house and the senate versions. >> do you have a view of command's ability to handle these cases? >> there have been some glitches. those put a light right down to making sure there is accountability and transparency. i think, in some situations, those are the things that get called into question. i do think the military chain of command can do those things. also, making sure that you have a balance, where if there is a situation where people feel they have not gotten due process or proper justice within that realm, having an opportunity to make sure at least they have another opportunity to have their concerns heard is another important part of that decision- making process. but if you cut out the individuals in the chain of command, i think it has some

disruptive impacts on how command and control takes place through the force structure, not just on sexual assault cases, but day to day operations. >> that has to be the last word. tank you for being with us. >> thank you. thank you. >> "newsmakers" is back. we just talked to the chairman of the subcommittee on readiness in the house of representatives, and the topics -- syria and federal spending in the area of defense, and they are interrelated. what is going to happen? what is next, when the congress comes back, on syria? >> i do not think they know yet. i think they are waiting for some diplomatic solution, the date of which we do not know. you are not going to see a vote in congress until somebody else comes up with a plan. >> the president suggested he still needed a stick behind his diplomacy. is congress likely to find a path forward for him on that? >> i think it will be very difficult. there are divisions within both

parties of what the next step should be. there is a definite war weariness toward military action. in fact, the members were out in their districts last week, before they came back. and they heard an overwhelming voice from their constituents, saying, we do not want to get involved. >> at this point, if they take a vote, it goes against the president's decision, and that would hurt them on the diplomatic front, so i do not see a vote coming soon. >> federal spending, we are reaching all sorts of deadlines. september 30, the federal budget year ends. the sequester debate, the debt ceiling debate. and a gop that is having a hard time working as a cohesive force. where do you see this going in the next several weeks? >> it certainly looks intractable at this point. house republicans, the leadership needs to bring the rank and file toward some sort

of solution. there is a clear effort to couple any continuing resolution with a statement on obamacare. it is hard to see how they get away from that and come up with a clean cr. >> i am in the third decade of covering congress. i can say that paralysis is at a new level. they cannot seem to do anything. and deadlines do not matter around here. just because deadlines are coming does not mean they cannot find a way to slowly move toward the end of the year. in the short term, i just see bickering and finger-pointing, and not any quick solution. the idea that we will use the debt ceiling debate to get the defense department a lot more money and solve their four-year budget cuts -- i do not think that is realistic. i can see the house of representatives passing it.

i cannot imagine the senate would go along with something that would protect the defense department from future budget cuts, but no other agency of government. this is not the way the senate tends to work. >> what will be interesting in watching the next few weeks is for the fiscal cliff debate. one of the key players was senator mitch mcconnell. senator mcconnell is facing a gop primary challenger, as well as a democratic opponent, and it will be interesting to watch and see how involved he is in those negotiations, and where it arrives at. >> the pentagon debate over sequestration -- does it become a proxy debate over the size of the government? the size of the military and how much force we really need? >> in part, because that is their excuse to try to get more money. but it is elementary. this is a budget issue. the fact that you do not have the budget agreement means you cannot have a serious debate about the budget. senator whitman is right that

there could be long-term effects on military readiness. you cannot keep knocking $50 billion off the defense budget and not have it hurt. you can take temporary measures one or two years, but at some point, you run out of equipment. you run out of people who are trained. you run out of supplies. morale is so low that nobody wants to do anything. it is a recipe for disaster. >> we did not have a chance to talk with him about his views on the new defense secretary. how do you think he views secretary hagel in his role so far? >> the jury is still out. they were appreciative of some of his more pragmatic, straightforward approaches to issues, but i think they

understand that this is the president's pic, and they're going to work with him. that's it for our time. thank you for your questions. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> coming up tomorrow, live on "washington journal," we were take -- we'll take your calls and look at the day's headlines. ,e will talk with stephen dinan us.jenny gold will join a conversation with the new york university center on international cooperation. the u.n.talk about peacekeeping force and efforts to provide humanitarian support

around the world. some news surrounding the obama administration and the president's possible choice of for the chairman of the federal reserve. there was a letter that summers sent to the president, withdrawing his consideration as fed chair. he says, quote -- president obama has responded already. he says he has accepted the withdrawal, and is grateful for his service. quote -- we heard earlier today from the vice president, joe biden. he attended the harkin steak fry

. this portion of the event lasted about an hour and 15 minutes. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you all very much. welcome. 36 harkin steak fry. we have not friday steak yet. i don't know where that name ever came from. [laughter] i have an even better record, a better winning streak, 45 years of love and partnership with a wonderful woman by the name of ruth harkin. [applause] i want to thank you for those

kind words, very formal introduction. the only woman county attorney in the state of iowa at that time, and the only democrat in the county courthouse. [applause] iran for congress that year, and lost -- i ran for congress that year, and lost. woman, the only democrat, prosecuting attorney in the state of iowa. more than once i heard it said that, if she's that good, he can't be that bad. [applause] shirttails into office. ruth became the deputy general counsel for the department of agriculture appointed by jimmy carter. [applause]

and then she became the president and ceo of the overseas private investment corporation appointed by president clinton. [applause] a senior attorney with one of the nation's top law firms, which was headed by our former democratic national chairman bob strauss, and for whom walking castro workedquin in that same law firm also. [applause] then became senior vice president for one of our largest manufacturers, united technologies corporation. through it all, a great mom and wonderful grandmom. remember one time some years ago, our oldest daughter amy -- she was studying french in high school. that stucka phrase

with us ever since when she described her mother. la petite general . [laughter] [applause] those of you who don't know, it's the ltitle -- little general. [applause] a very warm welcome to joe biden. [applause] >> i have a norma's respect for the office of vice president. i refer to him and address him as mr. vice president -- a

norma's respect for the office of vice president. respect for the office of vice president. president, no disrespect. to all of us here in iowa, you are our friend joe. [applause] [inaudible] have it any other way, i can tell you that. thank you all for putting up with the extra security today. [laughter] in addition -- [applause] the secret to service and everybody checking tickets and the secret service during their security check, i

heard the donald trump was outside checking birth certificates. [applause] it is always a big deal to have the vice president with us. deal to have the san antonio mayor julio castro with us today. [applause] if you will just turn a little bit, i will introduce his brother congressman. joaquin castro. [applause] our two speakers embody the strength and genius and the heart of our democratic party. ,ayor castro is young charismatic, one of our bright .tars with new ideas

new energy. vice president biden, who embodies the enormous experience and wisdom and sound judgment of our party which we need in these parallels times. we need both, the new and the seasoned. this is a great strength we have as democrats. it is such an honor to have both of you with us today. [applause] every year, the steak fry marks the change of the seasons. it has been a scary summer here. there was an attack on a butter cow. [laughter] isn't anything sacred anymore? [laughter] --r the summer, we visits

endured visits by rick santorum, rand paul, ted cruz. governor perry is on his way. [laughter] i can say is that the clown car is filling up pretty rapidly. [laughter] a couple weeks ago, i went celebrated the 50th anniversary of martin luther king jr.'s "i have a dream" speech. [applause] we all remember king's mission for all of god's children. earlier in the summer, the withessman made his lines a very different vision. badmouthing children of

immigrants. i am the proud child of an immigrant mother, and i know .ing speaks for me [applause] congress is back in session after five weeks, the august break. i have a couple things i want to say. yesterday the announcement came through.

russia and the u.s. have reached to secure and dismantle the chemical weapons in syria by 2014. [applause] because of the strength, wisdom, courage of president obama. [applause] this guy right here, vice , and our joe biden great secretary of state john kerry. [applause] we reached this agreement with the international community to dismantle them by 2014, and we did not lose one american life. that is leadership. [applause]

that is leadership. once again, republicans are threatening to shut down the government or default on the debt lest we dismantle obamacare. as the chair of the senate health committee, one of the principal authors of the affordable care act, i don't know whether to laugh or cry at that. republicans have voted 40 times to repeal the affordable care act. 40 times. the good news for these republicans is that obsessive- compulsive disorder is covered under obamacare. [applause]

even better news is that the affordable care act is already working for all americans, and as we start our sign up next the denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions for all children, isryone by january 1 outlawing abuses by insurance companies such as canceling your policy if you get cancer, allowing young people to stay on their parents' policies until the age of 26. preventionding for and wellness programs for all americans. in 16 days, millions of americans will be able to sign up on the exchanges for subsidized health care. [applause] last, every american will have access to quality, affordable health insurance that cannot be taken away. i want you to know that will include every american with a

disability. no more segregation, no more exclusion, no more second-class citizens for people with disabilities in america. [applause] i understand they will probably vote again on trying to and obamacare. they're going to fail. they're on the wrong side of history. americans are not going to allow republicans to drag us back. not on social security, not on medicare, not obamacare, and not on opening new opportunities for young people with disabilities. we're going forward. [applause] to build a reformed health care system that works not just for the healthy and wealthy, but all americans. i went to call in some special people.

my dear friend joy milligan has been our deaf interpreter on almost every one of our steak fries. joy. you, [applause] is susan here too? let's hear it for susan. [applause] they trade off. wasn't that a great job of singing the national anthem? thank you ray much. -- very much. [applause] the ground crews spent days setting up for today's event. grillers, ted and john lewis. -- joan lewis. let's hear it for all those people who made this possible. [applause]

and we had some wonderful rain last night and this morning, and now it is nice for all of us here. i want to thank the one responsible for that too. [applause] i want to have a round of applause for scott brennan, who answered the call to be our state democratic chairman. [applause] i last eye contact. where is jim mueller? thank you for leading our pledge, but thank you for your service in a rock -- iraq. [applause] our former state senator staci appel is with us.

i have lost eye contact with staci. [applause] to recognize and honor all of our democratic state legislature. mark smith. mark if you're somewhere. [applause] i want to especially thank our senate leader, mike grunts doll lastke for doing the session. where is he? thank you. [applause] those of us who call iowa home, those of us who care about keeping the state on a progressive course, nothing is more important than winning back the iowa house, getting more democrats in the senate and

winning back the governorship next year for the state of iowa. [applause] luteur fighting second district on brisbane -- cumbersome and -- congressman. where is dave? [applause] i want someone to come up here. bruce brady. [applause] folks, you have been so kind and generous to me in all the years i have represented you both in the house and 30 years in the senate. i said when i announced my retirement that i wasn't going to sit back, that this was going ,o be a passing the baton because i'm still going to work every day up until that day in january of 2015.

i want you all to know, there's only one person i want to pass that baton to. that's our next u.s. senator, bruce braley. [applause] thank you. on with the show. you have had your steak. now it's time for some sizzle. [laughter] , the mayor ofker america's seventh-largest city. he is new to iowa. was picked by president obama to be the keynote speaker at our democratic national convention in charlotte. the huge ovation that he got at the end of his speech and all the talk about him ever since reminded everyone of the ovation

for a previous keynote speaker eight years earlier, an obscure state senator from illinois named rock obama. -- barack obama. [applause] the reason that there has been such an ovation and outgoing love and support is because many people see this young man as the future of our party. if you do this, you can try this at home or on your iphone. google julio castro and rising star. at the convention, he was introduced by his identical twin brother of texas, who i introduced earlier. as joaquin said, for 18 years we and big small room dreams. raised by single mom, they went

on together to stanford university, harvard law school. 26, castroe age of became the youngest elected councilman in san antonio's history. he was elected mayor in 2009, elected to a third term this year. he is the youngest mayor of a top 50 american city. there is much to admire about julian castro. what has caught my eye are two things. one is the phrase he used in his speech in charlotte last summer. issaid, the american dream not a sprint or marathon. it is a really. -- relay. each generation building up and passing on that opportunity to the next. the second is what he has just done recently as the mayor. i have been trying for almost 20 years to get something done for early childhood education in

america. it -- in january, barack obama's state of the union, he committed us to a huge program. a good, solid preschool program. we have not gotten that yet. the mayor of san antonio decided not to wait. he got the business community together. they passed a sales tax measure that is going to go for august,l, and justin the first of san antonio's children are now enrolling in preschool and they are going to cover every single kid in san antonio with preschool education. [applause] let's give a rousing welcome again to one of our bright young ,eaders, courageous young man mayor of san antonio, texas, boolean castro.

-- julian castro. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. hello, iowa. [applause] great to be here. all, let me say a huge thank you on behalf of all of the folks outside of iowa, and especially from the younger generation of folks. a huge thank you to your great being atom harkin for leader, for being a true public for so, and a role model many who often wonder whether you can be in public service and still stay true to who you are and be a servant of the people. said, yes, and shown it to all of us over the years. [applause] not doneat he could

half of what he has done without his lovely wife, ruth, right behind him, leading the way for the harkin family. [laughter] [applause] thank you all for having us today. agoident obama some time said that the best political decision he had ever made in his life was to selected joe biden as vice president of the united states. i agree with him. [applause] mr. vice president, we commend you on your leadership. thank you for joining us. i did not have anything to do with the security here. it wasn't me. [laughter] the next great senator from iowa, bruce braley. [applause] know we have a lot of folks from all over iowa. we have folks from waterloo here.

butte, folks from the des moines, and indianola. [applause] i come from a city that google maps says is almost exactly 1000 miles away from here. san antonio, texas. it is america's seventh-largest city and one of the fastest growing cities in the u.s. economically prosperous and vibrant, 1.3 million people. i have been mayor for about them a years. -- four years. a couple of months after i got elected mayor, i had a meeting with a woman in my office at city hall and i don't even remember what we were meeting about anymore. when you are an elected official, you get a lot of gifts. most of them are treated sore t- shirts. i think i have something like -- trinkets or t-shirts. i think i have something like

five. , and thisokie mayor woman gave me this gift agate was covered with tissue paper. with tissuecovered paper. i started unwrapping the tissue paper and i took the gift out. it was a prayer card. it was of st. thomas more. i did not know that, but st. thomas moore is the patron saint of lawyers and politicians. uck, as mayor. before she walked out the door she said, he was beheaded. that's true. , what in themyself world by gotten myself into? i know there are many of you in this audience who have been soldiering away in the trenches

in iowa as democrats for a long time. there are probably some folks frontho were at the first , folks who have been e-mailing and facebook doing and letter writing. we still do that sometimes. wonder, why in the world are we doing this? today at a very special moment in 2013, a moment when our world is changing at a faster rate than it has ever changed in human history. a time when it is easier to travel than it ever has been. it's easier to communicate with folks than ever before. computing in an iphone is faster that costsuter

millions and millions of dollars just a few years ago. is engaged intes a 21st century global economy that is more competitive than it ever has been, with countries who arehe world producing well-educated young people capable of learning and manipulating the new technologies that will define the century. a time in which brain power is the new currency of success in this 21st century. it's a time when the divisions that have often separated us, of geography, of creed, are thanling at a faster rate at any other time in human history. is, whation before us is the blueprint in this world

for the century? what is the blueprint that america should follow to ensure prosperity in the years to come? our friends across the other side of the aisle say that the blueprint is this, that if everybody but i believe in a different blueprint. i believe in the blueprint of roosevelt, investing in the g.i. bill, so that more isn't -- millions can get an education. i believe in the blueprint of johnson, shepherding medical care through congress, so millions and millions of senior citizens could get the health care they needed, and i believe in the blueprint of president obama and vice president biden, extending medical care to all americans across the united