c-span, newsmakers with representative thornberry,. , rand paul at the citadel military academy in south carolina. joining us at "newsmakers" >> joining us on newsmakers is the republican from texas, he is the vice chair of the house armed services committee, also a member of the house intelligence committee. thank you for joining us. here with the questioning today, jim michaels who covers military issues, and sarah. i want to begin with you. the comments last week by secretary chuck hagel meeting with members of congress to end sequestration and work out an agreement on the budget. when lawmakers return after the thanks giving recess, will that happen? >> i am not sure, but i am fairly optimistic.

i think the the discussions between paul ryan and senator murray are going pretty well. i think there is a real chance that we could have a budget agreement that nobody is in love with, but is at least a step forward in saving money in ways other than these across-the- board sorts of cuts that come with sequestration. i'm hopeful that it will actually happen. >> if it actually happens, what will it look like? >> i think the hope is that it will last for a couple of years. that it would include at least some reforms in mandatory spending programs which after all occupies two thirds of the federal budget, and that it would prevent any further cuts in national security and other discretionary programs.

i think it is important for people to remember that defense is 17% of the federal budget, and yet it has had to absorb 50% percent of all of these budget cuts under sequestration, and that is after it was cut substantially by the obama administration before that. the cumulative effect of these cuts on defense have been fairly severe, and another round of cuts would be quite severe, down into the muscle of our national security.

so i hope we can have an agreement, it will not be to everyone's liking, but i think it will be a good cap if those outlines are followed. >> let me turn to sarah, who covers national issues for national journal. >> if there is no deal, the pentagon is facing hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts in the coming year. you think that the pentagon should be able to have some flexibility in how it implements the across-the-board cuts? >> first, i hope there is a budget agreement. you're right, there is a possibility that there will not be, so we have to look at, then what? if there is not an agreement then i think some of the abilities to move money around is something that we want to talk to the pentagon about. that is a time, i do not think that the obama administration should do this exclusively on their own. i think there has to be some give-and-take with congress on how that money is moved around. there are discussions going on as a backup plan as to how to best do that. >> did you want to follow up? jim michaels, of usa today. >> i want to turn to afghanistan. there was a fairly significant development in that the united states and afghanistan have agreed, at least in basic terms, on a bilateral security agreement. should the united states have a long-term military commitment in afghanistan? >> we should have a commitment to security forces in afghanistan so that they can take care of their own security and so that afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorism. again, just contrast what we

hope happens in afghanistan, versus what actually happened in iraq, because there was no security agreement that was reached with the government of iraq. the violence has been incredible. now, combined with syria, that western part iraq has become closer and closer to becoming a safe haven for terrorism. now focused primarily in syria, but they will not be continually focused that way. i hope that the security agreement does get approved by the government of afghanistan, that we continue to have a presence, not a combat presence, but a supporting presence so that the afghans can continue their development, and take care of their own security. the goal is that there will at some point no longer be a need for us to be there directly, but i understand that this is a longer-term process.

to be there, to advise, to assist them, is good for our security. >> their president has made some rather bombastic comments about the united states, and the relationship within the united states has been rocky. is he a good long-term arrival and partner? >> he will not be there much longer. presidential elections are coming up, they will elect a new president next year. there is a transition going on here. i think it is important that our relationship not be with just any one person, even the president, but to be deeper than that, stronger than that, and that will make it more lasting. there will always be ups and downs with any leader,

particularly in the difficult circumstances that we have all faced there for the last decade or so. i am hopeful that we can work out a relationship that means our security interests, but also bears their interests and concerns as well. >> at what cost and for how long? can you put in a specific timeline how long you think america will be in afghanistan, as they look at the budget? it is a huge budget item. what is the timetable? >> if anyone gives you a specific date, what you're doing is telling the enemy how long they have to wait until we are gone, and you're also telling

the people you're trying to help that you cannot rely on us for long. a specific date is always a mistake. what we should be there is long enough for them to stand on their own two feet. if you look back, they have made incredible progress in just the past couple of years. they are in the lead of all of the combat operations right now. what they cannot do for themselves is some of the intelligence, some of the logistics, and so forth. but they are getting there. i think you want to pat them on the back for the tremendous progress that they have made thanks to our help, and to the wonderful servicemen and women who have been there and done a lot of good work. we are on a very good track, we do not want to cut it off before

they accomplish their goal. >> they are considering leaving a smaller than expected force in iraq. is that in line with what you have heard, and how many troops do you think should be left in the country? >> i am concerned that the 10,000 is substantially less than the military has been talking about, shall we say. if we have too few troops, that is tying your own hands behind your back. we want to be successful, we want to get the job done with no more troops than necessary, no more cost than necessary. but we must remember that there has been a lot of dollars and blood spent to get them to a place where they would no longer be a place that would launch attacks against the united states. what we need to represent what we are trying to do is trying to make sure that all of those dollars and blood that has been spent there has a lasting, positive security effect for us.

>> you compare this to whack a mole, because they might move out of there, but to other areas. how you stop that? >> you do not stick your head in the sand and say it is hard to stop, so we're not going to do anything about it. you're right, you push them out of afghanistan, they moved to yemen, somalia, or west africa. that is true. you follow them there, going to work with the local security forces, so they can take care of their own security, and we been

doing a lot of that. you have to be vigilant. this is a very determined enemy that is not going to go away because we want them to. we have to stay after it, we have to be diligent, and we have to be smart about it. i think there is some other aspects to this trouble as well that we are not as adept at, including the ideological side. that can determine the ways within the wars or the disputes within the religion of islam,

against violence, then there is some more work to be done there to make terrorism unacceptable, regardless about how they feel about the united states' policies. and we have to be willing to use force where necessary. the most recent and primary threats to our homeland recently have been coming from yemen, and working again with the government there, we have made tremendous strides in equipping the yemeni forces to contain that threat. they are still working, they are still plotting, they could be successful tomorrow, but we're making progress. we have to keep after it.

>> we will turn it to jim michaels again. >> just to follow on this notion of global terrorism, it wasn't too long ago that the administration was talking about potential strikes on assad's regime in syria. i was talking about supporting the opposition forces who were fighting. what is going on with that today? if you are looking at the efforts to remove chemical weapons or the organizations that were working with assad, it almost seems as if u.s. policy

has inadvertently strengthened him or legitimized him. what is happening? >> i think the debate has shifted somewhat. i did not support the president's recommendation, because it is really difficult to understand who you are helping. if you do help someone, how do you make sure that they are the ones that get the help, rather than some of the other folks who are fighting who are clearly terrorists, of that ilk. as the struggle has gone on, it has become even more confusing with the many opposition groups, and there are fair number of people who think we have just as much, if not more to fear from them, then we do from assad. at the same time, the chemical weapons are a primary area of concern. i hope that this international effort is successful in putting

proper security around them, removing them, destroying them. we have a long way to go with them. the idea that the united states would somehow help these rebels, some of whom are clearly terrorists, has been part of the policy dilemma at this stage in syria. you get all sorts of folks that say if we could have taken action earlier we could've avoided this point, that is an academic discussion. we are where we are, where we are is that a significant number of the most active rebels are connected with al qaeda and terrorist groups.

>> would you say that the chemical weapons removal effort has been successful so far, that there has been enough progress? is there enough military force to combat this if it does go wrong? >> i do not think you ever rule out the use of military force. that is always a mistake. has there been some progress, so we got our hands on all the chemical weapons, no. we make progress. i'm not wishing that efforts ill by any stretch, but there are number of hurdles. knowing where the chemical weapons are, securing them in the midst of this very violent

action will be very difficult. >> congressman, this past week you delivered a speech putting together a series of reforms. i would ask about the investigation of the allegation of the members of the u.s. navy with bribery. just how rampant, from your standpoint, is this problem? >> i do not know. i think the investigation is underway and we ought to go wherever it leads. obviously, if you have concern

that any of the high-level folks are involved in something like bribery, then it is very troubling. the more complicated your systems are, the easier it is to abuse them. what i hope comes from our reform efforts is a simplification, and greater transparency, and greater accountability for the decisions that are made by military and civilians in the use of our taxpayer dollars at the department of defense. >> congressman, i wanted to come back to budget for a moment. the service chiefs have made it very clear that in the next budget cycle, they want to trim back the rate of pay and benefits. these personnel costs are now up to 50% of the defense budget. if the rate is not ratcheted down, they fear it will be 70% or 80% of the overall budget,

and what you will end up with is a hollow force. do you support the notion of slowing the rate of pay raises and benefits for the military personnel? >> i share the concern about the problem. at the same time, last year, in the defense authorization bill, we set up a commission to look at this exact issue of pay and benefits. just recently, after having asked for input from the pentagon, they received essentially nothing, from no specific proposal from the pentagon's top leadership, and that was really disappointing. for that commission to have a chance to put up there some specific proposals that could then be vetted and discussed and so forth, they needed a starting point from the pentagon. the pentagon has not advocated a proposal that a lot of people have put their hopes in, and that is a disappointment. they will continue to work and we will see that they come up with. we have to see whether the current pay and benefits system has affected our getting and keeping top quality folks. one example, we're going to increasingly need top-quality technical folks who can deal in the realm of cyber. we are competing with google and microsoft and all of those companies. maybe the current personnel system and the way we compensate people with a 20 year retirement plan is not what you need to recruit and retain those folks. my point is, in addition to trying to look at curtailing the long-term costs of the current personnel system, i think you also have to look and see

whether the current system is effective in the modern day. i think some reforms could well be coming. those reforms, in my opinion, need to keep the promises we have already made to the people we serve, but also need to make some adjustments to the people into the service. be upfront about what those are. >> let me turn back to sarah of the national journal. >> you're in charge of a congressional push to fix the way that the pentagon buys weapons and services. acquisition of foreign efforts have been pretty unsuccessful for the last decade. what about your efforts specifically are going to succeed this time around? >> i hope they will succeed, we do not know yet. the first thing that we have done is actually look at the past 25 years of acquisition reform, and we had a hearing exactly on what makes that not work as well as we had hoped. we're not just looking from the top down, we are looking down into the services and the bureaucracy, and trying to really understand why decisions were made the way they were. we're going to focus on the system, because if you are a program manager or some manager or contract officer, you need to understand the way the world looks from that point of view, regardless of the things we do in statute, or regulation from

the pentagon. it is really in terms of success or failure. the bottom line of that is get down to the root causes, not just treat the symptoms. that is what we're going to try to focus on. the other point i would make is that there is incredible bipartisan support in the house and the senate for this effort. their support at the pentagon for this effort, there is universal support in industry for this effort. there is an urgency here that we have tried all of this stuff before, it has not worked, but we have got to the point where we have to do something. the combination of circumstances, the budget, the

way the world is changing, and the slowness and cumbersomeness of the system necessitates that we take action. the sense of urgency from all sectors is one of the best things we have going for us. >> congressman, as a member of the house intelligence committee, i want to ask you about these nsa leaks. one of the arguments we have heard of the last few weeks is that everyone does it. do european countries spy on the u.s.? >> i think lots of countries spy on each other. i would say it is more the exception rather than the rule about one country trying to get information from another country. even countries that work a lot together. again, back to basics here for a second, the job of our intelligence community is to help provide information that contributes to the national security of the united states. we have to to be responsible for our security on our own. i think it is the first job of the federal government to provide for our security. the intelligence community, especially since 9/11, has made huge strides in being more effective in getting the information we need to prevent

another 9/11. i worry about some of the selected leaks, and loose talk that could put some of that capability to the wayside. >> even tapping the phone of

leaders like angela merkel in germany? >> it is not fair to say we are not listening to you, that sort of thing. they have asked the intelligence community to help them understand what foreign leaders intend. what their policies are, what they're really thinking, not what just their press releases say. those efforts to discern leadership intentions have been vetted with both the house and the senate. there are no surprises here about trying to understand what different countries are intending, or wanting to do. the rest of the story is that we have limited resources. we cannot listen to everybody, not everyone is interesting to listen to, to tell you the truth. the resources have to be focused on those countries, those individuals, those issues, that are the highest priority for the united states. i think there's kind of a misunderstanding that a lot of folks want to listen in, just to listen in. that is part of what the

intelligence community does under the president's guidance with oversight from the house and the senate. >> to follow that up from a slightly different angle, part of what the u.s. intelligence community does is cooperate with the intelligence communities of its allies. with what wikileaks has brought out, and what edward snowden has brought out, will any of those allies ever operate with us again? >> i do not know. i would have to wonder about it, it is deeply disturbing. we have very limited resources. a key factor in our success has been working with others, and cooperating and coordinating our efforts. but if folks think that anything they sent to us is going to be leaked out in some way, they're going to cooperate less, and who would blame them? >> another consequence that might come from the revelations of all of these surveillance programs is that the white house is apparently considering civilians to replace the nsa director when he retires in the spring. do you think it is a good idea for a civilian to be in charge of the agency? >> i do not know. it is one of those questions where you do not need to have a knee-jerk reaction, you need to sit back and study it.

think about the relationship between the nsa and the leadership of both of those entities. in last year's defense bill we required a study of just these issues, what that relationship would be, and what sort of leadership would make the most sense. the pros and cons of making them separated out, or bringing them together. these things are not just about responding to last week's headlines, they had major consequences about our ability to protect our people, from all sorts of threats. we have to do this in a deliberate way, looking at the pros and cons, not in the heat

of the moment, but with cool judgment. >> let's conclude on the budget. if the country fails to reach an agreement in mid-december, and if sequestration kicks in in january, what is the biggest challenge to defense secretary hagel? >> trying to protect the united states in light of those cuts. the service chiefs have already admitted to us in hearings that they cannot now execute a military strategy that they have been assigned. if there are further cuts, the world is not getting any safer, the world is not getting any less complex and syria, iran, north korea, just go down the list, they are not going away. the big challenge of the administration is how do you protect the country when you have fewer and fewer resources, but the threats are not diminishing at all? i hope they are going to reach

an agreement. my new favorite saying is that the pessimists are usually right, but it is the optimists that change the world. let's hope that they can change the world we have known for the past couple of years, with a budget agreement, and we can be on a little sounder footing. >> mac thornberry is a republican from texas, he is the vice chair of the house armed services committee. thank you for being with us. have a nice thanksgiving. we continue the conversation with susan, and john michael. it seemed to be the story that will not go away. >> it was sort of interesting when he was talking about the damage that has been done to trust, which is absolutely critical to the u.s.

intelligence committee as it works with its allies. while much of the debate rightly has been focused on civil liberties, privacies, issues of this sort, unquestionably, when allies have to worry about anything they provide to the united states could end up in the public realm, that raises a lot of worries, and has an impact on future cooperation. >> round two of sequestration, or a budget agreement, which will be? >> i think everyone in washington is waiting to find that out, so we will see that in the next few days. the pentagon has a lot of challenges to figure out what is going to do about the budget cuts. >> how worried is secretary hagel? >> i think very worried. while there was some optimism expressed today, you do not see a lot of momentum, a lot of motive, a lot of energy in the direction of getting a deal cut. the service chiefs are very concerned about it, absolutely. they worry about this notion of a hollow force, where you have troops, you cannot train them, you cannot equip them, you cannot buy the necessary equipment. we have seen this in the past

several years, and it was pretty devastating. >> the apology that was not quite an apology with regard to afghanistan, your take away from events this week? >> there was a lot of interesting moments there. it looks like there is an agreement. everyone as talked about this, there was an agreement, there was a legal framework set down for troop removal. there is a grand council that is going to meet, if they approve it, we will withdraw. we are now leaving a very small number of forces, not a robust number, and you can accomplish very little. >> general alexander stepping down, what changes can we expect in the year ahead? >> that was the big difference. it has always been led by a military official. splitting cyber command away from the nsa would be another structural difference you can see coming out of these nsa leaks. >> there were a number of

points. one of them being the issue of optimism, a fact that the deal will be cut. the concerns about the world being just as complex as it has always been, there are just as many threats out there, so little resources and a diminishing around of resources with which to respond. a measure of uncertainty over the budget process makes for an interesting time. >> thank you for being with us. thank you both for joining us here on newsmakers.

>> tomorrow, u.s. nuclear weapons policy from the cato institute. and, president obama's plans for immigration live also here on c- span. fun to have it was a little view of history, of a time in america that was not

instructional. anecdotal andore a little bit more archaeological . you take a look at them and you see weird photos and then the captions explain them. flipping through them and loving history. pam -- josh sapan tonight at 8:00. wisconsin governor scott walker talked to reporters recently at the christian science monitor for breakfast area this is an hour.

>> ok, here we go. thanks for coming. i am dave cook. welcome to one of our gatherings. our guest is scott walker. this is his second visit with us. he was born in colorado, lived for a while in iowa, and then moved to wisconsin when he was 10, and he attended marquette university, left before graduating to do marketing for the american red cross. his first elective experience was in a wisconsin state assembly where he served from 1993 until 2002, at which point he was elected as milwaukee county executive. he was noted as returning part of his paycheck to the county. he was elected governor in 2010. in june 2012 he became the first u.s. governor to keep his seat in a recall lection. he has written about that experience in his new book -- if they paid me more, i would've held it up for you. copies are at your seat. thus ended the biographical portion of the program. now on to the details. we are on the record here. please, no live blogging or

tweeting or other means of filing while the breakfast is underway. there is no embargo when a session ends, except that our friends at c-span, and get a seat right here. "time" magazine. there is no embargo since c-span has agreed not to air video until one hour after we end. if you would like to ask a question, do the traditional thing and send me a nonthreatening signal, and i will do my best to call on one and all. the governor has a 10:15 appointment. he will not be able to linger for the popular bloody mary portion of the program at 10:00. we will move to questions around the table. ask again for coming. >> thanks. thanks for having me matt. i believe most of the time to the questions, but the simplest and to begin with is people asked why did you write a book, and it was civil. people in my state and around the country asked to learn more. they knew about the protests. they read about it, they sawed in pictures, on tv, and most people i knew asked about it asked about the recall, but the

other recalls for the state senators. people said what happened? what was the full story? we write about this in the book. the what, how, but most importantly the why. they did people do not know why we did what we did and why those reforms are working even better today, and that is the focal point of this book. as i point out before, if people are looking for typical political book where you learn about my life, growing up, where you learn how became a an equal sketch, you will not learn in that book. you have to go to my biography. this is a book about wisconsin and the only thing that strays from my tenure as governor and reforms that we did was a little bit where i talk about my prior experience as a county executive for eight years largely because that puts in context where reforms came from. they did not come from some other group, some group of supporters, but they came vividly as you can read in an entire chapter from my experience as a county executive, and frustration because years ago long before i

was governor, when democrats were in charge of everything in our state, they reduced aid to local governments. the difference was they did not give people like me any tools to deal with that. so i another local officials were faced with tough choices. we try to make reasonable choices to avoid layoffs at the time, and unfortunately in the county plus case, the public employee union leaders essentially said no. and so that was one of the most difficult things i went through and it was something that certainly a key part of why i wanted to make sure that if any changes like that were made when i was governor that they were done in a way that gave local governments, schools, counties, it disabilities the tools they needed to effectively manage those changes. that is what we did. our reforms would have saved more money that was reduced from eight from the state and local governments.

and more importantly, the reforms have worked. yesterday we announced unemployment rate in wisconsin is down to 6.5%. when i was running two years ago it was 9.2%. when i came into office we had a $3.6 billion budget deficit. we just finished the year shy of a $700 million surplus. we have lowered taxes. this is the third year in a row property taxes have gone down. we have a rainy day fund five times bigger than my predecessor's. our bond rating is strong. we have been able to make investments in education, higher education, worker training, because we made tough decisions over the last two years. and this book not just tells the story, it tells the details of how the people and the experiences, what i and my family went through, what the legislature went through, and many of the stories that up until now were not fully told. that is a little bit of an overview view. >> i will go to myself, and others to start. one of the slogans in the book says if we can do it in wisconsin we can do anywhere, even in our national capital. a great slogan. i want you to talk about how realistic you think it is. at aei you said employee pay is

a big part of the budget and budget problem, so making employees contributed more on health care and pensions has had a big impact. at the federal level, big cost drivers are entitlements, medicare, medicaid, social security, and the secret is that americans want more in benefits of all kinds and they're willing to pay for. what kind of a positive solution do you talk about being in the answer? are there really big solutions that come from your experience at the state level for these much different kind of problems? >> they are different at the local, state, and federal level, but what we did was mad about austerity. if it was austerity, we just cut eggs across the board. that meant that things that you value would be cut just as much. what we did was initiating reform, not just about pension and health care contributions. those were part of it, but the biggest reforms in the state or most of our school districts had by their health insurance from just one company. by pulling back on collective bargaining, district could bid out their health insurance. that means many districts saved money just by connecting that one change. other changes go beyond just fiscal savings. at the federal level, there are different sorts of issues.

in our case, it was more than half of our budget is a tool of corporate aid to local governments. these were things that record reforms of the serious. the same thing holds true at the national level in other states. those are areas where you have to annex reforms. reforms do not necessarily happen to current beneficiaries, but the future ones, we made the changes to current beneficiaries and ultimately not only pay off balancing the budget, but you make an argument there are schools that governments are better today than they were in the past. >> let me ask you one other -- your co-author said yesterday at aei that you're very moderate in temperament, but immoderate in policy. you have argued in the book that winning the center does not require moving to the center. how do you think you will fare if you decide to make a national run with, for example, positions of right to life positions which are a good deal more stringent than the 2/3 of the public, according to pew, who oppose overturning roe v. wade? you see you having problems when these positions become better known? >> i'm not focusing on the national level.

i am focused on being governor, and i have worked pretty hard to be governor not once, but twice. i'm going to have to do it again next year, and that is for my focus is. if you look as a parallel, not only the sconces, but other governors across the country, after the election last year, there are 30 states with republican governors, enmity of them are in places like wisconsin, iowa, and she, ohio, pennsylvania, to mexico, nevada, although states are states that have repetitive governments, that they were battleground states covered by obama. i can get almost 30 of those states have republican governors that are not only republicans, but more conservative than our party's nominee was on a spectrum of issues, fiscal, economic, social. the difference is as governors, we focus on the things that matter most to people, and is our economic and fiscal issues. it does not need -- i am pro- life, but most republican governors are pro-life. i do not apologize for that, but i've not focus on it, obsessed with it.

of late in my state and perhaps throughout the country, democrats have been seem to be obsessed with those issues in large part because voters in our states focus on economic and fiscal issues, the leadership they have seen come from republican governors more than our opponents. >> this is a political version of what was talked about. governors like to contracts their abilities with getting done with partisan conflict in washington. the vast majority of governors, chris christie excepted, enjoy one-party rule in their state where their party controls both the legislature and the governor's mansion. i am wondering how that experience is transferable to an environment in washington were not only we have divided government, but in an area where the differences between parties are acutely intransitive. if you could talk about that. >> is part of the reason i am not being clip that i nor 2016 but focus on 2014, not just because i'm up for election, but because i think for any republicans in anybody who cares about his country, we should not be looking at 2014 because what we learned in wisconsin and in

other states in the midwest learned in the 2010 election if you want to get reform done, positive reform done, you need a team to help you do that. in our case of everything switched from democrat control to republican control in 2010, in wisconsin.

it is similar to my neighboring states.

for me, other governors other leaders, that empowered us to make these reforms that would have been more difficult if those changes had not been intact, so the argument, the point made is that is why we need to focus in the 2014 elections to make the case to help senate candidates win in enough states that republicans and regain the majority of the senate, and then in the future, make a convincing case to the

public that give this party a chance to show what we can do, to show that we have been effective in the states in reforming states in terms of their coming and fiscal issues, give us a chance to do it in washington. >> are you saying 2016 is [indiscernible] >> it is always a challenge. you mentioned chris doing it, new mexico, and chris is an example with the pension reform

he did. who would have thought where democrats control both chambers you would get significant reform done, but that took republicans in the legislature and the governor working with a handful of democrats, including leaders in the senate and the general assembly. i think it is preferable. historically, that was what you have talked about, is that somehow republicans -- americans want divided government. they have seen the last few years that that is not a good thing. that of sufficient checks and balances, what they have got is a lot of gridlock. it is significant make the case, as we did in wisconsin -- we made the case, said the people in our state going into that 2010 election overwhelmingly felt like we had an economic and fiscal crisis. when i ran i ran like i was

conducting a job interview. i will ask all candidates, we all spoke about the same thing, about it so much and so consistently, if you asked me had a form what is my mother's maiden name, i would say it is fitch, and every fitch supports this. a week after the election, we got together in the capitol with all the new members of the legislature in both chambers and i said it is put up or shut up time. her paper put that as a headline, and the reason i said that is voters changed everything in terms of party control in wisconsin, like they did in other midwestern states. if we come back and we are little different than the people who are in power before, if we are little less bad than they were before, and we have every right to be thrown out two years

from now. it is put up or shut up time. we need to show we were elected for a purpose, and there's no doubt in wisconsin and other states in her neighborhood that is what we did. >> thanks. governor, your party actually gained seats in the senate and assembly last november. this is not unlike governor nolls, a republican when he was elected in 1966, and another time in 1974. why have you not considered extending the collective bargaining to police and firefighters, and you ruled out in the last "monitor" breakfast, the right to work. why with a mandate that you got have you not pursue a more aggressive agenda?

>> on the history on nolls, in our case we have pushed an aggressive agenda. we did not push it in those categories. that pushed aggressive entitlement reform. if people look at what we have done in the last year in his constant, some of the most aggressive entitlement reform in the country, unlike almost every state in america. if you are in able-bodied adult in our state, you cannot get food stamps unless you are working or unless you're enrolled and one of my employment training programs. every other state as a waiver from the federal government for that requirement, not because we want to make it easier for people to get work, but harder to get government assistance, so we're doing it. give them that with education reform, and i talked is about, we have made improvements to improve public schools like my sons went to, and we expanded

school choice. we broadened the opportunities for charter schools, for home schools. we have taken on aggressive reform. there is a chapter out saying i did that, too, pointing out that when you look at other republican governors, they talk about things that we have done, we talk about that and a list of everything from voter id to a whole series of other initiatives that we have done, and most people know us because of the 100,000 protesters in our state on that particular issue. there are plenty of other reforms we have done that are working to improve our state of wisconsin. as we started at the university a flex option, the first public school, public institution in the country to do books online for free and to offer a flex option where people can use traditional in class credit, laboratory credit, online credit as well as tests for competency to get a college student, particularly in high-need areas.

they're pretty aggressive reforms that we're done, and it is just not the ones you mentioned so far. >> [indiscernible] 2016 -- and i believe you are good friends, paul ryan and yourself. out of the three who do you think would make the best president present and why? >> i said when i was asked on one of the sunday shows who i thought the ideal candidate was, not from wisconsin general, and i said, one ideal candidate would be a current or former governor, because governors have executive experience, but there is a sense across america that

people want an outsider. i think paul ryan is one of the exceptions to that rule. for everyone who has worked with him, republican and democrats alike, it is hard not to be impressed with his tenacity toward reform, is looking at issues beyond a traditional punishment possibility, but with a harder, executive since. i advocated him to be on the ticket last time because he has those skills and characteristics. but for me in general, i have said a governor makes a lot of sense. other than this president, the last one we voted in as member of congress was john f. kennedy, a member of congress, and it was 40 years before that when it occurred. it is rare that we elect a member of congress. there is reason for it, but as i mentioned before, it is interesting to speculate, my interest is on 2014, not just because my election, but because it does not matter as much in 2016 if there is not a likelihood that that new president will have a party in charge in both chambers that can help him or her get the job done. >> governor, thanks. so why were republican governors

in nearby states, john kasich in ohio, rick snyder in michigan, why were they wrong to take this medicaid expansion money? >> you'll never hear me say that any of them around because every state is different. i will tell you why i did it and why i made the choice. why i did not make the alternative. every state is different. in our case, we were present of the false choice between yes, you take it, and potentially put your taxpayers at risk about which i was reminded reporters in my state last week yet again why i thought from my point of view that was an easy decision, because why would you take medicaid expansion, so you want me to depend on a federal government who cannot get a website up and going to extend payments for the amount of money that they were going to get,

when today, in my most recent budget that i signed and went to effect july 1, had to put over $600 million more of state money into medicaid, which over 40% of that is because the federal government has backed away from previous amendments, without an expansion. that is where my concern is, that i think the federal government is not going to be able to fulfill that commitment. in the law itself, they have backed away from 100% backing, and i think it will slip away in the future. we look at other states that just said no and missed out the potential opportunities to help their people. in our state, we picked a third option, because of the supreme court decision, i was able to use that where advantage so we transitioned everybody living about poverty in our state, all the childless adults covered under medicaid now, our transitioned into the marketplace which for some will include federal exchanges. everyone living in poverty, for the first time in the state's history, will be covered. we raise the age of eligibility to 200%, but we did not have enough money in it, so was

capped, so there are people in the past two years who have been living in poverty on a waiting list for medicaid. i eliminated that list. everyone living in poverty will be covered. everyone living above it will be transitioned into the marketplace. i will have 224,000 fewer people to insure. i will have a net reduction of people on medicaid. for the first time in our history, everybody below poverty is covered. i will not expose my taxpayers to the potential large cost because of the federal government hacking away from that commitment. >> [indiscernible] >> i can tell you why i did it. every state is different, because of this. i can assure that there were fewer people uninsured, more people having access who were living in poverty, because i think for all the hype out there about expanding medicaid, i do not know why that is a good thing.

and my son was born in 1994, there were 10% of the people in my state on medicaid. today it is 25%. nationally, it is higher. having more people dependent on the government, whether for medicaid, food stamps, unemployment compensation, i do not think that is the measure of success in government. i think it better alternative is to say how the people who we help longer be dependent on government, because having a safety net for people living in poverty is not enough. we have to have assistance to place that helps lift people out of poverty. that is a fundamental difference. >> next is neil munroe. >> governor, from the record, you said our immigration problems could be fixed if we had a test legal entry in the united states. every democrat it candidate who is voted for the senate will has voted for a legal immigration system that will bring a legal immigrant for every teenage entered the country.

it brings in a guest worker for everybody between 11 and 21. could you describe that level of embrace? >> what i think as opposed to i do not get caught up in bills and legislation proposed here because it is not what i was elected to do. i was elected to govern a state. it is simple. if you want to come into america today legally, it is very difficult from my point of view and the people i talk to, very difficult to do so in a timely basis. we've got people, i do not care whether from mexico or ireland were around the world, if we want people to meet here and want to work hard, if that dream, we should embrace as people like people embraced by answer sisters from ireland and germany and my wife is from sicily and my brothers, in-laws from mexico, a generation ago. everyone who followed and legal path, and we should be funny way to make that easier to do in the united states and more timely,

because the biggest problem is not just access, it is the time it takes to come into this country. >> [indiscernible] >> i would open the door to make sure that people can legally come into this country and i want -- people want to live the american dream are the kind of people this country was based on. we are a nation of immigration, but also a nation of laws, and that is where the frustration comes with. so often in this city people look at the symptoms, not the larger problem. the symptom is the issue with whatever the number of magic is of people currently in the country without legal status. the larger problem is there is not an effective way to front and at the front door to make it possible with people who legitimately, legally, corporately want to come into america to live the dream, and that make sense to make that easier. >> governor, what is your position on same-sex marriage, and has your view on that issue or others involving gay men and lesbians changed as it has for a

lot of americans in office? and one follow-up on this issue, is this an issue on which the republicans should pick to take a stand? should republicans take the stand for traditional marriage? >> in 2006, i voted for it at a time to define marriage as legally between one man and woman, and there has not been debate about that mistake. there is some in other states, in other places, but in our state, in the 2010 election when i ran, i asked a question about that, my answer was simple. for it to change it would take two consecutive sessions of the legislature and involve the people. we have had nondiscrimination laws in place that work well and effectively on other issues. i do not see a reason to change either of those two. >> so your view -- and what about the issue about the republican party? >> much of this talk and discussion the last presidential election i think on this, and a

few other issues was because there was a larger void on fiscal and economic issues. >> much of this talk and discussion the last presidential election i think on this, and a few other issues was because there was a larger void on fiscal and economic issues. if you do not have a plan that is articulated to the people, about what you're going to do to improve people's economy, you articulate a plan about what you're going to do to balance the budget, take care the debt, do what is morally responsible to our children and grandchildren, and others issues like this right to a higher level of importance. that void has not been filled. as a result in our state and i did not spend my focus on it because that is not what people elected me to talk about or focus on. >> thank you for being here. the conventional wisdom used to