recognizing the importance of transparent, credible, and inclusive election processes. and calls for ongoing use of afghanistan partnership. 2014xample, in the national defense authorization act, senator casey included in important amendment that would promote the rights of afghanistan's women and girls as united states transitions out of afghanistan. thetor casey has recognized united states must decrease its military presence in afghanistan and realign its foreign-policy posture to attack other global challenges. havee very excited to senator casey here today to talk about his views in afghanistan given his long-standing work in the region and his long-standing leadership on this issue. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for that very kind

introduction. i am honored to be back here. i am grateful to have this chance to talk about this topic which has dominated our discussions here in washington for more than a decade. i am grateful for the opportunity to be back here. when you get invited summer to speak, if you get invited back that is a good thing. i am grateful. i want to thank the centers for american progress for the work that you do. often in the congress we have exposure to a lot of data, a lot of information, a lot of hearings and briefings. but sometimes you do not have the policy work in front of you that you would hope sometimes. centers for american progress has been a great value to me and i know two other senators. -- to other senators.

i want to thank you for agreeing to moderate our conversation today, caroline. i know we will get to that later and we will certainly take questions from the audience. i am grateful, in addition to the folks in the audience who actually work at cap, to say hello to those of us who work in the areas of public policy. especially afghanistan policy. i know some ngo's are represented here and we'll be following the discussion here. i have been to afghanistan several times since i have been in the united states senate. back in 2011, i remember a particular meeting i had the great privilege to attend. it was a meeting of women parliamentarians in the american embassy. one of the women in that group told us about her journey into politics.

as a politician here in the united states, this was not a familiar story to me. i did not have anywhere near the same experience that she did. mine was a different path. mine was not the path she had taken, because in her case, her father had been killed during the soviet occupation of afghanistan and she lost her brother to an attack by the taliban. but this woman decided to fight back, not to accept that as the danger that would prevent her from getting involved in politics. this particular reaction she had on the path she had charted for herself would not have been possible under the taliban's rule. her story of courage and activism is inspiring, and it is also a story that we hope more

and more can emulate. but it is not a story that is unique in afghanistan. during the last 12 years in that country, brave leadership by women has been the driver of change in so many areas of life in afghanistan. since 2001 as well, we know that our fighting men and women in uniform have achieved results -- frankly that we do not talk about enough. i am just going to outline a few of those results. first, violent, oppressive taliban rule has given way to a nascent democracy in which women reportedly make up one third of registered voters. due to improved health services, the average life expectancy has risen from 45 years to 62 years. and perhaps most strikingly, or there was once very few educational opportunities,

especially for girls, as neera mentioned in her remarks, now more than 8.3 million children are in school. by one estimate, 41% of that -- 40% of that number are girls. as we know a little more than a decade ago, that number was just about zero. but these results came at a great cost. a great cost to the american people and a great cost to the afghan people. we know that more than 2300 americans were killed as a result of the conflict in afghanistan. i know that in pennsylvania, when i look at my schedule every day, we have these numbers right on the front of the schedule for my work every day. at last count, pennsylvania had 91 killed in action, and 737 who were wounded in operation enduring freedom. we know nationally, in addition

to the more than 2300 killed, almost 20,000 have been wounded in action. many more bear the invisible scars of war as well. many americans believe that going to war in afghanistan was a mistake. frankly, this does not surprise me. i'm sure it does not surprise many in this audience. in recent months, arguing about troop numbers and the bilateral security agreement has dominated our national conversation. there are many dimensions of our afghanistan policy we could mention here today, including those same issues of the security issues, on troop levels and others. but i would like to focus on two vital aspects of our policy going forward -- the upcoming elections and the support for women and girls. just some general comments before i get to the question of

the elections. as this chapter of our afghanistan policy unfolds, it is critical for the administration and members of congress -- i will say that again. and members of congress to take necessary steps to maintain the gains of the last decade. to allow these gains to -- to use an old expression -- "to wither on the vine" would dishonor the sacrifice of more than 2 million men and women in uniform who observed our country -- who have served our country in afghanistan. to let these gains wither on the vine would also diminish the work of civilian personnel, who have been in the front lines of our diplomatic and assistance missions, working in remote and often insecure regions. it would also be an affront to american taxpayers, who despite the understandable anxiety, frustration, and the sadness

that the conflicts in both afghanistan and iraq have caused, these taxpayers still expect a reasonable return on the significant investment. and that level of investment is an understatement. i believe there is another way to acknowledge the tremendous sacrifices of our servicemen and women and their loved ones, all of the sacrifices they have made this past 12 years. there is another way to build on our investment. instead we should solidify the gains that we have already achieved across all sectors of afghan society and determine our priorities for any engagement going forward. the united states has a clear national security interest in the outcome in afghanistan, in its future stability, as well as

as its prosperity. no one wants to see afghanistan return to the safe haven for al qaeda and other terrorist groups that it was before 2001. the reality of that, whatever the outcome of the bilateral security agreement negotiations, most of our servicemen and women are coming home. and that's a good thing. i have supported an expeditious and responsible drawdown of our military presence. we know that budget constraints will require a diplomatic -- our diplomatic and development efforts to contract as well. i have consistently urged the department of state and the department of defense to plan well in advance for that eventuality. well i recognize planning has begun, i am concerned that absent a strategy for future u.s. engagement in afghanistan, we could lose our primary goals and national security interest there. just by way of example, things

that members of congress can do, in november, senator kelly ayotte and i wrote a letter to chuck hagel. we said that the safety of u.s. citizens, military and civilian personnel, should be paramount. even the recent state of ied attacks just over the last several weeks, i can appreciate how hard a task this is. even as we draw down the military presence, we must take even greater precautions. the letter that senator ayotte and i sent called for a plan for a continued civilian mission and oversight of u.s. assistance programs that makes clear that america will stand with the

afghan people to prevent afghanistan from reverting to the type of oppressive, intolerant, and violent taliban rule that served as a fertile breeding ground for al qaeda. this engagement, our letter continues, should continue training for the afghan national security forces and maintain investments in vital centers such as education and health. i'm not reading the whole letter, but giving a sense of some of the priorities we outlined. that is kind of the broad perspective i have on the way forward, even as we have a troop number that will be very small in the years ahead. let me first moved to the elections on april 5. the most immediate of those priorities i have outlined is the political transition.

now that the election day is less than a month away. when i met with president karzai -- this was in the early part of 2012 -- he came over to meet with a number of senators. it was actually in senator mcconnell's office. majority leader reid could not be there. he was traveling. we met in senator mcconnell -- senator mcconnell's office with president karzai. now, i had been very critical of him the last few years. i'm sure i joined a chorus in congress. i said to him at the time -- i'm just paraphrasing -- i urged him very strongly to support the transition, to make sure it is peaceful. and his reaction was positive at this time. he told me he was proud to have served as the first democratically-elected president of afghanistan and would hand off to the second, democratically-elected president.

president karzai has at times been duplicitous, transactional, and insulting, but i do believe he understands the future of afghanistan depends on the transition i just mentioned. we often focus too much on what is going to happen after him, so his legacy aside, the transition itself is a critical milestone for the people of afghanistan. recalling that, reminding myself of that, last year, i authored a senate resolution that outlined steps that both the afghan and u.s. governments can take to support transparent and credible elections. the resolution passed this summer. since then, the afghan people and the international community have put a significant amount of effort into preparations for the election.

i believe we now have reasons to be cautiously -- cautiously -- optimistic about the elections. in the past, security concerns and voter intimidation impeded the ability of the people of afghanistan stand to cast votes safely. widespread fraud reduced confidence in the system, but in their elected leaders as well. afghan women in particular have been prevented from meaningful participation in the electoral process due to the environment, the scarcity of female poll workers, and the lack of awareness of women's political rights and opportunities. this time around, at the international community's urging, and with its support as well, the afghan government has taken steps to address the issues that have plagued past elections. for example, -- excuse me, over

12,000 afghans will serve as election observers in the independent electoral commission, the so-called iec. they have invited international observers as well. excuse me. for example, over 12,000 afghans will serve as -- i'm sorry, the domestic election observers as i mentioned, and the iec has also have an international dimension to it as well. the iec has also released a list of polling centers six weeks before election day. in 2009, the list was not available until days before the election. the afghan security forces have made a security assessment and made that assessment available to the public. in 2013, i authored the resolution i mentioned, and that

called upon afghanistan to put measures into place to promote women's participation in the electoral process. female candidates are again running in the provisional council elections, and others have been selected as vice presidential candidates. the afghan government is reportedly training approximately 13,000 women to serve as security guards for female voters and polling staff. this is, to say the least, a step in the right direction. of course, there is still work to do, because according to the congressional research service, about 40 of 407 districts in afghanistan do not have female elections staff because of security issues. while the afghan government has made several important electoral reforms, security remains a grave concern for the elections.

just today the taliban declared its intention to "use all force" possible to disrupt the elections. while the national security leadership has said they will be able to secure 94% of planned voting centers, this assessment strikes me as overly optimistic. in the 2009-10 elections, when afghan forces were bolstered with international forces, they were able to open a little more than 5000 polling centers. this year with the afghan security squarely in the lead, they have indicated they will be able to open 6775 centers. insufficient security prevented voters from coming to the polls, leaving ghost polling centers and opportunities for fraud. during remarks at the u.s.

institute for peace at the end of february, ambassador dobbins dobbins said "enthusiasm for elections is on the rise." despite what the ambassador said, however, success is dependent on president karzai, his administration, and the candidates respecting the elect -- the electoral process and the independence of the iec. we should hold them to the commitments made in the tokyo mutual accountability framework in 2012 when the afghan government agreed to conduct "credible, inclusive, and transparent elections" in which all afghans could participate. afghanistan's checkered electoral history tells us this is all easier said than done. we need to be, i believe, clearer about the limits of what

is possible with this year's elections. afghanistan's democracy is not the jeffersonian model we would like it to be. it is young and imperfect. our own history, our own electoral history in the united states provides plenty of examples of how difficult and long the road to electoral reform can be. we must continue to be forceful in our calls for a transparent and credible process. the probability is good that both violence and fraud or a combination of the two could derail the good progress that has been made. but i believe that this election, if it yields a peaceful transition of power to a credible leader, could be

a sign that democracy has begun to take root in afghanistan. let me move next to the question of the role of women. obviously and the election, but in a much broader way as well. women's participation in upcoming elections will be a substantial factor in the success of the elections. however, women play a much broader role today in afghanistan and i would like to outline some of those roles and some of our concerns. study after study has shown women often emerged as the peacemakers in conflict situations. that's true in afghanistan. it is true the world over. even true here in the united states. just witness what happened in the 1 -- the two-year budget, the one-year appropriations that were entered into and the house. -- in the senate and the house. a lot of people thought neither was possible. we had barbara mikulski and patty murray. maybe that's why they both got done. i think it is true here as well as in afghanistan.

today in afghanistan, where women were once marginalized and oppressed under taliban rule, now they are in leadership positions all over the country. over the past 12 years, afghan women have made tremendous gains in education, government, business, and national security, -- national security. solidifying and sustaining those gains is not only consistent with american values but will promote our national security interest in a stable afghanistan. it would be unconscionable to allow this progress to be reversed beyond 2014. however, we have already begun to see an effort to chip away at afghan women's rights and security. in recent months, female police officers have been targeted and assassinated. the afghan parliament reduced the quota for women's the -- provincial seats after attempts

by the lower house to remove the quota entirely. the lower house has proposed provisions that would significantly weaken afghanistan's landmark violence against women law. parliament has attempted to effectively deny women protection from domestic violence and forced or child marriage, which was thankfully rejected by president karzai. most of you will recall the story in 2009 in "the new york times" about a young girl, just 17 of the time, from kandahar who was walking to school with her sister in 2008. in a traditional taliban stronghold, she dared to seek an education. dexter philbin was the reporter for "the times" who wrote about her story. here is what he wrote.

they were walking the highway when they spotted the men on the motorbikes. she was old enough to be married. she was wearing a black scarf that covered most of her face. she had seen the taliban gunmen before and she figured the men on the motorcycle would pass. one of the bikes pulled alongside her and the man on the back jumped off. through the mask, he asked what seemed like a strange question. "are you going to school?" the masked man pulled the scarf away from her face and with his other hand pulled the trigger on a spray gun, which of course was full of battery acid. she felt as if her face and her eyes were on fire. as she screamed, the masked man

reached for her sister, who was already running. he pulled at her and tore her scarf away and pumped the spray into her back. the man sped off to another group of girls. shamsiya lay in the street, holding her burning face. i just can't even imagine the horror of that moment, and of course you have seen and read about examples like it in afghanistan before and since this particular event. we know in the media campaign that followed the reporting on that attack, one of the attackers alleged that the pakistani isi offered a sliding pay scale for such attacks. $3700 for burning of school. $1200 for spraying acid on young schoolgirls. the story stayed with me. obviously the horror of it is something we never forget.

but it also stayed with me because of the response to the story had in the weeks and months ahead, the outpouring of donations to help the girl and girls like her. the money bought her school bus -- the girls at her school a bus and the driver so they would be less vulnerable to attack. months after surviving a disfiguring and devastating attack, she was back at school, and the reporter found her in the front row in geography class. it is hard to comprehend how someone could do that at any age, especially with continuing threats to her security. here is what he wrote and said it so well. he said, "build a school for girls, and they will come. they will face down death to come.

their illiterate parents will support them." her headmaster said "i told them" -- meaning the girls' parents -- "i told them that if you do not send your daughters to school, then the enemy wins. i told them not to give into darkness." in so many ways, in so many ways, the afghan people, and especially afghan women and girls have fought back against that darkness. we mentioned earlier that 8.3 million young people are in school today and nearly 40% are girls. women and girls who have gained access to health care do not want to see a return to high mortality rates. the young women who fought for

their education and health now want jobs that utilize their skills and will allow them to contribute to afghan society. one example of that is a woman i met a couple of years ago, an entrepreneurial woman from western afghanistan. i came to know her over the past several years not just because she traveled to the united states, but because she came to northeastern pennsylvania where i live. she met with folks in a lot of different places, including northeastern pennsylvania. to say that people have been inspired and moved by her story and by her activism is another understatement. she spearheaded an effort to build shelters for women, especially victims of domestic abuse, and she did this in a province.

she aspires to start a restaurant owned and run by women in which female customers can gather and socialize in safety. we know security is still a very real challenge for afghans, particularly women and girls. solidifying the gains made over the last 12 years will require support from afghanistan security forces. for the past two years i have led an effort in the senate to ensure that the department of state and defense are working to bolster the role of women in the security force. in the defense authorization bills, i have work to put resources behind the recruitment and retention of women in the afghan national security forces. about 1800 brave women are now serving in these forces.

some have broken the glass ceiling to become pilots in the air force, and one has risen the ranks to lead the police district in kabul. these women are role models for younger afghans who would like to pursue these careers. according to the special inspector general for afghan reconstruction, more women are now showing an interest in joining the security forces. the department of defense has acknowledged much more work remains to be done. according to the department's most recent report, female recruitment and retention rates for the afghan national security forces fell far short of the afghan government's goals. the international community, especially any military trainers, must continue to stress that women have a key role to play in afghanistan's security going forward.

for afghan women and girls, the stakes for the transition are particularly high. for afghanistan to work through its political, security, and economic transition in 2014 and beyond, afghan women need to keep their place at the negotiation table, in the police stations, in university classrooms, and at the helms of companies. afghan women can help foster stability, promote economic growth and prosperity, and keep fighting for inclusiveness, human rights, and democracy. last week the state department honored a woman of courage for her work and an ob/gyn and her commitment to getting medical are to afghan women in the

ace of taliban oppression. in her speech she said it is vital to come to the realization that women are half of the population. empowering a woman means empowering a society and a eneration. supporting afghan women should continue to be a top priority in our post-2014 engagement strategy. total disengagement from afghanistan after 2014 could precipitate a backsliding, not only in women's rights, but on progress across all sectors of fghan society. to be sure, the u.s. presence will be smaller. we can still accomplish our goals and protect our national security with a smaller footprint. this will require us to review our priorities -- physical inclusivity, transparency around elections, support for afghan women and girls, promotion of human rights and economic growth, and

building a professional security force that can protect the afghan people. it will require a clear strategy and better communication with the afghan people, the american people, and with our international partners. i will keep working to push this message forward, and over the course of my remarks i have mentioned a few inspiring women, women parliamentarians i met with in 2011 and others. all of these women demonstrate and exemplify uncommon courage and resolve. their stories should continue to remind us how transformative the past 12 years have been for afghanistan, despite the fact that it is a long, long way to go. we have a clear and enduring national security interest in afghanistan's stability and ecurity.

we owe it to u.s. service members and the american people who have sacrificed so much to ensure that these gains we have fought for are not rolled back. i appreciate this opportunity. i thank you for this time, and i would love to take your questions. >> thank you so much, senator casey. i am caroline wadhams, a senior fellow here at the center for american progress. we are very happy that you all are joining us today. i think once again with that speech you showed what a leader you are on issues, especially for the people of afghanistan. and you made a very compelling case for why afghanistan still matters despite the fact that the american people are exhausted with this war. there is still a security interest. we have made a commitment to

the afghan people, and we should have a long-term partnership. i think you made a very compelling case for why we should. you have, i think, shown leadership in foreign policy for many years, and we are so delighted that you are here. you have demonstrated both a pragmatism and a value in foreign policy that at the center for american progress we embrace. thank you so much for your leadership on this. on afghanistan you have shown both -- you have made the case for why it is in our national interest, but you have elevated important issues that we are trying to attack, which is elevating the women and girls, but also how important a political transition is. there has been such a focus on troop numbers, but there has been much less focus on the how important this transition s. if we do not have a successful transition, there is a risk of what could happen.

thank you for your leadership on afghanistan we have been for many years trying to elevate this position, trying to make -- this political transition, trying to make the case for why it matters. today we also are releasing a report called afghans find their way, which is about the political, economic, and security transitions underway, and it speaks largely on a trip that john podesta and i -- tom perry l oh, and i undertook to afghanistan and met with hundreds of afghans, mostly rom civil society. and they spoke about all the work that they want to do, and they are ready to do, and that building their economy, improving their security forces, and making their government work better. they just want our long-term support. obviously, it cannot be unconditional support, but they made the case for why a

long-term partnership is so important, and that paper reflects some of those meetings. before i go over to the questions, i want to ask as the moderator a couple of questions to start the discussion. i would like to pull the lens back a little bit and start off with a larger question. there has been a lot of criticism of the obama administration in terms of having a feckless foreign policy or not having a strategy for afghanistan. i would welcome your thoughts on whether you feel confident that the administration has a plan forward for afghanistan and you have general thoughts about their foreign policy and we would welcome that, thank you. >> number one, i would say they have a strategy going forward, but i think they should articulate it more and make it more apparent.

that is one of the reasons why i sent that letter both to secretary kerry and secretary hagel. i have to say on the broader question of the criticism which has been withering of the administration's foreign policy on a whole range of areas, i would suggest that it is at an intensity level and at the degree of partisanship or really destructiveness that i o not think helps anybody. let me suggest a way that members of congress can be critical, because i am allowed to do that. look, i do not hesitate to the critical of the administration if there is a particular aspect of foreign policy. i do not think they're getting right or they need to look at, but if you are a member of congress, i think you have a

higher duty in terms of how you weigh in with criticism. let me say just the following -- it is one thing to say i do not agree with what the administration is doing in this particular part of foreign policy. it is another thing to make it very personal to the president and to make a categorical. you have heard the papers -- the papers are full with them every day, folks in washington, it usually starts out with barack obama is or something like that, and they level a charge. that does not help anybody. it does not help advance the ball. it is not constructive criticism. if members of congress want to be critical, it helps to say the administration should do the following, the administration is wrong about this, and they should consider that, but this idea that you have to be as sweeping in your ondemnation and to be as

personal i think is in violation of that basic rule that a lot of our differences should end at the waters' edge. the recent back-and-forth on ukraine is the best example of hat. even in circumstances that involve other aspects of foreign policy, i think you can be constructively aggressively critical without making it personal or without using political language, without being categorical, and i think that would help us have better debates. we probably do not debate foreign policy enough. sometimes all people see is the invective that is covered every day instead of the kind of discussions we should have. >> thank you. we have made moving to afghanistan, a number of commitments to afghanistan

at various conferences, both on the security side and in development assistance. given the polling numbers in the american public, just how exhausted the americans are with providing financial assistance to afghanistan, what do you think that the political appetite is in the senate, but generally, in the congress for maintaining a commitment post-2014? how do you think that is going to play out, and how do you think the case can be made that the commitments are met? >> i hope we can make the case in similar ways i did today and in other ways as well which is to articulate what our interests are, why it is important that women have a measure of security than they have before and have opportunities. that if we do that, you substantially reduce the

likelihood that not only will afghanistan be a place of tremendous instability or insecurity, but you are reducing the likelihood of violence and terrorism even beyond afghanistan. it will not be as fertile a ground for terrorists and for entities that would cause us harm. i do not think we do that enough, making the case as to why it is in our interests. we also have to be very clear that the drawdown is happening and will continue and will be completed, but there are lots of other ways we can be helpful in a manner that is not simply about security, but in a manner that is consistent with our asic american values we have had for generations, which is to help countries that need the help and to help them build heir own future. and that has been a subject of great support among us, but i

think lately because of what people have lived through -- can you just imagine this might be a different conversation about levels of support even for matters that are not military if we did not have the tragedy of a huge commitment in raq? the frustration and frankly the anger that a lot of people feel bout iraq has impacted our afghan policy whether we like to admit that or not. t has. we have to articulate the interest more and make the case as to why we have to do what everything we can to maintain hose gains, not in the lead, but with the afghans in the lead militarily, but also in terms of their own democracy, there are no elections, their own institution building. that is a whole other -- i could give a whole speech just on the mechanics of governing,

delivery services, having strong ministries, and what would you would call here departments. >> let me open it up. i want to give people an opportunity to speak. es, sir. > my question is for the upcoming elections, the united states has made it clear that they would not pick the winner or there would not be any nterference. yet many people expect the elections to be unfair, and some -- to go free and fair and accomplish some of the goals hat you just stated. how will the united states fit that balance of not being seen as influencing things, but yet securing some of the principles

that the u.s. has always stood y? >> a good part of it is by making sure that the efforts that have been undertaken by the state department and you could go down the list, other departments of our government as well, the efforts that's they and others have taken, ngo's included, to make sure that the infrastructure, the mechanisms are therefore free and fair elections. that is why the security numbers that i mentioned about how many poll security people, the effort to make sure that there is a measure of security there, led by the afghans, but supported by the work we have done over time, that is why the training we have done will be in a sense tested during the selection.

i do not think we have to get in the middle of who wins if we are doing the job that i know people have worked very hard to do which is to set up, work with the afghans to set up the mechanisms of the election date apparatus. and the fact that you have polling places that are public far in advance of the election itself is a much better indicator than we had a couple years ago. there are lots of ways to be helpful and constructive without getting in the middle of it. >> a bunch of questions. i will clump two together. the man in the back, and then we will go over here. >> doug brooks. with the afghan 46 american chamber of commerce. even if elections are successful on the security side there is still a big enough issue that nobody wants to invest in afghanistan at this time. the appf, the afghan public protection force, the main force for the private sector, has just been disbanded.

is there something the u.s. can do to product afghanistan to -- prod afghanistan to provide or allow security whether it is appf or private security to be there so that investment can go on with confidence? >> let me get one more question. yes, sir. if you want to stand, that would be great. >> johann jones. i spent the better part of four years in helmand. and kabul in afghanistan. worked for the british government. my question is i have seen provincial elections, district elections, and now presidential elections and the free and fairness. i feel one of the more important things we may be missing is helping the losers to identify that they are actually losing, that they lost, and making sure they are included in the process post election transition. what role did you see the

international community and specifically the u.s. in helping the losers identify their loss? >> i will go on that. part of the answer to that question is doing what i was trying to do with president karzai, which is to say to him you have got to lead an effort in that transition, and that simply is not having the mechanics of an election go well, it is also the intangible leadership of communicating what it means, communicating how important it is it and eing part of it. president karzai was a former president at that time, but in an interim period of transition, making the case as to why the new president and those who have just been elected have to embrace the folks who did not win. some of that is an intangible,

and part of that is us -- keep making the case to the afghan leadership that they have got to reach out and do more than just build a political coalition, to build a coalition be on that so they can govern. i do not think there is necessarily a policy that we could implement that would do hat. it is more of a question of international community as well as individual countries like united states pushing them to accept the results and do the messaging around that. i think that is the best suggestion i have on that. on the business community question, i do not have a ready made program that we should implement. i do think that part of the narrative that we have not been as faithful to is this question of the gains that have been

ade. you are a lot less likely to make a business investment in afghanistan if you do not see measurable progress, progress that you can attach a metric to. that is why the life expectancy numbers should be emphasized, health care access, education gains for children overall, but especially for young girls, the participation by women in both politics and in the economy, which is still very much limited, but is growing. one of the best ways for us to ensure that folks will at least consider investment is by articulating those gains on a ore regular basis. it has been my experience going places in the region and

beyond, whether going to india or egypt, turkey, you could pick a lot of different countries in the middle east or south and central asia where we have a lot of great american business with the business leaders in a particular country coming together, and they have established working partnerships to try to kind of -- chambers of commerce that are overlapping. to the extent that we can continue to foster that as well as to articulate the progress i think is a part of the answer. if you have any suggestions, i would be happy to hear them, because this is an aspect of it that we have not talked about nearly enough. >> on this, articulating the gains that have been made, i want to shout out a number of people in the audience who have been members of coalition supporting the afghan people,

which i urge people in the audience to look at. a group has been making gains. i'm a nebraska. if anthony is and commuck and david. and they have been making the case that the gains need to be articulated, that them messaging has all been negative, and there are some positive messages, and their coalition is pushing the importance of the political transition process in a long-term partnership with the afghan people. we as part of that coalition would agree with that. let me open it up again. es, sir. >> news network of kurdistan. can you compare homage karzai to prime minister maliki in that he has not been willing to sign a security pact to extend support of afghanistan past

014? maliki refused to grant immunity to american oldiers. the question is, what is hamid karzai counting on? thank you. >> you would have to ask him that. i do not want to make comparisons. they are different circumstances, different leaders, different countries with different challenges, but i think it is vital we have an agreement. there is no way that we can make the kind of commitment i hope we can make in the absence of an agreement. i would be surprised if in the end we do not have one, even though it has been difficult. there has been difficulty with president karzai. i am more optimistic than some might be, but i think we will

get there. he is a very difficult person to read sometimes. and i have had the occasion to meet with him four times now. and often came away rustrated. that frustration that i have felt i think is shared by a lot of people, and it is another reason why we got to make sure this transition goes well, because what we do not have to happen is not the process go well, the electoral process, but you also do not want someone who is elected that starts out with a stumble or starts out with a problem that would be kind of a carryover from some of the frustrations that we have felt with resident karzai.

we need to have the election go well. we also need to have a strong leader to begin to effectuate the change, which will be very challenging for anyone coming n. >> thanks, senator. i would like to thank you for your support and for highlighting the gains and achievements of the afghan people. i was born and raised in the country, and afghanistan, where it was in 2001, and where it is now, not even comparable. that is how much has changed. when you wake up in the morning you see a sea of girls going toward the schools, and the cops clearing traffic. in 2001 in afghanistan i could not have imagined that, even. you see the change happening. also in terms of militarily, afghanistan is much stronger,

even though the army was re-created in 2003. for a lot of afghans, they are confident that the ansf is able to stand. what the country lacks is political stability. part of it is domestic politics and also part of it is the perceptions, and perception is such that if you see an extremist taking over a building, killing a bunch of people, it has no military significance. in the media it often comes out that they are able to take nywhere. that trend -- that has given a lot of confidence to the insurgent groups and within the egion. if, you know, somehow the question i have again attaches on the other question, if the election gets delayed for some reason, considering the factors, it could go to second

round and be prolonged and if which .a. is not signed, the overwhelming majority of afghan people are in support of in did, it, what needs to be done to support them and for the afghan women and also to make sure some of these gains solidify so afghanistan stays on a democratic path? thank you. >> obviously i think in terms of the security dimension, that will largely depend upon the level of training and the result that had been achieved so far. there's still a good bit of or i should say a set of questions that folks might have about the quality and readiness of the security forces. we have i guess at last count

somewhere on the order of rough lir 150,000 police that are trained and 180,000 army. they've achieved those numbers and they're not far off the goals. but the quality of the training and the quality of the officer corps and the folks who are trained to be soldiers and police officers will be the test. and there are limits to what we can do their. we've invested a lot of time and effort in the training. going forward i think it's going to have to be afghan-led, not just in the sense of leading on the battlefield but in terms of frurth training and strengthening of the security forces. but secondly and more broadly on these other aspects of the policy i think we have to keem making the case well here at

me of how important it is to stay united on making sure that these gains for women and girls stay in place and that these place l reforms snay and become part of the structure and foundation of the country going forward. you reach the point where there isn't a question about a free and fair election. but i think the type of engagement i'm talking about is not necessarily the kind ever commit incident -- commitment some are concerned about. it can be done very effectively without too substantial a dollar commitment. >> we'll take one more question, thren we're going to wrap it up. david?

>> my question, you mentioned, the issue of partisanship. what chance do you see of there being a bi pards approach to the vision you laid out for afghanistan? is there support on both sides that can make this isn't ssh into an issue that stops at the waters' edge? >> i thy there is a degree of bipartisanship on this that probably doesn't get highlighted too often. one of 9 biggest problems -- the biggest problems we have in both the senate and house, we don't have enough engagement on these issues just within the body itself. the foreign relations committee p often has measures they deal with, i mentioned those resolutions, but we need to think of more and better ways to come together just to discuss, to talk about these

issues on a more frequent basis and in a more constructive way. but this is one era, the post- 2014 part of the policy where there isn't as much partisan rancor as there was when it came to troop levels and the schedule of the drawdown and all that. once you get away from troop levels there tends to be for -- more unanimity and that's the sense the senator and i had in that letter. we come down differently on a number of foreign policy issues but we're able to get together on that. but sometimes when people have bi partisan agreement, it doesn't have as much intensity behind it. it's not as interesting for some people to engage in areas of policy where there's great

agreement. but this can be, i think, an area of great bi partisan agreement, unlike the earlier debates about the security issues. >> thank you so much. we're going to have to wrap it up. but we so appreciate your time, and thank you to everyone for coming. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] . >> c-span. we bring public affairs events directly from washington to you, putting you in the rooms with hearings, conferences and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service. we're c-span, created by the

cable industry and funded by your providers. >> >> in just a few moments, senator marco rubio outlines his plans for economic growth. in a little more than an hour, the first meeting of the panel created to help young people make that are financial decisions. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter.

>> senator marco rubio says the international community needs to respond strongly to russian actions in ukraine in order to discourage china from active more aggressively. the comments came after the florida republican outlined his plans for the economy, including auctioning the wireless spectrum. this is a will more than one hour. >> thank you for coming today. we are here at google, obviously. it is the social media world. we want everybody to know, who is here with us, but also over the internet, you can follow

the gym -- jack kemp foundation on facebook and twitter. my name is jimmy kemp. #s for today's event of kempforum. my name is jimmy kemp. on behalf of the kemp foundation, and our partner in google, we really appreciate you hosting us today. we are grateful for the special meeting on the kemp forum on true growth. true growth is a designation that recognizes that growth comes from a dynamic source. it comes from humans. it does not come from government. it comes from a personal dynamic investment that has been best realized throughout history in these united states

of america. we need a strong, balanced economic growth that results in many kinds of investments that we make in people and property. that is in order to provide for ourselves and our children, each other, whether as individuals, members of a family, business, or government. true growth is a critical designation. we just do not want growth at last for little while. when i was a kid i grew up with words like lower tax rates, supply-side economics, the gold standard. these are the first words that pop into my head when i think about my childhood. a strange childhood, i know. there was some football thrown around as well. but i learned about entrepreneurial capitalism. i also learned that there are no limits to our future, if we do not put limits to our

people. what are the limits of a real plan to get our economy going. the goal is to explore the authentic wrote principles that can be clearly communicated to all americans convinced that ur nation can and must do better. i don't think anybody better captures that spirit than senator mark ro rubio, the son cuban immigrants who came from humble beginnings who came from the sunshine state of florida to the united states senate. he was a standout wide receiver and defensive back in high school and college. among his accolades, he received the camp leadership award for exceptional leadership in championing the american idea. i will not ever forget how he brought the crowd to its feet that day, that night. he said some people believe our problem is that the american people is changed, but too many people want things from

government, but i'm convinced that the overwhelming majority of our people just want what my parents had, a chance. a chance. that's what america needs and is all about. it is not about the new normal of limited growth. fewer jobs and restricted opportunity. that's not america's future. the true normal as creativity and entrepreneurship and the willingness to take risks on what the future may bring. the minds yet to be educated the businesses not yet open. the technologies not yet discovered. the jobs waiting to be created. world is now we have done, but hat we have yet to do. here to lay out his vision for what we have yet to do, please welcome senator marco rubio. [applause] >> thank you.

thank you to google. and to the jack kemp foundation for hosting me. for all of you here today, thank you for joining me this afternoon. when it was a young boy i would sit for hours on the porch of my home listening to my grandfather stories but history -- about history and about his life. he was born in cuba in the last year of the 19th century. it was a time when there still were not airplanes in the sky. 70 years later, he watched on elevision that an american rouked en -- walked on the moon. his lifespan extraordinary progress and change. are mar veled at opportunities of the world. i sense that he wondered what he could've achieved if he had been born in a different time and different place. my grandfather love this country. he never took it for granted. he knew what life was like outside of it.

he knew firsthand that for almost all of human history, economic prosperity belonged primarily to those born into the families who with -- had power and influence. he knew that america was different. it was founded, believes that every human being has a god-given right to pursue a happy life, and based on that belief this is a country that rewards merit and worth rather than social status and privilege. for over 200 years, equal opportunity defined this as a nation and a people. in fact, equal opportunity is so closely associated with us that the universal desire of people everywhere to achieve a better life has come to be known as the american dream. it's not a dream about acquiring wealth or fame.

it's about the freedom to worship as you choose, to raise a family in a safe and secure environment, to do meaningful and rewarding work, and to give your children a chance at a life better than your own. so, long before i heard the term american dream, my grand frth had instilled that in me. years later i came to understand why he spent so much time talking about his own life, growing up. what he wanted me to know was that i was born in the one place on earth where the son of a bartender could achieve the same as a child born into privilege. this remains a country where you can get ahead through hard work and determination. we cannot deny that achieving

this has become increasingly difficult for millions of americans. a growing number of people are gripped by economic insecurity, aunted by the realization that they are one bad break away from financial ruin. despite their hard work, they feel like they can't get ahead and fear they will be unable to leave their children a life better than their own. a growing number of people are losing confidence in the merican dream. we are left with the sense that what is defined our nation for so long has eroded. this feeling is not without cause. children born into poor families in france or canada have a better chance of emerging from it than poor children born in america. this erosion of mobility and opportunity would be a problem for any nation.

for us it is a crisis. it is an urgent crisis. there cannot be an america without an american dream. we have had depressions before. in though instances the average economy took about 33 months. our current recovery stands at 4 months and counting. do not e growth rates mp -- offer much hope. the economy was projected to grow at 3.2%. but even that paltry number has been shown to be wishful thinking. it is been resized down. here's what is troubling, the projected long-term trends. project the gross domestic

product is the measure of the maximum amount of gd you can achieve using all the resources. two weeks ago the budget office revised the estimates. it is now 7.3% lower than the original forecast they made in 2007. this means a loss of 1.5 trillion dollars in economic rowth. it's a troubling sign that not only are we failing to reach our potential, but that unless we address the trends creating this erosion, the thoss -- losses we suffered in the great recession, they threaten to bm -- become permanent. this anemic growth and economic uncertainty isn't just drew -- due to the recession that goon

in 2007. it is primary the results of trends that began before then, in particular a rapid, fundamental, economic transformation that washington is not begun to seriously address. while the 84 years of my grandfather lived abroad -- brought historic progress, the 21st century is seeing even more rapid and dramatic change. for example, we no longer operate in simply a national economy. we are now vital participants in a global one. this new economy comes of exciting opportunity and hallenges. for example, a global middle class has emerged and it is eager and willing to buy the rvices we provide, the

products we build. , advances in technology have made communication and learning and work faster and more productive. but it's also allowed machines to replace many of the jobs that people once relied upon to wrim prove their lives. we still have many jobs that n't be outsort -- outsourced or automated. the wages are not keeping pass with childcare and education. the problem is that while we are facing full brunt of what is created by the economic -- opportunities are not reaching enough americans. the fundamental problem is to elp more people overcome these plebs -- problems and to access the promise of our times.

here's the good news. there is no nation on earth that are prepared to do this -- better prepared to do this than ours. another american century is within our reach. achieving this is going to require us to replace antiquated policies and institutions of the last century with one bill for this new era. in the middle of the last century we began a war on poverty. but five decades later, this effort remains incomplete. why? because while the anti-poverty programs in place today do help alleviate the pain of poverty, they do not help enough people emerge from it. so earlier this year i proposed wage enhancement credit that i proposed mline work streamlining our . antipoverty programs into a fund that would allow designing your own creative initiatives

to deal with the underlying causes. another example is in the 20th century, higher education became an option for more people than ever. our current system of higher education is too expensive and too inflexible. it offers limited options for those who need and want a traditional degree. it is leaving far too many -- graduating far too many people with degrees that lead to massive student loan debt rather than jobs. in the 21st century, higher education will no longer be an option for some. it will be a necessity for all. i proposed creating additional pathways to earning a degree or vocational certification and new ways to open a economic -- employment opportunities for those with nontraditional education. our host today here, google, is a leader in this practice. one out of every seven google hires does not have a

traditional bachelor's degree. reforming our educational ystemssystem is important. bras to harness the promise of a new era, we are going to need millions of middle and higher income jobs. we are going to face unprecedented global competition for these jobs. it's a competition we can win, but not unless we reform our urrent policies in washington. i'm grateful for this opportunity to share the reforms that will position us to compete and win in the new global economy. this is built on two principles. one there is no better model for equality of opportunity than the american free enterprise system. now, more government is often presented to people as the best

way to hope -- help those trying to get ahead in life. but the fact is, the more, the bigger the government involvement in the economy, the more that affects your chances of success in the economy. only free enterprise system that rewards merit can produce upward mobility that our nation six. 43% of the new jobs being created pay less than $16 per hour. our economy is growing at three percent a year. i worry that washington, by the way, as jimmy alluded to a moment ago, has begun to accept this bleak reality as the new normal. rather than focusing on the ploilses that give access to the entire banquet of opportunities, washington seems to be arguing over how to best

divide the scraps. look at the fervor over the minimum-wage debate. $10.10 an hour is not the american dream. we need jocks that pay $30 an hour, $40, much more. i want to outline three avenues of reform that will help us acleve another american century. the first is new policies that ncourage innovation. innovating a new service or product can transform our economy. we americans in0 vate better than anyone else in the world. from the automobile to the airplane to personal computers to the internet from biomedicine to social media, think of all the careers that exist as a result of american

ingenuity. the innovations do not just come out of a desire to earn more money. hey come from something deeper . something in the hearts and minds of our people that set us apart from the rest of the world. that is the desire to innovate, create, build. to take resources and carve something out of them that is beautiful and lasting. we want opportunities that change the world for the etter. the power of innovation is present in this room or he now -- right now. you have technology in your pocket that could not fit in an entire room 30 years ago. 30 years ago -- from now it might fit on your finger third -- or a single blood cell. this is going to happen whether we like it or not. are we going to stand at the helm of those discoveries, or are we going to fall behind in

watch others take the lead? right now america remains the leading innovative nation on earth. think of all the examples of american ingenuity. we can scarcely go a week without hearing about new futuristic products being developed in the labs, google, space labs. look at spacex. it revolutionize the ones government dominated industry. and it helped revitalize my home state of florida. every year americans are launching startups, and the result is that with this and the strength of our nation, 20% of the value of the world's goods are made in america. nother 5% are made by american companies in other countries. so think about this is.

combined, our people, who make up 4% of the world's population, are producing 35% of the value of the world's products. by the way, we produce the right products. so it's true china produces more toys and shoes and toothbrushes than we do, but we're a global leader in high-value production. our people cret the airplanes and the medicines used all over the world. as much as we innovate now, we can be doing so much more. washington put up a blockade of restriction and things that keep us from doing well in the new enterprise system. but with no -- new, pro-innovation policies, we can collapse these barriers and open new pathways to access our 21st century economy.

if the first 14 years of this century have been any indicator, much of the ground-breaking innovation is oing to take place in the vast unexplored realm of digital media. particularly with the deviced related to the internet. in 20 years the web has changed every industry in the world. this is not going to slow down. web traffic is expected to be 13 times as high by the year 2017, so ensuring that access to the internet remains free an open is not simply spl obscure technological discussion. it is now central to human freedom. give ten shall -- given this, it is not surprising that internet freedom has many, many enemies. since it has proven an effective catalyst, it is about

-- for pro-democratic revolution, it has become a bat olground that countries fight to control. 42 nations restrict online access. they want to exert control over the way the internet is govern and regulated internationally. our current bottom-up, multistakehealed -- stake holder model that governs the web is currently a topic for debate, but no one can question that it has been wildly effective at promoting a free and open internet. but now what we find is that there are goferts lobbying for regulatory control by the united nations, or by a governmental regime. opposing this must be a top

national proirt. that is why will introduce legislation to change the policy of the united states. we must recognize that here at home much of the digital realm ask blocked by unnecessary federal restriction. the more spectrum and bandwidth we can open up to the private sector, the more jobs we can create. the wireless spectrum now serves the same role as ighways. we know that highway is getting crowded and traffic will only continue to get worse. innovations will go nrealized. but the shortage of wireless spectrum is about more than just individual inconvenience.

it is about economic mobility. $87 billion is added to the gross domestic product and an additional 150,000 jobs are created. to capitalize on this i will introduce bipartisan legislation to increase wireless access and affordability. t will reallocate spectrum for -- currently controlled by the federal government for commercial wireless services. the resulting innovation is going to create thousands of jobs. but our efforts to expand innovation should not simply be limited to technology the we must remain goebel pie oon -- buy shall did not pine reers in fields such as science and medicine. the government has an important role to play in supporting basic research which will make

this possible. nasa, the national institutes of health, even the department of defense have historically been effective incubators of research and can continue to serve as the pipeline for private sector innovation. our network of national labs have also been a leading source of research but they currently work with the private sector to translate this into american jobs. that's why i and senator chris koontz signed a bill that will make it easier for our labs to work together with business to bring ground-breaking research to fruitition in the marketplace. this research will be critical to sparking innovation, and innovation will be critical to creating those higher-paying jobs i talked about. but innovation can only lead to more jobs if innovators have access to our customers.

the emergence of a global middle class has created more potential customers than ever for our products and for our services, and yet our trade barriers and our domestic restrictions keep too many american businesses out of these emerging international markets. globalization is already a fact. but much of the rest of the world is ahead of us in adapting and catching up to it, so after spurring innovation, our second goal for reform must be to expand the markets for american products and services by actively and openly engaging in stood's global economy. first and foremost we need trade policies that make it easier for our products to reach a global network of consumers. tampa bay, frequent, a family-owned trucking business that transports products from a manufacturer source. there are now billions of

people around the world who want to and can afford to buy these american products. this would mean it would make more money and hire more drivers and by more american-made trucks, and this could be a boon. that is why support trade promotional authorities. that is why support regional trade agreements with asia minor america, and with europe. as we open up new avenues for trade, we will see growing opportunities to export american energy hundreds of millions of people become drivers.

if selling some of our energy resources will lead to explosive growth. and higher being jobs at home. spike.has experienced a despite energy production, we produced more energy in 2012 in 2005. nonetheless, we after member we're in constant competition with other global energy partners. we must promote access to abundant resources. crude oil has come under regulatory attack. we need a more efficient, modernize structure to ease the transition.

for example, the highway system of the last century fostered an explosion of economic opportunity. this included the pipeline system. that had a similar impact on our economy. unlike the interstate highways of the 1950's, the private sector will pay for the new system. we need a reduction of the things that are presenting the private sector from doing this out. this is resulted in a sluggish process that leads to years of litigation or a seemingly endless wait while bureaucrats argue about details. they were trendy figure a way to build a gas pipeline and for do. the businesses involved had to spend months under the review of six different federal agencies. we should review the processes for natural gas piping.

we remove barriers that prevent us from doing business abroad. fully benefiting from the opportunities of the 21st century will require reforming policy that will put a sudden international advantage. from our tax code to regulatory system, to the federal debt that hangs over the economy, america is less and less appealing to job creators. there are only a handful of economies to compete against. investment creates high-paying jobs. my father had a job in hotels a bartender. my mom had a job as a cashier,

not because the government open these up, but because someone who had access to money decided to invest that money in opening up those hotels, but in the year since, the growth in government has made this sort of investment harder in america, not easier. we now have the highest corporate tax rate of any advanced economy in the world. if you combined federal and state taxes, our corporate rate is nearly 40%, while the global average is under 25%. just on taxes alone it's more

expensive to create jobs in america than in most other countries and most other developed economies in the world. that is why the senator and i have dedicated ourselves to the development of a new modernize plan, one that is broad, promising, and program. it will prioritize replacing the tax system with one that is globally competitive. it would allow businesses to take a full reduction for all of their investments. this fairly equal treatment would and the crony capitalist

loopholes that benefit politically connected corporations, and it will result in a lower tax burden. that will lead to job growth. take a business that brings and $50,000 a month. what they 20,000 goes to basic operating costs. that would be about $30,000 in profits. you do not have to decide what to do with the 30,000. to a withdrawn spend it, or do they use it for investments to grow their business. or to hire more people? under the current system, the same thing to do is leave it in the bank. we see evidence from the fact that american businesses are sitting on $5 trillion of cash that is uninterested. that is more than the size of the economy. it is sitting in on investing cash.

they place major obstacles in the path of companies wishing to participate in our global economy. as i mentioned earlier, 15-20% of the value of products in the world are made by american companies operating overseas. under our current tax laws if an american business makes money in japan, they have to pay taxes in japan but if they want to take that money and bring it back to you think to invest in a factory

floor to hire more people, they have to pay u.s. taxes on the same money. we can fix this. we can fix this by implementing what 28 countries already have, a territorial kind of taxation. most economies have this, including all of the other g8 nations, maybe soon to be g7. that is put american companies at a major disadvantage. wilson need to remove the impediments to investment. chief among these is our health care law. it has led to uncertainty in security, rising cost crude and

the national debt continues to rise. there is a regulatory code that is burdensome. it is an attempt on the part of some to rig the game and pick winners and losers. all of these obamacare is the single largest impediment to job creation. is a perfect storm of federal mandates, relations, and aggressive marketplace intrusion that threatens jobs and economic growth on a truly historic scale. repealing and replacing it is our only option. to bring the debt under control, we need to reform entitlement programs driving the fiscal imbalance threatening to bankrupt our country. the budget the president introduced was a missed

opportunity. washington cannot wait for a debt crisis -- crisis. and let me talk about the last impediment. that is the regulatory system. it needs to be restrained in restricted. here's how we can do it. the budget would be set by an independent board. it would set an amount. if it is over the amount, agencies will have to reduce regulations to get under the

budgeted amount. it would put in place the cost benefit analysis and framework we are lacking right now. obamacare, the federal debt, the regulatory system, all these things would go along way toward restoring the certainty that we desperately need. to create higher-paying jobs and claim the american century. all the policies are important in our own way. each is like a single brush stroke.

only when their combined together, do we begin to see with a great. a illustration of american potential. we are already able to say that 20% of products are made in america. imagine we combine this with a trained workforce, plus access to wireless spectrum, plus abundant energy, plus billions of new customers, the american economy would take off. it would create thousands upon thousands of higher-paying jobs. this is the exciting opportunity. we don't have the luxury of wasting time. the world is changing quickly. we have waited far too long to change with it.

we still have time to build the new american century. we do not have forever. we inherited from those before us the most exceptional nation a unique place where dreams that were impossible everywhere else became possible here. some like to say that american exceptionalism is a myth that we perpetuate to make ourselves feel better. i see it with my own eyes. i've been touched by it in my own life. my parents were born into four families in another land. by the grace of god they found their way here.

they were beyond the retirement age. they never became rich or famous good they do not leave us any money or help pay for college, but i would say that they live the american dream. why? because here they were given the opportunity to live a happy and for filling life. they own a home. they raised a family and a safe and stable environment. they found dignified work the patent have to provide for the children. they give us a chance to achieve. and to achieve a life better than their own. this was their version of the american dream to give purpose to their work and make them feel that their own lives mattered. they never made it big. but through us, they made their mark in the world. this is the meaning of the american dream to have the

freedom to decide the kind of life you want and the opportunity to achieve it. this dream is neither dead nor doomed, but it is also not self-perpetuating. each generation had to step up to expand it. the time is come for us to do the same. we live in an insecure time. the world is changing. may the paths we relied on to take us to our dreams no longer take us there. but there are new paths waiting to be opened. the new paths can bring more people to our dream than ever before. this is the exciting opportunity, to usher in a new era of opportunity and prosperity one better than anything the world is ever seen, to bring about another american

century greater than the one left behind. if we do this we will write the latest chapter in the story of the greatest nation in the world has ever known. thank you for this opportunity. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> if you heard my phone buzzing that was my wife calling to talk about the repair of my american-made refrigerator. this is a debate and platform for competition and ideas. ideas are the life what of the country. we are grateful that you are engaging in a competition.

in that spirit we gathered a bunch of people who enjoy competition of ideas. with a couple of microphones. senator ruby likes to speak. we will have a good amount time. if you don't raise her hand and ask for microphone, i will start the questioning. please give us your name, where you're from, and ask your question. >> thank you for your remarks, senator. what is going on with the time warner merger? >> that is still working through the justice department process, and is that correct? >> yes. >> not knowing enough of the details about the novel issues they would be concerned about,

but we want to see a work through the justice department. it is an interesting challenge in that sector and numerous sectors. we've seen ever stick consolidate in the area of the mobilephone side. the one thing i would argue with regard to time warner and comcast is the multiple outlets. you can get cable access not just over the air, but multiple cable companies are now providing areas without any sort of franchise system in place. you also have the over the air satellite an increasing number of people who are watching on platforms like netflix. it will be interesting to see in multiple different industries ask these consolidation efforts roll out, how the 21st century changes for the global economy

and the plethora of new ways to gain the same services will influence the justice department's decision-making. >> wait for the microphone. >> nice to see you again. i grew up in washington, d.c., in the 1970's, i saw people in my community thriving with small businesses. people do not understand how regulations affect people in my community. however, we do not hear people talk about it who can speak to the masses about it. people used to drive taxicabs and we sent our children to college. people used to be vendors in in d.c. and they regulated that out. the regulations have made us dependent on the government and they are pushing us out of urban america.

we have not been empowered to do for self. that is something that needs to be addressed. do you see this in florida? >> i teach a course at florida international university on mondays and fridays. a lot of young students are there, i say young because they are half my age. we had a recent debate in miami-dade county about uber. people heard about this concept, the miami-dade county commission did not allow them to comment because the regulations. i see young people that might be friendly to government involvement arguing against

impediment. a number of different fundamental challenges 2.2. a lot of those jobs allow my parents to make it to the working middle class, those jobs do not pay as much as they once did. if my parents had the same jobs today they had 25 years ago, their standard of living would be different because those jobs to not pay what they once did. the jobs that do pay require a higher level of education or training than the same jobs did in the past. our system of providing people that learning is inaccessible to many people. i will give you one perfect example. my son's football team had a mother on the team who was a receptionist at a medical office. she was the first person laid off every time things went wrong. she was laid off because her

boss needed someone who could stay until 7:30 p.m. and she had to leave earlier than that because day care closed at 7:00. the only way she will get a job to provide more security is if she gets the skills she needs to become an ultrasound technician or a lab technician or something else. she has to get up in the morning, make breakfast, take her kids to school, work nine hours, to come up, make dinner. one of the barriers we have to figure out, how can we help people acquire employable skills that allow them to double, triple, and quadruple their pay, but in a way that people like them can access? she cannot drop everything and go to college for four years.

we overlook some of the regulatory barriers that exist in higher education. that is a real impediment as well. one that we have to focus on. the other example i always use, imagine if you worked somewhere and decided, i can do this job better than my boss. because of wireless and internet access, i do not need a big office to do this. i need access to high-speed internet and i can open up this business out of my spare bedroom of my home. but you are now hit with regulations at the federal, state, and local level. your former boss can because they may not like it, but they have an army of lawyers that can help navigated. in some industries, they hired a handful of lobbyists. you cannot deal with all that stuff. you end up being an employee

your whole life. that is the point i made when i talk about big government. a government hurts people who were trying to make it. unless you have the power to influence the government, your ability to succeed becomes limited. >> do you believe that putting illegal aliens on a path to citizenship is an inhibitor to economic growth? >> we have a broken legal immigration system. the legal system that is something that could help our economy grow. our current system is based primarily on family reunification. if you have a family member living in the united states, you get to bring a family member as

well. that is how my parents came. in the 21st century, our immigration system has to be built more on merit and economic ability to contribute to the economy. the second issue is like every sovereign country on the planet, we have a right to enforce our immigration laws. we do not have mechanisms that do that effectively. imagine if you owned a hotel where you only checked people and, but never check people out. we do not have an effective way of determining when people leave or if they leave at all. there are sectors of the southern border that remain insecure. our employers do not have a reliable way to determine who they are hiring and whether that person is legally here and capable of employment. you have 12 million human beings living in the united states that are here illegally and that is the part that is most complicated.

on the one hand, there is no serious effort that you will round up and deport 12 million people. if you reward the breaking of the law by granting people something that they could not otherwise have gotten had they done it the right way, not only are you rewarding bad behavior, you are encouraging others to do that in the future. the challenge we face as a country, how do we face this reality? you have 12 million people and not everybody can stay. how do you figure out who those 12 million people are? which ones get to stay and which ones get to leave? what sort of consequences will there be for having violated the law? no one has the right to come here illegally. primarily, the argument i hear, it you will go ahead and legalize all of those people, but you are never going to put the enforcement mechanisms in place. the same argument you hear about tax increases versus spending

cuts. the spending cuts get reduced over the years. the taxes stay in place. they will suspend the enforcement or they will only enforce the parts they want, but the legalization becomes permanent. that has been a real challenge. how do we deal with a 12 million people here in a way that is realistic and responsible? that has proven to be a real challenge. if we can reform our legal immigration system and can put in place a better enforcement mechanism, it will become a lot easier. not easy, but easier. your last question was about citizenship. that is a fundamental question the country will have to make. are you prepared to eight or 9 million people living among you that can live here permanently for the rest of their lives but never become citizens? that is an issue that i do not

think there is a consensus on. i do not think it is good for the country to have people who are forever barred from becoming citizens. i think the broader point, is immigration good for america? it is generally good if it is done appropriately. if it is the kind of immigration that will bring to the country -- there will always be an element of people coming for family unification and always an element of asylum and people seeking freedom. but it has to be merit-based. that is the most fundamental reform that we need to make. >> yes, sir.

>> my name is michael coleman. you mentioned the bill you have dropped dealing with the national technology transfer. i wondering if you could, and why you think [inaudible] has been so ineffective that technology transfer? >> it would take down the barriers that make it hard for the national -- where the government can play an effective role in basic research. imagine -- what if the the apps in your pocket or the platforms we now use ever have existed if the government had sold and retained the internet? the answer is not. the government has a role to play in basic research. we have seen the

commercialization of products that were innovative to the space program. how can we get that basic research into the hands of the private sector? the bill would streamline that process. your question was about a federal bureaucracy. federal bureaucracies do not have much of an incentive to build the economy. in many instances, they seem to have no interest whatsoever. one of the largest complaints i get from potential business owners and job creators is they feel like it is an adversarial process. the government agencies view themselves as a resource to get their investments to succeed. in the u.s., they feel as though it is an impediment.