. even when she criticizes him, she doesn't seem to go so far as to really slam him. in part of the article, it even says that she expresses some sympathy as far as how complex the issues are that obama has had to face. it seems like a little bit of political posturing. host: i will leave it there because we are out of time this morning. thank you for watching. we are back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. we take you to the national press club. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> we have several other memorials, but not a world war i memorial, and therefore there is much excitement about this project. just a few words about our speaker, edwin found, -- edwin of notn, the grandson one, but two world war i veterans. he cofounded the world war i memorial foundation. of aled to the advocacy national world war i memorial on july, 2013. mr. fountain was appointed by senate majority leader harry to the centennial commission. he was elected vice-chairman of the commission in july, 2014.

mr. fountain is a graduate of the university of north carolina, and the university of virginia law school. >> thank you, tony. and good morning. my name is edwin fountain. the commission was formed by congress in january, 2013 and given a mission of ensuring suitable observation in this country of a centennial of this great war, and more importantly, commemorating the service of american servicemen and women in educating the public about this causes and consequences of that war. it has 12 members, appointed the president, the majority and housesy leaders of both of congress. i'm here this morning to talk about the commission's proposal to establish a new national world war i memorial in the nation's capital. i would like to start with some

brief context about the history of this memorial and its wars. the town is full of equestrian to civil wartues and other revolutionary war general's, other political leaders. pershing park, where referred -- where we proposed to establish editorial is sort of the last of ,he great memorials in the city elected to john j pershing -- erected to john j pershing. aroundhe civil war, many the country established memorials to those who died and fought in their wars for stop -- in their wars. there is the statue of the confederate soldier on washington street in old town

alexandria here. -- war. more memorial memorial is a local memorial to world war i. not until the 1970's that we began thinking in terms of national war memorials, and not to the generals, but to the common soldiers in our nations capital. the vietnam veterans memorial is a game changer in memorials in this country. a memorial on the mall to the everyday soldier who fought and died in that war. everve been backfilling since after the vietnam veterans memorial. then came the korean veterans memorial and world war ii. now here we are talking about world war i. the difference with world war i is there is no littering -- no living constituency. the last living veteran of world of i passed away at the age 110. there is not the representation of veterans in congress or on

boards. it's a difficult challenge for us, but one we think we can meet. i got involved in this effort some years ago when i decided to advocate for restoration of the d.c. war memorial on the mall, which had fallen into disrepair. that effort led the talking about rededicating -- led to talking about ridiculous thing -- that effort led to talking about rededicating the national mall. a blank slate, the commission thinks we would be on the mall. the congress enacted some years ago to establish the memorial and the nation capital. and one clause provides that it art completed work of civic and that there will be no museums or visitors centers on the mall except those that are

grandfathered in, such as the world war ii memorial, the monitored and king junior -- the martin luther king jr. memorial, and others. i fought for a couple of years to get a national war memorial on the mall, but the d.c. government leadership, norton and grey were strongly opposed. thatational park service were stewards of the mall were opposed to the proposal. when it came time to the commission, to think about it more -- a war memorial, we decided not to fight a losing battle by being on the mall. we decided redevelopment of pershing park. it is located just one block away from the national press club. you can see the picture on the upper left. shot.s an overhead pershing park is bounded on the southern edge by pennsylvania across theup --

street from the department of commerce. it is between 14th and 15th streets and the northern edge of the park is next to the willard hotel and the occidental restaurant. it is a prime location. it is part of what is the most significant concourse the nations capital, pennsylvania avenue. from pershing park, you have a direct line of sight down to the capitol dome. block away from the white house and treasury department. it is a symbolically important location, which is why was chosen in the first place as a .emorial to john pershing and it has received a lot of foot traffic for people visiting the white house and other sites in this part of town. it is located just a few blocks off the mall. it is a highly important location, one that we think merits a significant memorial and one that we think would do

justice to the veterans of world war i. again, we preferred the mall, but we played the cards we were dealt. serious drawbacks to the memorial site. there are -- first of all, it is the park with a world war i commemorative element located in it. as you can see, the pershing memorial is tucked away in the lower right corner of that photograph, on the southeast corner of that site. that part of the park is very of secured from -- obscured from the street. berm's toppedhen by 10 foot stone walls on that part of the park. from the passerby, there is nothing inviting from the park, nothingness is world war i or pershing memorial. there is nothing that draws you in.

the two walls that are accessible to passersby are at the western edge, which is at the far edge of where the memorial element is. you do not see the memorial element that is currently there. end, there is the taxi stand that services the hotels there. it is also uninviting. there's nothing that draws you in. the second drawback to the current site is that it is a history lesson more than a memorial. it is a very nice narrative text about the involvement of the united states in world war i, thethere is no mentioned of american serviceman who gave their lives in the war, and there is no mention of the five

months of fighting in world war i was twice that of world war ii. there is no mention that americans suffered

first and foremost a world war i memorial that is located in an urban park setting. we are certainly very alive to the fact that this is and should be a working urban park. first, it should be there to those who want to pay their respects world war i. second, the workers or who -- or the guests to want to come to that part of town, they want to have a nice urban oasis for

lunch or to just take a breather. third, we hope that they will be here to see an iconic work of art, that will draw people in its own right, regardless of theme. that is our vision for the memorial. we have the sense not to have a preconceived notion of what a design of this park would be as a new memorial. we anticipate and have already begun planning for a design competition. we anticipate -- tony mentioned the eisenhower memorial. i'm not involved in that process, but i have followed it to some extent. suffice it to say, we will do things differently that have been done with the eisenhower memorial. i anticipate that the commission will throw this open to an open design competition, much as was done with the vietnam memorial that yielded that stunning and reallying design that

change the ground with respect to memorials in this country, and in the world indeed. walls --etition will will most likely involve two rounds of competition, and open competition from which we will select a handful of finalists, and given stipends to further develop their designs. it will be an independent panel of jurors that will make recommendations to the commission on the selection of the finalists and the winning design. has thehe commission sense to know that we are not design experts and it's not our place to proofing -- to preconceived what the design will look like. it is also our intention to engage the many stakeholders in this tomorrow, and in this site at the very outset of the process, so we can tell entrance themthe competition, give the parameters of what needs to

be there and not be there, what field we are looking for the site, what other uses besides memorial uses will be provided by the site, how it will relate to freedom plaza across the street and the surrounding neighborhood. it's a very complex site given this location, and it will all be required following the outcome of the common addition. we will be following along with national parks and the national planning commission, fine arts, neighbors around the park, veterans groups, many stakeholders. we have a consensus on what our objective is even before we begin the competition. there is currently no budget for the site other than what we have done on the back of an envelope. the world war ii and martin luther king memorials each ran about $100 million. i'm realistic. i don't believe we could raise $100 million for a world war i memorial, but nor do we envision something as elaborate as the

world war ii memorial. in my own mind kimye harken back to the d.c. one war -- in my own mind, i harken back to the d.c. war memorial. a place removed from the hustle and bustle around it. it is that kind of contemplative feel, that kind of somber feeling i would like to re-create. this will not be a triumphant memorial, because there was nothing triumphant about world war i. we do not envision a complex memorial. is a budget barely on the back of him -- of an envelope. i do not want to hear two years now that we have exceeded our budget. it is about $10 million to $15 million. if we go much beyond that, we go beyond our purposes, and frankly,ck, -- and unrealistic as far as our ambitions.

it is her marble that the memorial was completed from in a matter of months. we have a little over four years. we hope to dedicate this on armistice day 2018. we anticipate conducting the design competition through most the015, working on getting necessary design approvals from the various reviewing agencies during 2016. drawings2017 sending to engineers. and breaking ground at the beginning of 2018. that or years is a tight timeframe for a memorial of this e, but we think

if we do the work right up front, we can make the world -- the process go quickly. produce aently, and memorial that will stand the test of time and do proper justice to the american veterans of world war i. this ultimately was -- we hear a lot about the greatest generation. this is what i call the silent generation. they were the parents of the greatest generation. they suffered through two great calamities, world war i, and the great depression. and then they sent their sons and daughters off to fight in world war ii. back to whygoes this is not a triumphant memorial, but something more somber and reflective and reverential, that would do justice to a generation of largely notat was recognized in this country, certainly not by today's therations for contributions and sacrifices they made to this country. that is our proposal and our plan.

again, i should say a word about the pending legislation if i haven't. we have introduced a bill to authorize the commission to proceed with this proposal. bills were introduced simultaneously in the house and senate this year on a bipartisan basis. we are very grateful to representative daniel cleaver of kansas city and senators mccaskill and blunt of missouri, who have been our champions of this effort, along with congressman ted poe from texas, who was involved with a world war i memorial efforts for some years. senator rockefeller has been of great assistance as well, as have others. bills were introduced in both houses on bipartisan basis. the house bill was passed as an amendment to the defense appropriation bill earlier this year. it has already been approved by the house. senate cap and held the -- hearings have been held in the senate a couple of months

ago. it is anticipated that the memorial bill will move forward possibly as a stand-alone bill sed by this house. all of the major agencies are on board and have come out publicly in support of the proposal. i talked to your neighbor, oliver carr, a few weeks ago and they are very engaged as well. oliver carr owns the hotel. the problem is, i guess, couple of months ago when i was testifying before a house panel on this, the chairman of that subcommittee said to another group who was also testifying that day, he said, you've got a real problem. this bill makes sense and is the right thing to do, and we don't do things that way up here. one concern appear

about this. i don't have to tell you all about how things work on capitol hill. even the easy stuff is hard. but it is the right thing to do. time is of the essence. with the attention that the centennial -- that the start of the war has brought just in the think- past few weeks, we we are optimistic that it will pass and we will be moving forward. [applause] >> we now have time for questions. can you please give your name [indiscernible] >> [indiscernible] oriole --e first warm war memorial in washington that without onen done single veteran still alive? why has this taken 100 years?

the first part of your question, i cannot speak whether there were memorial -- veterans of the war of 1812 or the spanish-american conflicts after all of the veterans had passed. long,why it has taken so again, the idea of memorials of this sort is only 30-year-old idea. i should say that the good citizens of the -- of kansas city, missouri did erect a memorial soon after world war i the veterans of kansas city, but to the nation's veterans. there has in a memorial for quite some time, but in kansas city. and with all due respect to kansas city, it's not the nation's capital and does not draw the international visitors that the city does. at the idea of a nation's capital only goes back 30 years. the vietnam veterans advocated for and establish their oriole -- there memorial and we have

been working back. we did world war ii, now we're getting to world war i. we used to commemorate wars primarily locally, or on the battlefields themselves. that cannot be done with respect to the wars of the 20th century. >> alan flavor, national press club. the national gallery in london has an article if it -- an art commemorating the devastation of world war i. what is being done in this country that will help educate and rigid kate the american public -- and reeducate the american public along similar lines and to help build a growing consensus for and support for your memorial? >> many different things. the commemoration of the centennial in this country is unfolding in classic american fashion in two respects.

as was world war i itself, we are late to the party. the europeans have been planning for their centennial efforts for much longer and have been dedicating more significant resources than this country has. and that makes sense, because it was much more a european experience than it was an american experience for many obvious reasons. the war was fought there for four years, whereas we fought for five months. their loss of life was significantly greater than ours. it was fought largely over european causes. we were drawn into the war by attacks on u.s. interests. in the second, the grassroots basis. congress in its wisdom formed our commissioning davis no charter and no resources -- formed our commission and gave us no charter and no resources. because that is how they establish memorials and great offense -- great events, by calling on private citizens to

use their own dime. our mission is to reach out around the country and encourage support of other organizations that are engaged in world war i centennial activities. much of what we have been doing in our initial months have been building that network. the gratifying thing is that so many organizations are out there doing so many things on their nt fromhout encourageme us. the new york public library has an exhibit that certain on july 28 regarding the war. -- started on july 28 regarding the war. the academy of fine arts will be putting on what will be a definitive exhibition on world war i american art. kronos quartet, which is the somewhat avant-garde classical music group has already performed a symphony of their own composition on world war i. the kansas city company is working on a symphony as well. there are groups around the

country. one of our volunteers for the commission is spearheading the world war i memorial inventory project, which sets out to document every world war i memorial in the country, call attention to them, aid in their restoration, get the local citizens to research the names of those memorials. glenn marcus heer is working on a major conference of on american's involvement in world war i. there are many americans doing a lot of things. we are trying to coordinate with them and take credit for is much of what they are doing as possible, but also spearheading our own efforts. we have already held our first conference on world war i where we had a panel talking about the here in washington. tonight, we have a we think will be a series of programs on various aspects of world war i.

we are working to put on a conference in 20 16 on military aspects of world war i. we are working on a conference possibly next year focusing on the events that drew the united states into war, including the media aspects of how things like affectitania sinking other events. there are many things going on and we have the luxury -- not to mix metaphors, but going to a crescendo of event in 2017, 2018, which will mark america's participation in the actual events of the war. >> i'm curious if you got any .eedback on this proposal >> not specifically.

i have been in touch with the district of columbia office and they have been supportive. the state historic preservation office also sits on the national capital memorial advisory commission. commission has signed off and to that extent, the district of columbia has been heard. i believe elegant nordin has spoken in support on this site -- delegate norton has spoken in support of the site, but we have not spoken specifically. but i've never heard of any opposition and i'd be surprised to hear any. >> other questions? i have one for you. according to the "washington post," we have about 4 million visitors to the world war ii

memorial. is it of that scale? >> no, it will be unique. the reason we will be near the national mall is because we want to take advantage of that foot traffic. we think there is significant traffic coming by the site .nyway it won't be those numbers, but we think it will be significant. >> you said you had to grandfathers in the war. talk about what they did. >> one of them never got out of this country. he went through officer training, but never came out of the united states. my other grandfather, my grandfather fountain, grew up on a farm in north carolina, new how-to handle horses, so they made him an artillery man.

because all of the artillery in world war i was drawn by horses. he was in the 81st black cap fieldon, in the 315th artillery regiment. to go to theled front lines on november 12. fortunately -- perhaps i never -- i am standing here today because he never got to the front lines. was, i believe, at least an alternate delegate. he's up -- he served his muster out in 1919. no great stories of heroism in my family, and friendly, that's not how i got involved in this. that is more incidental. i came to this effort from an historic preservation background. i was formerly the president of the d.c. preservation league, which is a group here in washington. we had featured the d.c. war memorial a number of times in our programs because it had fallen into rate disrepair.

it was at one point a sapling growing out of the top of the it had become very water damaged, and the paving around it had become very difficult to pass. some years ago in 2008, i formed a world war i memorial foundation whose regional purpose was simply to advocate for funds for restoration of that memorial. i will take credit, and i think the park service will give me credit for bringing enough public attention to the condition of the d.c. war memorial that when the park service received $500 billion in stimulus funds for capital projects and all of the park units around the country competed for the money within the park service, restoration of the d.c. more memorial -- war memorial rose to the top of that list, as well as the reflecting pool and the jefferson memorial. in working with the d.c. war memorial, given where it's located -- and if you don't know, it's on the national mall right between the world war ii and korea veterans memorials

right off of independence avenue and across the street from the mlk memorial. you stand at that memorial and you cannot help but look around memorials to the three other great wars in this country, but why is there nothing for world war i? my sense of symmetry was offended, if nothing else. to advocacy for a national war memorial on the mall. that is how i got appointed to the commission. is is the first time you are announcing the design competition? this week sent out solicitations for a professional advisor for the design competition. most design competitions are not actually run by the commission sponsoring the memorial, but

they usually engage some other architecture or service professional advisor. we are in the process of hiring that individual. we expect to throw this open sometime in the first quarter of 2015. >> you mentioned what word in carof our car -- all of her oliver carr. what other process is going on with the current trump hotel or the post office as well as with easy officials? >> we have been in touch with the dpw. in fact, i think the picture on the right has been taken from the rooftop restaurant of the hotel. we have reached out to the marriott. we haven't heard from them yet. we will definitely be inviting the trumps to our initial planning meetings, for what

should be obvious reasons. and certainly, all of the neighbors. we have even been in touch with the secret service already, because of course the inaugural polar a -- inaugural parade goes right by the site. ongoing, but this is sort of step one, where we are today. we are certainly talking it up every chance we have will stop -- we have. once we have an advisor on board, our first step will be to sit down with all of the stakeholders, and that will certainly include the d.c. government. >> one of america's most popular military related films is sergeant york, which portrays what happened with the drafting and induction and service of alan york, one of the most popular movies of its type ever. there are other films as well.

is there any plan to consider using those in helping to educate the public about what happened? that hase extent, already happened. turner classic movies did a film festival on world war i throughout the month of july. every friday during july they had world war i movie programming. the commission itself has no plans beyond that. we are beginning to make contacts in hollywood to talk about new feature films. i've always said that what world thei needs is the canon -- ken burns treatment and the saving private ryan treatment. we have a few projects in the some and have announced time ago that leonardo dicaprio will be paying woodrow wilson in an ad that tatian of scott berg's biography. i don't know how much that would ofus on -- in an adaptation scott berg's biography. but on how much that will focus on world war i.

there is a celebrated unit of african -- african american soldiers that served with great distinction during the war, as well as in europe. racism ofuring the the american military and political establishment of that time. our understanding is that novel has been optioned by sony pictures and will smith. i look forward to sitting down across the table from will smith and asking him how he would like to be the tom hanks of world war i. that,een like particularly given who he is, a major production like that would do more than anything the commission could do over the next four years to bring awareness and interest to world war i. that is the nature of our society. our mission is to penetrate the consciousness through every channel possible, whether through fine art or other occupation. there is interest in presenting

primetime features this year on world war i. ways to introduce content to secondary and primary education. there are many channels to get this out. >> has any consideration been given to the fact that the pershing memorial will go down as the eisenhower memorial goes and general pershing will be rolling over in his grave? first, pershing leaving the site, that is a discussion we have not had yet. a question, but i don't even know how i would answer that question. and it is something we will engage the stakeholders with, and we will certainly be engaging general pershing's family on that.

it is interesting. i talked earlier about the great memorials, and eisenhower is very much a great man approach. and you can quibble with that, whether that is the proper thematic approach. the roosevelt memorial is a lot thanabout -- it is more roosevelt. it is more about what was happening in the country and the administration. memorial may be part of the ultimate design. i don't know that yet. it all remains to be seen. >> other questions? >> i'm with a local law firm here, but interested in this area. if you would mention a place where no one can keep track of the activities of the commission and the planning for all of this, a website and things like that. >> obviously, the commission does have a website and it is

worldwaronecommission.org. worldwaronecentennial.org. there is the website itself and then we have gotten more active getting the word out. i appreciate the question. >> [inaudible] raising money for commission activities in general. the history channel has been very generous. as have other organizations. we have not yet begun formal foreign raising -- formal fundraising for the memorial, because we do not want to because -- before congress has given us approval to do so.

we are sensitive to the timing of that. the design competition, we may fund from our own resources, but certainly once the memorial is theoved, we will undertake grassroots fundraising as well as the corporation and foundation donors. >> some civil rights groups have brought up the fact that if we have a memorial to world war i, it cannot help but entail a major role for president wilson, did desegregate the u.s. government when we had much improvement in race from president lincoln up to president wilson. that come up at all? >> it has not come up. my own personal view without commenting on president wilson

himself one way or another that he would not be particularly visible in this memorial. again, to me, the memorial is not about the politicians who led us into the war or to the generals who led the troops into the war. it's about the troops. i don't think, other than part of -- i don't know what narrative text there might be at the memorial that could talk about wilson and his leaders leading us into war, but i do not anticipate him being a significant presence in the war. -- in the war memorial. >> i have a question. i am a private citizen. my question is about fund raising. usingu going to consider things like crowd sourcing to get access to small donations from people like yourself who have ancestors who served in the war? >> without picking to specific

channels, absolutely. obviously, the heavy lifting comes from major donors, but my belief is that were memorials -- war memorials such as this ought to be supported by the public at large. we will welcome and solicit restaurants donations, as well as from those who have any interest in the war, and clearly those who have ancestors who fought in the war. those will be part of our fundraising efforts. >> thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

upmore live coverage coming on c-span. in about an hour and 15 minutes, we will be live at the cato institute for a discussion on two cases making their way through federal courts challenging subsidies in the for the care act. they are scheduled at noon eastern. and this afternoon, discussion on a federal program issued through executive order by president obama in 2012, this is for the so-called dreamers that provides temporary projection -- protection for child immigrants brought to their -- to the united states by their immigrant parents. veterans health

care, an issue that has been in the spotlight recently. along with highlights from several congressional hearings on the issue. among those who testified was a woman whose son was this a -- was denied treatment for severe mental illness and later committed suicide. here is a look. >> upon returning from a second deployment, he was diagnosed , depression, and anxiety. at this time, i would like to refer you to the documents that we received, brent medical documents. it was documented that bryan could not remember the questions asked from the therapist during the interview. yet extensive back pain. he had -- he could not sleep. he felt profound guilt. he suffered from low self-esteem. therapist felt he was a risk for suicide. nonetheless, he was discharged to follow-up. how when the world you can ask someone who cannot remember the questions asked to follow-up

with the v.a. is beyond me. from deteriorated quickly december, 2010, to may 20 7, 2011 when he took his life. hecould not understand how could be angry, depressed, anxious, but he didn't know how to cope. hisook a toll on relationships. if the dod and v.a. ss brian for suicide -- ss brian for suicide risk, it is there duty to treat him, but he received nothing. he applied for disability, but was unable to wait. >> and our focus on the veterans health care issue tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. a republican of indiana tweeting this --

more at twitter.com/c-span. look for the veterans list. meanwhile, in washington, reports that the us he i -- the fbi is investigating possible civil rights violations after st. louis policeman shot an unarmed teenager. the agency is looking at possible civil rights violations arising from the death of 18-year-old michael brown. police say mr. brown was shot multiple times saturday in a scuffle with an officer in ferguson, missouri. the fbi is monitoring the case and working with st. louis county police. meanwhile, the congressional -- caucus -- the congressional black caucus has written to the attorney general saying this --

that is from the congressional black caucus. the vice chair of the senate select committee on intelligence spoke recently about the impact of u.s. debt on national security saying "it is one crisis that is not going away." senator saxby chambliss of georgia who is not running for reelection this year spoke at the commonwealth club of california in san francisco. this is just over an hour. [gavel] >> good afternoon and welcome to the commonwealth club. i am your moderator for today's program. welcomeery pleased to

saxby chambliss, united states republican senator representing the state of georgia. he is here to speak about his betweenthe overlap fiscal policy and national security. he has questioned how can america address domestic or international crises and adapt to emerging threats both here and abroad when we have that staggering $17 trillion debt. tombliss was first elected congress in 1994. he served as chairman of the house intelligence subcommittee on terrorism and homeland security and released a report each tailing those shortfalls within the united states intelligence community's performance and technological capabilities immediately following the september 11 terrorist attacks. eight years later, he was elected to the u.s. senate where he continued his work on national security issues and now serves as vice chair of the senate select committee on

intelligence along with our california senator diane feinstein. chambliss andors mark warner cofounded the bipartisan senate partnership known as the dang of six, which focused on acting on our nations deficit and other issues with lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. senator chambliss's announcement that he will not be seeking a third term in the senate has spurred quite a race for his seat between georgia republicans and democrats with the "new york times" reporting that control of the senate may hinge on the georgia race. i suspect there may be a question or two on that issue as well. please join me in welcoming senator saxby chambliss to the commonwealth club. [applause] >> john, thank you very much and thank you for coming out today.

when i do these things similar to this, i usually find out that i learned as much from you as you learn from you about what is going on in california and what is going on in the world. as john said, i had the privilege of working with a number of my colleagues from california, principally right now, dianne feinstein, who chairs a select committee on intelligence. i have been the vice chair for the last four years serving with diane and i was on the committee for eight years prior to that serving with her. diane is a good friend and a great leader and someone i have enjoyed working with, and i will talk more about some things we have done working together. as john mentioned, might chairmanship on the subcommittee vicemeland security and chairmanship of the house intelligence committee, my really good friend jane harman

was a ranking member on that subcommittee. jane and i traveled the world togetherd some bullets in some very unusual places around the world leading up to 9/11, and following 9/11. i always enjoy working with californians, and i'm particularly pleased to be here today. i thought i would start by just taking a minute to tell you what is happening in the senate. now that i've done that -- [laughter] -- we will move on to other issues. there is literally not a lot going on in the senate these days. we have had a number of crises that we should have been addressing, and occasionally, we do find a solution, such as the veterans administration bill that we passed recently.

it has already been signed into law by the president, which is a whole other story. i could take all afternoon talking to you about that. but exist -- but a good example of why the senate, or at least how the senate is doing nothing, how we are operating now, took lace right before we left. california is right in the middle, along with all of our other southern border states, of having to deal with the crisis of particularly these young children, but we know for the most part it's not young children. it's mostly adult. but still, a lot of children being driven to the border by the folks we used to run the drug cartels, and dumped off knowing that america is going to accept these individuals. and we are trying to deal with the problem of what we do with them and how we are going to ultimately deal with these young children, particularly those that are dropped off at our borders. they bring all sorts of issues, from disease to mental disabilities, because they have been so abused by the time they get there.

i could go on and on talking about that. we need to deal with that issue. congress has a responsibility to deal with issues like that. and while he had a lot of debate, and on the house side some substantial activity to pass a bill that deals with this issue. and the house actually authorized some money to provide for these young folks, and provide not just food and housing for them, but trying to figure out a way to deal with them to hopefully ultimately integrate them here or send them back to where they come from and reunite them with their families, hopefully back in southern and central american countries. but on the senate side, we had a

similar bill that came up before us. as we normally do on a monday afternoon, we are called back into town to vote on a judge. and we vote on judges, or executive nonce that the white house -- nominations that the white house sent out. and we did that last monday, and then we go to cloture, which means a vote to go to the border security bill. the build to deal with these folks that were dumped at the border. there were a lot of republicans, republicans like me, who joined with democrats to vote to proceed to the bill, because it is an issue that we need to a dress head on. -- to address head-on.

we need to debate the bill. but the bill as presented to us was not a bill that i could vote for. but i wanted the opportunity to file amendments, debate the bill, then if the amendments pass fine and they don't pass fine, you either vote the bill up or down at the end of the day. but what the leadership in the senate has done over the last senate -- several weeks and months is we have had this vote to go to the bill, and then instead of giving republicans and democrats amendments to the bill, the leader has his own amendments, which he will do what we call "fill the tree" and he allows note amendments -- no amendments or debates that republicans may want to offer. come thursday, we will vote on -- a vote to get off the bill and we don't include cloture to vote on it. we will get off that cycle next week. -- we will get off of that and then repeat that cycle the next week. the border security issue is something i do hope we will but yet the opportunity -- we will get the opportunity to address fully come back in september because it's not going away. i have been on the armed services committee in the house for the eight years i was there.

and in the armed services committee on the senate side for all 12 years i've been in the senate. i was on a house intelligence committee for two years. i've been on the senate intelligence committee for 12 years, and vice chairman for four years. when you are vice-chairman or chairman, as diane and i are, it is to in a little bit of a different position -- it puts you in a little bit of a different position from an informational standpoint. in that the cia or whatever the intelligence into agents the -- intelligence agency is, the particular matters that they are involved getting information on, they share information with diane and me that does not go to other members of the committee if it is a sensitive issue. in other words, diane and i knew about the plans to take down bin laden seven or eight months before it actually happened. i think it happened on may one and i became vice-chairman in january. the first meeting i had -- leon panetta called me when i became vice-chairman, on the day, and

said, i got to talk to you. that is the kind of information that we get. when i think about the way the world was in 1985 when i went to washington from a small south georgia town, and i think about the difference in the way that world looks today, boy, is it ever different from a national security standpoint. today, we have ongoing conflicts in afghanistan, and obviously now again in iraq. we have gone three situation in -- through a situation in libya. we are in the middle of a conflict in syria. we have seen uprisings in egypt, indonesia, and any other number of countries in north africa and the middle east.

and obviously, the latest situation we've had is the ongoing and ever continuing conflict between the palestinians and the israelis. lots of complications around the world. and let's face it, the united states, even though there are a lot of folks who criticize us -- sometimes justifiably. but whether it is a military conflict, natural disaster, or an economic disaster, the first country that is looked to his the united states of america. and the reason they look to us is, they know we will respond and they know we will respond in a positive way. actually, we are in the middle of each of these conflicts in a little bit different way in each one of them. the situation in iraq continues to deteriorate. i was at a meeting at the white house the thursday before we left on friday, we can have to go now. there were about 10 of us -- a week and a half ago now. there were about 10 of us, those of us that deal with national security matters. and we had a sit-down with the president to deal with these issues before we got the august break.

and we were there to express ourselves to the president. when he came not -- came my turn to do so, i said, mr. president, here are my thoughts. about where we are in the situations that right now the , two most serious situations right now in my mind facing you from a decision standpoint -- we are still trying to feel our way through syria. i do not have the answer for what we have done in serious, but -- in syria, but we do know there are about 170,000 people within syria killed in last months and years. bashar assad is a guy we ought bashar assad is a guy we ought not to lead in -- leave in power. and how we deal with that is an issue that the continued -- the president continues to deal with and wrestle with every day. the other related issue is what is going on in iraq today. there is no need to rehash why we went into iraq.

the situation is what it is. there is no reason to rehash in my mind whether we should have left troops there or not. we didn't. and we are having to deal with whatever the situation is on the ground today. the president has some very tough decisions to make. but i wanted him to know because of the information i get every day as member of the arms services committee and a member of the intelligence committee, i get information relative to how bad it is on the ground. and you don't have to be in those closed sessions getting briefed by the cia to go to youtube and see where eight christian men were taken out in front of mosques about three weeks ago and beheaded because they would not renounce their loyalty to christianity by these folks called isis or isil. isil is actually the correct name, but whatever it is.

these are the kind of people that if they have the opportunity, they will come to american soil, just like those individuals pre-9/11 that decided they wanted to come to american soil and inflict death and destruction on america and americans. we do have a vested interest in iraq because of the fact that we have a number of diplomatic personnel there. we are -- we don't want to see the terrace community get legs -- the terrace community get legs. we knew what was going on. we had briefings the end of last year into this year.

there is a gap inside iraq now who has been in syria, and he heads up isil now. he is an offshoot of al qaeda and he's a very dangerous person. and we knew he was organizing a group of folks. what we did not know was that the organized group of militants attacked inside iraq. we did not know that the iraqi military were, and that is basically what they did. the other thing that we as americans have a hard time understanding about that part of the world is the relationship -- i don't know whether hatred is the right word.

i hate to use that word, but the dislike between sects, particularly the sunnis and she is -- and shiites. and it was sunni against sony when it was isil going against the city of modal. it was sunni against shiite going after tikrit. but then it was sunni against shia going after baghdad. and suddenly we saw the iraqi military stiffened somewhat and do a better job defending themselves. but i told the president that day he has got to do something. we cannot sit idly by and just watch that country disintegrate knowing that theory is leaning now toward a breeding ground for terrorists. -- syria is leaning now toward

a breeding ground for terrorists. which means iraq would become a green ground for terrorists. those terrorists would make land again to harm americans. you've got potential airstrikes on the table for discussion. as long as you've got a goal set and you do it right, this is one member of the senate that is going to support you. i have been supportive of the president's action to try to attack these individuals, to slow them down, hopefully take away some of their weaponry and give the iraqi forces the opportunity to defend themselves, and defend the freedom of their country. just as tyler and i were coming

in today, we got word that not only has a new prime minister been appointed, but that prime minister has named a new president, and it is not mr. malik e, which is a good news -- a good move. he needs to move on. an individual who is a shiite who actually work for maliki and is the speaker for the current iraqi parliament, he is the individual that has been named the president. i will take that as a positive step. and hopefully we can see a government that can stand together and defend a rocket -- defend democracy. and let's not kid ourselves. iraqi democracy is not what we think of in the united states, but what is best for the iraqi people is what we should want there. and yet, we've got all of these scenarios swirling around the world. and here we are in america dealing with another crisis of our own.

my friend, admiral mike mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has continuously said that the number one national security interest for the united states of america is not al qaeda. it's our debt will stop we are -- it's our debt. we are today spending about $227 trillion a year in interest paid -- 227 million hours a year in interest payments on $17 trillion of debt. if you let interest rates bump up a little bit, and can you imagine the direction those payments will go? on the current scale, the current direction our country is going from economic standpoint, in the year 2020 and that is not very far away, our interest payments will equal the amount of money we spend on defense. and if we don't change things

between now and 2030, all of the entitlements that we pay for in this country will exceed the amount of tax revenues that we take in, so that everything we do from a discretionary standpoint -- i.e., defense, housing, basically all of our social programs, all of the discretionary spending, veterans, all of that money will have to be borrowed. who will pay it back? it's not our generation. it's these young folks, some of whom i see out here today, who will have the responsibility of paying that back. that is not right. we need to have a long-term plan to pay that mortgage off. we need to have a plan in place that tells the next generation of americans, look, we inherited a great country. we will do everything in our power to make sure you in here at that same great america. and i will tell you, if we don't

stare this problem down and we don't fix this problem for the next generation, they are going to be than -- the first generation of americans to inherit a country that is not as great a country is the country we inherited. i've worked very hard with two other republicans and two other democrats to try to address this problem. unfortunately, we got to a point where folks will have to make hard and tough votes. we were prepared to do that, but we simply could not get that idea and concept to the floor, and could not get encouragement from enough other folks, particularly in leadership, that they were willing to bring these hard and tough votes up to the floor of the senate so we could begin to solve this problem. it's not rocket science as to what it's going to take to solve this problem. we are spending too much money in washington.

you've got to cut that spending. we've got to reform entitlement programs. otherwise, we are going broke. they will not be there for the next generation. and thirdly, we need reform a very broken and outdated tax code. if we do it in the right way, we will generate additional revenues. the combination of all three of those will solve our problem long-term. and i hope by the end of this year that we will have a foundation that we can build upon -- that can be built upon by the next group of the members of the senate and house to address this problem head on. i'm here over the next couple of days speaking at a cyber security conference down in palo alto tomorrow. cyber security, in my opinion, or the issue of cyber, is the next battlefield that america will be fighting on. the russians, the chinese, the iranians are masters at

attacking us from a cyber standpoint. we've got to make sure that we have the capability to respond to those cyberattacks. i will be talking with some very smart folks down in silicon valley in the next couple of days about how we are approaching it from a policymaker standpoint. we are going to need to work hand-in-hand with those folks and other folks around the world in the private actor to solve this problem and to put in place a program that allows the protection of the private sector as well as the program -- public-sector for these kind of cyber things we are seeing every single day. when i came to talk to you, feinstein said, don't talk very long, but take lots of questions. [laughter] i'm going to stop. i look forward to your questions. thank you very much. [applause]

but we do have questions. thank you very much, senator. i and the editorial page editor for the san francisco chronicle. i'm pleased -- pleased to be here with senator saxby chambliss, republican from georgia. you can catch up with us on facebook and twitter and you can see video on our youtube channel, or in this case, we are joined -- pleased to join c-span. let's get to some of these questions. there were a number of questions. you touch on a number of rich topics. a number of questions came in on your observations about iraq, particularly about the fact as you indicated that the intelligence was basically there, that you could see what was developing. a number of questions as to why it took president obama so long to respond and whether you think it could have made a difference

if he had intervened earlier. >> well, first of all, the information was -- i remember very well a briefing we had from lieutenant general mike flynn last friday with the defense intelligence agency. that briefing from general flynn took place in either december or january. and never member him -- and i remember him talking about this core leadership of this group. back then, they were isis, and now they have spread into syria. they want to not just move in iraq, but in surrounding countries like jordan and others. but ira member talking about these folks becoming more and more radical. they are becoming more and more militant.

we've got our eyes on them. and we are concerned about what action they will take. but what john brennan, the director of the cia could not have riddick did is what i have alluded to, and that is, the reaction of the iraqi army. and the president got the same information we got. he wasn't getting anything or hearing anything different from what we heard, but at a point in time when we saw modal fall and we saw this group, called isil, who wants to create an islamic state from syria to iraq to jordan and as far as they will go, it really is a much more militant islamic state then we see anywhere now, it may have

been the time to act. he's got a lot of work people around him and 37 point. they were not being advised to go on the offense against this group. it's ready easy to sit back now and say if we would have slowed them down. i do wish he had as a matter of instead of nowo versus months ago when it started. the blame game does not get us anywhere. and going forward, the president said this is not going to be easy. he's right. he said it's not going to be solved in the short term.

he's right. he said we're not going to put boots on the ground. i hope he's right there because nobody wants to see american boots on the ground in iraq. i assure you. >> i think the word that scares -- the phrase that scares a lot of americans is mission creep. the president indicated over the weekend that we are looking at a matter of months here. how do we avoid mission creep? and what role do you think the senate and in particular is going to play in trying to contain this? >> the definition of mission creep is in the mind of the beholder. some folks say we're there now, just by going in and carrying out air strikes. i don't believe that. i think the president has been deliberate, some would argue maybe too deliberate, but he has been deliberate in justifying in his mind the decision that he made i guess last friday was when the decision was ultimately made, carry out the air strikes.

but he also had directed that this -- these air strikes be put on the table, that the planning begin. you don't just decide you're going to do that and a couple of hours later f.a.18's taking off from an aircraft carrier. the planning was in place so that when he did make the decision the f.a.-18's could carry out the strikes. as to where we go from here, what extend we'll go to relative to additional offensive action there, it's all going to be dictated by what happens on the ground. we know, for example, that the isil forces are now gathering women and children around them. it's a favorite tactic to use women and children as shields. we're committed to not having

collateral damage. that just means innocent people being injured or killed in strikes that we carry out. that's going to become harder and harder to do. if these strikes are going to be successful, they'll probably have to be done in a little bit different way and somebody at some point in time hopefully is going to be 100% the iraqi boots on the ground that carries the fight to the enemy there. >> how do you make the case to americans that this is in our national interest to stop isil? >> it's in our national interests from a couple of very obvious perspectives. number one, we've got people on the ground there. we have a diplomatic corps still in iraq. we spent -- whatever figure i give, it will be the wrong figure -- but my recollection is about $25 million on an embassy in baghdad inside the green zone and we have a staff there.

we have american interests in iraq. we have an economic interest. we have american businesses in iraq that certainly we have a diplomatic responsibility to. in addition to that, we know for a fact that terrorist groups would love to have all or some part of iraq to carry out training missing for the long term to plan and ultimately carry out missions against americans or american interests in any part of the world that they can find a soft spot but ultimately they would love to plan those actually come to america. we can't let that the happen. we allowed that to happen unfortunately in afghanistan leading up to 9/11. we learned a lesson from that and now we're trying to make

sure that we do carry out the methods that are necessary to keep those folks from being able to train bad guys from coming to america. >> you mentioned the change in leadership in iraq. although maliki is suggesting he won't go quietly. do you think a unified iraq is a probability or something we should be aspiring for? >> as i said earlier, a unified government or a democratic form of government in iraq is not what americans would look at and say, wow, that's kind of a mirror of america. it's a different culture. it's a different mindset and it's pure and simple, a different people with a long history of conflict, a long history of economic troubles, a long history of living in a neighborhood where those type of

conflicts and economic difficulties have been a way of life. so what we would love to see, obviously, is a new leadership come in with a regime that puts economic policies in place that give young people hope inside of iraq, that give young people an opportunity to earn a quality of living that will give them a quality of life to raise their children in a better atmosphere than where they've been today and where they've been for the last several years and then be able to unify sunnis and shias and kurds together in a way that will allow them to defend themselves from a military standpoint. that is a very, very difficult proposition. but it has the potential to be done and we've got to be there

in a support role all the way to the end to try to make sure that this new leadership that's coming in as we sit here today, that they're able to unite the parliament first and create a new government which they've been charged to do, that will allow that movement towards peace and at the same time allow the military to operate in a defensive and offensive way to ensure that peace. >> do you worry that a few years after we withdraw from afghanistan we're going to be going through a similar situation there? >> absolutely. it's one of those things that keep me awake at night because i know what's going on inside of afghanistan from the standpoint of what the taliban is doing. they know we're leaving. there's still a lot of activity inside of afghanistan from a

offensive standpoint. we all know, unfortunately, and our hearts and prayers go out to the green family, but we had a general that was killed last friday, highest ranking army official that has been killed since vietnam. so it's still a very dangerous place today. but that's an indication to us that when we leave it's going to get more dangerous. >> let's turn to some of your work on the intelligence committee. there's been a lot written and discussed in the past few days about the report coming out on enhanced interrogation techniques. you've been very critical of the report, suggesting it was politicized. >> and i'm still of that mind. you know, we're 13 years away, now, from 9/11. after 9/11 happened, after we saw two planes hit the twin towers, a plane hit the pentagon, a plane go down in

shanksville, pennsylvania, in excess of 3,000 americans were killed by an outfit called al qaeda that nobody in america basically had heard of to any great degree. i remember jane harman and i got our staff who were very familiar with al qaeda to make a presentation to all members of congress. we invited all 435 members of the house to a meeting where we had our staff explain what al qaeda is and what we were now facing as americans from a military standpoint. if we captured some of those individuals, people wanted to make sure that we got the right kind of information from them that wouldn't allow september 11 to happen again.

the further we've gotten away from that, the more difficult the issue relative to detention, interrogation has become. c.i.a. was charged with a responsibility that was new to them. they're not in the detention and interrogation business. they're in the information gathering and intelligence business. but they were charged with putting together a program which, in effect, they were told, if we capture a high value target, then we're going to turn these individuals over to you and you're to interrogate them and you're to get what information you can from them and you're going to do something with them. that was before guantanamo was ever created. that's what they did. it was not the best program in the world from a rendition detention interrogation standpoint, but the c.i.a. and

the white house told the justice department, look, here's what we're going to do. give us legal opinions as to what we can do with these individuals. they got those opinions. and they operated within the legal parameters that they were told by the department of justice. i happen to think that we got an awful lot of information out of these individuals. and in our report, we're going to document some of the information that we obtained from those individuals. there will be a forever argument about whether or not the enhanced interrogation techniques that were used went above and beyond, and that's an argument that i'm not going to defend the c.i.a. they're very capable of defending themselves. but the fact is that we got a lot of information that ultimately in all probability saved american lives because we thwarted and disrupted potential plots down the road. >> as you note, it seems there

are two elements when we talk about enhanced interrogation, or torture, if you will. one is, is it legal and ethical? and the second, is it effective? on the latter point in terms of effectiveness, you suggest that there are -- there is evidence that it has been effective in getting valuable information. how much of that is going to be available to the american people where it can really be convincing? because there is a lot of debate as we're seeing with the senate report. >> well, the senate report itself, that was done 100% by the democratic staff, is 6600 pages. it cost about in excess of $40 million and it's taken place over a period of five years. there was, in compiling that 6600 pages, there was not one single interview conducted of an individual.

it was all done by reading documents that the c.i.a. and others had completed after or during interrogation and what-not. the c.i.a.'s going to have a response to that and say that if you had asked us about this, here's what we would have told you. we have minority views that take the position that substantive information was gleaned from those individuals. we will give certain specific instances that will not be redacted. there will be some redactions in there. we can't reveal sources and methods. the 6600 page report will not be released at this time but there's a 500 page summary, a response from the c.i.a. and minority views that will all be

released and my understanding is that about 85% of all of those documents will be released. about 15% will be marked out with a black line. so that's a pretty good amount of information that's going to come out. diane wants more than that. they're in discussion with the white house on that now. >> i saw in your interview with "face the nation" that it was your opinion that water boarding is not torture and that it is consistent with the geneva convention. >> that was not my opinion. i never gave my opinion on water boarding. what i said then was that the white house and the c.i.a. consulted with the department of justice, here are the techniques we're going to use and they were told that under u.n. convention treaties, apparently those types of techniques are within the treaties.

but that's not my opinion. that was d.o.j.'s opinion. >> what do you make of the argument that some make that that has -- that the use of these enhanced interrogation techniques has put americans at greater risk when they're captured? >> well, you know, there was a reporter from the "wall street journal" who was captured by al qaeda and they cut his head off. >> daniel pearl. >> we can cite any number of instances where there's been terrible treatment given to americans whether they were military or not that have been captured. al qaeda doesn't know what the geneva convention is. isis, isil does not know what the geneva convention is. we train americans, particularly our special forces, individuals, in what we call siri techniques that include very harsh treatment during their training in preparation for a point in time for when they may get captured. i -- i would hope that never happens. but, folks, we have to be

honest, we can't kid ourselves. these are the meanest, nastiest people in the world that we're dealing with. they flew an airplane into the world trade center knowing they were going to die, but yet they looked forward to it because that's their mindset and those are the individuals we're dealing with. these are not bank robber out there. these are -- these are killers. and we need to -- we need to remember that, that if -- if they capture americans, whether they're military or not, they're not going to be dealt with in a very pleasant way. >> here is an audience member question, speaking of the c.i.a., are you concerned that the c.i.a. has monitored your investigators' computers? >> yes, yes.

i am very concerned about that. not only am i concerned about it, we know they did it. it was not right. it's not just a violation of the constitution because it is a violation of separation of powers, but this is work that i -- i say that, the whole staff that works for the committee is diane and mine both staff -- but that was our staff working on those computers. c.i.a. had no right to encroach on the work that they were doing. i don't care whether our staff did something wrong or not, the c.i.a. had no business going into our side of the computers and i expect director brennan to deal harshly with those individuals who, whether they did or not, i'm going to leave that up to the accountability board, but if they worked for me, i would have fired them. >> what about mr. brennan? should he be held accountable? >> is the o.i.g. made an

investigation of our side of the computers and the inspector general made a specific finding that john brennan did not know this had taken place. when he found out it had taken place, he ordered it stopped immediately and he immediately called chairman feinstein and me and came to the hill and briefed us within a matter of a couple of days. he then came back and briefed us again when he found out what had happened. so he kept us fully informed and so i have no reason to disagree with the finding of the inspector general. and if john knew it, it would be different. but because he didn't know it, i expect him to deal with his employees directly but john brennan, as far as i can tell, did not know this was going on. >> let's turn to the issue of the national security agency and

its surveillance, particularly domestic surveillance. senator patrick leahy recently introduced a senate version of a bill that would rein in the n.s.a. to some extent. i saw where you were quoted as saying it's going to be very difficult to get a bill out of capitol hill given that the house has passed a different version. what is your view in terms of where the line should be drawn on n.s.a. surveillance? >> well, if i were concerned that anybody at n.s.a. was listening in on a telephone conversation of anybody sitting in this room today, i would be totally outraged. but again, we get briefed on these programs on a regular basis and i have been to n.s.a. any number of times, i've watched what they do. that's part of our oversight. that's part of my responsibility as a representative of you, and

diane's responsibility as a representative of you, to know what these programs are and to know what they do and to know how far n.s.a. is going with programs of this nature and we do -- there is no program in the intelligence community that is more highly scrutinized than what we call the meta data collection program that n.s.a. has been operating. after 9/11, congress approved what we call the foreign intelligence surveillance act that gives n.s.a., gives c.i.a. and our other folks in the intelligence community certain power and authority to try to deal with the bad guys around the world and to gather -- use every tool possible to gather information from them. section 215 and section 702 are the two provisions in that bill that gives the n.s.a. the authority to collect telephone

numbers from individuals around the country and around the world and to store those. but this is the key. they store them. telephone companies store them today. they have ever since we've had telephone companies. this is the n.s.a. simply storing those numbers and not being able to access those numbers without a court order. and you would like to think that would give people some comfort that n.s.a. is -- is only going to look at telephone records of

folks who are carrying out activities or not in accord with u.s. law and that are in opposition to u.s. interests. unfortunately when you have a revelation like came out of mr. snowden, all of that changes. unfortunately, some of the things that mr. snowden could happen can't happen and i can't talk to you about them because they can't happen. keith alexander, the just retired director of the n.s.a., has talked in more detail about some of those things. but there is reason to look at a program like this. there is reason to try to make it more transparent. i think americans ought to know what we're doing but i can just assure you that nobody's telephone record is ever authorized to be looked into unless there is a case made to a judge, a federal judge, that

this individual is engaged in terrorist activity or he is engaged with some individuals who are engaged in terrorist activity. therefore, i mean, i have been a supporter of the n.s.a. on the 215 program. i do think we ought to make it transparent. people ought to know how many times it's accessed and you would be shocked to know that we've accumulated millions and millions of telephone numbers but only a very minuscule number of those telephone numbers have ever been looked into from a content standpoint. you get your telephone bill every month. it's got the day you made a long distance call, the number you called, the length of time you talked and what it cost you to make that call. that's what we call meta data. and that's the information that telephone companies keep and

that n.s.a. has stored. nobody can look at that information until a judge has issued an order saying, based upon the information that has been presented to me as a judge, i think it's in the national security of the united states for that number to be modified. we've done that on the mob, for example, for decades. you get a court order and you can carry out a wiretap on them. it's the exact same scenario. it's just a different program that we're operating under. >> let's turn to the debt and the deficit which your comments drew a number of audience questions, including this one. president obama lost me when he appointed the simpson bowles commission to up with ideas to reduce the debt and then ignored its recommendations. do you think there's any hope for something getting done in washington?

>> mark warner and i got together in the summer of 2010 and we began talking about this issue regarding the debt, the deficit, and during that period of time, republicans were out campaigning, democrats were out campaigning. this was in the senate. and nobody was talking about the debt and the deficit and yet we knew that this is long range the biggest issue that we're all facing and that's kind of what started us. we also knew that the president had appointed this commission that became known as the simpson bowles commission and that we knew that in december of 2010 they were going to issue a report. and we didn't know what it was going to say. but what was really ironic about that is that as mark and i talked to any number of

individuals around country, experts from the business world, the world of economics, professors as well as government individuals, individuals in the government who understand budgeting and the direction we were going, we came up with some similar conclusions and the conclusions that i said earlier are what has got to happen if we're going to really solve this problem. and that is, you got to cut spending. you got to reform entitlements and you got to figure out a way to get revenues up and we do that through reforming the tax code. simpson bowles came up with a plan that is almost that simple and the person that asked that question is exactly right. i mean, the president had every opportunity to take some action then but what he did was just

pat erskine bowles and al simpson on the back, said, guys, you did a great job, and we're going to put this report on the shelf and we're going to let it gather dust. none of us agreed with everything in that report but i wish the president had just said, i don't agree with everything in here, but by golly, congress, this is a foundation for y'all to begin to work on and if we had done that, then i think there's a reasonable chance that, with the president really pushing it and providing leadership, that we could have gotten something done. i still think that foundation is there. that's exactly the premise that the gang of six concluded on and they're now only going to be three members of the gang of six left in the senate but hopefully -- and i know how committed those three guys are -- they're going to carry the work on. >> we had questions, including this one, on the lack of action in congress generally. and that is, if gridlock continues in the next few years, do you envision either, one, the

tea party breaking from the republican and becoming an independent party of its own, or, two, moderates from democrat and republican parties getting together to form a new independent party especially since more and more americans are becoming independent. >> people have a right to be frustrated with washington. i'm frustrated with washington. when i got elected in 1995, that's the first political office i'd ever run for since i left law school and i was fortunate enough to get elected but i ran on a platform of term limits. i thought six terms in the house, two terms in the senate was plenty so i never envisioned that 20 years later i'd still be in washington.

we haven't done a lot of things -- we haven't addressed a lot of issues that needed to be addressed over the last 20 years but even when we did, we would make a decision that something ought to be done and then it would take two, three or four years to actually get it done. that's a frustration to me. and it's one of the reasons that led me to the decision not to run again. i particularly became frustrated over this fiscal issue. mark and dick durbin and kent conrad and mike crapo and tom coburn and i spent hours and hours and hours together and our staffs spent more time than that together looking at this issue of the fiscal problems and i say on the stump and i mean it literally, i spent more time with mark warner than i spent with my wife for about a two-year period. but we're concerned about this

and we know what the answer is. and when we presented the answer to a group of senators one morning in july of 2011, there was not just general acceptance that this is the direction in which we go, but there was general agreement that this is the direction in which we ought to go. and then we were frustrated by some outside interests who don't want to see entitlement reform. we were frustrated by outside groups coming in and saying when you talk about raising revenues, you're talking about raising taxes and we're never going to do that. that's not right. you don't have to raise taxes and you're not going to eliminate medicare, social security, those valuable programs we all depending on. we're just going to make sure they're here for the next generation and if we don't do

that, they're simply not going to be here so all of us as members of the gang of six and then mike bennet and mike gillians joined us later to make it eight of us. all of us shared that frustration with congress and the inaction of congress that members have that people have out there now. i don't think the tea party is going to do anything but continue to support conservative candidates. listen, i get sideways with them every now and then. but i believe basically in what they believe in. they're good, hard core american values. but, you know, we've had ups and downs in the political world in this country for in excess of 200 years and if we had c-span or cable tv back jefferson and adams ran against each other, you wouldn't believe the nasty ads they would have run against each other. >> why do you think, when you talk about these fiscal issues

like the prospect of this interest that we're paying on the debt of $200 billion plus a year and what even a modest rise in interest rates can mean, why don't you think -- why is that not resonating with the public in a way that would overwhelm these interest groups that are trying to -- from right and left -- who are trying to prevent reforms? >> i think the problem right now is that we're seeing the economy improve a little bit. i say a little bit. it's a very dad gum little bit. but there is hope out there and i think people sense that and we've got so many other things going on. golly, it's hard to believe that it's been a couple of years now since we lost an ambassador in benghazi. that was front page news for so long. then you had the -- the situation in the ukraine. that was front page for several

days. we got the situation in syria, that's been front page. you got the situation in iraq that's now front page. this world is just so complex right now, that it seems like one crisis after another develops and then the previous crisis goes to the back burner but this is one crisis that's not going away. and people are going to feel it more and more when they write their check on april 15. and i think people are going to become more and more upset about the inaction on the part of congress to address what mike mullin has continually said is the number one issue, and he's right, from a national security standpoint, that it's our debt. so we're going to continue to talk about it and hopefully keep it at the profile it needs to be. >> maybe it's amazing that we get this next question considering the crises that you

laid out here domestically and abroad and the frustration at getting something done. what advice would you give for students interested in running for elected office some day? >> i cite my own example as a pretty good scenario. number one, i graduated from law school and i didn't have the luxury that my son had when he graduated from college. he said, dad, i'd like to take a trip to europe. i had to go to work. and i moved with my wife to small town in south georgia and we began our life in our community. i got involved in the community. you naturally get involved in politics. you got good friends that run for public office whether it's city council, school board, congress, whatever. you need to support those individuals but you just need to be an average, ordinary american from the standpoint of raising your family, making the

commitment to your church or your civic clubs or whatever your interests are, and when it comes time for you to get involved in politics, you'll know it. you'll particularly know when it's time for you to get involved from a candidate standpoint. i had a group of individuals who came to me after the re-districting process took place in 1992 and asked me to think about running for congress. as you say, i'd never run for public office before and i came home and told my wife that i was thinking about running for congress. she thought i was nuts. and i remember after i made the decision, i was at a fundraiser one time and my daughter was there and she was, gosh, in college then, i guess, and i happen to overhear her talking to one of her friends and her friend said, why in the world

did your dad decide to do this? my daughter said, the only thing i can figure is he's going through a mid life crisis and this is his response to it. but i felt a strong commitment to do something for my country. i was dissatisfied and frustrated just like folks are today and that's why i got involved from the standpoint of running for public office and i would just encourage young people to go out into the world and work hard, do everything you can to support your family, support your community, support your churches and get involved in politics. get involved in -- whether it's local or national politics and if it's meant for you to run for office, you'll know it. >> unfortunately, with as many questions as we have, we only have time for one more. so i'll make it a softball for you, senator. who's going to be the republican nominee for president in 2016? >> it's not going to be me.

you know, who knows. it's going to be wide open. i've got lots of good friends who certainly got it under consideration right now. we've got lots of good republican governors around the country, lots of good former republican governors around the country who would make excellent candidates. i've got one that lives south of me in florida that his family is a good friend. whether the country would go for another bush, i don't know. but he's an example of the quality of candidates who we've got. john kasich in ohio, scott walker in wisconsin. chris christie in new jersey. i served with rand paul and a number of other folks like john thune who are certainly giving consideration to it. these are all really, really great men, all men who are committed to what's best for

america and i think at the end of the day it will be a slugfest but the right person will come out and i look forward to campaigning for him in 2016. >> thank you very much, senator. saxby chambliss, retiring u.s. senator from georgia. also want to thank our audience here and on radio, television and the internet. i'm john diaz and this meeting of the commonwealth club of california, the place where you are in the know, is adjourned. \[captions performed by national captioning institute] \[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> more live coverage coming up in just under 10 minutes -- a discussion on two cases making their way through the federal courts, challenging health care subsidies and the affordable care act. that is hosted by the cato institute live at noon here on c-span. later, a discussion of an executive order issued by president obama in 2012 that provides temporary protection deportation. this is a discussion hosted by the feud charitable trust live at 2:00 p.m. eastern. senators john mccain and lindsey graham evans -- have issued a joint statement expressing the support of a new premise or in is pastle saying it time for president obama to develop a comprehensive strategy to combat the threat posted by isis while humanitarian aid aren't important first up, they should be accompanied by additional steps to degrade

capabilities the associated press is saying in armed drone has destroyed an islamic terrorist position in iraq. they say they were firing on members of the kurdish militia defending civilians. we spoke with a reporters on u.s. -- we spoke with a reporter on u.s. efforts in iraq. but maybe we can clear some of this up right now. mccain is a joining us on the phone to talk about the iraqi president naming a new prime minister. who is this new prime minister? interestingly, he is a member of the same party as nouri melekeok -- nouri

al-maliki, but he is less sectarian and has a bit more of an international view. the hope is that he will be more conciliatory, but it is not clear how we might proceed as a leader. he certainly has a difficult task ahead in forming a cabinet and completing the task of forming a new government. it is not clear how he will proceed as a leader, but u.s. officials have said on numerous occasions that they have reviewed all of those choices as .etter than nouri al-maliki what was the reaction from the current, sitting prime minister, nuri al-maliki? it has been interesting. nordion malik you went on

television to declare that he is going to retain patter. the next day, the president of iraq declared haider al-abadi the next prime minister and afterwards nuri al-maliki went back on television to give another defiant speech to say that what happened has no value and he has threatened legal action and threatened to use special forces to defend his flame on being prime minister. at this point it is setting up a political showdown with two different people claiming they are going to be the next prime minister of iraq. host: why is it that this threat of force poses a real challenge for the united states? that is certainly a wildcard where it is not clear when he will do. is there going to be a coup?

will he try to use the military to hang onto power? this obviously comes against the backdrop of islamic state militants continuing to advance in the north. this kind of adds to the chaos and uncertainty of the country. there are certainly a lot of people urging malik you to step aside quietly and, at this point, he is showing no signs of doing that. so, if this new prime minister is going to take control, he has to get the sunnis to come on board. does that look doable at this point? it certainly appears to be a challenge. it is not a given that he will be able to accomplish this, but he has 30 days to form a new cabinet and try to unite some of the divisions in the country. to atere is a willingness

least give him a chance, but it is not clear that everyone will come on board. it is certainly not clear what will happen when you have two people claiming to be prime minister at the same time. as obama said yesterday, this is a promising step, but there is still a lot of work to do, forming a cabinet is a difficult task. so, this is just the start of what will be a tough process. host: let's listen to what the president had to say. this is from his vacation in martha's vineyard and his reaction to the situation in iraq. [video clip] >> today they took a promising step or word. last month they named the new president. today the new president named a new prime minister designate, dr. haider al-abadi. an important step towards

forming a new government that can unite the different communities in iraq. earlier today the vice president and i called the doctor to congratulate him and urge them to form a new cabinet as quickly as possible, one that is inclusive of all and represents all. i pledged our support to him and to the president and speaker as they work together to form this government and meanwhile i urge all iraqi political leaders to work peacefully to the process is the days ahead. that was president obama from martha's vineyard, where he is vacationing. joining us on the phone, "the wall street journal's" colleen mccain nelson. administration on the military side trying to fight back isis and help out with the kurds.

the headline this morning in "the wall street journal" is "iraqi leaders clashing over , limits the airstrikes hinder u.s. policy." what else is this administration considering usher and mark considering?ge -- caller: a range of options. the airstrikes have had a modest impact, but they certainly have not completely slowed the momentum of the islamic state. the administration has begun considering what else might be an option. at this point we have learned that the cia has begun at this point, we have learned that the cia has begun arming direct military aid to the kurds and small arms to the kurdish fighters.