other something ever the day and something every twice to make sure i didn't miss represented to you. there was a rather revealing article in the press sometime in the last couple of weeks about a speech the senate republican leader who wants to be majority leader by getting you to erase all our candidates from congress and our candidate for the senate and see only the people that they are allegedly clones of taking orders from. it was senator mitch mcconnell's speech to the koch brothers

political forum supposedly in secret. again, this was highly informal and informative. so mcconnell first of all said when he became majority leader, he wanted them to know that they would begin by using the budget to take over the government because the budget is the only thing that you can't filibuster. it takes majority vote. so they were going to put an amendment on every budget of every department to get rid of anything that had been done since president obama had been in office or before they didn't like and if he vetoed it they would shut the government down over and over again this. it is not an allegation. he was bragging on this like he was einstein discovering the theory of relativity. he found the secret to permanent gridlock. oh happy day. what i found even more important and revealing was at the end senator mcconnell said according to the transcript released from the meeting that the worst day in his 30 year political life was the day that the mccain bill was signed into law. now for those of you who don't remember it because the supreme court has gutted its impact.

it was a bipartisan bill designed to limit campaign contributions in size and to eliminate insofar as possible secrecy in campaign contributions so we'd have to fess up and if somebody was trying to get to us, we'd know who was paying for it. how could you think that's the worst thing that happened? only if you thought the best thing that happened was if the koch brothers could run black bag operations in every country and spend all this money driving people crazy and getting them to stop thinking and never be found out. i thought some of my friends were mad at senator mcconnell. i was profoundly sad. when i look back on my life in politics, after all those decades and fights and all those

campaigns, if the worst thing that ever happened to me was an attempt to limit black bag campaign contributions. what about 9/11? what about the financial meltdown? what about the farm crisis in the 1970's and what about the middle of the country's manufacturing base hollowing out in the 1980's? and what about in his native kentucky 70% of the coal miners losing their job before the e.p.a. said a word with no way to put them back to work in other ways? how could you possibly say the worst thing that happened to you was not being able to black bag unlimited amounts of money. in politics when all of these things have happened to americans? one thing i know, everybody up here will be just like tom harkin was in one respect. they will be in this for you when you need it. they may make mistakes.

they may do things you don't agree with. but you will not have to worry that if you elect them 30 years from now they will actually stand up with a straight face before a bunch of rich donors and say the saddest day of my life was when i couldn't take it all from you and keep it a secret. [applause] so remember this is way more than just what everybody said. we are going to define the terms in which we will relate to each other and relate to the rest of the world. you can't get a divorce from the rest of the world or the rest of your neighbors around the corner and across the country. we are interdependent. we are in this together. are we going to build the future together or play a winner take

all? is it going to be conflict or cooperation? you know what it ought to be. you know what you ought to do to honor the harkin legacy and that is to elect bruce and all these congressional candidates. thank you and god bless you all. [applause] >>, on here everybody. come on, guys. alright. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> ♪

>> the conversation on the midterm elections and issues of the day with rob portman. that, a discussion on israel's missile defense program. former president bill clinton and former secretary of state hillary clinton speak at the harkin's steak fry. >> tomorrow, the center for international security will host a discussion on leaders of europe. he will discuss of the recent nato summit and operations involving the crisis in ukraine. the general is the head of the u.s.-european command.

coverage a source at 11:00 a.m. on c-span. >> on thursday, ohio senator rob portman to discuss a wide range of topics with political reports at the christian science monitor breakfast series. the isis strategy, the midterm elections, conflicts and the possibility of a portman 2016 presidential run. this is just under one hour.

>> ok, here we go, folks. thanks for coming. i am dave cook from "the monitor." our guest this morning is senator rob portman of ohio, vice chairman for finance of the national republican senatorial committee. this is his first visit with our group. our guest was born and raised in cincinnati. he earned his bachelor's degree at dartmouth. he earned a law degree from the university of michigan. he worked in the elder president bush's white house as head of the office of legislative

affairs. in 1993, he ran for a vacant congressional seat and served in the house from 1994 to 2004. in 2005, president george w. bush named him as u.s. trade representative and appointed him as director of the office of management and budget. in 2010, he was elected to the senate. he and his wife have three grown children. thus endeth the biographical portion of the program. we are on the record. please, no live blogging or tweeting. give us time to actually listen to what our guest says. to help you curb that relentless selfie urge, we will e-mail several pictures of the session as soon as the breakfast ends. if you would like to ask a question, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal. raised eyebrow, finger wave, what have you.

we are going to start off by offering our guest the opportunity to make some opening comments. thanks again for doing this, sir. >> thank you, dave. this is a great turnout. i see you all have your reading material in front of you. thank you for memorizing this. i will talk about this plan for action, not just a way to explain to people why it is important to elect republicans but it is a blueprint for governing. i would like to start by saying, here we are, 13 years after 9/11. although some of us may not remember what we were doing yesterday, i think everybody remembers exactly where they were 13 years ago. the nation was riveted by the attacks on the world trade center. the fight against terrorism began in earnest, and here we

are 13 years later with the president giving a speech about fighting terrorism. this is a determined and obstinate enemy that continues to threaten our country. i believe there is a national security threat in what isis is doing in iraq and syria. they are attempting to establish a form not just to terrorize that part of the world, but to attack the west. i think we can learn a number of lessons from it. one is that we are blessed to have the greatest military on the face of the earth. although we have made many sacrifices in the last 13 years, our military and intelligence is second to none. i thank god. dave and i were talking coming in. dave is a veteran and has two sons who currently serve. i appreciate them and him.

i think we have to count our blessings that we have the ability to respond as the president talked about last night. keep in mind the need for us to continue to have the strongest military on earth to not just protect us, but to ensure we have peace and stability around the world. i believe the president's speech last night laid out a strategy for dealing with the isis threat in a general way, and that was good. i think it was tardy, but i believe what the president laid out in terms of his four points, including continued military activity in the region, air assaults, is appropriate. the president made it clear that we have not had the kind of

leadership that is necessary by saying on the outset of his speech, one, taking credit for leaving iraq in total, saying that we had no more combat troops in iraq and taking credit for that. it was ironic to me that he said that because i think the vacuum that was left by the way in which we chose to leave iraq is much of the problem we currently see. i think by not leaving a residual force, specifically trainers to keep the maliki government in check and have some leverage on them, not to have intelligence on the ground to monitor what was going on, including the movement of isis fighters, and, third, to have some special operators to work with the iraqi forces to deal with that kind of threat is the reason we are in the situation

we are in. second, the president made it clear in his speech before he started talking about terrorism threat that he is proud of the fact that we are ending the combat mission in afghanistan this year. again, i think we are not learning the lessons of iraq by setting an arbitrary timeline for afghanistan. again, attesting to not just our enemies, but our allies, that the united states is not in this for the long haul. whether it is in iraq where we have seen chaos, or potentially in afghanistan where this could happen as well, i think we need to let those around the world know -- again, both our enemies, the terrorist groups that are listening carefully, but also our allies -- that the united states is in this for the long haul. it has been 13 years since the 9/11 attacks.

many of us would like to think we solved the problem. i think the president has succumbed to the political temptation to do that repeatedly. again, last night in his speech, which i support what he laid out, i think congress ought to respond appropriately and provide him the funding that he has asked for with regard to training forces in syria to help us carry out the necessary counterterrorism activity against isis there, but what i don't support is this continued reluctance on behalf of our commander in chief to let the world know that the united states can be depended on and we will be there for the long haul and will not allow 13 years after 9/11 for those kinds of horrific attacks to happen again. i think we need to learn from our mistakes and apply those to

afghanistan and around the world. on the home front, america is only strong globally when we are strong at home. even if that weren't the case, one reason i brought this plan with us is that i am -- >> i hear you take it with you everywhere, sir. >> i apparently do. i do think we are in a situation now where we have a leadership deficit both abroad and at home. there are certain things we can and should be doing to deal with the weakest economic recovery since the great depression. if you look at the job numbers last month, another disappointing month. yes, the unemployment numbers ticked down because more people left the workforce altogether. we had the so-called labor force participation rate actually go down to the point that among men and women combined, we are probably at the level we were during the incredibly weak

economic period in the carter administration in the 1970's. among men, it probably goes back to the 1940's. we have the lowest participation rate we have had since the 1940's when we started keeping track of these statistics. median income is down. health care costs obviously are up, as is the price at the pump. people's net worth is down considerably. if you look at the period from ronald reagan until 2007, we had a steady increase in income, even taking into account an inflation rate that is not accurate, about an 18% increase in income, now we have had an actual loss of income and net worth. so when i am back in ohio, what

i find is that what the president said last night, which is basically we are out of the woods, things are getting better, he talked about this unparalleled period of job creation, that is not what i hear and that is not what i see. in fact, i see a lot of people who are hurting. i see people who are very worried, uncertain about the future. i will acknowledge that i looked at the polls in august. the poll i've found that was most troubling and interesting was the wall street journal poll about how people feel about the future. it asked the american people, do you think the next generation is going to be better off? the answer was a resounding no. 77% of americans said no. that is unprecedented. these numbers have never been seen before. >> this is the point in the program where i earn my salary

by saying, if you could bring your opening to a close, then we will go to questions. if they don't get questions, they will march on me with torches. >> i would hate to see that. let me conclude by saying i think we are suffering from a leadership deficit abroad and at home. in terms of leadership at home, i think there is a way forward here. our future can be very bright and it requires republicans and democrats alike to find common ground on issues where there is a consensus. we know we need to deal with the debt, which is at record levels. we know we need to give our economy a shot in the arm by doing the tax reform the president talked about. we have to deal with our regulatory system and provide regulatory relief which we can and should do. we know our energy opportunities are great.

the numbers would be far worse if not for the growth in the private sector. there is so much more we can do. that includes the keystone pipeline, but also energy efficiency. expanding trade is another area. i would tell you not to have the ability to negotiate has hobbled our economy. it has not enabled us to expand exports. we have the opportunity by doing some of these simple things to get the economy moving again and do what john f. kennedy talked about, which is rising the tide. a rising tide lifts all boats, he said. that is the necessary, not sufficient, but the necessary action we should be taking as a country. i am ultimately optimistic and i think having a republican majority helps make that happen, for the simple reason that this town is dysfunctional.

we are not doing things we should be doing. by getting a republican majority, i believe it would get the president to the table on some of these issues. i think that can happen. we will talk more about the specific races, if you like. if it does happen, the next few years can be productive. i may sound naive. i look at what has happened over the years when we have divided government. that is when we have done tax reform, entitlement reform, helped to move the economy forward. we have a desperate need for that right now. a need for leadership. that requires both sides to come together and do what is best for the american people. >> catherine, alex, paul, and burgess to start. a politico story yesterday noted

that republicans in a number of races, including kentucky and iowa, are seizing on what they call the obama administration's feckless response to islamic state militants. their argument is that obama is disengaged. how did last night's speech in your view change the effectiveness of that line of attack? how do you sense the change in the battle for control of the senate? >> first, i think the speech last night laid out a general

strategy that i hope most republicans will support. i think it is right. we need to be more aggressive. we were in a much more difficult situation because of this vacuum of leadership that we talked about. but we are where we are. i think it is appropriate that the president laid out a strategy to deal with the isis threat in iraq and syria. i don't think this is a political issue. i understand the connection with the states where there is a senate campaign and people have different takes on it in terms of the political implications of last night's speech. this is about our national security. someone once said famously, partnership ends up the water's edge. i think america is in trouble abroad. with ukraine and russia, i think the same is true in the south china sea. i think the same is true in

other parts of the middle east, including gaza and israel and with regard to iran and their march toward a nuclear weapon. we need to show more leadership. i hope last night's speech begins the process of getting america back on track. the president, based on remarks last night, continues to hope it will go away. hope is not a strategy. we need to engage more aggressively. and the president took some of those steps last night. >> earlier this week, it was written that they were expecting a sizable republican wing. charlie cook offers a different view. he says there doesn't appear to be an overwhelming republican tide. another said the democrats could well lose the senate even without such a wave. which senate race keeps you up most at night? is it our friend in kansas where you recently dispatched two top aides to work on it? what keeps you up at night? >> first, none of the races keep me up at night.

i am kept up at night by other issues, including the lack of leadership abroad and my worry about what that means. i was in ukraine a few months ago with the elections there. one thing that keeps me up at night is the fact that the united states is allowing the ukrainian people to have to engage in a fight with a much stronger military, russia, without providing them the weapons they need. i am kept up by the fact that this economy continues to be incredibly weak despite there are things we can do to get it moving again. to get back to your question, i think 50 days is a lifetime in politics, so things could in terms of the senate races. charlie cook said the bad news is that republicans could win without a wave.

i don't know if that is bad news. but i think it is too close to call. i believe there are three states where both republicans are seemingly doing very well, double-digit leads in the polls, and that would be that would be west virginia, south dakota and montana. there are probably seven states where it is too close to call. republicans would need gains in order to get the majority. i don't think any republican seats are in great danger. i think mitch mcconnell is doing well in kentucky. i live in greater northern kentucky, in cincinnati. i get a lot of those ads at home. i think mitch is going to be fine. i think in georgia, we are doing well. it is trending in the right direction. it comes down to those handful of states.

it is simply going to depend on what happens here in the next 50 days or so. >> catherine? >> will the nrfc contribute money to state senator jim oberweis' campaign against dick durbin? >> i don't know what the decision will be there. i have been told that that race is close somewhat. it is a single-digit race. i don't know enough about it. >> [indiscernible] >> i don't know. frankly, the playing field is already very broad. i don't think people would expect that we would be talking about minnesota, new hampshire, virginia, and oregon, but we are. the playing field is already quite broad. >> alex? >> you guys take over the majority, one of the first

things you have to do is craft the budget. you are on the budget committee. what will the budget look like? you have to get ted cruz to vote for it, possibly. will it be like the ryan budget? if not, what are the key differences going to be? >> it is a great question. if we get 55 or 57 republicans, we won't need ted and susan. just kidding. you have to assume it is going to be a narrow majority and we need to pull together to make sure we do pass a budget. it is unbelievable to me that we do not have a budget in the house and senate for the last several years. i have been back in congress now for three years. i was vice chair of the house budget committee. i put together my own budget for an administration. it is amazing to me that we continue to move forward without even having the blueprint on spending.

i think it is our responsibility to provide that blueprint for the american people. they need to know what direction our country is heading in. how much you tax and spend is critical to that. i think some folks around this table have not given enough attention to that issue. >> do you think there would be some key differences? >> there would be some differences, but in general where republicans want to head is toward a balanced budget over time. in a budget, you can have what is called reconciliation instructions. if you can pass a budget in the house and senate, which i am confident that we will be able to do, although it is a challenge, you can have these reconciliation instructions that provide for something on the revenue side, which could lead to tax reform, something on the spending side, which could lead to some of the necessary changes to our incredibly important

programs, and it can also deal with the debt. those can be done not with 60 votes in the senate that with 51 votes as we saw with president obama pushing obamacare through the senate with 51 votes. this is a significant part of, should we get the majority, what we ought to be doing. it is included in here. i do think this is part of leadership. i am amazed again at the substantial five-vote majority that the democrats didn't even try to do a budget this year. when they did do one, it was a strictly partisan exercise that had no opportunity to be reconciled with the house budget. i think this will be one of our challenges when we get the majority, one that we should embrace. we should move forward with a budget that provides that blueprint.

>> paul singer and others. >> senator, over the next week or so, what votes do you expect the senate and congress to take on the isis threat, and what votes do you feel will be difficult to take? we are asking people going into election to vote essentially for a new war. >> i don't consider it a new war. i consider it a continuation of something that began 13 years ago. that is part of the point i tried to make earlier. the president may wish it away, but this threat continues. to compare what is going on with isis in iraq and syria to what is going on in somalia or yemen also misses the point. the president also continues to take great pains to describe what he is not going to do, including telling our allies and telegraphing to our enemies that there will not be u.s. troops on the ground, even though he

authorized an additional 475 troops in iraq last night. i don't think it is about a new effort. as i have said to others around this table, i believe the president has the authority to act in iraq against isis. when he begins to execute the plan in syria, he should come to congress. i think that would be smart. congress will have a debate on this that enables the american people to have more buy-in into what the president is proposing. that would be helpful. >> [indiscernible] >> i think it would be smart for the president to ask for that. last night he said he didn't believe he needed the authority. if congress passed a resolution, it would make sense. the other thing that makes me

concerned about the president's speech last night is that by comparing what is going on in yemen or somalia to iraq and syria and by suggesting that he is very proud of the fact that we have pulled out of iraq altogether, he may be underestimating the threat. i think this is, as i said earlier, a very real national security threat to the united states of america. it is a humanitarian crisis as well. i also hope this won't be the last speech the president gives on it. one thing i think is apparent to a lot of you around the table is that during the obama administration there was very little talk about what was going on even as our troops were engaged in iraq and afghanistan. the president rarely talked about it. i think that is a problem. i think what people around the world are looking for are allies who are looking to ensure we have the tenacity and the resolve to be able to finish

this task, and our enemies who are looking for weakness, they want to know that we have a focus here. this won't be just another speech. a speech is not a strategy. >> moving on something that is not a speech in a few days? >> i don't think we will vote in a few days. it seems as though harry reid wants to focus on political votes that he knows has no chance of passage in the senate. we are doing that again today. we will be voting on a constitutional amendment on campaign finance and the so-called paycheck fairness act without offering any amendments. this is the first time i have been told there is a proposal to amend the constitution without offering any amendments on the floor of the senate. that is what we will be doing in the senate.

at some point, i hope we will bring up this issue and have a resolution with regard to the use of force, and i hope we will be able to have this debate so that the american people can be more engaged and we have an honest discussion about the difficulties, the need for difficulties, the need for us to make a commitment to it, and the need for additional funding for our military to accomplish this, specifically with regard to the military getting more training in syria. >> the nrfc i just read had a pretty good august fundraising month. you said that kansas, georgia, and kentucky, you're not worried about the races there. [indiscernible] >> i hope we won't have to. we did have a good august. we exceeded our goals. overall, we are raising record amounts as compared to previous cycles. the democrats are doing very

well at fundraising, too. the president is a terrific fundraiser. he has done 19 advance for the senate campaign committee. so that has helped them to have resources they wouldn't otherwise have. i am hopeful we won't have to spend nrfc resources on those red states i talked about. all states which romney won handily and we have good candidates will be fine. our focus will be more on these states, north carolina, arkansas, louisiana, iowa, michigan, colorado, new hampshire, alaska, i think those are the states where we will look for a majority. >> you said you hoped that a republican majority in the senate could both bring the president to the table and also work to find some common ground.

i would like to ask you to play out what issues you think you would be able to find common ground on. since that would be a great novelty in the past era. secondly, senator mcconnell has been quoted as saying things that make it sound as if he would take a much more confrontational tack and turn a budget resolution into a set of repeals -- it sounds a little less like finding common ground. are you an senator mcconnell in sync on that strategy? >> i don't know precisely what he laid out, but i have talked to him and other members of our leadership team about the need for us to pass a budget, to move forward with legislation that we can find a consensus among republican colleagues and also some democrats. with the exception of these reconciliation ideas, 50 votes would be required in the senate to pass anything.

i don't think anybody is suggesting we will have 60 votes on the republican side. i just need to check to see if the polls have changed this morning. i think we are going to need to work with democrats on many of these issues. i will lay out a simple agenda for the first 50 days. this is not something that is impossible to accomplish. we have already votes on these issues. one would be keystone pipeline. this is one where i believe if we can get the majority, we can get close to getting a veto-proof majority on that issue. i think it makes sense. it should be coupled with other things including the energy efficiency bill that has come to the floor twice now in the senate. parts have already passed the house. it is one we could pass with overwhelming republican and democrat majority. i think this shows we have a balanced and all-of-the-above

energy approach. it won't cover everything. but it will help to move forward this strategy. two would be to give the president what he has asked for with regard to negotiating authority on trade agreements. in my view, there will not be a new trade agreement negotiated whether it is the transpacific partnership or bilateral agreements if the president doesn't have the authority to negotiate under trade promotion. we haven't had this for seven years. we suffered as a result. we are losing market share. it hurts american workers. again, it is one of those issues that does keep me up at night. i worry that we are falling behind. that is something we can do. the president in my view would

sign it. third, i would say, and this is a broader area, but there are some specific measures we passed in the house and the senate has looked at, and that is on the regulatory front. one is a permitting bill that would enable us to move forward in a more logical way with permitting. the house has already passed several of these bills. the commonsense bills like ensuring that independent agencies have to go through a cost-benefit analysis, which is not required now, tightening up the cost-benefit analysis on executive branch agencies. this is something the american economy would react to very favorably.

i think you would see much more certainty. one thing that has been evident in the polling i talked about is this sense of anxiety and uncertainty. the fourth thing is dealing with tax reform. i don't think the president's approach to this will help. he is talking about putting a band-aid on the issue of so-called inversions. that doesn't deal with corporate takeovers, which is going to accelerate in my view. the obvious answer is to fix the code. if we don't do that, we will continue to have american companies taking jobs and investment abroad. and you will continue to see more and more american companies being taken over by foreign companies. again, it is outrageous to me that washington sits back and criticizes while we refuse to act on what is such an obvious disadvantage for american workers, a tax code that is inefficient. we are one of the only developed countries in the world that hasn't reformed our tax code since the 1980's. we owe it to american workers to do this.

i think we can. there is a consensus about lowering the rate and broadening the base. it won't be easy, but there is a consensus about that general approach. the president has said repeatedly, including that it can be done on a revenue-neutral basis. republicans would like to see some tax cuts. i think we understand that revenue neutrality is something we can live with on the business side and that we have an urgent need to address this to avoid more companies leaving our shores and being taken over by foreign companies. those are four things that could happen that i believe would be great for the economy and enable us to move forward on a bipartisan basis, showing the people that washington can work. >> you said earlier that you don't think this is a political issue, referring to the isis debate and the syrian debate. do you believe republicans should stop using this issue in

campaign ads? >> no, i think the issue about leadership is absolutely appropriate to talk about. i think because of that vacuum that has been created, chaos has ensued. that is an issue that is appropriate to talk about. what i am referring to is when the president lays out an approach to attack the isis terrorists that are providing an increased threat to our country, we ought to rally behind the president and provide the means to execute what he talked about last night in terms of the military side of this. >> would you -- do you think this should be a separate vote on authorizing the title x or

are you ok if it is rolled into the c.r.? >> i think it would be ok to roll it into the c.r. and that might be the more practical way to deal with it. with regard to title x, i do believe having the military involved in training in an overt way is the more effective way to proceed. i was over there a year and a half ago or so, i got the opportunity to speak to folks in jordan in the region. my sense was that there was an opportunity with the free syrian army to engage in the kind of training that was necessary to ensure that whatever weapons we provided was going to be properly used. we didn't do it. i think we made a mistake there. we are in worse shape today because of it. i think we need to act on that now.

>> senator, looking at the home stretch of the senatorial elections, what are the known unknowns that we should be keeping an eye on, things that could affect the election? >> oh, gosh, you would have a better sense of that than i would, probably. you sound like a good republican. i like that. i think the most important things in elections is good candidates. i have always believed that. that is why for the first six months i had this job as the national chairman on the fundraising side, i focused more on recruiting and training candidates. i think we have done a good job with that. i think we have the best slate of candidates that i have seen. i think that the lack of any big mistakes on the campaign trail was partly due to the fact that people have been focused on ensuring that we stay on the issues that people care about.

this plan that you have before you is one that i provided to every candidate, not that they all use it, but i think the focus on economic and fiscal issues and how to get this economy moving, has been through the isis attacks, through the back and forth on obamacare, the top issue has been and will be how to create more opportunity and get at this sense of anxiety and uncertainty that american people feel about their kids. that is why i suspect we are going to do well in the next 50 days. >> [indiscernible] >> what happens in terms of the economy is always an x factor, but i think it is very unlikely you will see the significant improvements in our economy that all of us would love to see over the short term.

i would say that the jobs numbers we just got, 142,000 jobs and an unemployment rate that ticked down 0.1% only because people have left the workforce, the fact that there have been since the recession 3 million full-time jobs created -- 3 million full-time jobs lost and 3 million part-time jobs created, more part-time work is a huge concern. when you look at these numbers of people who have left the workforce altogether, it is creating more and more dependency. these are the issues that people are worried about. i don't think the campaigns in every one of these states is going to be affected by what happens in the broader economy

because i think much of it is locked in. >> you said that the president would be smart to ask for additional authorizations, but he has said he is not going to ask, and there doesn't seem to be a huge appetite among your colleagues to proceed on their own. is anything going to happen in terms of additional authorization? if nothing happens, what do you think the consequences of that are for the way our system handles these issues? >> it is a good question. i do think authorization to use military force on this issue is appropriate and necessary. i don't think the president needs additional authority to do what he has done, will continue to do in iraq, but i think it would be smart for him to come to congress with regard to the

expanded efforts in syria. as you know, ruth, this is always a controversial and gray area in terms of the war powers act and what it requires and what the constitutional responsibilities are. i am one who believes the commander in chief role enables the president to react to imminent threats. i think the two issues you need to look at our how immediate the threat is, and i think the isis threat was something he needed to respond to without seeking authorization, in iraq, and second is the scope. there is already in place enough authorization from previous actions in iraq that the scope was not significantly expanded. so i am fine with what he has done so far. with regard to syria, i think it would be smart for him to come

to congress. >> if he does not, what should happen? >> congress should act on its own. >> do you see that happening? >> i think it is possible that could happen next week. i think next week it is possible. the house has put off continuing resolutions until next week to consider this as a possibility. specifically, on this issue of authorizing our military to engage in training -- >> how troubled would you be if there is not authorization? if he is going to do what he is going to do in syria, if he doesn't ask and congress doesn't act to authorize it, how big of a problem is that? >> i think it would be better if he did. i understand this is a gray area. the president has certain inherent powers that we should respect. he is asking for a specific military involvement and training.

under the law, that is something congress should authorize. >> senator, you said it was unbelievable the president hasn't done something to help ukraine with arms. what would you do? can you see a republican senate acting on that? ed gillespie seems dead in the water, has only gained one point in virginia since january, and is losing by 22 points to mark warner. why do you even throw that in to the states hopeful? >> with regard to ukraine, i am in disbelief that we are not doing more to help. i don't get it. i don't think america can be the world's policeman, but i think america has to play the leadership role, more like a sheriff where you get a posse with you, and the posse is there. and it is the nato allies.

it is the countries of europe who are not part of nato who and our allies. the election i went to observe was all about that. it was about looking to the west rather than russia, both economically and in terms of an eventual military alliance. they have stood with us and it seems to me we are not standing with them. they have asked for the ability to defend themselves. they are looking for antiaircraft weaponry, antitank weaponry. they are looking for more heavy weapons and communications equipment, things as simple as bullet-proof vests. we have promised some of that. we have not provided the weapons that they need. they have asked for it repeatedly. ronald reagan's famous peace through strength principle continues to hold true.

it is more likely that putin will not continue this aggression on the eastern border of ukraine as he did in crimea already if he knows there is going to be some reaction. a lot of speeches and hot air from conferences in europe and presidential speeches means nothing to him. what would mean something is if we acted. so i think we should be more aggressive in ukraine. i think we should move nato troops to the positions in poland, romania, and elsewhere, as has been requested. i think we need to move these forces closer to the border. that shouldn't be viewed as a threat. it should be viewed as a safeguard. i like the idea of nato coming up with a rapid response force. they are talking about 4000 troops. i think that is too small. remember the russians have amassed on the border at certain times up to 40,000 troops in ukraine alone.

i think we need to stand up and be counted. otherwise, you will continue to see unbelievable encroachment on a sovereign country's territory by russia. this is the first time since world war ii we have seen this. they walked in and took crimea and no one talks about it. i have attempted to get the senate on record on this. we have to push the administration to be more aggressive. again, it is not about creating a bitter conflict. it is about reducing the possibility of a regional conflict that could spread into a global conflict by showing the russians that the west will respond. i mentioned a vacuum of leadership earlier. this is a great example of it. in terms of these races around the country, including virginia, acknowledging that there are plenty of these races where

republicans are ahead now, and i said earlier -- not in virginia, but my point is some of the other races, and i think they are all going to be determined in the next 50 days. i don't think there is anything set yet. it is still in flux. these numbers will go up and down, but i still think -- how much time is left? how many days? 51? i said 50 earlier. i was off. i am hoping it is as few days as possible. 51, 5 hours, 13 minutes, and 10 seconds, and that is a lifetime in politics. things can change. >> what does the republican-run

senate do about obamacare? is full repeal still an option at this stage of the law's maturation? separately, how do you assess your home state's decision to expand medicare at this juncture? >> i don't know what is going to happen on obamacare. i suspect we will put on record repeal and the fact that we republicans think it was a bad policy. we think health care costs should be going down, not up and people should be able to keep the insurance they had. we are worried about the fact that the next shoe to drop is going to the employer coverage. the president has put that off until after the election. about 80%, 85% of us that are not going to be affected. i would support that. i would support repeal. i think we ought to also spend more time on the replacement side of that. the republican approach has never been just repeal.

it has always been let's get rid of this, but replace it with something that does deal with the problem in our health care system. that is the increased costs and the lack of coverage. as you will see, in this plan, the first thing we talk about is what to do on health care. it lays out some specific ideas. >> are you saying a senate republican majority would develop their own health care reform? >> i think we should. i think we should. it is something that ought to go along with the repeal. yes, we think this is the wrong way to go, but we also think that health care system must be improved. particularly now that you see costs escalating higher than anyone projected, including republicans. it has been worse than expected in terms of the cost increases. in my home state of ohio, it is double-digit cost increases.

this is a killer for families and small businesses. and we are looking at the possibility, as you broaden this mandate to include employer-based coverage, to have impact. i am hopeful, as i said earlier, that we can find common ground. one is some aspect of health care. yes, we are for repeal. there are also some specific things where i think the senate and house could act. i think getting rid of the medical device tax, the tax on revenues, is one where i think you could see a 60-vote majority in the senate and may be close to a 2/3 majority. it makes no sense. it is driving jobs offshore. i hear about it a lot. the fact is, when you take it off of revenues, it requires

changing the expense side. that is happening right now. i think that is an area where you could see some consensus. one that i also think was m issed. i know there is an issue regarding the state role versus the federal role. in terms of the federal programs, it is over $50 billion over 10 years. much more than that when you add the private sector. >> [inaudible] >> this is a decision that our state made, the governor and the legislature, and we will see what happens.

my concern has been in that i think these important programs, unsustainable programs on the entitlement side need to be addressed. we have to come up with a way to pay for it. medicaid ands, medicare and social security, are not sustainable in their current form. that some in the other party are talking about expanding these programs at a time when they are already for those who are retiring today, a very real possibility that most of these people would see their benefits sharply reduced. timeframe, there would be a 24% cut in benefits being changed. we seem incapable of dealing with the issue.

i think we need to figure out a entitlementup with to bes that make sense able to ensure that these there forill be future generations. >> we only have about 40 seconds left. we have six people who want to ask questions. , ortold the washington post you are not eager to run for president having watched six campaigns. hampshire trip to new . >> my daughter goes to school up there. part of my heart is in new hampshire. i am focused on 2014 and on doing my job as a senator. said ine election, as i , i will take a look

at it. click thank you -- >> thank you for doing this. >> take care. >> next, a discussion on israel's missile defense system. and then bill clinton and hillary clinton speak at the annual -- speak in iowa. after that, >> next, a discussion "q&a." tonight, california talksatic representative about net neutrality and rules governing the internet. >> i spoke publicly about what i thought the fcc should do to be on firmer legal ground and

pointed to title 2. fast forward, we have had discussions about it. this is all about net neutrality. people in our country feel very .trongly about the internet not only how they use it, but how they think about it any access to it and that it be free and open. no isp or anyone should be able to interfere with that. on c-span 2. 8:00 from friday, former director of the israeli missile defense office, uzi rubin, talked about the israeli-palestinian conflict. from friday, former director of the israeli missile defense he spoke at a breakfast seminar in washington organized by the air force association in

conjunction with the reserve officers association and the national defense industrial association. this is just over an hour. morning. . want to thank you with the vice-chairman of strategic command. we will also have scheduled the sa and he will mn

be speaking to us in october. continues onies the 19th of this month. are a member of the house armed services committee and the space committee and he will be joined by a high-ranking air force official. on the 18th of this month, we have a triad event in washington at the army navy club. i have 200 guests with 185 seats. way, onhave -- by the majorth, every single nuclear command will be represented by a speaker.

i want to thank our friends from denmark, israel, hungary, for being here today. one of our sponsors from aipac, heritage foundation, my dear friend, professor curtis from the naval academy in annapolis, my sponsors from boeing and aerojet, and congressional staff. thank you to all of our military folks who are here today who give us so much. thank you to the marshall fillinge, here today this event. i also want to reach out and say thank you for c-span, they will be broadcasting this event. without anything further, i hope those of you interested in our breakfast will let us know your

attending. please give a warm welcome to my dear friend from israel, uzi rubin. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. inays a pleasure to be here this magnificent venue. i was scheduled to be here two months ago, but then tar started and i thought it better to postpone it. i wanted to give you some kind of summary. -- i am not so sure they are over, but it is a good time to sit down. the 2014 2014 gaza war. i am not sure it is over.

i talk about the threats on the background. it is very technical, so i will skip a lot of it. side.s of the other the achievement of the iron dome. i will not forget our critics that explained that the iron dome does not work. that all theess material you see here is based in public domain. i am not using any confidential information here and i will gladly answer questions, but

based on open source material. all of the views and materials -- all the views and opinions are my own. my opinions are controversial in israel. islamic jihad and the mustang broke the cease-fire -- and hamas broke the cease-fire. the reasons for that are controversial, a discussion why they broke it. one school of thought, a chain of events. thater school of thought it was deliberately planned by the gaza factions. in operation to stop the rocket

politicallitary or means. hamas declared war. -- he demanded the lift of , opening allgaza of the border crossings. those demands are couched .martly if you go down to what they mean it would open borders for the rest of the world.

without any obligation to any with with israel -- peace israel. with this distance between the positions, successive cease-fires did not hold out. egypt brokered a onse-fire that took hold august 26. on.s still holding discussion about whether it will continue. let me express that this discussion about engagement come an air campaign, and a ground campaign on both sides.

i am skipping all of this and on israel'srate responses. two charts which look very similar. the left one is israel defense forces. masse -- one is en hamas. this is palestine, not israel. israel does not exist here. if you look at the medium-rangen, 20-40.

it is completely different in american terms. the city of gaza to one of the main cities of israel is exactly the distance from dallas airport to where we are right now. .hat is in israel, medium-range everything is microscopic scale. long-range is something that kilometers.aviv, 70 about 160 is kilometers. those are the classifications. let me go over the type of rockets. libya are fromn gaddafi. rockets -- the

homemade rockets are cooked in the gaza kitchen. they are made with drainage pipes or irrigation pipes. self-propelled shells, thousands of them. picture is in iraq. they have all of those types. what happened in the last year hadhamas established as you -- a jihad. when you go into longer-range rockets, you need real stuff, real chemicals.

pipes made ofgs, high-grade steel, explosives. you need the experts to know how to make it. task.a highly complicated you need the machinery. it was the highway, and underground highway. everything could be imported into gaza. factories. the the need to smuggle rockets.

this is the lower profile elements to be smuggled in. much easier than the whole rocket. they established this industry. --hamas had asts cool off period. let's go on. , they'renge rockets

making rockets of this type. the rocket, the main piece of kilometer rocket that can reach tel aviv. five inch pipes. you are talking about the same stuff, a variation of the same stuff. from our point of view, it it is about the same. arerockets and launchers

inside gaza. a quite sophisticated launcher that was displayed last year. it is quite an elaborate piece of machinery. they put the inscription in hebrew. so that we would understand what it is. folded sheet metal to support the missile. remember that because we will see it later on again.

it could reach tel aviv and beyond tel aviv. they had a large number of them, defensive shields, they were mostly taken out before the fighting started. some of them remained. they have a very large warheads. the mystery of the 160 kilometer -- locally made in syria. a locally made chinese rocket.

only one in the world with this particular caliber. iran.orted to from there it was loaded on the ship and the ship went to iraq. it was loaded on the rocket to hide it. a little before sudan. they were taken. the containers contained -- the rockets can go 160 kilometers.

there is another possibility. fellf those rockets somewhere between tel aviv and haifa. another possibility, an attempt to make their own long-range rockets. the numbers are very low. they say they fired 11 of them and we recorded only four of them. it looks more like a locally made attempt. estimated,ies

distribution between other oo.ups, t all of them brandishing weapons and rockets. you can see the short range, medium-range, and long-range. .he one that can reach tel aviv rockets,r about 9000 40% manufactured in gaza. this is a very significant development. if you can find the factory and -- bomb them, it is hard this arsenal was at the disposal

of the organization when the fighting started in july. a number of launches every day of rockets and mortar bombs. down and explodes -- anything that falls down and explodes. the numbers are interesting. the highest number is still awer than the largest number year and a half ago. a year and a half ago, they managed to fire almost 300 rockets and mortar bombs. this time, for some reason, it was lower. down in time until the first cease-fire.

and then there was a period of cease-fires. there is a days of complete cease-fire. the fighting breaks out again. edge 1 and protect edge 2.2 -- protective two thirds of everything was rockets and one third more tears. -- mortars. i will talk about that when i talk about policy. the numbers, take them with a pinch of salt. the data it is very confused, several sources with different numbers. thing.ebanon, the same you see differences.

it depends who recorded and what it recorded. a lot of them did not reach israel. believe.he number i rockets intercepted. number of fatalities. we lost 71 people. in the second lebanon war, we have wondered 61 people killed -- 161 people killed. the numbers killed from rockets came down. pattern and here is the map of the communities and

city. the numbers are very impressive. the brunches on the south of israel -- the brunt is on the south of israel. those of the rockets that were aimed at the city. some of them did not fall in the city. haifa hit alarms four times. include the gaza strip itself. the gaza envelope is our name for all of the communities. this is one major city. the rest of the gaza envelope, 25 communities.

.ore than 2200 very hard to say and takes weeks and months to distinguish. one half of the firepower was aimed against communities in the gaza envelope. what was the strategy of hamas? you can guess from their pattern of firing. rocketss firing a few at some outlying immunities. -- communities. they knew we had limited amount of defense and the idea was to spread out. to achieve that, they asked all of the allies in the neighborhoods. palestinian

-- the idea was to spread thin our defenses. threaten the targets in order to -- they fired again and again. it was a great success. they rate it as one of the greatest achievements. they say they fired one of the within range of the medium-range rockets. it was this attempt to demoralize us and hurt our economy.

the maintain -- the main time was prime time in evening. psychological warfare. that was in the beginning. later on they wandered around and stopped it. in the second phase, they shifted the fire. the brunt of the fire went to the gaza envelope. evacuation ofive the population. they used mortar fire against

the nearby communities and fired less towards the hinterland of israel. in the first few days, you could rockets. an obvious attempt to break through the protective screen. by flooding it. they did not succeed. a few days into the campaign, policy.d see the save ammunition. in the second phase of the

one rocket, asaw single rocket. they were saving ammunition. all kinds of strange things. they were running out of the long-range rockets, maybe the medium-range rockets. launchers are eight kilometers by 60 kilometers. that is small territory. we do not have the time to show .ome videos what they did was human

shielding. i think it is a hotel in gaza. the launching site -- look at this. this is from gaza. i am sure our people have all of that ensure of all of the houses so they can identify the number. it is important not to take it out. human shielding was a deliberate policy. i saw the news this morning. made an admission that in some cases, they fired from

within. to say that all of gaza was a population center, so they had to do it. this was the policy that was their strategy. let's speak about what israel did about it. because my main topic is israel's defense, i will speak very shortly about the offensive. it was used quite successfully would affect. this is a neighborhood close to these borders. ,ost the fighting took place every single red dot. we can see every rocket going down and pinpoint where it was fired from.

six launchers, we take them one by one. from the sea we had the navy. a missile fired from the ship, i do not have time to show you. this is another one of those -- captured by is really ground troops. several of the launchers were found taken out. i hope they dug it out and took it back. this is the only thing i will say about the ground operation.

i won't speak about civil defense. we got allowance in my hometown. this is based on published interceptione the took place.

they do not show the size. i have no idea what the size. israel's large meninges, but not all -- large communities, but not all, had defense at their service. the iron dome does not engage every single rocket that comes its way. the israeli air defense command is specific for each target. it goes out in open areas over the sea.

--e batteries scores are published and contradictory. the defensive shield, there was a publication of each population center. you could see how many fired, how many missed. was puncturedn all -- punctual.

people do not realize the psychological and political meaning. here, look at the record 98%. nothing fell in tel aviv except debris. look at the numbers. that does not mean that rocket fire was accurate. it just means it is a big city. very impressive.

way beyond the designers themselves. the major wing of the strategy, the tactics, and rules of engagement. if you take all of the cities, and add them together, it is about 1700. how many rockets -- i arrived to this number. somewhere between 80 and 85. the score is 90%. why is it lower in tel aviv? the closer you are to the source of the fire -- this timeline is shorter.

you shoot down seven rockets out of 10. the top of the score was lower than that of tel aviv. the policy of israel it used to -- this time, most of the signs go up single file. to me, it it was really amazing. the people knew that the iron dome is giving them security. visualook at some

evidence. there was always a target. you can go to youtube and spent action from the last war. do through work we some significant footage. see theent out to sights. i ask my fellow citizens, don't

go there, it's dangerous. you can see the incoming rocket falling down here. some idea about the for all city of the firing -- ferocity of the firing.

by one of the folks with a smartphone, which i think should not be done. [laughter] -- it is a beautiful thing. perhaps the most significant one is the defense of tel aviv. this is tel aviv. you have to make sure no leakage

. you can to the to rockets coming out.- two rockets coming lining themselves up towards hitting the target. the first one hits the target. and the second one -- you can do the same thing from a different angle.

so this brings me to the skeptics. happy.ople are not they do not like to see this thing working. i will not go into why they are unhappy about it. is a respectedyd expert. he has three textbooks that are widely read. in a nutshell, a lot of the -- i will explain that in a minute.

the scores are much lower. why are there so few casualties? good civil defense. hamas makes the border smaller. it makes some kind of sense. claim.ake the first if you hit the rockets from behind, it is no good. if you hit it from the side, it is no good. material,od standout every body knows that.

no interception. this is seen diving so it is coming from behind -- no good. let's talk about how reliable those pictures are. >> spectacular. >> spectacular. >> the huge missile was flying into the pacific ocean.

i will show you a diving missile. look at this one. diving into the ocean. the operator was not worried. this is pure guesswork. all of those rockets are climbing very hard towards the target. it is simply an optical illusion. it is not diving, it is climbing. willd of wonder if you feel the footage.

it's look at the claim -- have seen it with my own eyes. i look below to see, nothing. lapse. a time it is climbing up and maneuvering. designed toe is intercept optimal geometry. let's look at the number of

casualties. people are taking shelter. war,econd lebanon defensive shield in gaza, and the present conflict. 4200 rockets fired into israel. short range, middle range, long-range. makes -- 53 people were killed. if you take this is just six of death.-- statistics of 2012, five batteries, and five people were killed.

same thing. batteries,d nine 4000 rockets that hit israel. fatalities.wo maybe we should have more batteries. the ratio went down. how can you do that for better civil defense? we did not invest in sheltering.

becominge rockets are -- i do not know why hamas would do us's favor. take your choice. here is the chart, you see the fatality going down.

israelis are alive today because of iron dome. tax onel, a property real estate, the income is dedicated for the issuance. budget but has about $1.5 billion. in order to compensate everyone, they are doing good. during the fighting, they have officials writing to every community -- running to every community. people use that with gusto and

they claim for everything. government is quite liberal about it. you can get some notion about the extent of the damage. in the second lebanon war, we had no batteries, 4000 rockets. generated seven claims. 3200 damage claims. in gaza, the number is for last week. almost 4000 rockets.

if it is not damaged, it it means the rocket did not hit. this information does not have to be calculated from equations. this is public information. .e has to explain that in my mind, -- those numbers are unequivocal. hamas didlaim is that

us a favor. .et me show you together.h that look at this. i will show it again. this is designed to kill. warheads, a few casualties. i want almost to complete my presentation.

therer defense rocket -- , theprobably designed commercial stuff that you can buy from radioshack. this is a us-made battery. waiting for those on their way

to tel aviv. a week after the end of the at least three kills they took targets in 2003, but they were firmly once. -- firmly -- friendly ones. it was quite an achievement. i want to conclude. we do not know where we are. i cannot summarize the war because it is a possibility that in two weeks time, there'll be another round of violence. what happened between july 8 and

august iron dome is a curtain of steel. it destroys nine out of 10 rockets. think about that. nine out of 10 rockets. i think people in israel men women and children over their life to iron dome and hundreds more. iron dome enabled the israeli life to continue. 95% of israel safeguarded international and base. it was safeguarded by iron dome.