i torturous read of the language that i don't believe a clear reading of even the original language or even the broadening on it by the administration would allow isil by the aumf.ssed there was an aumf to authorize the war in iraq to topple the regime of saddam hussein. have been a number ofne.there government. i think the argument is specious. the purpose of the 2002 authorization was not to engage in open-ended war in the zip code that happened to be iraq without limitation in terms of time. was directed at toppling a particular regime.

they don't provide support at all. the president's own words and actions -- the president understands precisely the constitutional argument i made when he ran in 2007. he said the president does not have unilateral power to wage war without congress during absent an actual or imminent attack on the united states. of articlee limits ii. limitationsds the of the 2001 ums who said we shouldn't be broadening that a withhat was put together no geographic limitation and no temporal limitation. we should be narrowing it. we should be refining it during we should be ultimately on the path to repeal it. with respect to the 2002 iraq

authorization that the administration now claims give support for the mission, just a few months ago, we had a hearing on it. administration witnesses can repair to be asked on it. it the position of the administration that it should be obsolete and now be repealed? i would be -- i would argue that the residence onwards as a candidate and as a president is he understands the powers and --horization ought not to be i know lawyers make right arguments. but i don't think you serve this particular president well by advancing an open-ended and broadened interpretation of these authorizations when the president's own words and actions have suggested that he wants to narrow and repeal them.

that may go to my fourth argument. -- let me go to my fourth argument. picture, the major reason that the approval rating of congress is low is the belief .hat we too easily advocate it is too complicated to come up with funding models. let's do a patch job. it is hard to grapple with this or that program. let's just do a patch job. it is too hard to do a budget so let's just do a cr for a couple of months. the overall view that people have about congress is -- i don't usually agree with vice president cheney but he had a good line. he says congress likes to kick the can down the road. the problem is they don't kick very well and they don't kick very far.

we have to have knowledge looking in the mirror that that is a challenge we have. this particular congress has a real opportunity as well as an obligation to start fixing some of what ails us, fixing some of what is appropriately precise takingur behavior by seriously this most somber responsibility. this is ultimately about a precedent for the future. if congress allows the president to begin this campaign against isil and go on offense without congress authorizing it, we will have created a horrible precedent that future presidents i have no doubt will used to suggest i can take unilateral action against groups that made post terrorist threats in the

united states. we will have created by precedent exactly what congress refused to do when they voted the bush administration down in 2001 you imf hearing after -- 2001 uimf. the administration says it may justify war for another 25 or 30 years, why possibly would we want to even further the precedent that would suggest, you know what, congress should ine voted for the doctrine 2000 one and handed it all over to the executive to make these decisions. congress was right then and they did it in serious emotion.

congress was smart enough not to do it. if we do not weigh in on this mission and have an up or down vote on it, we will basically be handing back to the executive what the 2001 congress refused the last reason we need to tackle this is the value reason. i am not a constitutional law scholar. this toough to do vindicate the constitution but that is not really why i am doing it. the constitutional allocation of power that was put into the constitution and it has its expression in statute as well was put in in my view for a very important reason. members toervice risk their lives if there's not a political consensus that the mission is worth it. it is the most somber thing we do. when we initiate military action, we are asking young men

and women to risk their lives and some will be killed and some will be injured and some will be captured and some will see those things happen to their comrades and some who none of those happen to because of what they do to others will come back with challenges of mental health that may follow them for the rest of their lives. that is what we are asking these houses of virginians who are -- that is what we not ask what order them to do when we initiate military action. what right do we have to ask that sacrifice of anyone if we are not willing to have that tough debate, contentious though it may be, and stand before our public and vote yes or no? is that sacrifice having to be accountable in voting yes or no one one millionth of the sacrifice we ask men and women

in uniform to make? no, it isn't and we volunteered to do it here it and it is not a sacrifice. this history of congressional abdication of saying, you know, boy, mr. resident, you go ahead and do this and i'm if it works out well, we'll say we were all with you. and if not, we will write and complain about it and it is the , toht of public immorality command people to risk their lives if we are not willing to do the simple and straightforward and clear thing that is on our shoulders to do. that is what has driven me. i got deeply interested in this issue in the aftermath of the 2002 vote. i thought putting up the iraq where time waste manufactured but requiring the vote in october 2002 was almost just a profane politicization of what should be the most somber decision that we ought to make in american government.

as i started to get into this challenge about the executive and congressional allocation of responsibility, and started reading about it. maybe it is because i am in virginia and we are so connected to the military. i feel this issue of not asking people to sacrifice on we don't do our jobs, when the president went in in 2011, i thought he did the right decision. the president was censured by the house of representatives in 2011 for doing what he did without congress. but it is ultimately about this valley, the constitutional argument, the statutory argument, this residence legacy, congress's reputation. it funnels down to this basic value of we can't ask people to sacrifice their lives if we won't do the basic job that is entrusted to us, to make a decision. if we make a decision this mission is worth it, that does not mean it will all go well.

that doesn't mean that we won't make a mistake. but the chances that it will go well or better if we debate it up front rather than wait and get in the middle of it, imagine how feels to be in service and be in harms way overseas and then suddenly you see the sniping break out between the legislative and executive branch that never received a consensus at the front end. i've had people stopping me in , thealls of the capitol security guards and the cafeteria workers and the people who work on the grounds crew and other staff talking to me and say thank you. exhave a huge percentage of military workers in the capital or family who do. let's do our job if we are going to ask others to do their job. so what is the job? i think there are three things we ought to do right now. the first is we ought to craft a narrow authorization with

respect to this mission against isil along the lines that the president has proposed. i drafted one last weekend there have been two others that have been introduced. my proposal and those three will andnto the committee chairman menendez said we will take this up and vote on an authorization. my authorization basically supports the president's pillars but with four caveats. first, a years sunset to require review and reauthorization. second, a limitation on ground troops, depending on the interests. i will get into why that is strategically and militarily exactly what we should do. debt -- a drastic limitation on this notion of who is an associated force so an authorization watch drafted does not going to anything. number three, a repeal of the 2002 aumf.

take this up as soon as we get back. we've got between november 12 and the 11th of december when the syrian piece that was authorized last week expires. we ought to take it up. we ought to vote on it. >> we need to revise the 2001 aumf. that is a more complicated thing. specific named group, broad legal framework for dealing with the perpetrators of 9/11 and their associated groups, as even was evidenced by some of us yesterday, that is probably going to take a little more time to get that right. is engaged ine bipartisan discussion with congress now about the way to refine that. that is a second thing we need to do.

do isird thing we need to for the long-term. we have to have a better process for making the most important decision that we make in congress, whether or not to initiate war. senator mccain and i have introduced a bill that looks at the infirmities that made the 1973owers resolution in null after it was enacted to congress had a proved via budget the vietnam war, but he did not ruth nixon going into cambodia which he did secretly. so the war powers resolution was enacted after that. it was vetoed by president nixon and it was overridden. there are some problems with the bill that most scholars would it would make pieces of unconstitutional.

we put together a repeal and replace of that resolution that basically does three things. it tries to define what is war. saidis time of nonstate i -- nonstate actors, cyberattacks, what would trigger the executive interaction. trying to find systematize consultation. armed services and foreign relations committee. president wase consulting on congress with something. i am the chairman of the subcommittee and nobody has called me. so consultation can be as much or as little as the resident calling a few people he thinks will agree with him or talking to the leadership or talking to the meaningful committees. we ought to have a meaningful understanding of of what constitution -- of consultation is. in the third piece is the proposal that senator mccain and a half, to systematize and require an up or down vote by

members of congress and not allow the abdication of responsibility that has been too common a theme in congress. that is a lot. you can cim passion about it. i think we will take a few questions. thanks for being here. i wish it wasn't so topical. [applause] >> that was remarkably cogent and right on point. i will give you an opportunity to have a drink. i am the senior fellow. i have been with the center since 2003. a lot of our work on the national security team was on the iraq war. certainly now that we are still talking about iraq and debating iraq and going back into iraq,

something we have really wrestled with for a long time. struck me things that over this debate is a general weariness by the american people combined with a sense that what is going in iraq in -- and syria now is you have to combat the threat hearing a low-level sense that what we can do is actually going to work. we talk about the constitutional these, when you talk about the value piece, i think there is another role that congress can play, which is helping to bring along the american people and have them understand the mission. do you think that the lack of congressional debate has made it more difficult to do that? >> certainly. you laid it out very well. when the president and congress debate about matters like this, that is how the american public gets into the discussion. in thee to bring american public into the

discussion, two. -- discussion, too. we started to have this discussion last week with voting on the syrian piece of the president's proposal. but if we don't have the discussion and vote, we run the american people do not understand the magnitude of the challenge and may not be as supportive as we would want them to be. what our servicemen and women deserve is not just a vote of congress, but they'd observed the -- they deserve the maximum degree of support are the american public for the risk they are taking. >> you mention the ground troops. i think there is a lot of confusion about putting boots on the ground and what is it we exactly mean. we know that there are american forces already in iraq, but we hear no ground troops. what does this mean and what is your proposal? >> my proposal is no ground troops with the exception of, if

we need ground troops to rescue american personnel or save american lives. and if we need ground troops for the counterterrorism mission that i mentioned, that would be acceptable as well. those would be the only two instances where we would use actual roundtrips. let me just say quiet think the no ground troop rule is important. first, it is important because that is what the president said when he laid out the mission. that was by way of a commitment to the amerco public. this is what the mission will be an what it is not going to be. it is important to put in that limitation so we are good to his word. but general dempsey gave really good temps is -- a testimony about this last week. dempseyet people said will not take out recommendation

off the table. what he really said, if you listen to his entire testimony, he laid out the rationale for why we don't want american ground troops in this battle. we cannot defeat i still if it is the west against isil. we can't. there is no amount of american ground troops and european ground troops that can win this thing in iraq and syria. isil,e can do is battle if the region is willing to police itself and stand up against extremism and violence and say this is not islam, if the region is willing to do that, we ought to be a partner with the region and there is something healthy about regional self policing. but if we have to put ground troops and, it is because the region itself is not fighting isil.

if the region is not fighting isil, there is no amount of troops we can put into iraq and syria that can win. so it not only matches the president's word, but it means we will provide a put together this multinational coalition to provide air support, to enable the kurds, resistance fighters in syria, maybe ground forces from regional rations -- regional nations. but if you are not willing to stand up against isil and do that, there are not there is no amount -- there is no amount of american ground troops that can do that. said it.empsey i believe strongly in that. know the 2001 a you a math -- 2001 aumf is 13 years old. there is no way to wrap it up

unless the president declares it is over and that is fraught with political risk. i certainly applaud the intention of having a sunset provision. how do you respond to push back from the military or others who would say one year is not enough for this mission and recognizing the challenges that you described with your body, tongass, going back to them every year to reauthorize this would be difficult? >> i think that is a good critique of my proposal. this is a balancing. i really believe that the 2001 aumf with no geographic limitation and no temporal limitation was a serious mistake. i can see why it was made. it was in the aftermath of this horrible attack your but we should learn some lessons from the last 13 years. i think geographic and temporal limitations is one of the lessons we should learn. some of the other aumf's that

have come in have sunsets. i fully expect come up we get into foreign relations and we are comparing and try to put together the us version, that will be a significant debate. i am not wedded to the one year but i am wedded to the notion of a sunset area i think that is the way you avoid this open-ended authorization that ends up being applied to all kinds of things that it was never applied to. you didn't think when you voted that it would be used in syria in 2014. that was beyond the contemplation of the members of can't -- of congress. that is why sunsetting is so important very the president should have to come back and make that case and congress should have to engage in that dialogue in full view of the american public and decide how long the next chapter will be.

>> one more question before we open it to the audience. you mentioned a couple of the other aumf's that have been introduced. some of your other colleagues who have been in this issue, senator corker, have the opposite view you have on the limitations and one to expand the 2001 aumf. to find a going cohesive congressional majority behind a particular proposal that we can get in the lame-duck? >> let me talk about the isil aumf and in the broader 2001 aumf issue. if we can just had this up for debate in a vote last week or this week, the hardest piece of it, the piece i think is the most controversial in congress is arming the syrian opposition because there are russians over do we know who to arm and will

it come back to bite us in another direction. some of my colleagues will vote u.s. strike campaign. i think we could have produced a margin of support for the president, much like last week. it was divided but it was not partisan here it is ok for there to be a divided vote. it is a hard question. but it would have been bad if it were a partisan vote. instead, you saw democrats and republicans vote yes i know. butould have gotten there for a variety of reasons. election's and maybe some legitimate concerns. senator menendez said, look, as we have seen, drafting an authorization that is well drafted is not as easy as we would think so let's take the time to get it right. their votes i think may be dependent upon the success of the resident in really pulling together a multinational coalition.

i can see some members, maybe even made, saying eyes of work these four pillars if there is a coalition, not if we are alone. so there may be some nonpolitical virtuous reasons we did not do it last week and we will do it in november. i detect strong support and the vote in both houses on the toughest part of it, the syrian peace demonstrated strong support. will we debate the sunset? sure, we will. , it is moreaumf challenging. there are some degrees to which it may need to be broadened. right now, it only applies to al qaeda, the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.

possibly, there should be an aumf not just toward the perpetrators but groups who have a target on the u.s. it should probably also should narrow the definition of associated forces. the absence of a sunset, then he limitation on geography or time is way too broad. you can see the drafting of the 2001 aumf needs to be a little bit broader. i think it needs to be narrowed here and he may agree with me. that will take some time but the white house is really engaged in these discussions with the democrats and republicans ram. >> let's turn to honest questions. please wait for the microphone. we will ask that you identify yourself clearly and the organization you're with. we will take three questions at a time and see if we can get through as many as we possibly can. try to be as respectful to your

follow audience members and keep them short and refrain from commentary. we will do when here in the front row and then we will go here to the front row and then back. >> thank you. i am molly hooper with "the hill newspaper." how is president obama going to pay for these airstrikes? he has not asked for any money. quite a few tomahawks were fired yesterday and those things are not too cheap. i am wondering where president obama is getting the money to pay for these airstrikes. martin frost, former member of congress. i was in congress in both 1991 and in 2002 when congress president bush 41 and bush 43 to act against iraq. both of them maintained that they had the inheritance as

commander-in-chief. so far, president obama has not embraced congress specifically passing an authorization. actionht a very limited with training syrian troops but he did not seek a broader authorization last week during do you think the resident openly will embrace and support a specific authorization by congress? i am old enough to remember back when they -- was raised. only two senators were willing to stand up. asked the question, is it really worth doing this. it doesn't seem that today we have any in our political leadership willing to raise that question. it is all about the tactics of war, not whether we should go to war at all. >> let me tackle the story. i will take them in reverse order. why the rush?

ametimes there is circumstance where you're under attack or imminent attack. but generally you should avoid rushing if you can't to do this the right way. i have been interested in this topic for a long time. what galvanized me recently was when the congressional leadership met with the president over the summer to talk about this issue and they went to the microphone and said the president has all the authority he needs. and i am, like, you've got to be kidding me. you're not a king for me when you said that. and member saying that you have all of the authority you need to ask your as the same time you are suing the president for taking unilateral action? hold on a second. i started getting angry when that happened and had been trying to avoid the rush by putting congress into the place that they should be. during the debates about , thelei and article ii

way we draw up this power is to make congress the clobber of and not the facilitator of war. rush but weneed to do need to ask the questions and we need to have the debate. i couldn't agree with you more. -- your wording is why hasn't the president embraced and will he? the president will very much embrace congressional authorization. the way he said it may have been the most part he said his speech. i need congressional authorization for this arm and equipment mission in syria and i would welcome congressional involvement -- i would welcome it. i think that is very sincere. the thing to general dempsey, secretary hagel, i think they

will commit. i don't have an intuition -- they will welcome it. i don't have an intuition. that the white house felt, when they went to congress last year on syria and congress was left and full throated in support a left-hand skittish. the let me offer the counter view on syria. i know some who view of the president not using military force, let me make the argument. salvatorient had a outcome. the president said use chemical weapons, there needs to be a consequence including military consequence very bashar al-assad used chemical weapons and it was proven.

the president said, ok, i draw a redline. britain would not do it very the u.s. would not do it. this was a policy put in place since 1929. the president came to the senate. we voted 10-8 to use military force. senate. have one in the but the fact that the president saying that we need to use military force and i'm coming to congress and the senate or in committee made russia changes calculations. syria had not even admitted it had chemical weapons. it said we will give up their weapons. it has been a huge diplomatic achievement of this administration that only happened because of a credible threat of the use of force. chemicale biggest

weapons stockpile in the world has been destroyed. i was talking to the israeli leadership say they don't know what a huge game changer this is. mass -- with out weapons of mass destruction we can deal with. with weapons of mass wetruction, we can't hear ended up getting something out of it that was very positive for -- long-term, the safety of the long-term safety of the people of that region. libya, did not go to congress. syria, went to congress. war -- civilveral war is still going on. of weapons ofile mass destruction is off the earth because the president did it the right way a year ago.

it is my hope -- i know the president would welcome us. i hope their team will realize that it is not just a matter of welcoming. they should realize it is more likely to work out better if they do it with congress. the pay for, very tough question. as well as a syrian authorization on the training of equipment, but we will have to grapple with a longer-term appropriations, not another cr. i am fully expecting, as part of for there to be funding requests. but that is another reason why congress should debate the stuff up front. we ought to be asking the question, how much will it cost and how are we going to pay for it. iraq and afghanistan were the wars words -- the first

that united states decides to do on a per card. -- on a credit card. we said, we can kind of do this, members of congress' kids won't get drafted now. we can get blackwater or a third-party to do stuff we don't want to ask troops to do. progressiveen a executive overreach by putting it on the credit card and our kids don't have to serve. we will hire third-party contractors to do it during we ought to have questions about cost up front. and that we will be able to do when we return and tackle the authorization. >> one more round here it we are short on time. keep them as brief as possible. i will try to reach into the back.

>> thank you, senator kaine. i wanted to ask you about the consequences of having the vote that i agree is -- was constitutionally required not before the start of the war but after the war had already started. in particular whether or not, if there were no congressional vote of, whether or not that lack specific congressional authorization would in fact act to constraining this president from expanding the current nor terry war without a vote in the future? >> you seem very confident and

senator menendez has said he will work up a new aumf. how confident are you though, in a lame duck, an aumf will get a vote in the senate and the house? >> we have been discussing a lot about getting authorization through congress fractions in iraq and getting domestic approval. how would you address the question of international herbal for these strikes in syria. there have been concerns and statements we have heard in the news. vote, consequences of no i think it would be disastrous if it persists. --we get a vote, even though the airstrike campaign i am convinced in the defensive

posture. but about the time the president did airstrikes to protect the sul, and it would ,ot cause harm to american life it moved to an offensive mission. the president even said we will go on offense against sisal. having an air -- against isil. so having under strict campaign in a situation where the united states is not in imminent threat creates a significant challenge. i think we can apply a little bit of the catholic absolution principle to preevent if we can come in and have the debate and vote on it, especially since some members votes are depending on the extent of the coalition.

i can see some wisdom to it. but if there is no vote, i think it will have a very negative consequence. there is an article in the new york times in the last couple of days about, if there is no congressional vote, it really is essentially congress giving tacit acceptance to the notion that the president can do this. he does not argue but i would argue that accepting this is essentially accepting the cheney preemptive war doctrine that commerce would not accept even right after 2001. harm and we should go after them. i support the limited mission but i do not want to give the president the unilateral ability to make that determination. so i think the constitutional possible -- i think the absence of a vote would be a very dangerous thing. how confident with respect to the aumf?

i am pretty confident but i am still new here. i think a lot of things are going to happen and they don't. i often tell people around here that things are going to be here to those who have been here a long time and i end up being right. frankly, when the leadership came out saying the president has all the authority you need, i was weary that we would not get a vote on this. when the president started in august and i call the team to ask what is going on, are you going to bring this to a vote and it was unclear, i did not think it was going to come to a vote. after the president's speech to wednesdays ago, senator menendez who has been asked if the president and his authority and he said, let me hear what the president has to say and i will tell you. with senator menendez, senator durbin new has been public that

we have to have an authorization vote both in leadership. senator mcconnell has saying we've got to have it. i have conversations with members of leadership. and in bothes parties, there is a strong belief that we have to durin. it creates a 11, natural window for that discussion. having it before the election would have been better because, you know, people can be accountable for it. no one will be able to hide here in no one running for office will be able to hide. their electorate will ask them. there is an opportunity for citizens to understand where

their candidates are. not i'm international long guy. but it raises an interesting question. i would think that the president can count on article to to justify the actions in iraq domestically but he is fine internationally. the president of iraq has said come in and help us. i think it is pretty straightforward. domestic one we have to make straightforward by a vote. on syria, we just voted yes on syria. that resolves a domestic issue. but the issue of international is it an incursion into sovereignty and you look at what various actors in the world have said, iran says it is illegal. russia says it is an incursion into sovereignty. syria is not complaining about it.

so russia and iran are making the argument about sovereignty and syria's comments are murky. so they are pretty straightforward in iraq. .hey are complicated in syria not being an expert in that, i do not know how that will be answered. but if we can get the domestic side handed down with congressional authorization as we go through that process in the process of working with allies and the president talking at the u.n. about more allies on u.n., because there are security council resolutions on things going on with isil, that will probably sort itself out but it is a thorny little question. >> i am sure we can go on talking about this. but that is all the time we have today. let me conclude by thanking you very much for coming in. [applause] >> thanks.

>> tonight, former virginia senator jim webb speaks at the press club on the economy of foreign policy followed by president obama at the united nations climate summit. security experts on threats against the u.s. obama's week in new york continues on wednesday with two meetings at the united nations. the president speaks before the u.n. general assembly live here on c-span. at 3:00 p.m., president obama leads the un security council meeting on terrorism. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter.

>> here are just a few of the comments we recently received, our viewers. >> i recently discovered c-span 3 that i did not even know i had. i love it. i cannot describe in a few words. right up my alley. thank you. >> c-span tries to be nonbiased the democrat, republican, independent lines. but there is no democracy. the voices are limited. i wish you could expand the voices to more third-party people because the democrats and the republicans are the same. and if you could limit the amount of discussions you have with republican and democrat election officials can use more independent voices for discussions, thank you.

>> please, whatever you do, do not take c-span 3 off. it is a very educational show. i listen to it mostly every day. i am finding out more and more about my government. and also books and history. please do not take it off the air. why does c-span favor republicans over immigrants? -- over democrats? why does c-span let republican callers call in and talk bad about the president? c-span is not fair. what you see on c-span. tweet.can send us a

like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. six weeks from today, the country will vote and chris zzaicitor -- chris cilli says he is excited. right now, you say it is still a tossup. ways, that is the storyline, an important one. today, it is a tossup. we are still talking about the fact that democrats have a possible path to retaining their majority. when we started this election

cycle, you look at the raw numbers and where some of these incumbent democrats will have to hold seats, places like montana, west virginia, south dakota, arkansas, louisiana, north carolina -- need -- none of these are places that are by the nature hospitable to the democrat party. democrats have suffered a number of retirement. of tough had a lot seeds from the start. they have some breaks. a political environment not close where they want to be and yet it is not a slam dunk by any means that republicans win the six seats they need for the majority. >> one of those races was under the radar, kansas.

we know that jeb bush will be in for pato campaign roberts. what is going on. thender the radar is kindest way to put where that race was. this is not a race anyone thought would be even mildly competitive. it is kansas. this is a state where a cat that's a democrat has not been where a democrat has not been elected since 1982. pat roberts as one of the republican incumbents who had some serious problems with his ideological race. anwon that race with impressive seven points. pat roberts probably assumed i won my primary. he did not appear to pay much attention.

.ow he has a real problem greg gorman, independent wealthy businessman, normally independent candidates we kind of right off. but gorman has generated a lot of support and excitement. chad taylor, the democrat nominee, dropped out of the race and got his name removed from the ballot. now there is a two-way race with the independent who said he will not -- who has not said whether he will caucus with democrats or republicans. roberts and the people around him now know the problem that they have. i don't know if they have the time to fix it. >> we are talking with chris cillizza with "the washington post." another race will get a lot of attention in the next six weeks. >> if we had gone over the map a year ago or 18 months ago, i would have said arkansas would

be tough. and kay hagan in north carolina. she beat elizabeth dole six years ago. to be a democrat in 2008, especially in north carolina. y ill-defined, people did not really know her. yet she has withstood tens of millions of dollars against her of outside money. her numbers continue to sustain. i think a large part of that is tom tillis, speaker of the state house. he is the person republicans wanted as their nominee. a conservativewn and controversial state legislature. state issues some

in terms of how people view the state legislature, the governor, the republican branch, i think they play more of a role here because ofer states tillis and the controversial things in the state legislature. >> chris is writing about election day. it is safe to assume that the president will not be traveling to arkansas, kentucky, north carolina, alaska, or other key states. how unpopular is he for democrats seeking reelection? >> deeply. people focus on the national poll numbers. his numbers are typically in the low 40's. but in the places where democrats need to win, he is well below 40.

kentucky poll that had mitch mcconnell up a few points had obama at 31%. a poll arkansas had obama's approval at 31%. hadorth carolina,, april hish carolina at 38% numbers nationally are actually better than they are in many of these states and it is a very easy argument for many republican candidates to make which is, look, mary landrieu, mark begich, kay hagan, mark udall, these are people that will be with barack obama. i will be somebody fighting his agenda. at the moment, in the states, that is a powerful message. >> in a year that is typically a good year for republicans, a lot of republican governors in trouble. we cover the first debate last night with tom corbett.

as you point out, governor scott of florida, scott walker of wisconsin, rick snyder of michigan, nathan deal of georgia, all facing some serious challenges. struck by,the governors races are different than the senate and house races. it is very hard to get away from your party nationally. it is like kansas, for example. you haven't seen a democrat get elected to the u.s. senate in 80 where that is a two-term elected governor. kansas is a great example. sam brownback, former senator, and now a governor enacted a conservative agenda in that state. basically split the party into between moderates and conservatives that he would identify with. repnow he is behind a state

that not many people know name paul davis. in connecticut, stan meloy. if you are not scandal-play, you should win. stan meloy is a real dogfight and the hind to tom foley who is the nominee against him in 2010. tom foley who was the nominee against him in 2010. attacked of all things on his push to pass a lot of gun-control measures post-newtown. illinois is another example. a pretty democratic state, yet pat quinn is really facing a fight. all of them have real races. many of these people who are not

in swing states are in states that they should win and are really struggling. >> we will look for your work online at washingtonpost.com. >> thank you. >> former senator jim webb of virginia spoke at the national press club. presidential run, he discussed the economy and foreign policy for an hour. >> good afternoon and welcome. i am in adjunct professor at the george washington university school of public affairs. the national russ club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists

committed to our profession's future through our programming with events such as this while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, please visit our website at press.org. on behalf of our members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speaker and those of you attending today's event. includes guests of our speaker and working journalists who are club members. i note that members of the general public are attending. i would also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. you can follow the action on npclunch.sing # we will have a question-and-answer period. i will ask as many questions as time permits here at it is time to introduce our head table guests here at a would like you

to stand briefly as your name is announced. reporter for w and e w. jill lawrence, syndicated columnist. eleanor clift, washington correspondent for the daily beast. james r webb, son of the speaker. analyst,lds, political pbs news hour. angela king, white house correspondent for bloomberg news and former president of the national press club. amy webb, daughter of the speaker here at rachel smoke in, executive editor. john fails, columnist for military.com, known throughout

the country as sergeant shaft. .ike sigel a round of applause for our head table. [applause] here is what we know about jim webb, our speaker today. he is a former one-term democratic senator of virginia, a decorated marine who served in vietnam, he secretary of the navy in the reagan administration, an emmy award-winning journalist, a film maker, and the author of "10 books -- author of 10 books. what we don't know if is if you will be a candidate for the democratic nomination for president. but there have been some hin ts. he visited iowa last month and is headed to new hampshire. no one who hopes to be in the race ignores those early

primary states. and two weeks ago, he tweeted a link to a "new york times" article with the headline "populous could derail clinton train." as he told a labor audience in iowa, quote, i'm comfortable to say i'm the only senator elected with a union card, three tattoos and two purple hearts, unquote. [applause] while in the senate webb served under foreign relations, armed services, veteran affairs and the joint economic committees. his legislation, the post-9/11 g.i. bill, is the most significant veterans egislation since world war ii. as chairman of the foreign relation committee's asia-pacific subcommittee, webb called for the u.s. to re-engage in east asia. in 2009 he went to burma,

becoming the first american leader to visit that country in 10 years. though the trip was criticized by some in the prodemocracy movement, subsequently relations between the two countries were resumed. webb graduated from the naval academy in 1968. when he returned from vietnam, goat a law degree from georgetown. he was a staffer on the house veterans affairs committee before being appointed as assistant secretary of defense and then secretary of the navy. in addition to his public service, webb has had a very -- vary idea career as a journalist, winning an emmy for his pbs coverage of the u.s. marines in beirut in 1983. he wrote the original story and was executive producer of the film "rules of engagement." webb's books include a history of the scots-irish culture, a novel set in the vietnam war and "i heard my country calling," a memoir of his early

life published earlier this year. he's been to the national press club on several previous occasions and we are very happy to welcome him back to the national press club. [applause] >> thank you very much. i appreciate all of you coming today to be with us. i've noticed, i should point out here at the outset, that jerry has enough questions i think to last for about an hour and a half after i'm done and i hope you'll be kind in the questions that he chooses once i am done. first, let me say how proud i am that three of my family members are with me today up here at the head table. my oldest daughter, amy, who as

a small child used to ride on the lap of some of my disabled friends from vietnam as they did wheelies in their cheel chairs and -- wheelchair races in the v.a. hospitals and i think she found a calling at a very young age and now worked with america's kiss abled veterans -- disabled veterans. [laughter] my son, jim, who left penn state during the height of the iraq war and enlisted as an infantry rifleman and fought in some of the worst fighting of the war, in ramadi, a place which is now becoming unfortunately again familiar to us. and my wife who in many ways represents what the american dream is all about. her entire family, extended family, escaped from vietnam on a fishing boat. her father was a fisherman when

the communists took over south vietnam. they were rescued by the united states navy. at sea. she spent time in two different refugee camps. neither of her parents ever spoke a word of english. and through all that she end up as a graduate of cornell law school. that, folks, is what represents the best what have our country is all about. [applause] i've said for many years that the truest legacy of my time in public service will always come from the contributions of those who served either under my command in the marine corps or on my staff. our country has heard and will continue to hear from these talented men and women wherever they go and however they choose to serve. and a good number of them have made the trek over here during a busy workweek to join us today. we did great things during those six years.

they continue to show us that they are all-stars in a multitude of endeavors and i'd be pleased if they'd stand or wave and be recognized right now. [applause] there have been a lot of things going on in the last couple of days and i'm sure i'm going to get questions about them. but what i'd really like to talk about today in my opening remarks is what's going on in our country. and what we can do to make things better. and let me begin by say stealing a quote from someone. once wrote, al you never know when you are happy. you only know when you were happy. the same holds true i think for the times in which we live. we seldom know when we are living through a period of true historic challenge. we only know after it's over that we did.

the internal workings of national policy are not a part of most americans' lives. you wake up every morning, you go to work, maybe you try to find a job, you take care of your family, you pay your taxes, you turn on the tv and atch commontaters as they were behaving this morning, screaming at each other about how screwed up things are. sometimes you agree with both of them. sometimes you agree with neither of them. but bad things happen in the world and that will never change. at the same time, i think it has been in our history when our economy crashes at the same time we're at war, as has been the case in the past five or six years. here in america, our multicultural society lives in a state of constant disagreement. this is frustrating, it is also creative. but the discussions during recent years have taken on a different to en. -- a different tone.

the very character of america is being called into question. who are we? as a people. what is it that unites us rather than divides us? where is our common ground when the forces of social cohesion are spinning so out of control that the people at the very top exist in a distant, outer orbit, completely separated in their homes, schools and associations from those of us who are even in the middle and completely disconnected from those who exist paycheck to paycheck or those at the bottom, who are often scorned as undeserving takers, who simply want a free ride. i think about that. how can we say we're fellow americans when tens of millions of people are being quietly written off? not only by our most wealthy, but even by many of our political leaders. as hopelesses -- as hopeless. who will never be fully

employed. and who should be avoided on the street, feared rather than encouraged to enter the american mainstream. we live indisputeably in the greatest country on earth. the premise of the american dream is that all of us have an equal opportunity to succeed. but let's be honest. if you're 10 years old and black and living in east baltimore and going to the bathroom in a bucket because the landlord won't fix your plumbing, and your schoolses are places of intimidation and violence and the only people on the street who seem to be make money are the ones who are selling drugs, no matter how hard you work, you do not have the same picture of the american dream, as a kid your age who is being groomed for prep school and then to go off to the ivy league. or if you're a kid growing up in the appalachian mountains of clay county, kentucky, by most

accounts the poorest county in america, which also happens to be 98% white, surrounded by poverty, drug abuse and joblessness, when you leave your home in order to succeed, and when you do, you're welcomed with the cynical unbelieving stares and whistler -- whispers of an america that no longer understands your cultural journey and policies that can exclude you from a fair shot at education or employment with the false premise that if you're white you by definition have some kind of socioeconomic advantage , what are you going to think about the so-called fairness of your own government? if you're a man or woman who just did your time in prison, as have so many millions of americans in today's society, you paid the price for your mistake, which could be as simple as a sickness, a drug

addiction, or a moment of absolute but culpable stupidity , and you want to re-enter the community that you left behind when you were locked up, neglected, possibly abused and definitely marked for the rest of your life on every employment application that you ever fill out, how do you do that? when there are no clear programs of transition that can prepare you for the structured demands of the work force or society itself. which is going to fear you because you spent time in prison. what do you do now? do we as a government have an obligation to provide a structure that it assist you so that the rest of your life is not wasted? or you have merely become just another throwaway, like the kid in east baltimore or clay county, kentucky? let's say you're 30 years old without a high school diploma,

maybe you hit a rebelious streak when you were 17. went out and got a dead-end job or got pregnant and became a single mom and now you're looking at the rest of your life. and you feel hopeless. the big debate between the two political parties seems to be whether you should get a higher minimum wage, whether the government should start universal programs to put kids into school from prekindergarten. what do you need more than a minimum wage? and even if your kids attend pre-k, what happens when they come home? is your life already over at the age of 30? would it change if we had a second chance program? where could you finish school and show your kids your own diploma and tell them to stay in school and study and be an example and aspire to a real job that pace more than minimum wage -- pays more than minimum wage. what would it take to turn those things around? or is it impossible?

or should we just decide that it's something that's beyond he role of government? this societal dislocation has been happening at a time when america's place on the international stage has become increasingly unclear. both in terms of our position as the economic beacon of the global community and our vital role as the military guarantor of international stability. for more than two decades, since the end of the cold war, our country has been adrift in its foreign policy. the greatest military power on earth has lacked a clearly defined set of principles that would communicate our national security objectives to our allies, to our potential adversaries, and most importantly to our own people. or that same period of debates over domestic policies and fairness at home have become even more polarized, driving our people further and further apart, rather than bringing them together.

in many cases, deliberately exaggerating divisions based on race, class, gender, sexual orientation and geography. not surprisingly, the american people have grown ever more cynical about their national leadership in both parties and increasingly more pessimistic about the future. so make no mistake. how we resolve these two formidable questions is going to determine what america looks like 10, 20 or 30 years from now and not too distant future, depending on how we resolve these questions, we will look back and judge ourselves. did we have the courage to face the hard issues, to make the difficult decisions, to prove we were worthy of the sacrifices of the generations that went before us? or did we fail?

watching passably as the greatest nation on earth descended slowly into immediate ock are a ray -- mediocrity because it burned itself out through bad choices, ety debates, trivial party politics and the inability of our leaders to come to grips with these sorts of challenges and to work together to actually solve them. so we have reached an unavoidable and historic crossroads. the way we choose to address the conditions that now so deeply divide us over the next few years will define who we really are as a people. and what our future will look like. what are the responsibilities of our government, here's a list, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, maintain order and public safety for all, whether you're in east baltimore or north arlington, erect standards of fairness when it comes to the opportunity to succeed, don't pick favorites

based on special access to the quarters of power. despite any of the barriers that have too often divided us, i'm not even up to believe that those of white house love our country -- us who love our country can come together to rebuild our infrastructure and repair the torn, divided fabric of our national spirit. true fairness is not an impossible dream. nor is the notion that we can return to a time when we can look at a fellow citizen and feel a moment of camaraderie rather than a feeling of mistrust, disease like or fear -- dislike or fear. we need the energy and the talent of every american, trained and put to use in ways that will make them more productive. their neighborhood mors vibrant. and our country stronger. more than that, every unof us should view this as a duty, as a citizen, if nothing else, and participate in the national

discussion. so, let me mention where i believe we can make a difference. first, we must develop a clear statement of national security and foreign policy. an understandable statement of our national security interest is the basis of any great nation's foreign policy. clearly understood principles and the determination to stand by them are essential to stability and also to public support. our allies will be able to adjust to our clarity, our adversaries will now that we're serious and our people will understand the logic of our place in the world. we do not have that now. our foreign policy has become a tangled mess in many cases what have can only be called situational ethics. what does the united states stand for in the global arena? under what conditions should we risk our national treasure, our credibility and, more

importantly, the lives of our military people? here's the quick bottom line. tell me what our national interest is, how we're going to defend its, and how we will know we have accomplished our mission. unless you can do that, you don't have a strategy. once the cold war ended, strategically we lost our way. and we have yet to regain it. in the area of international relations, it's not a healthy thing when the world's dominant military and economic power has a policy based on vagueness. so we ended up and continue to be trapped in the never-ending, ever-changing entanglements of the middle east. beginning with the pandora's box that was opened with the invasion of iraq. and continuing through the still fermenting nightmare of the arab spring. particularly our inadvisable actions in libya. i was one who warned before the

invasion of iraq that our entanglement would destabilize the region, empower iran and weaken our influence in other places. let me quote from an article i wrote in "the washington post" on september 4, 2002. five months before we invaded iraq. i quote, america's best military leaders know that they are accountable to history. not only for how they fight wars, but also for how they prevent them. the greatest military victory , averting a nuclear holocaust was accomplished not by an invasion but through decades of continuous operations. with respect to the situation in iraq, our military leaders know two realities that seem to have been lost in the narrow debate about saddam hussein himself. the first is that wars often have unintended consequences.

the second is that a long-term occupation of iraq will beyond doubt require an adjustment of force levels elsewhere and could eventually diminish american influence in other parts of the world. then later, in japan, american occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. in iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets. so what should our governing principles be? first, if a president wishes to conduct offensive military operations, he or she should be able to explain clearly the threat, the specific objections of the operations and the end result. second, we should honor all our treaty commitments, but we are not obligated to join the treaty partner if they elect to use force outside direct boundaries of our commitment as in libya, for example.

third, we will maintain superiority in our strategic systems. this includes not only nuclear weapons but also such areas as technology, space and cyberwarfare. fourth, we will preserve and exercise the right of self-defense, as guaranteed under international law and the united nations charter. fifth, we have important allies around the world, especially in asia and the middle east. we will continue to support in many ways. this will not cease. in fact, as we clarify other commitments, these relationships will be strengthened. with respect to the war against terrorism, we should act vigorously against terrorist organizations if they're international in nature and are a direct threat to our national security. this includes the right to conduct military operations in foreign countries, if that country is unwilling or unable to address the threat.

we had this right through international law and specifically through article 51 of the united nations charter. but there's an important caveat to how our country should fight international terrorism, and having ignored this principle has caused us a lot of trouble since 9/11. i can do no better than quote from an article i wrote on september 12, 2001, the day after 9/11. do not occupy territory. the terrorist armies make no claim to be members of any nation state. similarly, it will be militarily and politically dangerous for our military to operate from bases, permanent or semipermanent, or to declare we are defending specific pieces of terrain in the regions where the terrorist armies live and train. and finally, with respect to national security, a warning spawned by the actions of this

administration in libya. there is no such thing as the right of any president to unilaterally decide to use force in combat operations based on the vague concept of humanitarian intervention. if a treaty doesn't obligate us, if american forces are not under attack, or under threat of imminent attack, if no americans are at risk, the president should come to the ongress. the second point for consideration, as we look to the future, is we need to give our people some hope on issues of economic fairness and social justice. our working people have struggled following the collapse of the economy in the final months of the bush administration. while those at the very top have continued to separate themselves from the rest of our society. if you take a look at the stock market, since march of 2009, when this recession bottomed ut, it has moved from 6,443 to

more than 17,000, as of today. the stock market has almost tripled as we have come out of this recession. at the same time study after study shows that real income levels among working people have suffered a steady decline since january of 2009. and not only for our workers, according to the "wall street journal," loans to small business who traditionally have been the backbone of the american success story have decreased by 18%. since 2008. while overall business loans have increased by 9%. the growth in our economy has been increasingly reflected in capital gains. rather than in the salaries of our working people. in many cases, corporate headquarters, financial sectors are here while the workers are overseas. many of our younger workers in this country right now are subject to complicated hiring

arrangements that in many cases don't even pay health care or or retirement. corporate success is measured by the increase in the value of a stock. corporate leaders are paid accordingly. when i graduated from the naval mr. ayotte: caddyingmy, the average corporate -- when the graduated from the naval academy, today that multiple is 350. in germany, which has the highest balance of trade in the world, the average c.e.o. makes about 11 times what a worker makes. one of our brightest economic analysts, ralph is here today, he pointed out that this disparity came about not because of globalization, but because executive compensation became linked with the value of a stock rather than the company's actual earnings. investors will not complain. they invest in stocks. but our workers, the most productive work force in the

world, are the ones who have een left behind. we cannot tax ourselves into prosperity. but we do need to recon figure the tax code -- reconfigure the tax code so faxes fall in a fair way -- taxes fall in a fair way. third, we should rebuild our national infrastructure. the technology revolution has pushed a lot of lower-skilled people into unemployment and yet everywhere around us we see roads that need to be widened or repaired, bridges that are beginning to crumble, others that need to be built, traffic jams from clogged highways, schools that need to be built, expanded, or repaired, inner city neighborhoods with cracked sidewalks, broken windows and people on the street. franklin roosevelt mobilized a nation whose unemployment rate was at 25%. the civilian conservation corps went out and planted trees and cleared land. we built roads. we put people to work.

we cleaned things up. dwight d. eisenhower's vision brought us the interstate highway system. and the jobs that it took to build it. there are people who need jobs and there is work to be done. and along the way i believe it's possible to meld such a program with another one. featuring adult education for those who did lose their way when they were 17 and now know how important it is as a worker and as a parent to get that diploma, earn some money and be role model to your kid. we need to reform our criminal justice system. this is not a political issue. it is a leadership issue and it has dramatic manifestations throughout our society. the united states has the highest incarceration rate in the world. since i doubt we are the most evil people in the world, many now agree that maybe we're doing something wrong. millions of our citizens are

either in prison or under the supervision of the criminal justice system. during my time in the senate, we worked exhaustively to examine every component of this process, from point of apprehension to length of sentencing to the elements of life in prison, including prison administration. and to the challenge of re-entering society and hopefully living productive lives. we want -- when one applies for a job, stigma of having been in prison is like a tattoo on your forehead. in many cases, prison life creates scars and impediments that can only be repeedated through structured, -- re-- remediated through structured re-entry programs. millions of americans are in this situation. many of them nonviolent offenders who went to prison or drug use. do you want to see these former owe fenders back on the street -- offenders back on the street coming after your money or your

life? or do you want them in a job aking money and having a life? finally, let's find a way to return to good governance it. will take time. but it's possible to rebalance the relationship between the executive and legislative branches and to carefully manage the federal government, which is surely the most complex bureaucracy in the world. a lot of people running for president and a lot of people covering those who are running for president seem to skip past the realities of governing, into the circus of the political debate. the federal bureaucracy is huge . i've seen many people come to public service from highly successful careers in the business world only to be devoured and humiliated by the demands of moving policy through the bureaucracy and then the congress. the very administration of our

government needs to be fixed. with the right leadership and the right sense of priorities, it can be. i spent four years as a marine. four more as a full committee council in the congress, five in the pentagon, one as a marine and four as a defense executive sitting on the defense resources board. six years as a member of the united states senate. i'm well aware and appreciate that there are a lot of highly talented, dedicated people in our federal work force and i know they would be among the first to agree that we would benefit from taking a deep breath and basically auditing the entire federal government in order to rejustify the functioning of every program and every office. [applause] the way to solve these challenges and others is the way that other such challenges have always been solved in the past. find good leaders. tell them where the country needs to go. free them up to use their own creative energies. trust their integrity. supervise, hold them

accountable. just as they should hold our own people accountable, their own people accountable, and just as the american people should hold every national leader accountable. have the courage of your convictions, have the humility to listen to others. remember the greatness of our country and the sacrifices that have gone before us and never forget that history should and will judge all of us if we ever let the american dream die. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. we will now go into our q&a session. as i said to the senator beforehand, we'll try to make it rapid fire, as to get as much as we can in this next few minutes.

sir, are you considering pursuing the democratic nomination for president? would you consider running as an independent? >> i would say we -- we've had a lot of discussions among people that i respect and trust about the future of the country. and we are going to continue having these discussions over the next four or five months and i'm seriously looking at the possibility of running for president. but we want to, you know, see if there's a support base from people who would support the programs that we're interested in pursuing with the leadership. so the answer is i'm a democrat , i have strong reasons foring with -- for being a democrat. basically if you want true fairness in this society, you want to give a voice and the

quartsers of power to people who would otherwise not have it, i believe that would come from the democratic party and we're taking a hard look and we'll get back to you in a few months. [applause] >> what trait is most important in a person wanting to become our president and what is your best trait? [laughter] >> how many questions do you have on that stack before you pull that one up? and now, i think trust integrity, vision. but -- and loyalty. ou cannot run or lead unless you have that and unless you have that in the people who are with you too. one thing i used to tell my staff when i was in the senate as that i met every day with

the secretary of defense. mitt with him every day for four years. you -- i met with him every day for four years. i think the issues of character override even issues of intelligence. i hate to put it that way. i'd rather have someone who is really loyal and who can be trusted than someone who is smart and couldn't be trusted. [applause] >> hillary clinton, of course, is widely seen as the democratic front runner for president in 2006 -- 2016. what do you see as her strengths and weaknesses? [laughter] >> i've had the pleasure of working with hillary clinton when we were in the senate and at times when she was secretary of state. and i must say she has a much broader forum than i do to answer that question. >> a follow-up regarding mrs.

clinton. hillary clinton was secretary of state for four years. how responsible is she for the tangled mess of u.s. foreign policy that you cited in your remarks? [laughter] >> again, i think that's a question that really should be directed at secretary clinton. i'm not here to undermine her. i'm here just to explain where my concerns are as someone who's been involved in the military and foreign policy all of my life. it wasn't even a political comment when i made it. it's more a comment about leadership and how we need to be much clearer in terms of our national goals and our objectives around the world. [applause] >> as someone who didn't really embrace the task of being a politician while serving in the senate, why are you considering a run for president when that job demands so much politicking

to be effective? i think a lot of people misunderstand the approach that we took during my time in the senate and how much i valued being a part of the united states senate. i look at these positions more as opportunities to lead rather than to conduct politics per saw is a -- per se. i was raised on the notion of what it takes to be a leader and i think if you look at what we were able to do during our six-year period in the senate, it's pretty remarkable. and we did it by bringing strong, dedicated people into the staff, trusting them, giving them what the marine corps would be called mission-oriented orders, and approaching issues such as criminal justice that a lot of other people in the country were afraid to touch.

and bringing them to a place where we bring these issues out of the shadows and into the public debate. so it's a very tough thing to run for office. but it's also the way that the american people get to know you and to make their own decisions about whether they want to trust you and that's the process of a democracy. >> a related question. what's appealing about the job of president when partisanship and unwillingness in congress to compromise and work together makes getting even little things done so hard? >> i think with the right leadership we can get a lot of things done in this country. and we've seen this over and over again. i'm going to give you a

bipartisan historical response to that. this country was completely in the doldrums when franklin roosevelt took over. people had a feeling of hopelessness, that things couldn't be done. he came in with vision and leadership, put programs into place all over the country. things started to change. by the way, many of us lived through the carter administration and if you'll recall, in 1979, 1980, there were a lot of people saying, nothing can get done. everything is so paralyzed. people were even writing that the presidency was now too big for any one person to handle. and ronald reagan came in, he was a leader. you know, some of my democratic friends don't like it when i say that. ronald reagan was once a democrat. he was still a leader. but he brought strong people

around him. he had a vision where he wanted to take the country and thing sta -- things started moving again. leadership in this world requires that you sit down and talk to people and give them a clear vision of where you want to go and listen to them. i think we did this probably most clearly when we got the g.i. bill through the united states congress. i wrote this bill with legislative council before i was sworn in to the senate. we introduced it on my first day. we worked extremely hard across the aisle, we got two republican key sponsors, two democrat sponsors, two world war ii veterans, two vietnam veterans, indiana 16 months we got a bill -- and in 16 months we got a bill through a paralyzed congress that now more than a million of the veterans, post-9/11 veterans, have been able to use and really change their lives.

[applause] >> you have opposed u.s. military intervention in iraq and libya previously. please tell us your reaction to president obama beginning air strikes in syria last night and perhaps you would also like to respond to the remarks that the resident made three hours ago. >> i would start, mark shields will remember this, i'll start with a common that was give be to me when i was in beirut -- given to me when i was in beirut reporting for a news hour. i was out on a marine platoon that started taking fire from an outpost because there was a lebanese army positioned, co-located with the marines. and then some unknown militia started joining in, just because it was beirut, and then the syrians came up over one

ridge line and were firing 25 millimeter down into it. and a young marine turned around to me and said, sir, never get involved in a five-sided argument. [laughter] during the hearings, when i was still in the senate and they were considering doing something in syria, that was one of the points that i would raise. that if you think lebanon was bad, you know, syria's lebanon on steroids. just look at the situation that we now are in. isis, whatever -- however you want to define that, we need to be very careful to define what the membership of these entities really is, because in that part of the world people tend to drift in and out of different organizations, depending on who they think is getting something done. we have isis, supposedly who is anti-assad, wants to create this caliphate up there and now we're going to arm and train

another syrian opposition whose mission up until a couple of weeks ago was to help take out assad. now they're supposedly going to fight isis. we have a quiet agreement with the syrian government at this time, one would assume from what i'm hearing, the same government that the president a couple years ago said must go. we have a as it et -- tacet participation by iran on some level. you know, the country that many in the region believe we should be most concerned about. and it just shows you, this -- that is this region. it has been this region for 2,000 years. and what i have been saying since i was secretary of the navy, not just before the iraq war, is that the united states can assert its national security interests in that part of the world but we should

never become an occupying force in that part of the world. so when i look at what the president, the strikes that the president ordered, i would say this -- if he is ordering these strikes based on the notions of international terrorism, to borrow from the remarks that he made, if he's saying this is an international terrorist entity and the national security interests of the united states are directly threatened, and he's conducting limited strikes, i would say that is legal. that is legal. the question of judgment will e -- will remain to be seen. i'll stop right there. folks, this is a very, very complicated part of the world and we have to deal with our national security in a way that makes sure that we do not get entangled on the ground again.

>> president obama's advisors are saying that attacking al of is not an expansion the u.s. military mission because congress authorized war against al qaeda over a decade ago. do you agree with that reasoning? >> i've neard heard them say that but i would expect them to say that. it goes to what the portion might have remarks were. said that -- i said that even without the congressional authorization they are mentioning, we have the right of self-defense under international law and under the united nations charter. if there's an international terrorist organization that directly threatens our national security interests. so in that context, these types of limited raids are really no different than what we have been doing in places like yemen. >> do you think that the obama administration is handling -- how do you think the obama

administration is handling the situation in ukraine and how would you deal with vladimir pute finance you were president? -- putin if you were president? >> i do believe that this administration has been taking the right approach with respect to the situation in ukraine. of the russian involvement in ukraine involves larger players in historic europe countries like germany, which have an impact on the actions of the russians. second, it's possible, always possible, for the russians to have overplayed their hand. we saw this actually with the soviets in afghanistan, in 19 79. where they went in, they overplayed their hand and overtime -- and over time they had to adjust their policies. i believe the policy of

sanction and working with our european partners is the best way to go. what we can be thankful for right now by the way is that ukraine did not become a member of nato, as many people were advocating during the time that i was in the senate. because if they were a member of nato, we would be obligated to come to their defense militarily in some of these situations. we need to preserve our options and to work with our european partners. >> going domestically for a few questions. does it bother you that all the big financial firms and banks found responsible for the 2008 great recession have only had ? pay fines re we monetizing felonies?

>> let me just say this. going to give you a little historical marker here. when we had to vote on whether to provide $700 billion under what was called the tarp program, to appropriate $700 billion to a lot of companies who had i think abused our economic system, i called a lot of people trying to get their thoughts on which way i should vote. one of the pieces of advice that i appreciated most came from an individual named barton biggs who was with morgan stanley for many years. he helped me when i was bringing companies -- american companies into vietnam many years ago. very, very smart macroeconomic thinker. and someone who made a lot of money in the financial sector. and i said, which way do you think i should vote on this?

it's a three-page hands-written memorandum that says give these people $700 billion because of the mistakes they made. he said, number one, you have to do this. he said, if we do not staunch the bleeding, within weeks the economic systems in the world economy will have a cataclysmic freefall. number two, he said, we need to reregulate -- re-regulate. we need to get back to proper regulation of the financial sector. he said that as a hedge fund guy. he said, number three, you ought to find a way to punish, and that was his word, you ought to find a way to punish the people who created this situation, whose negligence and activities created this situation. so with that in mind, we worked a m our office to pass windfall profits tax. i'm not big on long-term taxes

like that. but after reading an article by martin wolf in the financial times d actually, a very conservative economic newspaper, he was recommending because these companies got bailed out through the moneys of the average working people in this country, the tax moneys of the average working people in this country, they ought to pay, they ought to pay back in. so we put together a refined piece of legislation that basically said, if you were one of, i think there were 13 companies that got more than a certain amount, the very top amount from the tarp program, and you're executive, you get ur full compensation and $400,000 bonus on regular taxation, but anything above your $400,000 bonus you split half and half, you split 50/50 with the people who bailed you out.

i thought that was extremely reasonable. the most interesting thing about it was, when we got up to the senate floor, it really was the democrats who didn't want to vote on it. not the republicans. nobody wanted to touch it. as a result we didn't get a vote on it. >> one more question before we go to some questions about veterans. do you believe that obamacare is a step forward for creating economic fairness? hy or why not? >> the whole issue of obamacare i think was the most difficult issue that we faced during my time in the senate. whether to eventually vote in favor of it or not. and first i would say, i believe the administration made an error, a strategic error of calling for that legislation at the time that they did. which was the beginning of their administration. t was an issue that had been

very popular during the election cycle, but you'll remember two months before the election, the economy crashed. and to bring something this costly as entially your flagship piece of legislation, at a time when the was my was still suffering not a strategically smart thing to do. there were a lot of pieces in this legislation i did not like. i voted with the republicans 18 times on different amendments, trying to bring the legislation to a place that i was more comfortable with. in the end i did vote for it and i'll tell you what was in my mind when i did. let's say this is 50.1% what you like and 49.9% what you don't. but my mother grew up in east

some pretty difficult surroundings. she was one of eight children. three of her siblings died in childhood. not child birth, childhood. as did her father when she was 10. and there wasn't medical care in east arkansas at the time. and if you go back to that period, in the 1930's, even on issues like do we create social security, any program that was put up where the government was going to take a greater responsibility for the individuals, to go book and look at it, they're all screaming, you know, this is socialism, you know, how are you going to have social security for these people? 1960's, medicare comes along. it's socialism. so that really pushed me over.

i think to vote in favor of it and i don't regret voting in favor of it. but there's a lot in this program that could be tightened and adjusted and i would hope that's where the congress can come together after this election. it's not going to go away. let's tighten it up and make it better. > we have many veterans in the audience,ing yourself. i'd like to -- audience, including yourself. many veterans are struggling to find work. is there more we can do to ensure that the men and women who serve are better prepared to enter the civilian work force? what i would like to see is a better understanding among potential employers about the value that a veteran can bring to the workplace. we've had discussions over the

years on this issue. i was a counsel on the house veterans' committee when i finished law school. i worked on this for many, many years. and if you're in the military, if you're an office and have a able to not only have college degree but have in many cases an advanced degree, and you've got a skill set that people can understand, you don't have a terribly difficult time selling yourself. if you're enlisted, particularly noncareer enlisted, i mean, the citizen soldiers, the people that i designed this g.i. bill for, you interrupt your life, you go out and pull a pump or two in iraq or afghanistan, you come back and some of the best leaders in that environment are the ones who are in the combat arms. but they come to an employer and they've got a dd-2-14, it

doesn't have a degree or a computer school, it says i was a squad leader. we need to have a better understanding amongst potential employers of what that means. that means i had to get things done every day. i had to lead people, i had to motivate them. i had to work across ethnic and other lines. i learned how to lead and how to get things done. and the more people understand that, then the easier it becomes to resolve the issues that you mentioned. >> we are almost out of time. but before i ask the last question, we have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. first of all, i'd like to remind you about our upcoming events and speakers. on october 15, deborah ruggetter, the new president of the john f. kennedy center for the pepper forming arts, will outline her plans for the center's future. october 20, thomas perez,

secretary of the u.s. department of labor, october 21, bob bolsbey, commissioner of the big 12 conference. next, i'd like to present our guests with the traditional national press club bug. i trust you have a set at home and this you can add to it. ok? nd our final question. two of our greatest presidents, teddy roosevelt and f.d.r., are backgrounds at the department of the navy. you -- do you sense a trend developing there? [laughter] [applause] >> unfortunately we're not cousins. thank you very much. my pleasure being here. >> thank you all. we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> coming up on c-span, president obama speaks at the u.n. climate summit. then terrorism and national security experts assess threats against the u.s. and later, senator tim mccain of virginia talks about the role of congress in combating sis. >> on the next "washington journal," look at the role of the national institutes of health in medical research. their funding and their involvement in combating outbreaks like ebola. we'll hear from dr. francis collins, n.i.h. director. we continue with patrigsa

grady, director of the national institute of nursing research, and dr. griffin rogers, director of the national institute of die beat and -- diabetes and die gentlemen's tick and -- digestive and kidney diseases. later, northwest university is our next stop. we'll talk to that school's president about public policy issues impacting higher education. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and you can join the conversation on acebook and twitter. >> wernings the head of the c.d.c., dr. tom friedan, and the world health organization speak at the university of pittsburgh medical center. about the ebola outbreak in west africa. you can see this event live at noon eastern on c-span2. >> the 2015 c-span student cam video competition is under way. open to all middle and high

school students to create a five to seven-minute documentary on the theme, the three branches and you. showing how a policy, law or action by the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the federal government has affected you or your community. there's $200 cash prices for students -- 200 cash prices for students and teachers. for a list of rules and how to get started go to studentcam.org. >> president obama made the first of three appearances at the united nations this week. when he spoke at the u.n. climate summit on tuesday. his remarks are 15 minutes. >> mr. president, mr. secretary general, fellow leaders, for all the media challenges we are gathered to address his week, terrorism, instability, inequality, disease -- there is one issue that will define the contours of this it

-- century more genetically than any other, that is the urgent and growing threat of changing climate. by years have passed since many of us met in copenhagen. since then, our understanding of climate change has advanced to -- advanced. both in the deepening science that says this once distance to -- threat has moved firmly into the present, and into the sting of more frequent extreme weather events that show us what these changes may mean for future generations. no nation is immune. in america, the past decade has been the hottest on record. a longer eastern coast, the city of miami now floods at high tide. in our west, wildfire season

stretches most of the year. in our heartland, farms have been parched by the worst drought in generations and drenched by the wettest spring in history. hurricane left parts of this great city dark and underwater. some nations already lived with for worse. worldwide this summer was the hottest ever recorded. global carbon emissions still on the rise. the climate is changing faster than our efforts to address it. the alarm bells key greening -- ringing. our citizens keep marching. we cannot pretend that we do not hear them. we have to answer the call.