one of the biggest chemical weapons stockpiles 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. bad guys without weapons of mass destruction we can deal with. destruction, we can't. the president did it according to the rulebook. it was a tough vote, divided but not part us in. we ended up getting something out of it that was very positive for the long-term safety of the people of that region. up to now, the president had done it two ways. libya, did not go to congress. syria, went to congress. the syrian civil war is still going on. assad is still a brutal dictator. but a major stockpile of weapons of 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. we have a cr 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 that 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 first wars that united states decides to do on a credit card. iraq and afghanistan were the first to where 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. there has been a progressive 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. 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. 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 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 now, whether or not that lack of specific congressional authorization would in fact act to constrain this president from expanding the current military 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 approval for these strikes in syria. there have been concerns and statements we have heard in the news. >> the consequences of no vote, i think it would be disastrous if it persists. if 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 dam in mosul, and it would not cause harm to american life, it moved to an offensive mission. the president even said we will go on offense 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 congress would not accept even right after 2001. they mean us 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 principle -- 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 worried 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 who 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. in both houses and in both parties, there is a strong belief that we have to. with december 11, it creates a natural window for that discussion. in one sense, 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. 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.

i am not i'm international long guy. but it raises an interesting question. i would think that the president cannot count on article two 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. the 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 law, 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 i think the international questions are pretty straightforward in iraq. they 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 pinned 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 board, because there are u.n. 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. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up on c-span, former senator james webb speaks about the economy and foreign policy. that is followed by scottish first minister alex sam and addressing parliament after the referendum vote. later, mayor -- remarks by british labor party leader ed miliband. >> on the next washington journal, a look at the role of the national institutes of health and medical research, funding and involvement in combating outbreaks like ebola. we will hear from dr. francis collins. grady,inue with patricia director of the national institute of nursing research

and dr. griffin rodgers, director of the national institute of diabetes. later, northwestern university is our latest stop on the big ten college tour. we will 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 facebook and twitter. >> wednesday, the head of the dr. keiji fujoda speak about the evil outbreak in west africa. you can see this live on c-span 2. >> the 2015 stiffed in -- the 2015 c-span student cam

competition is underway. policy, law or action by the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the government has affected you are your community. fore are 200 cash prizes students and teachers totaling $100,000. for the list of rules and how to get started, go to student-cam.org. this tuesday, six weeks from today, the country will vote and chris chris cillizza says he is excited. let's talk about the senate races. that is going to be the issue that is going to captivate attention on election night. right now, you say it is still a tossup. >> in some 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 -- none of these are places that are by the nature hospitable to the democrat party. democrats have suffered a number of retirement. they have had a lot of tough 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 kansas to campaign for pat roberts. what is going on? >> under the radar is the 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 democrat has not been elected since 1982. -- since 1932. i think we saw pat roberts as one of the republican incumbents who had some serious problems with his ideological race.

he won that race with an impressive seven points. pat roberts probably assumed, i won my primary. he did not appear to pay much attention. now he has a real problem. greg orman, independent wealthy businessman, normally independent candidates we kind of write off. but orman 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 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."

a new poll this week shows that kay hagan was in the margin of error but still slightly ahead over tom tillis. 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. a good year to be a democrat in 2008, especially in north carolina. relatively 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. but he has to own a conservative and controversial state legislature. this is where some state issues in terms of how people view the state legislature, the governor, the republican branch, i think they play more of a role here than in other states because of 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. a kentucky poll that had mitch mcconnell up a few points had obama at 31%. a poll in arkansas had obama's approval at 31%. in north carolina a poll had north carolina at 38% his 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. >> what i am the struck by, 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 years where kathleen sebelius 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 between moderates and conservatives that he would identify with. and now he is behind a state rep that not many people know named paul davis. in connecticut, dan malloy. if you are not scandal-play, you should win. dan malloy is in a real dogfight and behind tom foley who was the nominee against him in 2010. malloy is being attacked of all things on his push to pass a lot of gun-control measures post-newtown. fully saying that was too much

and overreaction. illinois is another example. pat quinn, 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. thanks very much for joining us. >> thank you. >> former senator jim webb of virginia spoke tuesday at the national press club. mr. webb is considering a presidential run, discussed the economy and foreign policy for an hour. >> good afternoon and welcome. 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] president obama's week in new york top stories today. first the president speaks before the u. n. general onembly at 10:00, live here

c-span. then at 3:00 p.m. president obama leads the u. n. security meeting on terrorism. can you join the conversation during both of these events on and twitter. >> campaign 2014 debate coverage attinues thursday night 9:00, nebraska's second congressional district debate between the incumbent representative lee terry and state senator brad ashford. iowa debate.e coveragebringing you from races all over the country. you can see the debates we cover at c-span.org. look at the candidates for iowa's governor's race, terry branstad

jack hatch. if you're going to be a leader, you need to be a governor who is andg to be open transparent, and it's just unacceptable that the governor sayss in front of us and that he's open and transparent and has nothing to hide, when all they've been doing is hiding, and not just an attack but thedidate, accusations come from legitimate legislature, the state auditor's office, from the whots, and from individuals take the time to sue him

and his office these are not the actions of a lead.or who can >> governor? >> this is iowa, not illinois. most of the former governors in illinois are in prison. back in office because the people of iowa trust me. they know me. honest.w i'm [cheers and applause] i have been totally open and transparent and i have a press takerence every week and i the tough questions from the press, and anybody can file a i can tell you, we worked with the auditor, there was one agreement that was agreed upon before i signed the executive order and was signed later and when it was discovered was was the case it changed, they eliminated the that.entiality clause in that has been enforced, i will it.inue to enforce but we want to extend it to local governments and the legislature, and the house

and my friends in the senate killed it because they don't want the public to know the truth about what's in those confidential files on employ personnel. people of iowa deserve to know that because it's their tax money that's paying it. >> campaign 2014 debate coverage continues thursday night at 9:00. >> voters in scotland rejected a referendum last week that would them independence from the united kingdom. alex salmond, first minister of who led the campaign for independence, addressed the tuesday.parliament on

his remarks are 15 minutes. >> you rightly identified that last week's referendum was a most extraordinary and exhilarating experience. and huge credit in that is due the referendum campaign. comparing it with our previous experience of constitutional referendums. of 1979 was a botched job.

referendum was an altogether different experience, it was a great experience actually. but we should remember the turnout in that referendum, however successful, was 60%. last week, as you correctly identified, presiding officer, was 85%.ut the highest for any vote on that scale ever held on these islands. estimation of it, both sides of the debate conducted in a very democratic, manner.d and engaged and whatever your view and whatever your vote, i want to say thank you. this has been the greatest democratic experience in hasland's history and brought us great credit both nationally and internationally. [applause] overwhelmingly positive side to the referendum

not generallyt is recognized. few a shame that a concentrated on negative elements. true merge is that scotland has had the most westernpopulation in europe for both sides. that is a significant and to be reckoned with. we need to retain and encourage gainment,'s en vitality, spirit. nothing is more important for that.ture than onht now i want to focus that positive. so i'll concentrate on two points in particular, which arise from this referendum. the first is this. there is not a shred of evidence for arguing that 16 and 17-year-olds should not be allowed to vote. [applause]

great constitutional day was second to none, they proved themselves to be the serious passionate committed citizens we always believed they would be. everyone in this chamber should be proud of this chamber's decision to wide ten franchise. is there an overwhelming and case for giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in all scotland andons in indeed across the united kingdom. they're all, all party in this parliament i think should make a vote to usual westminster to make this happen in time for year's general election. which is oneestion that's already asked by many people, where do we move forward here? from the moment the referendum of theclear, section 30 agreement came into effect, that means that both the u.k. government and scottish are committed to accepting the outcome of the referendum and working together scotlandst interest of

and the rest of the u.k. i believe strongly in that section 30. i've put an tone the ed en burg agreement. the red light issue for the scottish government in the same way that the red light u.k. government have --to scottish government will contribute to a process tole bawr the scottish parliament and people.tish we will bring forward constructive proposals for doing that. i welcome to appointment of lord smith, he's a trusted person who in recent month has given, say, hasars we should given great service to scotland. and to his oversight of the

games organizing committee was outstanding, indeed exemplary. say that david cameron surprised me and i suspect ahers in this chamber with state on friday morning, after referendum of the was confirmed. he said that change in scotland tandem, and in case we didn't understand what that meant, he repeated, at the same change in england and the rest of the u.k. us willdition as all of know would risk thering the entire process into delay and confusion. it would directly also contradict the clear commitment during the campaign. i should say the briefing for downing street yesterday was very different from the friday morning statement. u.k.suggests that the government started to understand the importance of meeting its campaignts during the is crucial that they do have that understanding.

this parliament, we, all of us have a responsibility to hold westminster's feet to the fire to ensure that the plenties are met. a job for thet scottish government, it's one for all party in the parliament. indeed we might well argue there's a special obligation on unionist party that it's essential that they deliver. parties should understand this well, that the true guardians of progress are political parties at westminster, or the political chamber, or in this lord smith, they are the electorate of this nation, the people mo will not any equivocation or delay. i was struck yesterday by the theement of james smith of scottish congress. and i suspect in that statement captured the feelings of many, many people in scott land. say.is what graham had to

the vast movement for meaningful progressive change of the last two years is impatient for change and will not accept minimalist proposals, handed down on a take them or leave them basis. they are not going to be passive processants in the of -- or compromise. the sooner they recognize this and get down to working with civil society and the communities and the people of deliver ao comprehensive new settlement, better. that's absolutely correct, the peopledum debate engaged in every community of our cannotes, final outcome be a last minute deal between a small group of westminster politicians. should support lord smith's commitment to genuine

consultation. proper consultation and debate people, rather than distracting them. it worth remembering that since the agreement was signed in 2012, the number of people unemployed in scotland has reduced by 40,000. we now have a record employment in scotland, the highest in scottish history. we have record female employment in scott land. rising femaleter employment ever in scotland the economy has come out of the ahead of thesion .est of the u.k., visitor spending in scotland has has grown.exports and we have delivered the most successful commonwealth games in the history of the commonwealth games. mentioned in passing, because debatelast parliamentary --ore the referendum

theland wasn't on pause for referendum, it was on fast forward on the economy as every indicates. [applause] asking ourselves as a country what sort of nation we want to be isn't something that is separate from good government, government. good political confidence and economic confidence are together, all of us have a responsibility to maintain that political confidence and self enable our empowered

and engaged electorate in changes.g meaningful there must be a range of proposals. government's view should pass three key tests. scott enable us to make land a more prosperous country, the jobs test in particular, general -- genuine job creating powers are important. it should allow us to build a fairer society. we need to address the causes of society,y in scottish and it should enable scott land to have a stronger and clearer voice on the international stage. than two party less weeks before the referendum promised home rule for scott the united kingdom.

they must deliver not just in the rhetoric but also in the people ofof the scotland. it's also vital that new economic powers do not in any disadvantage scotland the vote made by the party leaders was clear that because continuation of the allocation of resources, the powers of the scottish parliament, we can state finalrically that a

while making that important change, the united kingdom finally give ald statutory basis to the convention of legislative con send motions. overall there's a great this parliament. we can work together to help the u.k. government deliver its of thisfor the powers chamber. way whichso in a engages the interest of the scottish people. caveats i wanted to add to the hugely positive nature for rear en dumb process. both involve the criminal law and therefore they're worth including in this statement. there is the outstanding matter of the treasury briefing of the of 10 september, 45

meetingbefore a finished, we need to establish the full circumstances and briefingtion for this and how it can be anything other to section 52 of the criminal justice act of 1993. take proper andenes we saw in necessary action against those who indulge in prearranged suffering against peaceful demonstration. the full force of the law will be enabled and be able to eradicate such behavior from scottish life. [applause] the late donald, and what i believe to be the final speech of his life, spoke to the opening of the part -- parliament in 1999.

he reflected on the discourse of the scottish enlightenment as an and go from the past which has helped shape modern scotland. what we have seen in these last of years is a new discourse enlightenment. scotland now has the most politically-engaged population in western europe and one of the most engaged of any country anywhere in the demographic -- democratic world. this land has been a hub of in thel discussion workplace, pubs, and streets of scotland. energized in an way which has never happened before, certainly not in my experience, and i expect in the experience of anyone in this chamber. we have seen a generational change. also -- also in how all caps have been carried forward. politic, new body

one that is speaking loud and clear. all of us must realize that things will never be the same again. whenever we are traveling nationr, we are a better today that we were at the start of the process. we are more enabled, and more empowered. as a result of that, a great national debate in my estimation will help us make a more democratic and prosperous country and all of scotland will emerge as the winner. [applause] >> this morning on c-span, the british labor party at miliband and his party's conference. lawyers and scholars preview the upcoming supreme court term.

live at 7:00 a.m. eastern, washington journal looks at the role of the national institutes of health. the series continues at northwestern university. president obama's week in new york continues with two bleatings at united nations. first at 10:00 a.m. eastern. we will be live here on c-span. live at 3:00 p.m., president obama leads the un security council meeting on terrorism. you can join the conversation during both of these events on facebook and twitter. the 2015 c-span student cam video competition is underway. open to all middle and high school students to create a 5-7 minute documentary on the theme, the three branches and you, showing how it policy, law, or

action by one of the branches of the government has affected you or your community. there are 200 cash prizes for students and teachers totaling $100. -- $100,000. for a list of how to get am.org., go to studentcc >> tuesday, labor party leader ed miliband spoke about his party's agenda, u.s. airstrikes scottish and a recent independence referendum. >> please welcome the leader of the labour party.

admin will then. -- ed miliband. [applause] >> thank you so much for that incredibly kind welcome. i want to start by talking about somebody just on the road from here. that's alan henning, a british hostage taken by isil. his wife, barbara henning, made an incredibly moving appeal for his release just over the weekend. you know, alan henning is simply an aid worker trying to make life better for victims of conflict.

i think it should tell us all we need to know about isil and their murderous ways that they take a decent british man like alan henning hostage. and it's not just british people that they are targeting; it is people of all nationalities and all religions. that's why we supported a coalition, not simply based on military action but a coalition based on humanitarian, political and diplomatic action to counter the threat of isil. now this week, the president of the united states and the british prime minister are both at the united nations. we support the overnight action against isil, what needs to happen now is that the un needs to play its part. a un security council resolution to win the international support to counter that threat of isil.

[applause] friends, this country will never turn our back on the world and will never turn our back on the principles of internationalism. [applause] and those values are reflected not just in our country but in this party, in this hall and in this great city of manchester. [applause] friends, it is great to be with you in manchester. a fantastic city. a city with a great labour council leading the way. and a city that after this year's local elections, is not

just a tory-free zone but a liberal democrat free zone as well. [applause] now manchester has special memories for me because it was four years ago that i was elected your leader, here in manchester. four years on i feel wiser. i feel older. i feel much older, actually. [laughter] but hang on a minute, some of you look quite a lot older as well. at least i've got an excuse. but i am prouder than ever to be the leader of your party and i thank you for your support. [applause] now we meet here in serious times, not just for our world

but for our country too. our country nearly broke up. a country that nearly splits apart is not a country in good health. i want to start by thanking all of labour's team scotland for the part they played in keeping our country together. [applause] let us thank them all. gordon brown, alistair darling, margaret curran, douglas alexander, jim murphy, anas sarwar, johann lamont. [applause] let us thank them all, ladies and gentlemen because they helped save our country. [applause]

and i want to say to the people of scotland directly, this labour party will show you over the coming years you made the right choice. because we are better together. [applause] now here's the thing. all of us, all political leaders, all of us in this hall, have a responsibility to try and explain why 45% of people voted yes. 45% of people wanted to break up our country. and we've got to explain why the feeling we saw in scotland is not just in scotland but is reflected across the country and my story starts six days from the end of the referendum campaign. i was on my way to a public meeting. i was late as politicians tend to be. and just outside the meeting i

met a woman and i was supposed to be going into the meeting but i wanted to stop and ask her how she was voting. i did that to everybody on the street. one vote at a time. i said to her, how are you voting? she said, i haven't decided yet. turned out her name was josephine. she worked as a cleaner in the building. i asked her what the company was like that she worked for. she said the company was decent but the wages were rubbish. she hadn't decided because life was so incredibly tough for her. she didn't want to leave but she thought it might be the best thing to do. now, i don't know how josephine voted in the referendum, but i do know the question she was asking, is anyone going to make life better for me and my family? and here's the thing. it isn't just josephine's question. it's the question people are asking right across britain, is

anyone going to build a better life for the working people of our country? that wasn't just the referendum question. that is the general election question. [applause] i am not talking about the powerful and the privileged. those who do well whatever the weather. i'm talking about families like yours, who are treading water, working harder and harder just to stay afloat. for labour, this election is about you. you've made the sacrifices. you have taken home lower wages year after year. you have paid higher taxes. you have seen your energy bills rise and your nhs decline. you know this country doesn't work for you. my answer is that we can build a better future for you and your family and this speech is about labour's plan to do it.

labour's plan for britain's future. [applause] so what do we need to have that plan for the future? we've got to understand what people are saying to us right across the united kingdom. see, i think across our country there is a silent majority who wanted our country to endure but are telling us that things must change and they come from every walk of life. like a young woman called xiomara who works in a pub near where i live. she lives at the opposite end of the country from josephine. she's separated by at least a generation. but they share a common experience. xiomara couldn't afford to go to college. so she got a job in the pub kitchen nearby, washing dishes. she's worked incredibly hard and she's worked her way up to be one of the chefs.

but like for josephine, life by xiomara is incredibly tough. and by the way, she thinks politics is rubbish. and let's not pretend we don't hear that a lot on the doorstep. what does she see in politics? she sees drift. she doesn't think we can solve her problems, now we've got to prove her wrong. and it's not just that people like xiomara and josephine are struggling with the problems of today and millions of other people. i think there's something almost even more important about our country. people have lost faith in the future. you know, the other day i was in the park. i was actually trying to work on my speech, believe it or not, and i wasn't getting anywhere, so i went to the park and there were two young women who were in the park and they seemed excited to see me and they came over. and, it's not that funny -- [laughter]

one of them actually said, so it is true, you do meet famous people in this park. and the other one said, yeah it is. and then the first one said, no offence, we were hoping for benedict cumberbatch. [laughter] but anyway, one of them said something which really stuck with me. she said this, she said, my generation is falling into a black hole. and she said about her parents' generation, they've had it so good and now there's nothing left for us. she wasn't just speaking for herself, she was speaking for millions of people across our country. millions of people who have lost faith in the future. like gareth, who is high up at a software company. he's got a five year old daughter, he's earning a decent wage, he can't afford to buy a home for himself and for his family, he's priced out by the richest. he thinks that unless you're one

of the privileged few in britain the country is not going to work for you and your kids are going to have a worse life than you. and so many people, friends, across our country feel this way. they feel the country doesn't work for them. and they've lost that faith in the future. now our task is to restore people's faith in the future. not by breaking up our country. but by breaking with the old way of doing things. by breaking with the past. i'm not talking about a different policy or a different programme. i'm talking about something much bigger. i'm talking about a different idea, a different ethic for the way our country succeeds. you see, for all the sound and fury in england, scotland, wales, across the united kingdom, what people are actually saying to us is this country doesn't care about me. our politics doesn't listen. our economy doesn't work and they're not wrong, they're right and this labour party is going to put it right.

[applause] but friends, to do that we have to go back to the very foundations of who we are and how we run things. we just can't carry on with the belief that a country can succeed as a country with a tiny minority at the top doing well. prosperity in one part of britain, amongst a small elite. a circle that is closed to most, blind to the concerns of people. sending the message to everyone but a few, you're on your own. see, think about it for a minute. in our economy, it's working people who are made to bear the burden of anxiety, precariousness and insecurity. they've been told, you're on your own.

so many young people who don't have the privileges, think their life is going to be worse than their parents. they've been told, you're on your own. so many small businesses are struggling against forces more powerful than themselves. they've been told, you're on your own. and the most vulnerable have been thrown on the scrapheap, cast aside, not listened to even when they have a case. they've been told, you're on your own. and to cap it all, in our politics, it's a few who have the access while everyone else is locked out. they've been told, you're on your own. no wonder people have lost faith in the future. that's why so many people voted to break up our country. is it any wonder? the deck is stacked. the game is rigged in favour of those who have all the power. friends, in eight months' time,

we're going to call time on this way of running the country. because you're on your own -- [applause] because you're on your own doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for your family, it doesn't work for britain. [applause] can we build a different future for our country? of course we can. but with a different idea for how we succeed. an idea that in the end won this referendum. an idea i love because it says so much about who we are and who we have it in ourselves to become. an idea rooted in this party's character and our country's history. an idea that built our greatest institutions and got us through our darkest moments.

an idea that is just one simple word. together. together. together we can restore faith in the future. together we can build a better future for the working people of britain. together we can rebuild britain. friends, together we can. [applause] together says it is not just the powerful few at the top whose voices should be heard, it's the voice of everyone. together says that it is not just a few wealthy people who create the wealth of our country. it's every working person. together says that we just can't won't succeed as a country with the talents of a few, we've got to use the talents of all. together says that we can't have some people playing under different rules, everybody's got to play under the same rules.