former democratic states were some control of public union is essential. the problems with the indebted problem. they have not found a way yet of accomplishing this, the tea party, at the federal level. and have not exercised full plenary power. this has led to some tactical blunders, of which we are aware. part perhaps, to achieve of the goal, which they did to sequestration, it could be argued that the tea party turned its back too much on the defense spending. the second accomplishment. bringing.theh constitution the thinking of a

political party and a program that is another role for anothte constitution. distinct asto -- as the constitution as being the rights protected by courts. political parties should not speak of these matters. leave it to the courts. it brought back the constitution is a popular document. and even made it be read on the houseof the representatives to the amazement of the previous speaker. there is a problem here as well. i think there is a deficient understanding of the constitution by the tea party. i think because some parts of it re themselves is so orientated towards the libertarian perspective, they imagine if libertarianism is good, the

constitution should be libertarian. i think they undersell the role that government should play in a foreign realm, and may have onen dangerous views limitations of executive power in the foreign realm as well. the third a couple spent is to provide starts to the conservative movement. starts to the fabric softener of the establishment. so you have this dialectic between the two. the tea party introduces the starch -- let's do something, let's not concede. softener, some of the people and the establishment is get along. if the election in 2012 was for the president, therefore, -- it's excepted and no longer question. no, says the tea party and keeps fighting. we are very much taken up with

the deeper question of the control of words and their meaning. compromise is an example. be good. at least according to the establishment. so, compromise means compromise with us. the position of the president. that is what compromise has meant. so the need to compromise. after all the founders compromise, didn't they? this is said by people who compromise -- you criticized the founders for compromising with slaves. it should be asked about what? that is the more important question. compromise is not the only virtue. one should say something in -- ue of option see obstinate see. finally, the political effects itshe romne tea party since

inception in 2010. the republican party has gained in normatively since 2010 in all realms except the control of the presidency. the house, now the senate. especially among governors and state legislatures. a seachange if you look at what is happened in this period in th e relationship between the two parties. inause of the tea party, spite of the tea party, or perhaps a little bit because of the little bit in spite of the tea party. that question has to be confronted when those who dismiss the tea party nad it -- and its influence would have to ask this question -- have all these gains been made by republicans in spite of the tea party, which is a newly let -- ana logical proposition -- illogical proposition. i conclude with a question that larry brought up nicely.

cthout the tea party, senator rist, anyone? >> mike, you're up. >> it is nice to be on the panel with a man who puts the hair in the heritage foundation. jim said most of what has been said hasis -- ise thing that steve said is note tea party distinct from the conservative movement. one of the most common questions you get is what can we do to bridge the divide? how to be get on the same page? why the conservative movement exist is because of a genetic flaw that exists within a party of limited government. the genetic flaw of the democratic party as margaret thatcher said that the problem

of socialism is that eventually you run out of everyone else's money. you see that playing in the states. how do you balance with the state balance budget, the demands of medicaid versus the demands of teachers union and education? you are saying that the genetic flaw on the left. the genetic flaw on the left is that you elect -- the genetic flaw on the right is that you elect politicians to give up power and give that power back to civil society. until and unless the state of ohio start sending cincinnatus to washington instead of john boehner, you will have been tension between a conservative movement that believed in its heart in limited government and believes in its heart and civil society, and of the politicians who are forced to follow through. on those commitments. there are two things going on in the country that make the conservative movement stronger. if you want to call the

conservative movement the tea them isne of technological. 80%ou go back to 19895, percent of the prophets were controlled by five large record companies. technology comes around. we are going to change it. it is no longer these five companies that can control e very part of the production. you have napster. itunes. and ultimately justin bieber gets found on youtube. fortally different model the music industry. now the five largest record labels in the music industry have 23% of the profit. you are seeing the exact same thing happening down the road 10, 20 years later and politics. we no longer live in a world where politicians can go home and brag about the earmark that he brought home.

without somebody having read the legislative text online, gone through it and said, you are leaving out the other 10,000 earmarks in the bridge to nowhere in alaska that was part of the package that let you bring home the bacon here you no longer live in a world where a member of congress can go home to his district and say i voted for a farm bill. it is a good thing for our district because we are a farm district, without somebody having read that and realize that 80% of the bill as food stamps. you had a great article in "the wall street journal" on the farm back to a district in indiana and talking to farmers who were supportive of marlin voting against a farm bill because they realize that while there was some benefit, in the grand scheme, 80% of the bill was food stamps. you have grown up through technology for the ability for people to read text online. the monopoly on power of the two political parties had to explain their voting record and go home

and face one thing in their home district while voting differently here in washington. the second reason i think the grassroots are more powerful today is that washington, d.c., is worse than it was 10, 20, 50 years ago. there are many problems in the past. but when you look at the cronyism that goes on in washington, jefferson said that a government big enough to give you everything you want and powerful enough to take everything you have. that is not a state outcome that we may one day reach. when you have a tax code that is longer than the king james bible and a regulatory regime that takes $1 trillion out of the economy and a fragile budget of $3.8 trillion there is more opportunity for washington, d.c., to give out favors for special interests at the expense of the taxpayer or the forgotten man or the general welfare across the country. you can see this if you go back -- congress came back this week to start their lame-duck. all of the washington reporting

-- political -- is about the action-packed december and everything that has to be done. think about it. everything that comes out in these articles, the framework of an american out there who has seen his median wage the same as it was when ronald reagan left office. use these families collapsing. who sees all of the prices in his life going up. the cost of education and higher education, housing, energy, food, beef hitting $4.00 a pound. the house comes back and says if we do not pass the terrorism bill, the world can come to an end. on the bus.ass an washington does not speak to the real anxiety of the american people. and given an environment where it is easier than ever to organize, we should not be surprise the conservative movement is stronger. but it is not just the conservative movement. you can tell a lot about a

civilization bites pop culture. when you look at the pop culture today, you have "house of cards." very popular on netflix. that says there are politicians willing to murder, lie, and steel for no reason other than gaining power. if you look at "scandal." saying politicians are willing to murder, torture, and steel for no purpose other than to the pleasure of gaining power. the premise of "the daily show" is that the whole thing is a game. it is an exercise in coming up with a messaging amendment so we can turn it into a 32n- second ad -- a 30-second ad. you get a sense that washington, d.c., is not working for me. it is exploiting me. surprised,ot be therefore, that you have the type of populist uprising we see. i guess it will conclude with where do we go from here? there is a very active debate

going on than the republican party now about what the policy agenda of the future is. in the first the donorist agenda. it is laid out any rnc's autopsy. anytime you hear somebody say there is no disagreement on the right about the end goal, there is a disagreement on tactics, the rnc autopsy of what went wrong in 2012 says that we have to stop talking about social issues. we have to provide amnesty for 5 million people in the country. says we have to -- on most of the major problems in america have more of a messaging-based approach then a fundamental rethinking. that is the solution of the establishment. it works well for those people. it works well for people in washington, d.c. with a status quo that benefits them and was built to benefit them. the other agenda and the tea party agenda -- we call it at eritage, opportunity for

all. actually look at the struggles that most americans face. that, with median income has been stable since reagan left office. with the collapse of the family. which all of the rest of it, debt, spending does not matter if you do not have stable families. we change at how do the dynamic and washington, d.c.? high we change a system that is very much not broken but a finely tuned machine to make sure that special interests in washington work? how do we instead come up with higher education and a reform and opportunity act, which flows of the accreditation and replaces it with a federalism-based approach to accreditation. cruz's energy legislation. legislation that speaks to the price and wage measures that most americans who feel unheard on washington are right to feel

and are looking for a party within exciting agenda to move forward. i think those are the structures of the debate. ultimately, if washington, d.c. is this finely to machine that gives out favoritism and is hostile for those of us who want to have an aggressive policy agenda, who want to move the country in a different direction , to succeed unless we do damage to the status quo in washington? when the tax code is structured to give and if it to those of that earmarks, you cannot have fundamental tax reform unless you upset some people on k street. if you are trying to have an improvement to the higher education system where every person who goes to college does not necessarily learn the same exact environment as people learned at oxford 800 years ago, you are going to do damage to some of the special interests in washington that are investing in the status quo. these policiesg that can provide opportunity,

the policies of a conservative reform agenda with an explicit willingness to attack the favoritism of washington, d.c. is the only way forward to have reform. it is why all of us are invested in having a reform agenda and need to be equally invested in the continued growth and success of the conservative movement of the tea party against the status quo and the establishment here in town. >> thank you. [applause] i would like to as the first question and then we will take questions from the audience. the theme of this lecture series is lessons for conservatives. i'm sure we're going to have several members of the tea party watching online. what advice would you give tea party members who are listening to us, gentlemen? >> first i would go to heritage action.com. look, i think we are going to save this country by having a well-informed populace that has greater access to information, greater ability to find like-minded people that somebody

in georgia can meet an activist in michigan and between the two of them they can go through and read a piece of legislation and analyze a voting record and get engaged. you get the government you deserve. i think the problems our country has. they are the fault of whether or not we are paying enough attention to what is going on to hold our member of congress accountable. -- part of what we do is we have the setup program with 10,000 activists sentinels around the country and we train them what to look for. we get several thousand of them on a conference call every monday morning. a couple months ago, one of them was at a town hall and asked their member of congress about the export import bank and what he thought about the export import bank and how he could defend voting for something that sense 75% of its loans to companies like ge, caterpillar, and boeing and the rest to russian oligarchs.

he said, isn't it -- it is an important issue and i will talk to my l.d. said, you voted two days ago to reauthorize it. when you have that type of accountability, that type of well-informed citizen who is paying attention to washington, is not letting the politician get away with the first answer -- i voted for a farm bill because we are in a farm district -- but instead is asking questions, pursuing a journalistic responsibility of knowing what is going on in asking questions, i think you get much better governance and you get politicians to start improving their voting records because they cannot get away with preserving the status quo. >> i agree entirely. i think there is an opportunity now. you talked a little bit about the record labels and the fact that it used to be five in 1995. now it is 23%. i agree that that has been a

significant -- it had an impact -- technology had an impact not only on the record industry but in politics and in a way that allows people to be much more involved, much better informed than they could've been. you do not have to go to the library like you had to do 50 years ago. you can get on your computer in the comfort of your home and read the bill. i do wonder, though, you mentioned justin bieber and youtube. is that a positive? i was not going to say it. so, i think that is the short answer to your question. i get that question a lot. what can we do? and that's exactly what you can do. there is no real qualification to be a journalist. you can go to journalism school if you want. you do not have to -- you to not have to know anything special to be a journalist, but you can go

to a town hall and ask questions because you know as much or more than the elected official you're asking. produce results, get a change, embarrass the heck out of somebody. that is a positive thing. >> just briefly, i think that much can be done through the suggestions already made it, but bear in mind, this thing called the tea party has many different positions on different issues, different strands of it. you can't just get by thinking that if people inform themselves, called themselves tea party, that we are going to solve many of the problems. if you party people themselves disagree. take foreign affairs. you have the isolationist he party and the internationalist departing strand. we should not disillusion ourselves. operate under the illusion that just because tiki party exists, that the problems are going to be solved. they're going to have to solve some of the problems themselves,

amongst themselves, about what actually they stand for. that is why i think your initial question -- there is a lot of agreement on the things that are wrong, but the direction we should go remains open within the tea party itself. >> it was a good question, because i read it in something that you read. [applause] we will take questions from the audience. the answered everything. gentleman over here. >> i disagree with the notion that the conservative movement and the tea party are one and the same. i say that because i have been involved in the conservative movement since 1976 when i became a volunteer for the reagan campaign. the big difference that i see is that the goldwater activists that i got to know and the

activists from the reagan iran after that, the conservative activists, were very sharp political operators. and they knew that they were in the fight for the long haul, many of them. a lot of them had been around for years and years, participating in the fight. when i became involved in the tea party movement, i think that a lot of people that i would have to classify as naïve. and i think that some of the reason why the large tea party participation has dropped off since the early days is that when we did not achieve -- with the tea party did not achieve their ultimate goals right away, i think a lot of people became discouraged and left the tea party movement. i do not think there is much argument that it is as vibrant as it was when it started. i would just like to hear your comments about that. >> i guess i disagree with the premise.

i think that -- look, there is not an obamacare vote as to whether or not nancy pelosi gets to randy bill through congress coming up in the way that there was in august of 2009 when people had that live fire drill to push at. i think that the notion that you would have a huge, six-month long fight over the export/import bank, this distillation of cronyism in washington, d.c., has put energy in the grassroots to pay attention to what is going on in washington, to sweat the details and be organized. i think a lot of the tea parties have become involved in, heritage action or other great groups. there is not obamacare hanging out there, there is not part hanging out there in terms of huge boats but when you look back in 2011 to the debt limit in the amount of energy that was out there, you look at the interview last year on stuff like a farm bill or the export, import bank, there are millions of people that are actively informed.

i think, look at what is going on with immigration right now. i certainly think that if you have an obamacare going forward right now, you would see people through august getting engaged in the same way they were last year around the defund effort. and two years before that, right after obamacare past. so i guess i disagree with the premise that they are not as actively involved. i found the activist to be some of the most well-informed, thoughtful people involved in politics that i run across. we had a friend or people in atlanta from around the country that were part of the sentinel program, some of the most interesting, thoughtful, well-informed people out there. they are not current political consultants in washington, d.c., and if you do more is a feature than a bug. >> i think i am in the middle of you two. when you have a movement like the tea party, i agree it is a movement for the reasons that jim suggests, it has all the hallmarks of arab -- of a movement or it when you have that kind of a movement, it

attracts people that have -- that are excited at the beginning and have not been involved. with the tea party, a lot of people -- the number of times i interviewed somebody, at a tea party rally or a clinical event or a primary debate or something, who said to me, i have never been involved in politics before. well, ok, that is fair. they are necessarily not going to have the level of sophistication of some of the people you are talking about who got involved in goldwater and state involved forever. so there is a learning curve, to use the cliché. i think the tea party is going through that right now. certainly you expect the white-hot energy at the very beginning to fade a little bit. you would expect that some of the people who became active who were not political animals before that to get the bug, to really become active in to stay active and maybe become, in 20 years, you, sitting there and asking a question of another panel.

at the same time, you would expect that some of the people that never really were political animals in the first place, that never were junkies or into these issues, to be into them for a short time and then go -- grow disillusioned, maybe with the tea party movement or with the fact that you can't have instant results in our kind of messy republic. so i think there is a position in between were both of you are. >> there is a question in the front. >> thanks. professor caesar, he said that polarization is in some ways, good. which is to say that he can move issues to the front that otherwise would not be popularly debated. what are other -- given that polarization cannot last forever, what are the other immediate benefits to having this kind of fast opposition that brings up the issue that

otherwise would never have been discussed? >> sometimes, government doesn't get anything done, but sometimes it is better not to do anything. there is no way of answering your question in the abstract other than to say that the american system as it is laid out allows for something like tension, even polarization. but it is not polarization so much as this question of paralysis of our institutions. which has been at issue. paralysis has meant, up until 2014, where the majority looks like it has changed, perl it -- paralysis meant not going along with what the democrats want. because they claimed that they were the majority party by virtue of winning the presidency and the senate. and the one that was paralyzing was in the house, which is the most popular body was still only

one in three decision-making bodies. therefore it was delegitimized. you can say that the question is, for what purpose was a delegitimized? and what ends are goals were served by this question mark -- this? beginning with health care issues, will obamacare survive? look, after 2012, maybe after 2016, this will likely have changed radically and when we look back on history, it will completely different. the winning side will not be beside the people thought was going to be the winning side, and by people here i mean most of the media and the intelligentsia. and who will be the winner? i remember the exchanges about ronald reagan, who was regarded as an outright extremist, i -- off the charts. now when we look back, and not many of the younger people in the audience can represent, click it was look like in 1980, but look fact, to look at reagan's period in office is one

that did a lot of good. looking back, they say that it was good that people resisted kind. as users of history came to the outcomes to my credit, sometimes, those were obstinate. that is what i meant by putting obstinacy or persistence as a virtue. it is a virtue. not an exclusive virtue. time. credit for that. it's obstinacy which has led to tactical blunders put obstinacy all along professors is this stuff and the paper has become becomes victorious cause -- the world has turned and resisted becomes victorious cause.

>> if you look for the creative energy in washington is coming from, it is the list of people that steve mentioned at the start. marco rubio, ted cruz. those are the people that are showing a real policy innovation. it will take time. having the senate allows you to do more to advance the policy agenda, having the presidency would help. we should not be surprised to see a lot of things coming out of the tea party. at the same time, we are seeing more positive ideas coming from the tea party than from 30 urine companies. incumbents. >> quickly, to pick up on something that you said -- 30 year incumbent's. >> quickly, to pick up on something that you said, i think that the president still think that he is in the majority. that he speaks for the people that did not vote and that gives them legitimacy. if obstinacy is a virtue, he is obstinate. >> as mike said, it is true that

that is where the real vibrancy and the conservative movement comes from in washington. the republican idea machine. from the tea party or at least tea party friendly elected officials and think tanks and what have you. one other point, just to provide an example of how far this debate has gone, you remember back in the lead up to the 2010 midterms. the national republican congressional committee was advising its candidates against embracing anything like paul ryan's entitlement reforms. sending out memos, alerts, you cannot talk about this or touch this area and and that was the conventional wisdom. that was the cliché. medicare, third rail grid social security, third rail. we have no had the discussion, but those kinds of reforms are in -- not only had to discussion, but those kind of reforms are in budget year after year after year.

those who ran against, the demagogue them in and it's have survived. not only survived, in some cases, better. the last month of the marco rubio senate campaign against kendrick meek and truly crist was essentially a debate about social security reform. and charlie crist did at after ad after ad. rubio is the way your social security. he said, no i am not, and he explained his position. not all of that is because of the tea party but a lot of that is the tea party because of the focus on that, the recognition and awareness of the tea party helped raise, of these issues. of the fact that we are $18 billion in debt right now. -- $18 trillion in debt right now. the left understands that better than the right. it is the nancy pelosi passing cap and trade knowing that it has zero chance in the senate because you train your members to talk about it.

you have members going on for their district and defend the voting record. the last hundred -- left understands the bayou of legislating, even if it does not get on the next day, far better than the establishment right does. >> one last question from this gentleman right here. >> what interaction, communication, coalitions have been built with the tea party and those across the political spectrum? because i have been a some events that are not conservative and the tea party has been brought at -- at some events that are not conservative in the tea party has been brought up and it has been negative or a mystery. there are ideas that are brought forth, saying that they think that this might appeal to the tea party but then it was mentioned that we are not the right vehicle to approach them or talk to them. i am just wondering, how political, much or are they willing to work with others to

get things done? >> i think there is a ton of collaboration inside washington. you go out to the individual -- i was in pennsylvania two weeks ago and the tea party, diverse groups of people of all ages, skin colors, everything that you hear does not exist in the tea party, coming up with innovative ideas. they just started a robo call the night before, the tea party group, to make sure they're reaching out to every group. i think there is a lot of collaboration. each tea party that exist in different communities is in many ways, the spirit of federalism. i do not think that it is this nationalized thing. we make a huge effort at heritage action to make sure that people see us coming alongside them, not trying to tell them what to do. if we cannot win the argument with a tea party leader, the summing that we care about is worth caring about -- about, we may be wrong. i do not think there is a

national congealing but there is a sense of cooperation and how can we get to the end zone together? i'm not sure -- did that answer the question? >> i mean, i have actually been at some progressive or liberal events. i think they did bring up things that it seems to me would appeal to the tea party. i am just curious if there is been that kind of interaction. >> in terms of policy ideas? look at a lot of over criminalization. very good votes on capitol hill and across the country. opportunities for collaboration on issues like that. rand paul has been fantastic at the over criminal is asian issues and what we can do to overcriminalization issues and what we can do to unite right and left on that. >> while, please join me in

thanking the panelists. [applause] if you enjoyed this program, i would remind you that you can view the previous three online on reagan, goldwater, the contract with america. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> louisiana governor bobby gentle talks about foreign policy. after that, a discussion about global responses to responses. then president obama announcing his choice for the next secretary of defense. this weekend and "newsmaker" linda sanchez, the incoming chair of the hispanic caucus speech he talks about

immigration legislation. the president's executive order, and the role of women in congress. sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. ann compton who recently retired as abc news white house correspondents on her 40 years covering the white house and the administrations of gerald ford to barack obama. >> a group of second graders went through their bill and andy card came through and interrupted the present and whispered to the president. i wrote it in my notes. nobody interrupts the president, even in front of second graders. the president stood and said, he had to go. he went into a side room. then we heard, we discovered that it was two plane crashes in new york. the came out to the pool,

parking lot outside the school and said the president will talk to the pool. cameras inre live the cafeteria. the he did not want to scare the children but he did go into the cafeteria. he said it is an apparent terrorist attack and i must return to washington. he raced to the plane. puashshed aboard. then the pentagon was hit. >> sunday night on c-span's "q&a." >> on wednesday, louisiana governor bobby jindal was interviewed about the future of u.s. defense and foreign policy issues. aey are the co-authors of report calling for rebuilding the nation's military. the event was part of a series of forums hosted by the group foreign-policy initiative. this is an hour.

>> welcome back to our final session. it is a real honor to be joined by governor bobby jindal from the great state of louisiana and senator jim callan for this final conversation, which will be focused on a recent report that the governor and the senator cowan wrote talking about rebuilding an american defense consensus. we had ahis morning, pair of your colleagues with the national defense panel speak and one of the topics they focused on was in addition to the crime is for the department of defense , is how to build a political consensus? the senator is well-known to those in this room. he represented missouri in the house of representatives and the a member of he was the senate armed services

committee. he is a senior fellow at the american enterprise institute where he's heading the national security 2020 project. it is a great pleasure to have you here today and an honor to have you both. >> thank you. thanks to -- it is my honor as the moderator. i will try just a moderate. to introduce a good friend and a great american. i not going to embarrass you too much. but a man who is already built a great record in public service. governor bobby jindal has served as the governor of louisiana since 2008. prior to his election to that office, he served in the congress, representing the first district of louisiana. in congress, he was elected president of his freshman class. he served on the house committee on homeland security, the committee on education and the workforce. and the committee on resources. he served as assistant majority whip.

president george w. bush. who appointed him to serve as assistant secretary for the u.s. apartment of health and human services. executivefore that director of the national bipartisan commission on the future of medicare and secretary of louisiana department of health and hospitals. welcome. thank you. it is great to be with you. >> great to be with all of you. thanks to aei. we had fun writing a paper. >> you did a great job. i should thank -- i want to praise the senator for a minute. this is so important. he has been a very thoughtful voice, cutting across party lines. i proud he is republican. talking about the need to rebuild america's hard tools, reinvesting in our military not because he wants us to go to war or deploy our troops but there is a way to avoid having to

deploy our troops. he has been consistent. he has written extensively about this. after leaving the senate as well. himnt to tahnk hi-- thank working across party lines. there was a post-world war ii consensus. democrat and republicans that allowed us to win the cold war. there were serious debates. i do not want to pretend like everyone agreed on everything. unfortunately, that possesses has broken down. not only do we face a very serious threat from islamic fundamentalist terrorism and other threats around the world, forcefully that consensus -- i want to thank you for your leadership and trying to rebuild that consensus. >> i appreciate that. we call the paper rebuilding the american defense consensus. most of the disagreements if you stop and think about them have been over how we are going to or whether and when and how we are going to use the power rather often have the hav

power. if you are strong, you're less like we do have to use it. we talked about one great american who understood that better than anybody else. >> one of my favorite quotes from ronald reagan is that he talked about the four wars in his lifetime and it was never of ice for america to be strong. that is exactly right. we have never lost a war by being too strong. nor war was started because america was too strong. ironically, preparing for war is the best way to avoid it. one thing that is very concerning is that we are in the process of hollowing out our military pretty look at the navy , having fewer ships. the air force, in the process of having older planes. in the army, we are in the process of having fewer troops. it has got practical consequences. two examples from the recent headlines -- there is a lot of concerned about the soviet union -- about russia -- crimea and eastern ukraine. and former satellites of the soviet union being very worried about what this means for them next.

the most effective ways to deter russian aggression, i believe, would be if we had the ability through nato to have several brigades stationed in some of our eastern european allies countries that are hungry for american leadership. we reduced our military. it is not clear that we will have the resources to do that. a second example. you look at the turmoil in asia. i think this administration -- we are very often very critical of this administration. i think president obama actually goo policyell of a with his asiand pivot. have not seen we enough follow-through to the rhetoric. part of that challenges we do not have the resources. you are looking for additional u.s. allies like taiwan, south korea and others -- japan -- you are hungry for american leadership as a result of a research and. but you also have other countries like india and vietnam and others hungry for american

leadership. it is hard for us to project that leadership of we are not investing in the navy, not investing in our resources and in our military. i do not think either jim nor i theeager to deploy roots on ground. when you strengthen your military, you're less likely to deploy. ronald reagan was actually -- deploy troops less frequently than his predecessors or successors. i think there is something to be learned. peace through strength is not just a slogan. it can be a foreign-policy strategy. right now we are doing the opposite. the result is our friends do not trust us and our enemies do not fear us. america has not been a very good ally. in the middle east, we have not stood unequivocally with israel. sometimes we speak as if there were moral equivalence when there should not be. when you look at russia, we did not start -- the reset with was announced, it

by secretary clinton in the first year of this administration. it included withdrawing the missile interceptor from poland and the czech republic. it involved not allowing georgia to join nato. putin did not just wake up one to him think he could go to into crimea without consequences. he learned by watching the united states could you look at issa. we allowed them to gather strength because we withdrew our forces and created a vacuum. here's my greatest concern. of all those challenges -- we can go around the rest of the world -- my greatest concern is what lesson have iranians taken from this chaos? we cannot allow the to be a nuclear armed rain, not -- nuclear armed iran, not only for israel. make the mistake. they get nuclear capabilities, and egyptians and turkey would be the next countries. it would be impossible if the united states fails to stop iran, we will not be able to stop those countries as well. there are some that believe the saudis have an agreement with

irantan and an option if does become a nuclear armed power. this poses a huge threat to stability in the middle east and a huge threat to our interest. my worry -- what are the iranians learning from america's unpredictability in the world? thisry this delay and extension in terms of negotiations may result in a deal that will make it worse than no deal. that would be a deal that would allow the iranians to quickly constitute a nuclear weapon and allow them to accumulate centrifuges and continue to harden their facilities. right now we do have the ability to destroy their and for structure. it gets harder and harder the more time they are a lot of progress down this path. i think one of the greatest challenges we face is a question of iran. my concern is what they learn from our failed redline in syria our failure to act in other parts of the world. >> you talked before about --

there is a fundamental sense in which defense policy is foreign policy. because of the message you are sending. and certainly, we are in agreement. theiscussed, we think ministrations had a policy of around thected weak world. it is magnified by the fact that we are getting weaker. you mentioned some of our alliances. we talk about the various operating principles of the pillars of an integrated foreign-policy, a strong defense, alliances, but also leadership shared reaching out and managing risk before it gets to the level before it's difficult. it is truly difficult where you have fewer options. we want to discuss that in terms of our policy? >> absolutely. it is very tempting to think our america can hide behind oceans of her 10 the world is going to become magically a safer place. i do not think anybody is arguing that the world, that

america needs to become the world's policeman or try to become addict cater to other parts of the world and intervene it every single hotspot. absolutely not. having said that, we now face asymmetrical threats. the threats to our country security are no longer just broke nations. rogue nations. they include subnational groups, terrorist goods, cyberattacks. they include biological attacks. they include chemical attacks. ly, they do not include -- they could include the potential for nuclear attacks from a rogue group or nation. we do face asymmetrical threats to our security. you are exactly right. we do need to rebuild. we argue in the paper that, for example, the last time we had a thoughtful approach to the military's need, secretary gates did an actual assessment, said he needed these resources to modernize while achieving

efficiency. we are now $1 trillion below that. thanks to the president throwing out his own secretary of defense's analysis and then sequestration cuts on top of that. $1 trillion below. we are not arguing -- we say that we need to get back to 4% of gdp. that is roughly a billion dollars. we are not suggesting that needs to happen overnight. but we need to work her way back up into that goal. we do argue -- i will not get into all of the details in terms of german reforms. -- in terms of procurement reforms. we need to be more efficient with those dollars. be able, we do need to to lead. we cannot lead from behind. that is not leading at all. america to be a stronger, more predictable force for good. that leads to more order, less

instances ofer conflict. even though our enemies may not technology it publicly, they need america to play that role. no other country can play that role. you look at our alliances. six years ago, the president inherited a special relationship with britain. we have done everything we could to alienate our allies. our neighbor's next-door, the prime minister calls this president frustrate or in chief. because of the keystone pipeline. we seem to do everything to irk the always polite natives who live next door to us. it look at the unpredictability vis-à-vis israel. our traditional allies in asia as well. we are doing everything we can to avoid leadership. this administration seems to believe in multilateralism as a of attacked us. we cannot outsource our foreign policy to the world. we are the indispensable nation.

no other nation can fill that void. when we we treat, no other nation can fill that void. that is why isis gather strength. if we we treat when that day of reckoning comes, our enemies are using that time and space together material, gather people, gather resources, gather allies. when that day comes, it will be more expensive in terms of treasure and american blood. that day of reckoning will not go away. it wasn't to be harder, more difficult for us to achieve victory. we argue have to invest the military not so you can win or to a draw, butct so you can dominate. so our enemies will be deterred from challenging america and our allies. this includes an issue -- the use of soft tools as well. one of my other concerns with naivelicies is their belief that simply giving a

speech makes everything ok. if giving a speech was the equivalent of having a policy, we would have the best foreign-policy in a generation. we have one of the most gifted speakers in the white house who loves to give great speeches, loves to talk. sometimes we need to take action. and our rhetoric become more forceful and backed up by the threat of action. that is what is missing. one of the things we have not talked a lot about, and i hope it was discussed today, is the use of energy and the development of energy as a component of foreign-policy. you look at the falling oil prices and what is happened ale revolution. if this administration would allow more development, they would make it clear that the epa is not shutting down fracking. it acknowledges it can be done safely. this administration would stop trying to discourage energy and development home and drive jobs overseas, think about the pressures we could continue to and venezuela

and russia. we have seen some of that with falling oil prices. building the keystone pipeline creates refining opportunities. it helps in texas. it allows canada to sell us their resources here to instead of china. it puts these resources and a pipeline instead of other alternative means of transportation. one of the things that this not get discussed is it has a direct and heavy impact on venezuela. it would absolutely displace much of that oil that is coming from venezuela. it is now being refined along the gulf coast. talk about a great win-win. helps an ally, helps our economy a country that has been working against america's interest. energy policy should be component. and to cause those in russia and iran and venezuela to rethink some of their actions and aether it is iran becoming

nuclear power venezuela trying to export their ideology to neighboring states, or whether it is russia threatening their eastern european neighbors. >> it is an integrated approach them -- to the world. we will get to that in the second. they see the united states confident and rational and supportive. that creates a sense of predictability and confidence and security. you are right. even prospective adversaries want to know that we know what our interests are and we are willing to act in accordance with that. you mentioned briefly iraq. i want you to discuss what i think was the biggest mistake the administration has made. that is saying something because we both believe there has been a fair number of mistakes, which was not leaving footprint of 15,000 american troops in iraq in a noncombat role. you mention the fact if you do not deal with risks at the lower-level, they tend to grow. this is the classic -- this is

what historians will write as a textbook example. talk in detail about how it doing that might have prevented the chain of event that has involved us in the fight against the islamic group? >> hopefully, the administration is learning from history. it is not clear they are. you saw the status of forces agreement signed with afghanistan. hopefully, they have learned. the eight mistake they made in iraq -- the big mistake they made in iraq was to make a political timeline as opposed to listen to the military advisers who continue to caution them about this withdrawal. the reality is that by creating a void, by insisting we were pulling out all these troops by the state, i get it. i get the domestic pressures. i get why it is popular to want to bring every man and woman in uniform home. but without leaving a residual force, without leaving some kind of force that could respond, we

created that void. we lost the ability to pressure or diminish our ability to work with the maliki government. you saw this government exacerbating the shia-sunni divide in iraq. we lost our ability. when you think about how different this might have been if we had maintained our influence and maintained a residual force. nobody is talking about keeping troops at the height of their deployment in terms of the surge. at least we kept a residual force. think of our ability to increase pressure on the government to include the sunnis. think about the ability to fill that void. isis would not have metastasized into this transnational threat. couldit could have, it have still become an actor in the region but you would not see this threat crossing -- at the very least, we would've been able to seal the border with syria. you would not have this

dissident group causing refugees and destabilizing neighboring countries and all these refugees in jordan and elsewhere. think about how different it would have been instead of looking to a political timeline we had done what our commanders what folks were advising on the ground. remember, this was an administration that was so eager to announce that al qaeda was defeated. that we were done. again, i get it. isa bumper sticker, it attracted to say we are only going to do nationbuilding at home. we are going to retreat. americanwant to see chips diploid unnecessarily. i do not want to see boots on the ground. this is a case where interests were suggested required a different course of action. think about the contrast today. , thethis week, iraq government has it seems from outward appearances, they are reconciling with the kurds. they have got an agreement on oil and revenues.

you're seeing them work, at least begin to address some of those divisions allowed to fester with the absence of our pressure. example. is a great unfortunately, a tragic example, but a great example of what happens when a america withdraws and creates a void. bad things happen. we saw that in iraq. hopefully they have learned a lesson in afghanistan. hopefully, we do not just go after al qaeda and isis. militaryaring the advisers again till the administration we be troops on the ground in afghanistan to counter isis and to go after the taliban, not just al qaeda. hopefully, we will not repeat the mistakes he made an iraq. i hope this administration will jettison the idea of artificial lyrical deadlines. i do not understand. even if we did not think an action makes sense. i am not sure why we need to announce that to the enemy. to the rest of the world, by the way, we will leave at the state.

by the way, we are taking armed forces of the table. that is fine. if internally we made that decision. but there is no reason to tell it enemy what we will or will not do. >> i've always said the same. the president might have a timeline, fair enough. might even communicated to the allied government to let them know we need you to be doing more. that why announce it's the world? theives an incentive to enemy to try and hold on until the deadline. and by the way, makes your friends and countries so important to recruit supporters insecure about your commitment to staying longer-term. it is possible that whole chain of events -- you cannot say for certain -- had we stayed in iraq at a footprint, it is possible the whole syrian thing goes down differently. i'm not sure that iran and russia -- we could've sealed that border off -- that is a good >> when we said that crossing the red line meant something but had, i think we would be in

a different place today in regards to isis and the chaos we now see in syria. >> careful about red lines. it's better particularly when talking about weapons of mass destruction it's better to keep it -- it temperatures people to go up to the red line. what about things you don't mention that if you're going to draw it you have to keep it. you talked about the 4% in the paper as a guideline for defense. and there has been, to be fair, not just in the last three years, defense spending tend to be cyclical up down up down. talk about how having rules of thumb, having more consistent fund congress save money. and we can give examples of that. >> you're exactly right. with the feast or famine, when we do need to spend the money it becomes less efficient to do so. we decimate our industrial base.

one of the things we talked about was procurement reforms. we shorten the cycle five to seven years so the technology is not obsolete. you hold management accountable to being on budget on time. you give real authority and accountability within the pentagon so you don't have a hundred different meetings to get things improved. you stream line that. but part of the challenge by this feast or famine approach is there is no predictability. it results in bad planning. so we end up developing very expensive weapons system that we don't end up buying, they become obsolete and we have to have new ones to replace them. the 4% needs to be based on the strategic assessment of our needs. what's so disturbing about our budget today is the last time there was a credible review bottom up review process was when then secretary gates came forward and said this is what we need, this is -- and he himself suggested efficiencies,

programs that could be consolidated or canceled. instead of counter rg that with a different analysis the president literally picked a number out of the thin air. there was no rationale for it. instead we're going to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from his own secretary of defense's budget. and congress exacerbated the situation. we are asking asking to do something unnatural. we both served in congress. we are asking them to give up power because part of what we cannot allow this to become is an excuse. this isn't a jobs program where we're going to give pentagon money so they can spend it in every district on politically favored contractors or industry ors groups. this needs to be driven by strategic assessment. and you've seen the explosion in civilian contractors and employees of the pentagon. clearly there are opportunities to do more with less. so this is not an excuse for waves or inefficiency but it is -- waste or inefficiency. but it is saying a guideline for when you're underinvesting and also when things have

gotten too high. a guideline -- by the way something we require nato allies. i say we require. we say to them and they routinely disregard the guidelines. but we've asked them to commit to 2% of their g.d.p. towards defense spending again with the idea that it makes sense for everybody to have a shared expectation that this is what it takes and it does save money, because not investing now makes it much more costly when we have to. one of the other things is we differentiated part of what masked the decline in defend spending -- this administration is hollowing out our military but it is a mistake to say it only started under this president's watch. we've seen a decline going back now for several years. so this didn't happen overnight which is why we're not suggesting to give all the money back overnight but phasing it in. one of the thing that is i think we have to understand is that when it does come time, when that day of recling does happen it will be a lot --

reckoning does happen it will be a lot more expensive. if we're going to ask american troops to defend our freedoms and be on the front lines we we it to them to give them the best readieness training and equipment. one of the things we have to look at is the rise of china. the way they're going about reasserting their power is antithetical to our allies and the way we've conducted ourselves and part of what we can do is to reinvest and rebuild our navy and we're not doing that. >> there's certainly a pacing threat that is coming if they're not already a peer competitor of the united states which we've not had of course since the cold war days. and i think a lot of people were unaware of that. i want to emphasize a couple of points you just made. when you have defense spending going like this and like this, we can talk about procurement modernization, of course you produre these platforms from the private sector. and if they don't have

predictability, this is true of any segment. if they don't have enough predictability, it's very difficult for them to be efficient and make the kinds of investments you need. and if you cut real low and force structure goes down and now the troops, you don't have enough people to do the jobs and then you have to overwork the ones you do have and it's a volunteer service and you've got to pay them if you want to keep the good ones, then your personnel costs start going up. it's just eating up any savings you thought you were getting on it. so i'm glad you made that point. you're entirely correct. we want to have some time for questions so let's go back here. because we talk about rebuilding a consensus which means initially and as a fundamental matter explains why defense matters which we did at the beginning of the paper. so talk a little bit about that. what are the i want rests, what are the packages of interests that together constitute american nurelt? what do we really mean --

national security? what do we mean? of course defense of the homeland. >> of course. but we live in a much more connected global world than ever before and in many ways that leads to greater productivity and that's a great thing but also makes us more vulnerable to cyber attacks, blonlcal attacks, chemical attacks, to terrorist and asymmetrical attacks. there was a thought that post cold war we were free of threats to our homeland because the soviet union was no longer that threat. and then we saw 9/11 that it wasn't true that we were free from those threats. let's be clear. the attack in addition to killing so many nnt american lives and other innocent lives with the twin towers and other attacks also was meant to be not only symbolic but a material attack on our ability to conduct commerce, to travel safely to live our daily lives so there are other interests as

well. >> say about the freedom of trade and travel which the united states has protected for so long everybody takes it for granted. every time that's been interfered with consistently we've ended up in a war going back to 1812, the leadup to world war one and world war ii. it's in the national interests of the united states. the strait of hormuzz there's a reason we keep that open. it's a guide point. i couldn't resist. >> you look at how much of our economy and commerce depends on that international movement of people and goods and services. i think there's an important point to make. when you look at america vis-a-vis other historic great powers america's interests are relatively benign compared to other great powers and completely benign compared to the rest of the world. we're not empire builders. we're not seeking preferential treatment. what we're seeking is our citizens, our people, our goods to be treated on a fair and

equal basis and to be protected whether in terms of international commerce or in terms of being here in the homeland. that's an important point. we're not in the traditional great power sense we're not looking to conquer other territories, to enforce or impose our ways on others, and i think that there is a shared bipartisan consensus that we are looking to live in peace with others who want to live in peace with us. we're not seeking conflict. we don't have these imperial ambitions. but we are seeking and it's not enough to simply say we want to be left alone. the world is not going to leave us alone. we can pretend but that's simply not an option. we may wish it's an option but our real option is do we engage those risks at an early point where we can mitigate and reduce or do we wait until they gather force and strength in it's much better for us now to be engaged in asia and assuring our allies and rebuilding our navy and protecting our interest than to wait for china

to gather strength and influence where we may find illing actors willing to align with us. but that window is only open for so long before they will make the decision that america is not serious about that asia pivot. >> that was a point we made early in the paper and if you read it i hope you all will focus on that that america is unique for a lot of reasons. it's exceptional for one is that we define our national interests in a defensive and benign way and we're perfectly willing to have others enjoy the rights we're seeking for our people and in the same way. for example, in asia the countries in the regional countries there are comfortable with american presence and primesy in the region but not so much with china because china does not necessarily define its national interests

the same way. well, i thought maybe we could take some questions. i want people to have time. o let's do that. >> thank you for your remarks. it's a little to follow up ton senator cruz's remarks. he address it had drone issue and what national security risk that was. i wish you would address the same topic but relating to the u.s. deciding to dispose of i cam and how that affects our national security. >> i didn't hear the senator's remarks but i will certainly answer the question. so i don't know if i'm repeating what he said. i thought it was a mistake for us to relinquish i can. i know this administration -- and fortunately there was bipartisan -- it was bipartisan it wasn't just republicans.

i'm also for similar reasons very concerned about this proposal for the government to be more -- i know this is slightly -- i know we're talking about foreign policy. but i have similar concerns about the government -- the federal government trying to impose itself in terms of defining and imposing net neutrality through more regulations through the f.c.c. and here are my concerns. one that the internet needs to be a place where it continues to be operated openly with free speech and open access and i worry about the got getting in the business of deciding to pick winners and losers and advantaging one group over the other. i'm more concern about the international body. but my first concern about the american government is that we have seen a series of scandals that to me at least were unimaginable. if you had gone back ten years and ask did i really think that the i.r.s. would go after conservative groups i would have said no. i would have said i don't think

the department of justice would spy on an a.p. reporter. we've seen that happen and i think the american people are less and less trusting of our government because some of these -- the accumulation of these scandals and the violation of civil rights. i'm very worried about tirts if government trying to -- first the government trying to pick winners and losers. one of the thing that's made it so effective and why it's so widely used and liked is the fact that it is openics it is a level playing field and have access. i'm worried in general. i think in the last several years we have gone more and more towards abdicating our rights toward these international bodies, whether it's united nations group. the latest was -- we didn't talk about this. but the president's recent announcement of his deal with china in terms of climate. you look at that and, so now we're making an agreement where we're going to do harm to our

economy in the short term for unenforcesable promise that in 2030 china will then choose to no longer increase their emissions. well one does that give china a great incentive to increase their emissions in the short term? but it's also completely unenforceable. it's amnesty the way the president's done it going around congress to take unilateral action to hurt our economy, hurt our manufacturing base in particular. so i do worry about this trend towards defering to international bodies and giving away american rights and prerogatives. whether it's the example of i cam or some of these other agreements we've seen. >> with regard to the climate change point, economic growth for the c.c.p. is in their view a regime stability issue. in other words, their ability to deliver a better quality of

life to their people is part of the basis by which they are claiming legitimacy in the absence of democratic elections. so to think that they are going to take steps which slows economic growth in the name of the priorities of our administration or the international community i would be very skeptical of that. i don't think -- now, they have issues with pollution but not -- it's entirely different type of setting and those i think they are going to work on. so again this could be a situation where we have to do something and the country we've made a deal with doesn't have to do anything. i know you're getting tired of that. that's what new start was. yes. >> the way humanity goes. it's not only the united states. the whole planet. it's increasing weapons and militaries and new technology

for killing ours. this may have end or it is endless. what's the end? we all die or we will live in paradise among nuclear biological chemical weapons. what is the end of all of this? i ask this question because i applied for the [inaudible] absolutely different country politics. and i believe the billions of ollars [inaudible] now. >> i'll quote phil graham in that i -- and i might get the quote a little off but i think the essence applies here. lamb ope the lion and the lie peacefully together but i don't expect it to happen in my

lifetime. and if it does i still want the united states to be the lion. i think the best way to achieve that peace is for america to be stronger. unilaterally making ourselves weaker has never led to peace or victory. and so i am -- i absolutely share your hopes and prayers for peace. i've got three young children. i hope they will be able to grow up in a world without strife and violence and chaos. i fear, however, in a world populated by human beings that's not going to happen. i think that what is more likely to happen is that we can mitigate the risks, reduce the threats, reduce the chances of violence, the level of violence, and certainly continue to build towards peace. i don't mean to be completely mess misic at all. you look at countries that decades ago were at each other's throats are now reconciled allies. so you look at germany and japan integrated into a

peaceful frame work living peacefully, coexisting peacefully with countries they had been at war with, and vicious and ddly costly wars with. but i think the best way to prepare for peace is for america to ironically prepare for conflict. a weaker america actually invites more aggression, more instability and persecution. i think a stronger america and stronger allies decreases that chance and leads to more stability. >> gives us a chance to point out another point that we didn't talk before but i think it's a really good one. it's wrong to view the world for the united states to view the world as full of ennizz. most of the countries in the world we should view we think as allies or at least partners potential partners for certain discreet things. and we talked about an agreement with china on pollution. would not be a bad thing. we've worked with the russians on locking down loose nukes. but there are some countries that are potential adversaries

that brings them into conflict with us. the right kind of management should prevent those countries from becoming enemies. but there are a few rogue states. and we say this in the paper. who are just evil and their vision of the future is their boot in everybody else's face. and the united states needs to defend and needs to be strong in dealing with those groups. et's go over here. i can't see the names from here. pakistani spectator and my question is about senator mccain's statement. e asked this question to pakistani sharyeef if the current status in afghanistan would be sustainable and he said no. do you have any plan b in the case if the general's prediction turns out to be true?

and the second question is that isis they are doing recruitment in pakistan and their next target might be india. is there any provision for that? >> i think two things. one, i think you're exactly right and i think the generals on the ground have made this point. i hope the administration has learned -- i'm not confident they have. i hope they've learned from the failure in iraq. they did get a status of forces agreement. the new leadership in afghanistan seems to be working better with our government. my hope is they've learned that less sb and understood that we cannot create that vacuum in afghanistan. now, this administration continues to commit itself to these artificial political deadlines but i do hope they've learned the importance of at least leaving a residual force that's able to help the afghan government and people protect themselves, counter the taliban, counter isis, counter al qaeda. but you're right, that the generals have absolutely made clear they need more resources and that america is going to

have to fill the gap that some of our allies may be leaving by not living up to their commitment that is we have to make sure there's a residual force that helps to train and support. i'm not arguing that we do everything for everybody. we are right to ask the afghan people to help defend themselves. but we need to be ready, when it's in our interests, to void the growth of isis. you ask about isis and pakistan and the threat to india. i think we need to recognize that isis is absolutely has as its ambition the ability to become this -- and not just transnational movement in terms of a region in the middle east but really to spread across the globe into different countries and to pose a threat to us here in this homeland. whether that's through affiliates that have a loose association. and it may be more the former. regardless of the form of that relationship isis has that ambition which is why we cannot view it as our goal to contain

or expel them. we have to eliminate them and work wherever that is in the world. whether it's in the the pakistan-india region, whether the middle east. we need to understand what's at stake here. they're motivated by an evil ideology. this is a group that has crucified innocent civilians, killed religious minorities they've beheaded quite photographicically and visibly prisoners. they have absolutely crossed every line imaginable in terms of moral lines. and clearly this is a force of evil and this is a group that needs to be extermite nated. not contained or expelled but extermite nated whether in pakistan, the middle east, afghanistan. where ever they might try to create affiliates, where they might try to grow. and we need to work with others to eliminate them. we need to be willing to lead but also draw others into that fight. and it's in their interests to do so as well. >> it's important to remember

the point of both conflibblingts was not just to remove a particular regime. but to work with the people of the country -- iraq and afghanistan-to help create a new government that would become over time a working partner with the united states on behalf of mutual interests. and that was really where the benefits -- we would have enjoyed the benefits of the conflict in a sense in iraq. and we had that opportunity in ur grasp and gave it up. yes. >> i'm with the alexander hamilton society. i thank both of you for your remarks. my question is in response to something you talked about how we have a great speaker in the white house. i think this is true. one of the questions i have is even if we can come -- we can beat the dissending curve of

defense spending and bring it back up it will be years before we see measurable results. but one of the concerns today is conventional -- states that use conventional means are now using hybrid or unconventional means, russia being the latest but also china in terms of what it could do one day. what can the u.s. do in the meantime? in near term and mid term, to try to deter this. even if there are other contingencies around the world that will require us to meet unconventional threats with conventional force that might not be the right military hard power. >> great question. one, you're right it will take time. but i think those early investments send important signals. so even president carter changed course his last year in office and started to reinvesting in the miltrifment it was too long too late but then ronald reagan came in and first two years double digit increases it got the attention

of other countries very quickly. it took a few years for it to result in troops and technology it quickly signaled to the world that america was serious. it argued a change of behavior and helped speed up the policies of the soviet union. those signals are important. even though i'm not -- i think we need to continue to try to give this president the opportunity to do the right thing. i'm not optimistic he will change his ways but let's give him the chance. president clinton started signing balanced budget, he signed welfare reform with the republican majority. carter changed directions his last year. there's still time for this president to change directions. secondly, when it comes to these -- you talked about and it gave as examples actors like russia and chineavement there are other pressures on those countries as well. germany under merkel has now sent a message to him that his behavior is not acceptable and i think that was a wakeup call. i think his treatment in

australia at the g-20 conference was another wakeup call. part of his calculation is economic and part is domestic politics, part is international prestige they think they feel he feels like they lost after the breakup of the soviet union. i would argue for example more oil and gas production, more export of our products puts a huge pressure on the russian economy in addition to sanctions. so as europe has been able to sbrers if i their -- diversify their energy sources, now they're trying to sell their resources to turkey who has great concerns with what they're doing in syria. so there are ways to change the calculations of these countries to make it clear to them that it's not in their best interest to continue to violate international norms, to threaten american interests. the same is true with china. they are depending on our markets orks, on our gearnt of

the savet of travel. so there are ways to pressure china. part is being visibly present in asia. the president is right there are things we can do in terms of strengthening our ties to countries in that region and giving them another outlet in addition to china. and it's not simply as -- strengthening our tice with those countries has a two fold purpose not simply as a hedge against china but also strengthening our relationships with these countries that want to build that relationship. but to the third point i want to make. this is an important question. that was fine and good when responding to national actors but you can apply your question to the subnational nonnational transnational actors who can threaten our i want rests. those become much harder to deter and counter. that's why it's so important to root them out, destroy them where they are, to take the fight to them. but we've got to harden our infrastructure. we've got to take those steps to secure the homeland and again there are tradeoffs and costs in doing that.

it's not free or easy to do so but we've got to make ourds less vulnerable. the president announced this deal allowing -- this it deal with china. i wish he raised this issue of cyber warfare over there. that's a huge threat to our economy and national interest and a lot of it originates in china. so i think when it comes to these transnational subnational groups we've got to take the fight to them because unlike national actors -- it is hard tore put these other pressures on them. we've got to take the fight directly to them to disrupt their capabilities to attack us. and unfortunately one of the things we've got to do is harden our own infrastructure. i say unfortunately because it does have a cost in terms of resources and inconvenes and friction. that's a balancing act. you can go overboard in that. i'm not suggesting -- because that can interfere with our freedoms and life. we have to harden our own infrastructure.

yes. >> earlier asked the question atthe bretten woods agreement and whether that would bring agreement between nations. andrew jackson ended the second bank of the u.s. saying that the circulating coin and siller or gold and silver county money was to protect the wealth of the laboring class by being inflate aid way by corporations and politicians. for example, financing ever expanding military industrial complex. are the no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin the tender and payment of debt. it seems at the level of governor in every state the states could require the federal government to reinstute honest circulating money. >> i think that -- i want to address the bigger issue you

raise. when we just recently just exceeded $18 trillion of accumulated debt. we have quantitative easing has said they're taking action because congress and the white house couldn't or wouldn't. in terms of what they saw as threats to our economy. i think we need to stop -- take a step back and think about that for a second. so we've got an unelected body, the fed saying we're going to take action because the elected leaders, elected and accountable to the united states wouldn't take that action, and you go back to the systemic debts that we're running. this president has never proposed a balanced budget. he never said we're going to get it tomorrow. we have a saying that whenever you hear that help is coming tomorrow that doesn't mean it's not coming tomorrow it just means it's not coming today. so i think to your bigger point i am very worried for a lot of

reasons the dollar -- look, it's been the reserve currency around the world and for many reasons the flight of stability during this world economic chaos there are many reasons why the dollar -- why the fed has been able to get away with some of the things they've done and our federal government has been able to get away. but it's not going to be free forever. and the reality is we cannot simply pript our wait out of this crisis. we cannot borrow and spend and tax our way out of this crisis. i think this is what happens when government is running at historicically high levels of g.d.p. i think that's what happens when we're spending much more than we're taking in. one of the numbers we cite in the report is we are spending more as a share of our economy on government than we have had in the last 70 years, even while we're spending the least amount of our economy on defense which is such a jarring contrast when defense is the om thing in the constitution that the federal government is told it must do. you must defend the states. it's the one power given to the

federal government that it's told they have to do. but to your point -- >> i'm going to jump in. whatever else they're financing, i can assure you it's not an ever expanding military complex. spend on the stimulus package none of it went to defense. maybe 50, 60 million for military housing. in fact, if it had we would have actually spent the money on something the government is supposed to spend it oband we would have gotten something for it. i interrupted. >> but to your point. i do worry that -- when you really think about it on the path we're on, you look at the structural debts we're running up, unless we start taking actions today it's hard to see a scenario where we doydo avoid the devaluation of the dollar, a rapid growth on inflation. my worry is it doesn't nfsly happen gradually. that one day -- and nobody knows exactly when, but one day you could see tremendous

pressure put on interest rates on american debt by bond holders. it hasn't happened yet and . ere are a lot of reasons why but here's -- and i served in congress for three years for a couple of terms. i think that -- and i'm glad -- i'm personally glad that the senate is now going to be in republican hands but i don't think we should think it's all going to change with a republican majority in congress. we have to make structural changes in our spending. here are some things i think we need to do. we need a balanced budget in the constitution. it needs to be a super majority vote before they can raise our taxes. it needs to be a super majority vote before government spending grows faster than the private sector economy. i think also i would add to that term limits to our members of congress as well as a prohibition from them simply leaving to go and be lobbyist ors go and work for special interests. people will tell you you can't do that. all that is in the louisiana state constitution. for example, we cut our budget in the face of this recession,

we didn't raise taxes. we don't have the ability to print money. going to ay we're print money. our private sector economy is doing better. we've got a part-time legislature. i would like it to be a part-time congress. i would like to pay them differently. we pay them on a per deem basis. i would like to see us pay congress on a per dame basis but pay them for every day they stay out of d.c. i think it's important for republicans to acknowledge that look the debt and spending grew tremendously when republicans were in control. i think this president has taken it to a whole new level in terms of his spending and expanding government. but when republicans were in control the deficit was growing and spending was growing. we've got to be serious. and that's why it may seem odd to say a fiscal conservative saying we need to invest in defense. i'm not for no government. i'm for a limited effective

government. focusing on its priorities. if you had gone back -- i asked the question the i.r.s. going after conservatives and the d.o.j. spying on reporters. ten years ago if you asked me would they really create a new entitlement program when we can't afford the once we've got i never would have thought that that's what we would be talking about today. so i think we're seeing reckless spending happened on a bipartisan basis. i'm hopeful that people will listen to people in d.c. will listen to voters outside of d.c. and say enough is enough. liths cut spending let's reduce the size of government and prioritize what we're doing. if we don't i think we are headed for a day of recling that will be very, very -- that will make this previous fiscal challenge and recession mild in comparison. that's not something any of us should want. we're stealing, borrowing, spending our children's and grandchildren's money today. i would argue none of us as parents would want to do that.

why are we doing it as a country through our government? >> well, unfortunately we're out of time. i want to thank you governor and i thank you. >> you'll have a chance to see he breadth and depth of your knowledge. thanks. >> thank you so much governor. thank you very much. thank you for having us. >> today a memorial service will be held for former washington, d.c. d.c. mayor barry. speakers include jesse jackson, donald worl, and mark moral. live coverage of the service begins at 11:00 a.m. eastern on -span.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2014]

>> next, a discussion about the u.s. and global responses to ebola. this is just over an hour.

>> over the course of the last year, we have been engaged in a conversation regarding the future of the university. how in the face of a set of new disruptions that are really changing the ways in which higher education is understood and perhaps delivered, we have been wrestling with what it means for us. what do we need to protect and embrace? what do we need to respond to in terms of some of the challenges? as we thought about our history, and we have thought about what it means, the idea, the purpose of the university, we have identified three interlocking elements, three characteristics that to serve as the underlying framework in which we do all of this work. they are inextricably linked, they are mutually reinforcing elements. we are committed to the formation of our young

people. to the inquiry, the scholarship and research of our faculty and as a university community, to contributing to the common good wherever and whenever we can. the issue we are going to discuss this morning, the ebola crisis that has unfolded over the last 12 months, is one that has engaged our university community in each one of those dimensions. we sought to ensure our young people had the opportunity to understand the implications and the background, the history, the ideology of the disease. and also to understand what kinds of responsibilities we have in moments like this. our faculty have engaged in a variety of efforts in exploring and research and scholarship, the nature of this disease. and we gather here in moments like this, we have throughout

the fall, trying to understand the nature of our shared responsibilities to one another. we have an extraordinary opportunity to be with two people who are more than any in the country responding to this challenge. it is a privilege to be in conversation with them. i'm going to start off. we will go a half an hour with some questions i will ask and then we will bring a microphone and we'll take another half hour of questions from all of you. let's get started. tony, this is a disease we have known about since 1976. we have seen other iterations of it over these course of these last 40 years, 25 different experiences we have had dealing with this as a global community. over 12 months, we have seen an intense experience syria can you give us a sense of the ark,

the narrative, we are engaged in now as it relates to ebola? >> thank you, jack. ebola is a disease in animals, it is not a disease that has adapted itself evolutionarily to humans. it is in animals and then and jumps into humans and spreads y well-defined ways. in 1976, and it likely existed before then, it was first recognized almost simultaneously in the democratic republic of congo and sudan in which there was an outbreak controlled by the way we are controlling it, identification, isolation, contact tracing, and keeping people who are sick away from

other individuals, or if you are taking care of them, in a way where you are protected. every one of the epidemics jack mentioned, all 24 of them, ranging in size from two people, to the second largest one in uganda in 2000, which had 400 people. they were all able to be put down in the sense of controlled. the arc jack is talking about is something that is unprecedented because of what i referred to when i talk about this as the perfect storm. the perfect storm is you have a disease that is an emerging infection that jumps to humans that has been able to be controlled because prior outbreaks were fundamentally geographically restricted in areas that, the bad news is that it was remote and tough to get people there. the good news is that it was remote because it was easy to isolate.

the perfect storm is that you have an outbreak in an area of africa, west africa, that has not historically seen ebola in a highly populated area with porous borders, where even though the artificial borders that were made, that people have relationships across borders. they are constantly going from one country to another. when you look at west africa, guinea wraps itself around sierra leone and liberia. and we have the issue in big cities. so we have an out rate that percolated a bit in the very early part of the spring and then started to explode to the point where we now have an extraordinary situation. 17,800 cases. 6700 deaths, likely an underestimate, with waves of

the epidemic. it looked like liberia was the worst one month ago. got some better control, even that we do not claim victory because their may be outbreaks. and now sierra leone, more cases last week than there had been in liberia. the issue of the arc is doing this in sierra leone, this in liberia, guinea is kind of like this. that is the way ebola works. it comes in waves. even though we are making progress, we are still in a critical, serious situation. the thing about ebola, unlike other diseases, when the trajectory goes down, almost by itself, it will disappear. ebola, if there is one case, one case can ignite another

explosion. it is one of those unusual diseases that you have to really put every ember and every spark out. we are far from that right now. >> thank you, tony. ron, tony has spent his career engaged in engaging infectious diseases. you were minding euro business when the president called you and said we need you to help us develop your national response. what was it like in those early days? how did you come to terms with the challenges you faced in this new role? tell us about the learning curve and how you were able to close some of that and what have been your impressions, your experiences in the six weeks on the job? >> well, so, when the president asked me to come do this, i was minding my own business. i was teaching a course at georgetown. i see several of my students in the front row.

but i think that the president asked me to do this based on my experience coordinating other interagency projects we've had in the federal government, most recently the recovery act, almost a trillion dollars in the first two years of the administration. his request was to try to coordinate what we call the whole of government response. every single agency working on some element of fighting ebola at home or overseas. and for me, you know, i have been able to climb the learning curve thanks to experts like tony fauci and tom friedman and various other experts. my major objective in the job is just to make sure that all of our agencies are working together, we are identifying problems and reallocating resources. we are getting decisions to the president for him to make about our response and making the difficult policy choices that need to be made.

the thing that has been -- not surprising, but humbling every day is the vast array of people who are acting selflessly to fight this disease every single day. we are sitting here today, my favorite spots on planet earth, and while we are sitting here, there are hundreds of volunteers health care workers in ebola treatment units in care centers in library and sierra leone, government employees who have taken voluntary leave, reassignment to fight this disease on the front lines, putting themselves at risk, doing the most important work that can be done to battle this epidemic. and the chance to meet with those folks and do whatever i can to facilitate their work is the most humbling part of the job and the most important part of the jump. >> tony, take us into the perfect storm.

why west africa? why are things appearing to stabilize in liberia, but on the increase in guinea and sierra leone? what explains some of the henomenon? >> what this really brings out, and i hope, if there is something good that comes out of this, the realization of how, when you do not have a minimum modicum of health care infrastructure, how vulnerable you are to so many things. and then when something as cataclysmic as a highly lethal disease inserts itself into the ommunity, do you realize how that lack of infrastructure and ability to do just minimum health care type delivery can be destructive to a

society. what i hope comes out of this is a realization by the countries themselves, but the world, the wealthy countries, the organizations realize how we can build sustainable nfrastructure. you've heard ron and i and tom friedman and sylvia burwell say, not in a cavalier way, that it is highly unlikely -- you do not say impossible, because you never say that in biology. unlikely we would have an ebola outbreak in the united states. the reason is because we have a health care system that will not allow that to happen. so one of the things that is so important for the world to realize, that we will end this outbreak in collaboration with our west african partners. but this would be a terrible hing if we let the opportunity

go by without saying we need to leave an infrastructure, or the beginning of a direction to an infrastructure, to prevent ebola, and what about malaria? what about tuberculosis? there are some things that can be addressed just with a modest turning of the knob. it is amazing how many people who we are following that we want to make sure they do not have ebola, that have malaria. it really hits you between the eyes that malaria is taken so for granted and yet it kills close to 700,000 people each year, almost all of which are african babies. so this has got to be a shake the cage moment to realize hat. >> i think building on what tony said, one of the other tragedies of the ebola tragedy is the collapse of the health

care systems, such as they were in these countries. immunization has plummeted to near zero. i had the sad duty of speaking at the funeral of dr. martin soviet last week who was a missionary physician who was not treating ebola patience, but died from ebola because the level of infection in the health care system is so high. when we count of the number of deaths from ebola in these countries, we also need to count the other kinds of human loss in these countries from the rise of other health care problems. that is one point. the other thing is, and i am sure we will talk about this, the president has submitted a funding request to the congress, which has been getting favorable consideration. we are grateful for their response to this. part of that request is investment in an agenda to build the capacity to detect

outbreaks like this earlier in other countries and to get on top of them earlier so we do not see the kind of escalation, hopefully, we saw in these three nations. >> just building on that point, the first death i believe was one year ago tomorrow. and as we were describing earlier, through the course of the spring and summer, the numbers began to climb. what have we learned about our global governance, our capacities for global governance on issues like this? it did take some time for us as a global community to respond. >> ron mentioned the global health security agenda. if we had a functioning agenda, to be able to recognize those first cases in guinea in december of 2013, i would say with some degree of confidence

we would not be where we were right now. we would have been able to do the kind of identification and contact tracing that could have ut that out. >> what are the tools we have available to us for constructing a global public health security agenda? what kind of resources or institutional structures, where do we go to put this in place? >> we have to work with the w.h.o. and other organizations. i think that in this case, america has to lead. it has. and i think it has led for three reasons. first of all, this is a health problem for the united states. as long as there are people getting ebola in west africa, we are going to have people get it in the united states. not an epidemic, but occasional

cases. health care workers will come back infected. this is a problem for us. secondly, it is a national security challenge to see this kind of devastation in west africa. that is something we have to respond to. it is a humanitarian crisis to see this of a station. united states has led this response. we've had great partners. we are seeing a great response from the united kingdom, france, even china has mobilized its largest health response, in response to this risis. we have doctors from cuba working right now. so it has been a global response. our leadership has been critical and is something the american people can take pride in. >> if there were other elements in the current structure for addressing a challenge like this, are they needed?

or are their existing elements that need to be used more efficiently? >> well we need to expand what we have,. you can't underestimate what it means to have a country be able to do it themselves ultimately. i think the classic example of that, and it was really almost a foundation for so many other things, including when we developed have far, there are many people who do what paul farmer did in haiti and rwanda, where you do not just go in and help people and get out. you go in and you train people and you make a situation where they will stay and they will teach others and it will become a self-sustaining issue. you train someone, they do it and train someone.

we have that experience, 30 years ago when i became director, we set up a unit of exchange back-and-forth in mali. we had trained people who were actually global health students who came from mali to nih. that turned out to be an interesting model because it started off focusing just on malaria. now the people who were trained there and who trained people, in that area, they have an infrastructure that made it very easy when the case went to mali, they never would have been able to do that if they did not have that. so we really need to continue to make it sustainable in the ountries involved.

>> there is a bit of a mismatch, 17,000 cases in west africa, 11 in the u.s., and yet the public discourse here in he u.s. in the days before your appointment, what have we learned about how difficult it is to communicate, to engage in public communication about risks like this? >> jack, it is understandable when people hear about something that is new and dangerous, that we've never experienced before, to react with trepidation. the best thing we can do in the face of that anxiety is to respond properly with an aggressive response, but one based on science, medicine, and the best possible learning we have. so i think our country was very lucky to have someone like tony fauci, a person who won the highest civil honor six years ago, and is still fighting this fight every day. to have his leadership and

wisdom and voice has been a critical part of that. i also think we simply, people had to experience our success in managing this disease to have confidence we could manage this disease. the fact all eight of the patients with ebola have been treated successfully, all survived the experienced and are with their families now, has been a reassuring thing. something people could not know when they heard it had a 70% death rate. a combination of a great communication from experienced leaders, policies based on science and evidence and medicine, and proven success in identifying and treating cases have been the key things in bringing the public anxiety own. >> tony, as ron said, you have been at this for a wild.

20 years you have been leading the institute. you will be remembered in our nation for the leadership you provided during the most difficult and challenging moment when we were confronting hiv aids, trying to sort that out as a nation. are there things you are bringing from those experiences, things you're bringing from those experience in the 1980's and 1990's, as you wrestled with the hiv-aids crisis, to this one? >> there are several. one that you alluded to is the dea of consistent, honest, open communication of what you know and what you don't know. don't ever be afraid of saying you do not know balanced against trying to seem like you are smart and you know when you don't and then your credibility goes down.

the other thing is to try to communicate in a way that is always science and evidence-based. you may not get it across the first time you say it, but you've got to say it over and over again. that is the issue of risk and probability. to try to explain to people that the risks of things are there. we've got to accept that.