♪

>> israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu will address the joint meeting of congress this morning. he has been critical of the ongoing negotiations with iran over its nuclear program. watch live coverage at 11 a.m. eastern on c-span. on c-span 3 ashton carter will testify about the pentagon's 2016 budget request. he will be joined by general martin dempsey. we will have live coverage at 2:30 p.m. eastern. >> up next, former british defense minister liam talks about u.s.-u.k. relationsfox and then former maryland governor bob ehrlich campaigns in new hampshire. >> the c-span city tour

travels to u.s. cities. we partnered with comcast for a visit to galveston, texas. >> the rising tide the rising wentind drew them. i watched in amazement as both of these factors that are the structures. we had wooden bat -- bathhouses and we also had peers. we had a huge pavilion. as the storm increased in intensity, these structures literally were turned into sticks. the 1900s storm hit galveston september 8, 1900. the store begin before noon and

increased in dramatic intensity and then tapered off midnight. this hurricane was and still is the deadliest recorded natural event in the history of the united states. >> want all of our events from galveston, saturday at noon eastern and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on c-span 3. next, former british defense secretary liam fox talks about u.s.-u.k. relations. he also talked about the conflict ukraine and global relations with russia. this one-hour event was hosted by the center for strategic and international studies in washington. >> good morning, everyone! welcome to the -- the center for

strategic and international studies. my name is heather connolly. i'm senior vice president here. i conduct our research for europe, eurasia, and the arctic. absolutely delighted to have a member of british parliament for 22 years looking after. many of us know dr. fox as being the former secretary of state for defense, who was named by prime minister cameron from 2010 to 2011. and we claim dr. fox as one of our own, for coming last year for a conversation we held in williamsburg, virginia on the future of europe. and i assure you that dr. fox gave us a very lively and spirited debate about what the future of europe will look like. and i'm sure some of that will be reprised for us this morning.

prior to former secretary of state for defense, dr. fox served as many shadow secretaries while in opposition for health, for foreign secretary as well as secretary of defense. he can also give us insight on health and health care issues as they relate to the united kingdom. i'm also delighted to welcome general skokroft with us and the former f.b.i. and c.i.a. director. we're delighted to have you both with us. and dr. fox, i think that gives you a sense of the importance that we subscribe to this conversation. that we subscribe to this conversation. and we look forward to your remarks. dr. fox will give us opening remarks. then we'll transition into a discussion and welcome our audience today for a lively q&a on the future of the u.s.-u.k. special relation shch. shch -- relationship but i think we'll

have a broader conversation about the variety of international challenges we face. with that, please join me in welcoming dr. liam fox. [applause] >> well, good morning, ladies and gentlemen. and it's a great pleasure to be back here. it is not a quiet time in global events. in fact, i can never remember a more turbulent time. but what a better time to talk about the relationship between the united kingdom and the united states. in fact, when winston churchill first used the term "special relationship, he did it during his speech in fulton missouri. which is of course better remembered for his use of the phrase iron curtain for the first time. but when churchill spoke about the special relationship, he did so as a wartime leader. it was basically an intelligence relationship, a military relationship. the somewhat gooey-eyed

commentators are not for me, the concrete foundations that it has. this is a relationship about our security in a dangerous world. and there are so many threats in this very inter-dependent world. one of the changes that churchill would have been astonished to see is the level of inter-dependency that we now have. and we have so many warnings about just how inter-dependent we've come in recent years whether it's the terrorist attack of 9/11, whether it's the event of s.a.r.s., the japanese tsunami, what is very clear is that a connotation in one part -- a contagion in one part of the economy will quickly spread to the west. the term there might become somewhat dated as we go ahead. when i was writing the book i

wrote about global security threats, it was pointed out to me that back in 1993, not exactly a very long time ago there were 130 websites in the world. at the end of last year, there were 654 million, which is a whole change, quantum leap, in information. but it's also a lot of terrorist haystacks in which to hide terrorist needles. and that's something i want to come on to in a moment. but i want to set out the range generic range of risks that we face, before i come to some of the specifics. but i set the most feeling states, the rise of religious fundamentalism, the spread of transnational terrorism financial imbalances, competition for commodities. and that's before we even got to the state on state threat that we face. and i began by setting out what the risks i thought were of

failing states. and the one that i actually identified was pakistan. and i said pakistan not out of malign intent but because of sheer instability. most of us, politically will be used to dealing with opposite numbers. but in a country like pakistan, where frankly we're never really sure who is in charge, whether it's the politicians, the military or the isi, we have to develop a whole range of relationships. of course, from a british perspective, i was very interested as to why, after 200 years of common history india, after partition, went on to become a relatively stable, prosperous and increasingly middle class economy whereas pakistan effectively ruled backwards, from the very beginning. perhaps it's something we can discuss. but i was interested in that partition. nobody knew what to call pakistan. it didn't correspond to any natural historical or geographical entity.

so in fact it's an acronym. pakistan is actually a made-up name, made up of the initials of the provinces. and i think that it's a fair bet that if you're country's name is made up, then it's not probably the most stable entity that you're likely to see. and i say that this is a worry, because here in washington, with all the focus on iran at the present time, people seem to have forgotten that pakistan is sitting on something like 120 nuclear warheads and has recently brought into play two new plants that will enable them to produce nuclear warheads from now on. it is the nuclear problem that nobody seems to want to acknowledge and talk about in detail. then, of course, we've got to the rise of transnational terrorism. it's nothing new. but it changes its manifestations. of course, the worry that we have is that this nuclear proliferation, in places like pakistan, will find its way into

the terrorist game. and people say well, if it's so easy to make a dirty bomb, and so much material out there, why have we not seen one? and yet nobody seems to know that in 1995, in moscow, the nuclear material was there but it just wasn't attached to a bomb. or that in chechnya, we have had material attached to mines. so the threat is there. and it will increase. and we need to look at our whole issue of proliferation in light of the increased terrorist threat. we also need to understand some of the other risks that are coming from left field. and one of the ones that i constantly talk about is the risk of competition for commodities. and in particular, water. and people talk about china but they very often miss out on one of the really important parts of the equation, which is that 48%

of all the people alive on our planet today get their drinking water from a river that arises on the tibetan plateau. why do you think china is so intent on tibet? is it the dalai lama? or is it the fact that it's the world's greatest resource in terms of fresh water? unless we know the data we will not make sensible interpretations of events and therefore are likely to make policy mistakes. the rise of religious fundamentalism particularly islamic fundamentalism, is there for us all to see. we're facing this crisis now with isis, the latest manifestation of this, but i doubt it will be the last manifestation of it. we need to be very very clear about the threats that islamic state poses to us. first of all, the humanitarian threat the immediate threat to the population that lives under their control. we've seen what they're capable of beheadings, crucifixes,

setting people on fire. for video cameras, violence we thought had been left behind in the middle ages. the second threat, of course, the further destabilization of the region. they would love to see a full-blown religious war. this is in fact part of what they're trying to achieve. and then, of course, there will be the university of jihad if we allow them to do so. and they will export terror to western democracies if they get the opportunity. and we've seen cases in the united kingdom of people who have gone to fight for isis and then come home. personally i don't believe you can have a sabbatical from civilization and then come home. no jihad gap here, that you can come back and say you're very sorry that you did it. so we have to, again, think about the domestic problems. and then nuclear proliferation itself. iran clearly the big issue. when rouhani became president

there was so in the the western area who were describing it as a breakthrough, a new moment in the relationship. big disappointment there, for the people of iran. they've not really noticed much of a difference. the repression, the executions continue. and what people seemed to fail to understand was that the shots are still called by the supreme leader. and if you read -- there's a wonderful little book, and he has a politically consistency that most western politicians would kill for. his belief in the purity of the islamic revolution, his hatred for the united states, his contempt for the existence of the state of israel, all very, very consistent over a long period. and i think it is absolutely unbelievable that people still

will look at the evidence in front of them in terms of what iran is doing, in terms of its nuclear program, and say, well, maybe they're not trying to achieve a nuclear weapons program. there is no possible excuse for the levels of nuclear work they're doing, other than that they're trying to get a nuclear weapons program the clan des tine way in which they were developed. there is a problem here, a generic problem in the west, which is that on too many occasions we have allowed wishful thinking to take the place of critical analysis. because we want something to happen, we have used the data to try to make it look as though that is what is happening. and it's not happening in the case of iran. why should we worry about a nuclear iran? first of all, it does provide a

threat to israel, with all the implications that that has for wider policy. secondly, i think it would mean the npt is not worth the paper it's written on. and if iran gets to nuclear weapons status, why should egypt, saudi arabia and turkey not want to follow them? and that means a nuclear arms race in one of the most unstable regions of the world. and after all the work that was done particularly in the united states, at the end of the cold war to stop proliferation and to stop the former soviet states from being able to have nuclear weapons surely we want to leave something better to the next generation than a new nuclear arms race. this is a challenge for all of us. i worry about what is happening today in terms of the negotiations. some say we need to get a deal. i actually think no deal is better than a bad deal. and what do i mean by a bad deal?

i think any deal is a bad deal that allows iran to become a threshhold nuclear state because of the dangers that i've mentioned. i particularly worry that the -- about the potential of a bilateral agreement between the united states and iran that doesn't come from the p5 plus 1. we need to stand together in the face of international threat and not be divided. and i'm sure that's something we'll talk about in our conversation. and then on this happy list of the threats we face, we didn't really think that we would be facing a state on state threat to the extent that we're facing today from russia. and if ever there was an example of wishful thinking, displacing critical analysis, it is in putin's russia, because we have so wanted russia to become a useful partner in the international family of nations

that we have simply been turning a blind eye for too long. there are two basic principles followed by putin which make it extremely difficult if not impossible to normalize relations with russia. the first is that putin still clings to the idea, the old soviet idea, of a near abroad. in other words, that he should have a veto over the policies of his immediate geographic neighbors. and we have seen what that has led to in recent times. the second is concept, his concept that he believes that the protection of ethic russias or the systems of law, under which they live, but with an external part, russia itself. and these two views are the root of many of the problems that we face. and we can see the manifestations of these today in ukraine. i do not believe that putin's word on any agreement when it

comes to his borders. i think that what is happening in the ukraine is truly shocking. the annex saition by force, of crimea the destabilization of the eastern borders of ukraine, the fact that while nato carries out normal military maneuvers and exercises, russia is actually testing weapons systems, lies in eastern ukraine, from the book missile system. these are real times testing that russia is carrying out. and we are standing by and arguing about whether we should give the ukrainians the means or not to defend their homeland. just think about it. we are actually saying, we cannot give ukraine the secure -- the anti-tank capability that they need, because that might exacerbate

the crisis. that is a charter. that simply says we will never give anyone the means to defend themselves, because that might make the aggressor even more angry. this is a ridiculous policy. and we need to recognize that the defense of the baltic states, for example, begins in ukraine. and we are only one miscalculation by putin away from potentially getting an article 5 involvement of continental europe and we need to waken up to it. we have been serial appeasers of putin. and it has not got us very far. when he had a cyberattack on estonia, we did nothing. he invaded georgia. and he's still there. and we did very little. we made some sanctions in response to what is happening in ukraine and crimea. but appeasement has a bad track record. it had a bad track record

before. it has a bad track record today. so why should we even view the united kingdom -- we the united kingdom, still look to the united states, in an era of all these potential problems? because you are the world's biggest economy. because you are the world's biggest military budget, which is very reassuring. and you are a close ally of the united states. but more than that, we need to have a partnership of values because in all these problems that we face in the world, we need to understand that we are who we are. not by accident. we are who we are by design and by decisions that were taken by those who went before us. and we are built on the concept both our nations, of our ability to exercise a free market our economic liberty in a free market. we understand the value in terms of prosperity and security in free trade. we understand the need for a

rule of law applied equally to the governing and the governed, independently. and we understand the concept of rights, across race, religion and gender. these are what make us who we are. and we need to take ownership of these, and we need to be expanding these in a very unstable world. and to my american political colleagues, i would say this. there has never been a time when we were more able to shape the world, in the era of globalization, we need to shape it in our image and by our own values. this is not a time for america to look inwards. this is not a time for america to become more isolationist. there has never been a time, i believe, where america was more needed on the pitch than it is today. and that's probably, i think heather, the best place to begin our conversation. >> perfect. thank you. [applause]

>> well, thank you. that was wonderful a great tour didtourdeforce. i think we'll have a conversation with us, and i'll turn you over to our audience. i will form you that center for strategic and international studies audiences ask very tough questions. so i'm a mere warm-up to what you're about to experience. but you gave us a broad one. i think i'll focus more on europe. let me start with russia, since that is where you concluded. the murder of boris nemtsov, do you think that's a turning point? will we see a different environment within russia? i think one of nemtsov's most poignant remarks literally days before his murder, was that he felt that there needed to be a midon in russia an awakening in

russia, which in some ways i think is the most powerful threat to vladimir putin than to anything. did you see these unbelievable images from moscow? literally steps from the kremlin? did you see this as potentially a turning point for russia? >> it's potentially. but, again, given the level of control and repression that exists there, we have had these before. being a vocal opponent of putin is not a safe position to be in, as nemtsov, you name them, the very long, growing list of enemies of the russian president who have been silenced. it would be nice to think that we would get a change. honestly, i'm just not that optimistic about it. >> you had some conversation as recently as yesterday on bbc 1 radio talking about the level of

defense spending. very concerned about british defense spending, the lack of a commitment to 2% of gross domestic product towards defense standing. i'd like to pull you out a bit on that and really, offer some reflections. is nato ready to confront russia? we have seen extraordinary military mobilization, snap exercises. i saw a statistic that since david cameron has been prime minister russia has gotten very close to air sovereignty of the u.k. 43 times. are we ready to confront this challenge militarily? >> well, you added the word militarily at the end. i think our biggest problem is having the will to confront. you can have as much military capability as you like. if you haven't got the political will to use it, it becomes largely redundant. i think that is, of the two elements of nato, its political personality and its military

capable, it's that political one i worry about. i think this is where the 2% comes in. it's not just the ability that gives us, in terms of military equipment, it's about our willingness to show our longer-term commitment to the alliance. only four of the nato allies meeting the 2%, which remember is the floor. 2% of g.d.p. is supposed to be the floor of our spending, not the ceiling of our spending on defense. if you look at what happened, for example, in the libyan crisis, in libya the europe european elements of nato would not have even been able to carry that out without the united states, because we simply didn't have the refueling capability. the big problem with a lot of the european members of nato is that so many of them were very quick, after the cold war in particular to get into nato. and they all recognized what a

opportunity it was for everybody to get the insurance policy but asking just a few others to pay the premiums for us. and we are in the position where there are too many countries taking a free ride on the united states in particular with i is why i think it's -- why i think it's very important that britain show the moral leadership to make that 2% commitment. we have given our word as a country that we will play our full part in the alliance and we must do so. last week i was in poland, the world from warsaw looks very different than it does from either london or washington. and there is a palpable fear there about what is going on. and the geographic proximity of putin is getting them to waken up. and they are, of course, going to increase the defense spending. our country is like estonia. but they're coming to the threat late in the day. so we do need to get our

political act together inside nato. and there's a related issue here. and i know this is -- we did talk about this in williamsburg. but i go back to it again. and part of the problem with nato is the european union. and the european union trying to take on a defense and security rule -- role. that is not what the e.u. is for. that is what nato is for. if we try to duplicate what nato is doing inside the european union, and worse, if it ends up having the diversion of funds away from the scarce funding that we're giving nato, into a duplication in the european union, that can be of comfort only to those who are our enemies. >> i'm going to turn to the e.u., because i definitely want your thoughts on the eurozone and immigration issues. before i >> i'm going to believe russia, your opening remarks, and you mentioned prime minister churchill. i have to say i struggle with this. what would churchill say today?

on the one hand, he described the rise of naziism wartime prime minister, to create that defense. there's no choice between war and shame. you'll have shame, and then you'll have war -- that it will come later. but he also in some ways agreed to a sphere of influence. we need a new strategic framework for this challenge that putin is presenting the west. how do you strike that balance between the values proposition but, again, the political will to meet mr. putin with strength? >> first of all, we have to provide ourselves with the capability. but we also need to be willing to confront them where necessary. we have seen his modus operandi. we need to have a stronger presence in the baltic states in particular. and let's be very frank about what he's doing here. he's got them in the baltics. he's been bullying some of the smaller baltic states into

fearing politically funding pro-russian candidates. he's been encouraging them in the balkans to see the illegal referendum in crimea as a precedents. he has still got forces in georgia. he's created virtually a state in armenia. how many lessons do we need in what is happening here? this is the ability now to cause instability at will, in terms of european security. we need to counter that. we need to have a larger and permanent presence in the baltic. we need to beef up the baltic air patrols. we need to look at countries like poland and see whether we need to have a greater permanent nato presence there. we need to use the powers that we have to show that we are not going to allow this concept this sphere of influence, to take hold. for example we should be

sending our naval power into the black sea, just to show that we have every right to do that, and that this is not the personal pond of putin. so there are things that we can do. but we have to have the will to do it. and we have to have the leadership to do it. >> let me turn to the european union. in some ways, the may 7 general elections is, in part not completely about the future of great briive in the european union -- about great britain in the european union. obviously you've been a critic of the e.u. and britain's role in there. expand a little bit on what you've been watching over the last several years, whether it's within the eurozone and how the 19 eurozone members have been dealing with an ongoing economic crisis certainly the last few weeks with the prime minister. it's really been an unprecedented conversation. but more broadly, how the european union is dealing with larger issues like immigration

maritime security. things like that. >> how long have you got? >> you've got a couple medicines. you can go -- a couple minutes. you can go. >> first of all, in terms of the u.k. election, the conservative party, my party, believes we should have a referendum, because no one under about 57 years of age in the u.k. has ever been able to take part in the referendum about our membership. it's one of my earliest political memories the referendum of 1975, because my parents campaigned on opposite sides. >> a tensen tense household. >> it was. my parents still have the same views that they held then. but lord mandelson said, in britain, that -- and i quote -- europe is too important an issue to be left to the lottery of the electorate. which i think tells you all you need to know about the mind-set of the bureaucracy in brussels. and in an era where people cross western political systems seem

to be losing faith, in the political system itself, giving people a say on their own destiny, i think, is one of the ways in which you restore faith in that system. and you keep faith with the people. so that's one side of it. the eurozone well, a lot of our european partners are now becoming serial economic self-harmers. and the whole concept of the you're row, which of course we decided to stay out of, i think has been a disaster. i remember, on the night we were voting in the house of commons, john major said to me, who in their right minds would go into anything in life that doesn't have an exit? and we're now discovering, with the greek situation, exactly what happens when you don't have an exit. and the euro was always flawed.

there were two models that they could have taken. they could have said, it's purely an economic project and only the countries that make the grade are allowed to join. they didn't do that either. in fact, the wrong countries were allowed to join countries that were never close to making the convergence criteria, and then having been allowed to join, they followed fiscal policies that made them diverge rather than converge, building instability into an already flawed architecture. and we're living with the consequences of that today, because what you're getting is monetary policy effectively applied across the whole continent that suits germany the biggest continental imhi. economy. and i'm afraid that histories are too short for people to accept what they perceive as

austerity being applied to them from berlin. and the reason that i mentioned my parents' positions on the europeeuropean referencei worry now that what we are getting in the euro is a re-creation of the tensions economically that will lead us to many of the same positions that we had before. how do you go about de-risking? you can go back to the national currencies. that is not going to happen. you can throw out the outliers greece portugal, spain probably italy, but it would undermine it. that is not going to happen. the third would be to throw out the biggest outlier, germany.

that is not going to happen because germany likes the euro. it is an under-valued currency for the size and strength of the german economy. the fourth way is for the countries inside the eurozone to move to a full fiscal and monetary union. i spoke to a member in brussels recently. he said, you are quite right. what we will do is continue to take the risk, hoping the bomb goes off on someone else's watch. i regard the euro as being the single greatest threat to global stability. the basic problem is not being solved. the most important issue for european politicians, the de-risking of the euro, 58% of

young spaniards are unemployed. how long do you think you can tolerate those levels of unemployment being foisted upon a population for what is effectively a political project? this is not a sensible way to be running either the economics or the long-term social stability in europe. i wonder how many younger europeans on the current trend will be sacrificed on the altar of the single currency before leaders wake up to the truth of what is happening. >> something about the eurozone which has its own rhythm at the moment, are you under-valuing the incredible benefit the united kingdom has received by being part of the single market? trade between the united kingdom and the union has increased. can the conversation about the u.k.'s role, are you not under-emphasizing the great economic benefits?

london is the financial center. it is in the union, but not of the euro. >> it would be the end of london as the economic center. it has not worked out that way. i take a very simplistic view of this. money goes to where money can be made and money can be moved. money comes to london for both those reasons. it can be made because of our taxation-free market, especially at the moment, and it can be moved because of our system of commercial law. that will continue to make it attractive inside the european union. i have not noticed norway or switzerland suffering hugely for not being members of the european union. of course, there are gains for being inside it. it is a debate for the ledger, pluses and minuses.

britain would have to look to see, where britain to leave the european union, pointing out the rest of our european partners export more than we export to them. it is very much in one direction. i think we do need to have this debate. i really rather dislike some of those who will say, we could not stand -- britain could not exist outside the european union which is nonsensical given the success of some of the countries in that region. i would like to see a renegotiated relationship with europe. i would like us to go back to the concept of a common market. i want to be will to cooperate with european partners and it is in our mutual interest to do so. i want to keep levers britain

might need to use. >> one critical party that has benefited from the anti-european-union immigration stance is -- i would like to turn a little to the domestic politics and put the crystal ball on the table. may 7, we have the commentary class. it is speculated that what we are about to witness on may 7 is going to be a real mess, a very difficult coalition, the scottish national party, perhaps the u.k. on the other side, might be determining what future british governments look like. how does the average american understand what is going to happen on may 7 and what are the implications? >> i will also give you the lottery numbers this week.

>> the bookies always have this right. >> i tend to go with the bookies as well. people are more circumspect on where they put their money. what does look like it is happening at the moment is the main parties are increasing in strength again at the expense of the smaller ones. for all the talk of the breakthroughs, in a country like britain, it is very difficult for parties to break into that. i think, and you will see with some justification, you would say this, i believe that when you have an economy where we have created 1.8 5 million jobs with historically low in trade -- interest rates, the growth in the economy feeding through to the pockets, i think it is hard

to see why the public would throw out a government that has provided them with that. labour party unqualified to lead the country. i think that when it comes to the election, people will look at the economic record of the government, look at the fact that in david cameron, they have an experienced prime minister. it is not looking great. i think what they will decide is not to make the change. i think it will be close to an overall majority. i remember the election when i was elected in 1992. the scenario was not dissimilar to this one. we were not at the head of any opinion polls.

the electorate, when faced with actually putting across, i think they are working very hard and >> as a member of parliament, you served on the constitution committee and focused on constitutional affairs. for those of us that have been watching the scottish debate last fall's referendum, a bit of a heart-stopper, were not quite sure how that would evolve. now we see where the scottish national party is going to be doing, we think, very well heart-stopper on may 7, which may cause labour to not do as well. what does this mean for the united kingdom? is it becoming more disunited? will this begin to pull at the very fabric of the united kingdom? >> i would have thought that tony blair's proposals for devolution were in balance and

would have repercussions. we argued at the time it was our responsibility at the time. i argued that what was happening was a recipe for the rise of nationalism. i did and would have not -- 87% chance of getting that referendum. it paid out the day before the referendum actually took place. the trouble with it is the independent site who lost the referendum won. they had been continuing to push more and more in that direction. that has been a problem. it is also not very apparent that labour party looks like it will do very badly in scotland. i think that is a problem. what will it mean if there is a big -- that will depend on the outcome.

the nightmare scenario is a la bour snp coalition. the reason that is a nightmare for me, not just yet more money will move from my constituents up north of the border into scotland and there is more scottish spending per head, but the worry is the snp, they believe in a nuclear-free country. i wonder what price the labour leader would pay to get the keys to that. it should worry our american friends. >> my last question, then i want to bring our audience in. i will ask you a question that i get asked very frequently by journalist. is -- does the united states still have this close, exclusive relationship with the united kingdom that it had in the past?

does the united states still consider itself a european power? is it still involved as it was in the transatlantic relationship? has it decided, we will maintain, but we are focusing on the asia person -- asia-pacific region? how would you answer that question? >> i thought the whole concept of the pivot was a little bizarre. it is not as though the atlantic will disappear any days in. clearly, the united states does have to focus on the pacific. there is also an atlantic part. it does not have the luxury of choosing which way to look. global security, for the reasons we were discussing, is not something you can decide which geographical area you are not going to worry about and which areas you will disregard. it is not like that. events in ukraine are showing you. the u.s. is still the global

superpower. with that comes responsibilities. we need the u.s. to be in the game. i wonder what signal mr. cooper -- putin got that the u.s. would be focused on the pacific. i wonder what signal he took from that. i wonder if it would be advantageous. >> interesting. thank you. i have given you your worn-out -- warm-up. i will unleash the audience. we have a microphone. if you could identify yourself with name and affiliation. we have about 15 minutes. i asked for comments to be short and questions to be very focused. please. we have one right to in the front.

>> thank you for the realist view of the world. my question follows on asia. i was going to ask about the pivot. does the u.k., eu, nato see this as an outsider's purview? how are you pursuing it? >> thank you. we had a question -- >> thank you. you have spoken quite a bit about diplomacy and defense, the need to build political will in those areas. i wonder if you have any thoughts on the development and how the relationship between usaid and the united states and the department for international development in the u.k. has transformed, how you think it should transform in the future, and if that is a significant aspect of what you are talking about. thanks. >> great. let's take one more. thank you.

>> dr. fox, thank you for joining us today. real quick question. it seems like one of the emerging narratives in the debate about the future in nato is that there are some member states that are oriented to the east. i think the ukraine -- others are concerned about instability in libya. how do we help change that narrative from an "or" to an "and"? >> the question of development and the south versus the east. that is a great question. can nato do both? do they have to choose? can the alliance be united? what the first question goes to the heart of this entire discussion. i think increasingly you have to understand the implications of globalization. we can't simply disregard other parts of the world because they're not close to us geographically.

i think of the 20th century as being the century of the block which was defined by our geography. so we cooperated with countries that were close to us in terms of physical geography rather than countries that are like us in terms of our values or our political systems. increasingly, the world is shrinking because of the effects of globalization and as i said at the beginning, we can't afford to disregard risks that are rising in asia anymore than we can risks rising in europe because they will both affect us very quickly. politicians have a problem with this. if i am allowed to say that. i think politicians on the right resent the loss of sovereignty that inevitably comes with globalization and therefore tend to not want it to happen. politicians on the left dislike the unavoidable strategic risk that comes with globalization that has to be paid for.

and our systems of government also with a very neat way in which we have silos that say , that his economic policy, that's trade policy that's foreign-policy that security policy failed to grasp how globalization is developing in the interdependence and the unavoidable risk that comes with that. so we do have to look at it more widely, at risk and emerging risk and recognize that whether we like it or not, it's going to happen and how well we prepare for it today think it's the end of geography not the end of history. he would have been a lot closer to the mark in terms of the world. in terms of -- you cannot choose the conflicts. this is the problem of security. we are going to reduce their spending because we think the world is becoming a safer place.

conflicts choose you more than you get to choose the conflicts. that's one of the lessons of history. we have to be ready for the unexpected and libya showed some real shortcomings. it also showed the dislocation iyou get to choose the conflicts. think of our military action and our plans for longer-term political stability. since the marshall plan, i can't think of an example of where we got both the military action and the reconstruction and stabilization right. so we have a lot of thinking to do there. it's very useful in terms of being able to help out in the short term. my view is that if you want to alleviate global poverty you do it through free trade and i think capitalism has actually given a much greater step up to

the world's poor than any amount of aid program can do, but i do think specifically well targeted aid is very useful. i don't just mean in terms of physical or monetary poverty. i think we should be using our aid budgets to change behavior and values, in particular i think our taxpayers who provide this money live by certain ethical values and i think that we should be using our aid budget more to get a change in behavior. for example, i think that countries that exhibit religious intolerance that do not give women equal rights and don't send girls to school, we should be trying to use our aid as a lever in those cases. we should be trying to apply the values that are people live by to those countries that we give aid to. i think it was in the aid debate and it's been understandably focused on public health which has a doctor i regard as

important and the alleviation of poverty, but i think there are other things that the aid budget should also be involved in enough of the promotion of our values. and i think if you go back to what i said at the very beginning that we are who we are by design and not by accident, if you believe that as i do but -- as i do i think you have a , moral responsibility to ensure other people are able to benefit from those values, too. it is what i see our aid program as being a very important part of. i just don't however by this -- i just don't, however buy this idea that you can diminish your need for hard power by having more soft power. that really is an and, not in -- not an or. >> one quick question and i will turn to the audience. i'd been meaning to ask this question. we followed closely the house of commons vote on syria and

was that a real turning point in how the united kingdom looked at foreign-policy challenges, or was that in some ways trying to mitigate the past and past decisions, putting those decisions on the rocks? >> it was an aberration and a mistake. i would not take it as reading too much into how britain sees its role. it was recalled from summer holiday three days before they had to. people don't take kindly to that. there was not a great deal of preparation done about the actual issue. a lot of it was about domestic politics. i would not read too much into it. however, i think that the damage, irrespective of the outcome of the vote, has been very substantial.

i think there are two things you should do in politics. don't make promises you know you can't keep. don't make threats you are not willing to carry out. if you drawl redlines and say they will not be crossed, then they are crossed, the one thing you can be sure of is your next redline will be tested. it was not only about this specific issue. it was about how many of our allies as well as our enemies perceive our willingness to enforce the policies that we set out for ourselves. that is a very dangerous world. >> i think we have time for maybe two more questions. there is one there. >> i am an exchange officer british exchange officer working in the pentagon. i would like to ask about information operations regarding russia in particular. i would like your opinion on just how costly it was to cut

the russian-speaking bbc world service in 2011, as far as i can tell the only reasonable means of countering russia today is a state-sponsored information -controlled network and if you agree with me that it was with hindsight extremely costly whether it can be reversed? >> thank you. just take the microphone. thank you. >> national defense university. among the big defense issues you face in 2016 will be making a -- will be the main gate decision. how strong his support from the conservative party for a like for like replacement? since you were defense minister at the time you signed the defense treaties in 2010 are

you satisfied with the level of british-french cooperation? wife any predictions on the strategic defense review for this year? all right. that is how you will end up, on a strong note. >> the question of information -- as well as forgetting about the concept of deterrence in general, we have also forgotten the value of propaganda. you would think we have lost constitutional memory of the cold war. both of these are really important things. russia is now becoming extremely adept, as isis are, for example in conducting an information war despite having the technology , and tools at our disposal. we seem to have failed to understand the importance or the potential that it gives us. so i'm entirely with you that we need to really raise our game right across the information piece.

in terms of nuclear deterrence there's strong support inside the party for replacement. the biggest argument in britain against it are why would you spend so much money on a system that you will never use which utterly fails to understand the concept of deterrence, which is that we are using it everyday as a deterrent. when they say you can't really afford 20 billion in terms of capital costs for the new program i point out that we are , very happy to spend 9 billion for three weeks at the olympics , but we are reticent of spending 20 billion for 35 years protection from nuclear blackmail. it does seem to me that we want to think hard about our priorities on that one. as for the sdsr, clearly the next thing you will have to take into account that had the -- into account, that heavy initial cost in the capital program for the nuclear deterrent. that, i think, is factored in but it's a big cost and i would

, say the defense budget is driven by four things. four drivers and constraints. the first is the international security environment which is deteriorating, which suggests we need an uplift in the budget. secondly it is driven by the commitments entered into, the 2% made a commitment our commitment to upgrade our nuclear deterrence and it's also the gaps that we decided to take in but which we will not be able to 2010, take again and surveillance capability for example has probably been a billion on the budget just for the one item. then you have got fiscal position which is improving , dramatically in the united kingdom because of the long-term economic plan that we put forward. the fourth one, i think is the

, international obligations and your willingness to have a role in global affairs. i think that we have given our word to the country and as a member of the alliance. we need to keep that word and i think if we want to be able to propagate the values and systems, international obligations and that i've been talking about we -- about we have to be willing , to provide the means necessary to protect them. so i can see no option than a rise in the budget. i fail to see how you can produce what we didn't in the future for 2020's set out in 2010 without increasing the budget nevermind filling in the , gaps that we would have to because of the deteriorating security picture. i think it's inevitable the budget will go up. i think smart politicians would turn necessity into a virtue. >> dr. fox, it is always a great opportunity to have a great discussion with you. you have given us a lot to think about. we are going to focus in on the outcome of may 7 and see what the future holds for british politics. although the u.s.-u.k.

relationship may be complicated and evolving, it is vitally important. we are delighted that you could spend some time with us. please join me in thanking dr. fox. relationship[applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national capti

it was the same bond that led president truman to make united states the first country to recognize israel 11 minutes after it declared its existence in 1948. [applause] and it is why we have stood by israel's side every minute since. our commitments are bedrock commitments rooted in shared fundamental values cemented through decades of bipartisan reinforcement. this partnership u should never be politicized and it cannot or

will not be tarnished or broken. [applause] now, debating the most effective policy both within our respective democracies and among partners is more than useful. it is a necessary part of arriving at informed decisions politicizing that process is not. the stakes are too high for that. [applause] on policy, the negotiations that we and our partners have entered into with iran negotiations aimed centrally at denying iran a nuclear weapon, have generated reasonable debate. my colleague and dear friend national security adviser susan rice will speak in-depth about iran later tonight. but i am struck that when i read about alleged policy differences on the iran nuclear negotiations i rarely see mention of the foundational strategic agreement between the

united states and israel. an agreement that undergirds our entire engagement with iran. the united states of america will not allow iran to obtain a nuclear weapon period. [applause] >> you may not have heard, see, i will be speaking in congress tomorrow. [applause] [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] you know never has so much been written about a speech that hasn't been given. and i'm not going to speak

today about the content of that speech. but i do want to say a few words about the purpose of that speech. first, let me clarify what is not the purpose of that speech. my speech is not intended to show any disrespect to president obama or the esteemed office that he holds. i have great respect for both. i deeply appreciate all that president obama has done for israel, security cooperation, intelligence sharing, support of the u.n., and much more. something that i as prime minister of israel cannot even divudge to you because it remains in the confidence that are kept between an american

president and israeli prime minister. i am deeply grateful for this support and so should you be.

c-span2, c-span radio and cspan.org. >> bob erlich was in henniker, new hampshire where he held a town hall meeting at new england college. the former governor who is considered a presidential run in 2016 discussed political discourse in washington the importance of compromise and his views on marriage. this is just over an hour.

[multiply conversations taking place] [multiply conversations taking place]

[multiply conversations taking place] >> good afternoon, everyone, on behalf of the center for sieving engagement i mind like to welcome you to the new england college. i am a political science major and it is my pleasure to introduce governor bob erlich. he has served as governor member of congress state legislature and civil litigator. most recently he advised clients on an array of government

matters with focus on health care, finance and economic development. as maryland's first republican governor in 36 years when elected he turned four billion in deficit into two billion in surplus and helped create a hundred thousand new jobs. he made record investments in public schools and authored maryland's first public charter schools law and doubled funded for need-based college scholarships helping enrollment reach all-time high. he was recognized by the chesapeake bay for the historic chesapeake bay restoration act. he created the first cabinet level department of disabilities for which he earned the highest

recognition award from the secretary of health and human services. he earned his bachelor in politics from princeton and his law degree from wake forest university. please join me in welcoming governor bob erlich. [applause] >> stephanie, presented this to me and i want everybody to see. i appreciate that. [applause] >> how is everybody? we going to be interactive today. thank you for the nice introduction stephanie. i do a fair amount of college lectures. i would rather talk with you. i move around a lot. so i brought my wife with me today.

kindle erlich. and she is the mother of my two sons. drew age 15 and josh age 10. and what your name? what do you think i am doing here? >> speaking about your vision for america. >> speaking about my vision for america. all right. what should that vision be? >> i don't know. >> all right. let's say you guys are running for president. let's say you are running for president, okay? and if i want to hear from you what you think the major issues con fronting the economy, culture, and what they are and what you do about it. i have my answers but i want to hear from you. we are interactive today. extra credit for hands. professors are here right? yes? >> wage inequality.

>> how would you describe that when we have so many laws on the book state and federal, with regard to wage fairness. what statute would you advocate? >> i think women should be paid equal to men for doing the same work in the same job >> that is the law, right? >> but it is not what is happening so i think the law should be enforced more than they are because if it is the law someone is not enforcing the laws properly. >> it is very interesting because when you deal with issues like this and you have an objective goal of equal pay and equal work. should someone at the same job being there ten years be paid the same as someone who has been there two years? you are not saying equal pay for equal work then? >> okay.

here is the deal. when you talk about these issues define your term. do not let anybody label you. pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gun, anti-gun means something different to all of you. they are labels used in politics and shortcuts for reporters. you don't play into them because once you do your opponent has you. okay? as a member of congress member of state legislature, governor i voted on bills thousands of times in legislatures. two legislatures, one state and one federal. abortion issues hundreds of them. gun issues hundreds. each vote has to be taken with a set of merits. if i asked the students here if you identify as pro-gun, raise your hand. you are pro-gun.

one? two? three? there is no right answer. if you are anti-gun raise your hand? okay. i just told you not to raise your hand because i just defined you. i labelled you. you had no idea what i was talking about. so never answer that question. if somebody tries to corner you with some label on a social issue or economic issue or defense issue you make them define their terms. what that means to you. all right. medicaid financing. in maryland when it comes to late-term abortion parental notification consent, stem cell research all of these issues i voted on. same with guns. right to carry, home invasion

ammunition at gun shows. do not let anybody force you into labeling yourself without you defining them. you met equal talent equal pay. define your terms always. okay? so, if you are running for president, and we have one issue, pay inequality which okay, what other issues out there are confronting the middle class? every politician and congressman likes to talk about the middle class. if i asked you all to define middle class everyone would have a different definition as far as income, family situation, and where you happen to live. as far as the widely defined

middle class, what issues are confronting the american middle class today? number one issue? c-span is here. everyone looks good on tv. >> income. >> as far as income? what do you mean? >> based on what people make per year. >> right. so wage stability. we have as you know in this country today this wage freeze. we have wages that have really not gone up for a long time. so we have middle class is kind of stuck and that is an issue and why you hear politicians playing to the middle class. everybody wants to play to the middle class. does the minimum wage speak to the middle class? why does some paul ticksolitician

talk about middle class in the terms of wage? real income growth has not been good for the last seven or eight years. people are feeling stuck and their lot in life is not improving. jp? what is the number one issue for you? introduce yourself please. >> jp. i think security. >> security -- define that. >> immigration probably. i would define it as -- >> what is going on in the world is distressing. >> so you would say domestic and international border security and international security. >> border and domestic security. who here believes in sovereignty and citizenship should mean something? what does it mean to you? first hand up.

>> what does it mean to you? >> i think it should be a group of people who come together with a common goal and values >> what is your name? >> morgan. >> a for you. where is your professor? >> where is wane? >> extra credit. what is this country all about? what did our families -- what ethnicity are you? >> i am american. >> where did your folks come from? >> french and french canadian. >> polish german. we all came here mostly without a buck. some came on slave ships without a choice. but they came here for a central reason to try to make a buck or for freedom and some didn't have a choice but they all came here to form this unique bond.

it is called a culture. it is called a country. right? with a central language and set of values. what are our values? what are american values? >> freedom equalty -- >> plurism, democracy, capitalism -- pluralism -- we come with a set of values and called assimilation and i would argue a major challenge in the culture today is some people not wild about assimilation. eth ethnisties count.

i go to german festalivals. i am an assimilated german american right? and our idea is a singular culture that welcomes races and ethnicity across the world into a unique spearmintexperiment we call america. we are not perfect. we were not perfect from the founding. but these ideas a pretty cool; those framers really knew something. you can be an american regardless of where you come from and what you look like in regards to your last name is anything. we are loosing that. there are some elements in our society not interested in border

security jp. we have always welcomed people from all over the world through leakal process. you come here. here is our deal. you come legally, we welcome you, you learn the language you vote, you raise your kids and treat your husband and wife with respect and you blend into our culture and share our values to the extent you want to distinguish yourself from that you may have a problem getting a job, assimilating or we may have a problem in general. this is common sense. it is not controversial. it is not republican. it is not conservative. it is not liberal. it is not democrat. it is what the country actually used to be about and until recently very few people disgreed with until recently.

this is a real problem and your problem because you will in herit the country and running businesses and teaching and hopefully teaching these values. have i said anything controversial to any of you? anything that smacks you? political ideas? could you predict my party identification when you heard me talk about this? did you know if i was republican or democrat? hopefully you shouldn't. because we share these views. decent is part of the tradition. plural is pluralism is part of the tradition. religion is part of that. but when you say border and

sovereignty and citizenship don't mean much you have a problem in the long term and i think culturally this is the number one issue confronting the country. not so long ago the president characterized isis as a jb army. he has sense resended that. these are a group of radical murders who go around killing people and doing everything you read every day. this on the heels of america saying enough. afghanistan, iraq, enough. foreign engagements? enough. nation building? enough. casualities? enough. wars to nowhere against nine nation states?

enough and so here we are. america was there. president obama got elected on that platform of bring the boys and girls home. enough war, enough bloodshed, enough the american people said. and mownow we cannot turn on the tv or listen to the radio without hearing of nazi-era atrocities. you name the dictator. you name the mass murders. and they are growing. and all the generals the people you pay to make the decisions say these are really dangerous people and guess what? you are not going to be able to stop them with airstrikes and the american public says now

what? and that is where we are. the american public and i grew up post-vietnam and after the draft and all of that. that war didn't impact my view of the world the way it did people five years older than me. i didn't grow up with that presumption these foreign engagements are road to nowhere. we have a situation in our country now where we have a very unstable region in the middle east -- it has always been unstable -- very dangerous with the emerging terrorist army. we have potential nuclear deal with iran that may in fact give iran the bomb. we have workplace violence which

used to be called terrorism and should be called terrorism because it is terrorism and we have as part of this well established religion a very small part, of people who want to go kill other people. so i would say that is the number one security issue in our country. we have talked about the economy, wage growth we have talked about our culture, right, immigration and we have talked about national defense. i would say these discussions are occurring in a lot of dining room tables these days. a lot of families. and they are also occurring in the context of governor and presidential races because the american public is uncomfortable with the status of things today. they know their wages haven't

grown. they know there is an enemy over there and may be here. and they read about the interactions by the president of the united states that are extra constitutional. every time the president has been taken to court he has lost and he will probably lose on immigration as well. so i think there is a sense of insecurity. that is why i wrote this book. i am not here to plug the book but i am plugging the book. it is called america's hope for change. i think at this point in our history and culture where we are, the american public is a little confused and they are looking for leadership and all of you have different -- give me a definition of leadership, somebody, anybody. who is a leader? any captains of teams here?

whatever? what is your name? >> joe. somebody who is going to take charge and show the best way to do it. >> good definition. someone who takes charge and knows the best way. what do leaders know? how do they do that? >> they get everyone involved. >> they build coalition and divine stakes. i am defining stakes for your generation. you better care about this culture because you are going to inherit it. you better care citizenship means something and that capitalism works and you better care there is a growing army ready and willing to come here and kill you because you are you.

okay? so i would say the stakes are pretty high. and i want to challenge all of the young people here as a result of to get involved and there is no right answer liberals conservatives, republicans -- i have views on that. we can talk later away from the cameras. but i think the stakes are enormsly high today. every politician every cycle says there is nothing more important than this election. usually it is because that person is running. in this country and this era with the stakes as high as they are these elections coming up are pretty important. so i do these lectures around the country and people come up and ask me question and the first question is why can't we all get along?

if stakes are this high and things are this dysfunctional why can't republicans and democrats in congress get along? you guys are smart. tell me why that is. what is your name? >> amanda. >> why can they not get along? >> they have political agendas -- >> you run off political agendas. you have a political agenda and i have one. >> yeah. >> that is not it. >> it is part of the answer. >> i think they want to get elected again. >> ah. they want to get elected. she gets an a, too. but that is okay.

you want to fail in your life? you want to fail at your business or career? >> i mean not ideally. >> that is another right answer. it is okay to want to get elected. if i was to submit to you that there are concrete reasons why and you are learning this in political science why congress appears dysfunctional. probably the primary reason is there are so many safe seats in the house, state legislatures have gone about the business of drawing safe seats and this is not my opinion. this is fact. every election cycle what do you see? congressional approval at minus 18. everybody hates congress. relect rate? 95. how does that make sense? if everybody hates congress and

yet your woman or guy is getting reelected? why is that? because state legislatures have gone about the business in more recent times of getting serious about drawing safe seats which means almost regardless of what you do during the two-year term you cannot lose. you can screw up. you can be an idiot. you can be smart. you can articulate or not but unless you really mess up you will not lose your seat. what is your impetus when you go to congress? don't compromise on anything. go get em. and you say yeah and go back to washington. there is a bill. get in the tank and negotiate. you are saying nah.

don't really need to. might cost me the seat in the primary. so what is on top of this phenomenal thing is i am in new england right now. and it used to be there was a republican tradition in new england. it was actual republican-base and in my time in congress and afterward it has almost been wiped out. in the south and west it was a democratic base. safe suburban democratic seats. they have almost been wiped out. so you do not have today in congress, many third party honest brokers. how did ronald reagan get the tax cuts through? southern democrats. now very philosophical and partisan and there is very

little room to compromise which is why you don't have compromise. there are voting rights and attack attacking republicans and democrats in the seats. that plays a part here big time. when you pack safe voters into specific districts. okay? so just maybe a thought. it isn't just that people have agendas. they do. it isn't they just want to get reelected. there is nothing wrong with that. there is very little room or impetus and very little time. ...

bug time environmental initiative. really important for the bay. really important. i did not get 100 prt of that bill. i got about 65% of the bill. so my decision was, do i upset some people in my base? by signing the bill? or do i veto the bill, knowing this is the best chance to get it cleaner in my generation, and i have children and i love crab. we'll teach you how to eat crabs

when you come to baltimore. if i was dogmatic it was, forget it. see you. i want 100% or nothing. that's not leadership. that's not leadership. now, conversely you have to understand when you're getting 42% or 38% of what you want, you ought to veto the bill because it's not moving things forward. so thoughts about practical leadership. my party likes to talk about ronald reagan. jack kemp was my really most influential person in hi political have but a lot of republicans talk about president reagan. the would compromise. he sat down with tip o'neill. he left the white house and talked to democrats. he did. got a big deal done.

to get big things done immigration, tax reform, trade bills, you need the active involvement of the president because leadership. without it, it's not going to happen. it's not. it can't. there's too many voices, too many stopping points. the last question that i want to -- you can ask whatever you want within reason -- the last question i'm going to ask is money. how come money? can't you get money out of politics? money, money money, all you guys do is raise money. right? who agrees with that statement? money is the evil in politics. raise your hand. who hasn't spoken. what's your answer? what do you base your observation on? >> um, i just think that it's often that a lot of our

decisions in life are based off money. and how can we get more money versus maybe doing what's right situation. >> okay. okay. here's the problem. i have thought about this a lot, trust me. i thought -- when i win to congress i thought i had the answer. free tv for nonincumbents. except where do you draw that line? when do you give the free tv? who are you going to make run those ads? too you stop at the republican or democratic party? what about the green party? what about the libber tearian party, the natural rights part, about you fill in the blank party? it's so easy to think about these arbitrary lines we draw when we talk about campaign finance and money. there's no line you can draw in

my view -- i wish it wasn't so but there's two problems. one i just talked about. any line you draw is going to be -- arbitrary any line. and second, there's this darn first amendment thing and it says you get to speak and give opinions you say erlich is a rat fink. you can say i didn't like that guy from maryland. you can write a letter and say that guy is a bad guy. you can do just about anything you want because your protected in this country and the first amendment gives you the right to freedom. in the political context. you can say the president is bad. you can say anything you want just about. and people in a free society express those statements through dollars. and the supreme court has said it might be inconvenient but that speech, that is highly

protected constitutional speech and when you legislature draw lines lines and contract that right you have a problem. better be real careful. that's why i voted against mccain feingold, by the way. arbitrary lines don't work very well in the context in my view and what the court said of free speech. that's a problem. anytime you draw a line anytime you carve out freedom, and draw a lynn down the middle, you'll have a problem. and i'm willing to hear other options. i just thought about it for 25 years. how much time do we have? i'm good? all right. so you guys get to ask questions. notice the trepidation. [inaudible] >> i support traditional

marriage. i also think there are bundles of rights that apply to adult relationships. and i supported those rights in the state of maryland. >> could you define traditional marriage? >> man and woman. >> on what basis? biblical marriage? >> my -- your values play into your val -- do your moral values play into your views? >> sure. >> so do mine. i think in my view, -- i talk a lot about rights, talk about freedom and talk about fatherlessness as well as a problem in poorer communities. so i think we have to be careful about line-drawing and rights. i support traditional marriage and i support all sorts of rights that used to go with traditional marriage with regard

to nontraditional relationships. let me ask you a question. why would you stop at one spouse? why not three spouses? >> with the tax code that would be difficult. >> that's really good. we agree with that, by the way. i agree with that. that pretty good. give him an a too. i like that. but seriously, intellectually it's not just -- i think, of course people same sex can have an emotional attachment. i understand that. people on my staff couldn't care less. not my business. i think as far as marriage as anen constitution in our society it's -- institution in the society it's the right thing. >> can you name negative impacts of gay marriage that happened when it has been legalized -- >> i would just say as a person

who goes around and talks a lot about the absence of male fathers, in particularly poor communities and it's been 50 years since moynihan, senator moynihan was right and you into read his report. it's not a or white or brownish. it's an american issue. so i think it is in my view, not the right policy call it whatever you want, i think there needs to be both genders supposed to child-rearing. >> have you read any studies -- >> i read studies you should -- >> have you read studies show that gay parents can be just as effective -- >> i have no problem with that. >> okay. i'm wondering i'll send you some

stuff. what's your name? >> ashton. >> all right. >> i'd like to consider voting for the republican party because said to have stand for small, limited government but i don't see how -- >> are you a libertarian? >> socially, sure. i don't see how regulating how people -- who people can marry, who people can love, is an example -- >> states have always regulated that. that's not new. always. you're a possible. i want to close you. yes, sir. >> chris from concord. could you give me two or three examples of where you would fundamentally reform the size and scope of the federal government, you don't have to stop at three but maybe -- >> first, let me give you a quick bit about maryland. we had big budget deficit, so -- i wasn't going to raise taxes

and we had a big budget deficit. our debt levels were high. i called my budget secretaries in and we gave them a workbook. and said, you know what? you're going to start next year's fiscal budgeting in your agency at 88%. not 100. and you're going to justify to me, the governor every penny over 88. and in a face-to-face showdown. and some prove 88, some proved 105 but that's how we started the process of -- as you know in washington, you start at 100% and supposed to go to 110 and goes to 105 that cut. that's crazy. that's not how you run your family, not how -- the school doesn't run like that.

it can't run -- so to answer your question, the department of education has a federal role to play with regard to people with disabilities and title i. constitutional rights follow. they're very serious activities of the federal government. other than that i'm pretty much a local control guy. and so i think cheerly -- clearly that would be one place. a lot of people have certain issues -- corporate welfare. you don't like corporate welfare foreclosure that, bag libertarian. republicans in congress, you see debates. commerce also another place to start. the issue is defense. under sequester we have the budget hawks saying not enough. and in some respects they're right. but we both know there's a lot of waste and i haven't gotten

into obamacare because it is a really bad piece of legislation. maybe the most antimiddle class piece of legislation passed in recent memory and start there we should really read the bills before we pass them. for you conservatives here, do not say they need to read every page of every bill in congress. it's not going to happen and it's impossible. it's silly to say it. but if you're a member of congress you have your personal staff, you have your committee staff and your caucus staff. there's no excuse ever why you should not know any major provision in a big bill you. can't read 10,000 pages a night but do not say they need to read every page of every bill. that's impossible. it's silly to say. >> how would you go about

handling immigration nationally -- >> i think senator rubio's bill is a good start but needs to be worked on. i think we lose sight of definitions and it drives me crazy. earlier i lectured you about not getting labeled. road to citizenship road to legalization, road to you fill in the blank. you have to nil your terms here. a lot of legal folks here. what the president did was clearly unconstitutional. i think there's a big difference between sending out wrong messages and wrong policy and doing practical things. in other words if you're here ill lilly -- illegally we're not going to send -- 10-14-12 illegals here -- making them legal is far different than

guaranteeing citizenship. big difference. you can't morally reward illegal behavior and put those folks ahead of people who have done the right thing and gotten in line and followed the law and expect to become american citizens. right? can't do it. in my view. it's immoral. so there's all sorts of plans out there. senator rubio has one. others have others. but at some point, you need to have a statute that identifies sets a deadline -- deadlines haven't worked well in the past -- and said we're going to make you guest worker whatever term you want to use -- at least legal, at least restore sovereignty, at least respect for the country. we're going to check records, criminal backgrounds, make sure child support, english civics

everything it takes to get back to the issue of what i talk about earlier which is making america mean something. it means something when you're an american. a lot of these are not bad people obviously. they've come for freedom. but we can't just ignore the law, either. i think that -- i talk about compromise earlier. talked about drawing lines that make sense. to me, that is a bill that should get done with the appropriate leadership. what the president did is inappropriate leadership. unilateral, not dealing with the see ya constitution. wrong. >> in our history, davey crockett stood on the floor of congress and said, it's not your money to spend. especially when talking about the charitable dollar.

it would be one place where you could really cut the budget overall. would you be able to do that and is that something you would even consider? >> as far as? >> as far as the whole budget. we talking about we give money at the local level to the nursing association. we give money to planned parenthood. >> i got involved in this when i was a member of congress giving too much money. >> it's not your money to spend how do we get the people to standard spending their own charitable dollar rather than the government. >> this is one of the fundamental questions out there. i would ask all of you to think -- because it's not the government's dollar but it's appropriate to spend money on some government functions. two different things. what is inappropriate is losing a sense of federalism.

what is happened in this country over the years, where we run over the tenth amendment, and we run over sort of the ideas that our founders had, which is for the most part governments want to create dependency. read moynihan. promise me. i'm going to read what you give me. when you make it such that government replaces what the nonprofit sector and people should do, you're creating a dependent society. social security disable has quadrupled in the last seven years. i don't think the number of legitimate cases have quadrupled in seven years. whenever there's a work requirement discussed in congress, some people yell race. they yell, up fair. -- they yell unfair.

the turn it to some other issue. i'm begging you young people here to think about this stuff. and think about where those lines are drawn, because today they're way too out there. i had a debate a number of years ago. i will not name the senator because i protect the guilty. we talked about -- the issue was schools and i am a radical when it comes to giving poor kid opportunity to escape dysfunctional school systems. i'm for everything. enough. enough. we have cheated in a multigenerational way too many kids. the chance you have to punch your ticket, and we got to care. so i'm in this debate and this person said -- the issue is school construction comes up and the person said, sure the federal government should be building schools, and i went what? and nobody said anything. because those lines have all

been crossed today. with the stroke of the pen we can make illegal, legal. 4.35 million people. wrong way to do it. i got the problem. wrong way to do it. ways to do it have to count. the federal government should never be involved in school construction, ever. not a federal job. some things to think about. thanks, you guys. [applause] >> thank you so much. the gov will be around for another 10 or 15 minutes if you have further questions for him. thank you for joining us today. >> thanks for having me. >> glad to have you. >> i'm kathleen. can i ask you a couple questions? can you tell me what else you're

up to here in new hampshire? >> rockingham. press, interviews, this some more radio tv interviews, radio interviews and then home tomorrow morning. [inaudible] organically. i came up with a speech and a bunch of people said why don't you come back. >> when was this? >> in september in manchester. and then i came back and they said why don't you come back again so i came back. and now this is my fourth trip, and it's a very -- have a real job, and -- when you hear this

phrase which is sometimes phony, listening for -- this is actually appropriate here. it's not some cover for something. >> what are you looking for? >> talking about leadership? i'm looking for my platform my record my view, my style of leadership. and not where -- you can't figure that out from maryland. >> today was a lot of q & a rather than you giving a speech. >> i make my point that way. >> if you were to run what would be the base of your platform? >> you heard me talk about -- there's a sense of insecurity in

this country. this traditional stuff, denigration of the manufacturing base and lack of real wage increases. talk about culture. what it means today. and i think we're losing a little bit of that. more people are insecure and the definitions are more unclear than they have been and then obviously the issue of defense -- >> can you just expand on that about to definition -- >> when the president makes fun of -- there was a speech -- republicans want to build another southern border. everybody laughed. border security is serious and we're trying to struggle with this issue of keeping our foun