expressed great frustration. we bump into these people often in there is a lot of concern about the of a realignment they see taking place than to concerns about i iran. that the calls that are being made to calm things down. i think some of it is convenience issues but certainly the arms producers in my office yesterday but i do think there is an effort in the region now with the

concern of the united states allies a as some of the folks not to the year is a matter of convenience. >> this is the last one for me. of a colleague of ours from "fortune" magazine wrote yesterday that if u.s. cannot deliver on the trade deal that it spent a decade on negotiating to be a charge or wait for china will be greatly diminished what is your view what happened where democrats lined up against boating on the tpa.

>> as we were dealing with the iran build with the second weeks of doing it trade already was the complicated factor. so relative to floor procedures it had already become a factor. i don't know i heard every word relative to the exportation but generally speaking in a very much agree with that. i was an asia last august and for us to fail to have tpa or to get tpp then i a gray winter% to it is a way to counterbalance what is happening in the region and. in and something that's good

for relative to economic growth. but to a understand and there is a new offer to move up package along. there are differing viewpoints and what those commitments were relative to which packages were linked together but maybe there is a path that is incredibly important to our country and to the region in this is something where we cannot fail. we a half to reach an agreement to do everything retail and. -- we can. so we don't, you know, we

need to continue to negotiate in a way of our national interest but generally speaking tpp is important for our country. >> the administration is criticized for being checked out of the negotiations. could they pick up the ball? >> this meeting is not to doubt of that for some reason. [laughter] look. i spent a lifetime trying to produce outcomes to do things that matter, produce results.

i think all of you recognize the way the imf was set forth, the passage of it as a zeroth factor but is happening on the ground. o per every witness states they believe the administration authority is going after basis or whatever you want to call its. by the way this is not a pejorative statement no democrat supports it as it was sent over and no republicans were mostly no republicans. i don't want to overstate the nun believes there is of a real strategy for syria relative to the entire

conflict there. of the republicans are reticent to look at the al limiting a you imf. but concern about embracing that because then it appears you embrace that strategy. the white house will inkster's hero effort they sent it over. i appreciate it to talk to republicans on the committee in a separate room in advance but there will be no effort to to pass it to. but that doesn't mean we should not deal with the issue. our staff is divided. mostly believe that day

probably are at the fringes of what they are doing. but much of the democratic push of multiple conversations is limiting the next president. i will say that one more time. it is about limiting the next president is said different type of authorization not the activities that are underway for some time. but what i don't want to do is goes through a process that indicates to the rest of the world somehow united states is divided dealing

with isis. that is not a good thing for our country but if there is a path for word to actually complete the process allowed kardashian successfully we're beginning to have those conversations houri rectify all those forces that i they doubt for those that have then a part of this from the beginning as a pathway for word they you can solve the problem began this will not have one iota of the fact what happens on the ground. i will stop there. there are things on the ground that need to be dealt with.

it is pretty fascinating one of the big problems with the foreign policy is it continues to be divided if you are in the building, in the white house obviously your voice is heard if you are outside. in essence it is very a difficult to have any impact on those big decisions. think about it we have a program under way. it is train and equip the other alleged programs that have been under way to go after a different enemy. but in a public forum day a joint chiefs say that

obviously of practical issues to know you introduce people that our trained to go against but to protect the same groups. they have not asked for that but there are because you cannot recruit people to the program but they did ask for that. is the very beginning i have huge respect for the state department. general allan. i really do as the true patriot i have spent a good deal of time with him on the phone in person but the

administration and has not been willing to make decisions that would cause things to move along it is passed to be frustrating for all of us. i would say probably even the vice president but these decisions are not being made. the humanitarian issues which is part of foreign policy but we figure chifley jim dent sousa rushes lap having to deal with the issue to cross the redline. but the implication in the cost of that i think but put

to rest about the people in the region right now that created huge mistrust. huge. huge. i could give you, yes me traveling to saudi arabia immediately thereafter a and the kinds of things that have been said about our country. so let me come back to that. those minor decisions common not to minder but the decisions to get turkey involved on the ground, the fact of the no-fly zone i know we used air exclusion zones to join in a different

way and is certain areas of syria but not dealing with those issues with the humanitarian crisis is beyond belief. i have spent and i can i go again i have looked these teeth'' in the eye for those that have been part but now we have valley's 20,000 people dead. we have not done things to an address earthlings but it

makes little a more complicated but with this the answer i apologize. are used to use the word containment to describe but we we're doing is syria indies to upset administration officials when i use the word now they use it. >> yesterday's senator shelby publicly unveiled his community banks were kitsch finance. what do you think and we're already hearing senator brown to say it is overreach. will he have to dial a back? >> i don't know.

there may be real concerns as far as how will be handled. i don't know i am just beginning to make low-cost to touch base and my staff went through it with me yesterday extensively title by title. i do think there is huge bipartisan consensus around community-based issues purpose of the other areas where the divisions began this seems like every question you insert -- asked me in the hallway i don't know enough yet to answer. [laughter] but i don't think i know enough yet. i haven't had a conversation at with shelby. i don't know what his plan is. but i don't want to participate of an effort that does not produce a the

outcome but a partisan effort to will not produce an outcome but to figure out and i hope that is where senator shelby is ted wants to be in and he plans to move them in various directions i just don't know >> kofu a i will in the next 24 hours if you ask me a question of. [laughter] >> you told me a couple months ago you rather lay dash another railroad tracks and have another short-term extension. it seems that is where we're headed. >> i will get ready to lay down. [laughter] and the writing is on the wall. i will be stunned if

republicans deal with the highway trust fund responsibly. it's not going to happen. my friends, i am part of it although i very much disagree with this policy is becoming a party of what conservative is a means meaning spending a lot of money or more but not paying for it. that is conservative is in today but just not the kind by a group with rorer tennessee we have zero road dash because we pay for them as we go. but the budget in then to

make but to response of lead deal spending there will be a kick the can and then. >> but medicare is more difficult to deal with it -- to do with but the highway trust fund is the simplest of issues and paid for by user fees. is an obsolete of the dead republicans will not deal with user fees.

c with think the next step is to lower the amount in it and then to kick the can down the road. totally irresponsible in a bad vacation of leadership. day moon dash they spend the same amount of money. >> thank you for taking the 100 dinner bursary. >> the president does not use that term lately that as you made those said turkish.

>> what do you think about the pressure but to the turkish but to go from armenians to declare an a certain way, there are significant relationship issues that exist from turkey. i don't think the causes of things not being more publicly discussed which for

what happens in the region and right now. >> but was they have the al opportunity to have their say, that there is no agreement on what to reduce. heroines but for the first

time since i have been here is the taking back of power from the president. it is the big deal. he has a national-security waiver now it is taken back. interestingly their red surreys to day end the use question about democrats or trade the i have someone who

was willing to take back power back from the president. it took a lot of work with senator melendez said those who were so close to news the in administration. they lobbied and lobbied multiple times and in future but i'd known to look at it that way. punch. >> bid is is something that produces a result. day you understand it? we need to deal with it i

guess i think they're on the fringes legally. today their operating units in the cool fashion. purpose arabia should not say that. [laughter] but there is certainly close to the line and it will much change what they're doing. they themselves of agree. they still have these internal debates why they have been frozen for so long with a policy of containment. i'm not saying much in and though way of results but it is to different issues but

can i just dried palm that that is beneficial? >> what is the secret to having both senators work so closely together? >> i cannot be more fortunate to been to work with someone like lamar alexander who wakes up every single day trying now the best. when i first thought about running for public office state why i sought out and spent time talking with. we both looked and cherished howard baker.

he was the staffer back in the days. so there is a long term relationship and we are having dinner tonight as a matter of fact but it is beneficial in our state to have people who don't compete in any way who wish only the very best for the other. to people who celebrate the of successes of the other. very different with very different backgrounds to deal with sets of issues and believes when we know the person has much more expertise is certain height -- areas. hisses is -- use of education and mine are very different. it is a great relationship

and it is rare. sometimes people of the same party have more rivalries than you can imagine a but that is not the case with us. i feel we serve our stay well. . .

one of my fellow senators mentioned to me that all of a sudden is the concerns that

they had been raising on a sunday morning program or whatever immediately there's a call from john kerry. he appears to be a guy who wants to do -- just wants a deal at whatever it takes to do a deal.

it's a per verse -- it feels rather per verse if you will. the president out there it's like he's giving away his negotiating ability. i do hope that congressional involvement will stiffen the spine of the administration will cause many of the issues to be resolved. and one of the ones i think is going to be most difficult is going to be the issue of prompt inspections. i just don't see how that issue gets resolved.

what are the things pa are important that matter and we raise those issues. i do think there's a psychology here that is very concerning. >> from your experience, the deal involves partial insperkses? >> they can't answer the question now. up until the 73 that the veet -- day that the veto -- john kerry was lobbying the bill we passed in committee that day in

a classified setting and -- i know because i asked him a question in that setting relative to inspections. they could not answer the question in an appropriate way. talked about is something that is bureaucratic. remember when saddam hussein kept keeping inspectors out of iraq? he would move the ball. the ball kept being moved and months and months would go by and finally when the inspectors got in the site they went to was cleaned up. it feels very much like something similar. algebra i don't know how we will get beyond that issue. i do hope that the p5-plus1 comes up with an agreement to withstand the test of time. i do. i think the questions that congress is raising now will be very beneficial to getting a deal that will stand the test of

time. i do think that otherwise the administration has been trying to run over issues that are significant importance. >> we have about 21 minutes left and nine people on deck so we will not get to everybody. >> i want to bring something up if i could. >> sure. >> i just thought it. i think yesterday something happened that i think is a potential game changer relative to fisa. will this change what we do on meta data? i think there was an ah-ha

moment grerd people on both sides of the aisle. when we really have a little data that is being collected, how littleidate data is being collected, it is a shock. i think if americans knew how the program was being implement implemented today people would say oh, gosh they are listening to my phone calls, which isn't happening on the meta data program, it is almost malpractice. i think it is shocking to know this. the program is actually not the

program i thought it was. not even close. i think you may see multiply in inquiries. it was very unhealthy relative to the national security interest. i think you will see people pushing and wondering why not more data is part of the database if you will will that is used to protect our citizens. the way it is being implemented today i don't know see how it is useful at all to the american people. and shocked by the small anoint of

data used by the program. i think you will see potentially people on both sides of the aisle pushing for that which is a very different push than was occurring before a 4:00 briefing yesterday. >> is that a full senate briefing yesterday? >> yeah. i want to ask you a follow up on what you had. can you talk about the most important gaps that have to be filled? where should the government be collecting more data? >> i cannot, i don't know why not, but the officials giving the briefing didn't want that information laid out there. i would love to share it with you. it is beyond belief how little

data part of the program. and the type of data, especially if the goal is to deal with tristich or to uncover terrorist terrorist. they have caused that to be classified. you will write about it in 24 hours i am sure. that is how it works. >> do the american people have a need to know and a right to know how much and what kind of â >> generally speaking americans that did have a return about privacy don't need to be worried about that. i think what has been additionally irresponsible is the lack of

desire to explain what the program is. there are all of these myths about what the meta data program is. lots of myths. and they have created concerns among the american people. end i understand there would be concern and i can assure you and i am using this with a degree of rhetorical but people shouldn't be concerned about privacy. what they should be concerned about is the lack of focus on the program. it is not prolific in any way. i am incredibly disappointed we alot a program that is so important to the national computer to be so ineptly carried out. the amount of data collected is so minimal you would almost think you would not have a program

like this. but the characteristics of this you got to report on later as others talk with you i cannot do it. >> i have to go. because i have other people waiting. i apologize. craig gilbert. milwaukee. >> one of the items was the effort by senator isaac. do you support that as a separate matter or think the issue is relevant to our nu negotiation negotiations with iran. >> yeah, we will have a markup on the bill on the 13th or 14t. a week from tomorrow. i know the final text mentioned something to me in the last 48 hours. i made a commitment to have a markup during the

process. we will honor that. he was telling me he had to pay for a good one. let me look at what he is going to do. i want to look at the text before deciding if i am for or against it. i think he is raising a legit issue of concern and glad he pursued this and appreciate he was a gentlemen and didn't attach it to other negotiations. i can understand his concern and why the administration wouldn't want that to be part of the nuclear discussion. >> i will go slightly out of order -- go -- and give each organization an question. rachel from cq.

>> you mentioned the place is full at the moment. the whitehouse sent over the protcall for the treaty two have central asia being referenced in the bill. there are two different treaties related to nuclear terrorism improving nuclear security making it more difficult to extremist to fire that are always awaiting radificationtification. do you thing those issues were given consideration with everything else going on? >> i think you asked me this in the last 48 hours. i will get bag to you. i have not looked at them yet but i promise you i will get back to you. >> can you talk about the provisions about guantanamo bay and the efforts to limit the president's ability to transfer

detainees. >> i have not seen the ndaa i know they have been working on language relative to gitmo but i have not seen it. >> christina patterson from "the wall street journal." >> you passed a bill that was ring in the nsa to come extent. how do you see this being resolved if there is a large bipartisan vote on the house side with what you and majority leader mcconnelly want to do on the other side. >> well i think i had to leave the briefing yesterday to go to another meeting at five and understand it went on for a while. i think what happened yesterday very much changed the equation. very much. i don't think anyone

in the room had any idea how miniature non-incompassing and the lack of commitment in the first place. i don't know. i am going to say today i know there are going to be a number of conversations taking place because it was such a game changer to people thinking about the entire issue. if you ask in the hallway today, i think you will see a lot of puzzlement by people on both sides of the aisle. i don't know if i have a good sense as to whether -- i am just talking. but the way the bill -- it i don't know. it is

possible. maybe this libertarian bill if you will maybe it causes the program to be more encompassing than today. >> why do you think republican leaders alloweded the house and senate to go in such different directions? >> i don't know that i can speak to leadership issues. one of the things that i am shocked at the administration and program. this has been going on -- and i am shocked. but i think the administration at the same time is very committed and we have to have an ex ex extension. it is possible, christina, with the puzzlement

everyone left with yesterday it might be slightly more likely to me talking and this isn't my issue. this is taking place through intelligence and other places but it may lead to a more short term extension. >> liberty knox from yahoo. >> good morning, sir. how are you? >> good >> part of the discussion on the internal division on syria policy you suggested the vice president is frustrated with the policy. how do you know he is frustrated and what would he like to see happen? >> i just think -- i don't every wish to get into private conversations because then they end but i think that generally

speaking you have all written about this. anybody who is outside of the internal offices of the whitehouse has very little impact on the big decisions relative to foreign policy. it is just a fact. i think you know that. if you are the chief of staff, you are in the building, you have a lot of impact but it is evident decisions are not being made. the way we have impact is by pressing issues publically. i think the administration is obviously like most attuned to public opinion. and i think we

shake things that way. but you are right. to think the whitehouse would call up the former chairman relation committee and ask for help would be far-fetched. >> senator, back to iran if i could. now the dust has dropped from the bipartisan view you and senator curt got on the bill end. do you have a few of the process you will get if the administration gets the deal at the end of june? when will they bring it to you? you have been courageous in pre predicting outcomes. if they come to you with an agreement that confirms to the fact sheet where do you think the votes are now? >> i don't want to say grace over the fact issue because so many facts are missing in the

fact sheet. but i will generally talk about the fact sheet and say that look, many quote, and i don't want to overuse red lies, but many things that were not going to happen are going to happen. fordo will exist and they will describe it like a museum entity and they will have more centrifuge centrifuges and iraq is going to produce platonium. it is possible there is still a way to deal with those issues in an appropriate manner because we know of those issues. i think there will be concerns because of the underground location. about how we deal with that affectively. one of the most shocking things

to me was the reef could pass a lie detector test on if there were previous military detentions. we know that is not true. we know we know they were involved in military things. our negotiators act like isn't it great dealing with a guy who is honest and i said i don't think it is great we have negotiators who don't even know the extent of this. i think the issues of what we don't know. the activities that can be happening to us. i still think

they are going to be the most difficult to resolve. as far as the process, we spend a lot of time because of the 52 day time period, in the house parliamentary and a lot of to me talking to cardinal and others about the kind of things that will have to happen. the 30 days doesn't start until everything is delivered. all of the materials, the annex, and you remember last time, it took months to have a written document. it is going to be interesting. can you reach an agreement on june 30th and deliver all of these materials in five days? i don't think so. i think that you know, and so we spent a good deal of time trying to understand with each other and what does it mean to get all of the materials? so, yes we talked about it. it is going to have to happen quickly. that is why i say -- but it is going to have to be force full when it comes. we will have to work to make sure people under the details of what a bad and good deal looks like.

>> could that be in september? >> it is possible they may not reach the deal by june 30th. we obviously -- if we get delivered after there is extended time to deal with. i want to can you about the renewal of the cooperation agreement with china. it is clear that was violated in the transfer of civilian technology. i am wondering if the extent of the violations risus to opposing renewal and more broadly how this whole

issue of this fits into confronting the aggressively china? >> that increasingly aggressive china issue we will deal with at 2:00 during a hearing. it is a coincidence there are discussions about coming the 12 nautical mile area of some of these created hondaland masses if you will in the south china sea. let's face it. westing house is the entity that is most involved and china is going to be the biggest user

of new nuclear facilities over the next period of time of any country in the world by far. from that stand point if is important. westing house is owned by perceive and you know there is a push by the nuclear community to make sure we can sell the goods and services. so there is that push. at the same time, you know, look, china does use a technology that we transfer to them. and will use it. we know this. while i think it is article eight, section eight, of the agreement states you cannot transfer civil material into military operation. we know they will do that. their witnesses yesterday said that. they are in

violation of the nuclear supplier. we have two places in pakistan. we know they are not in compliance. they are saying they will not be in the future. i thought our witnesses yesterday were really good and transparent and acknowledge these thingses. let me go a step further. china is going to do all this indiginously. over time. so, in essence we know the window is going to close over time.

so... the thinking at present is that we're going to do this. let's take let's take advantage of it today. they are not acting in good faith. i do not know. there is a lot of concern. i say this euphemistically, if you will. there have been some discussion. so it is an interesting issue and one that i know has caused a lot of consternation. >> we are out of time. i want to thank you for coming. appreciated very much. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption contents and accuracy. visit ncicap.org

>> here >> this weekend, we visit maryland for live coverage of gaithersburg book festival with former congressman tom davis and martin frost. as well as former senior adviser to president obama, david axelrod. we close out in new york city, where the publish the -- publishing industry showcases upcoming books. then we are alive for the printers row fast, including the three-hour program with lawrence rice and your -- lawrence wright and your phone calls. that's on c-span2, book tv. >> a month after officially launching his campaign, senator

marco rubio outlined his views on the council for foreign relations. he also talks to charlie rose about isis, terrorism, and iran nuclear deals, and the palestinian conflict. this is one hour. [applause] senator rubio: thank you. it is an honor to be back at the council. charlie: senator rubio has had an extraordinary political career. after serving as florida state legislature and speaker, he was at that time closely identified with governor bush. now they are competitors. i take note of the fact that the senator has been, in a number of instances, reaching out to share his views on a variety of issues, especially foreign policy.

not just in the united states but in europe and other places. it's an honor to be here to introduce you to him, and to have him introduce the views he holds, because many people believe this election in 2016 will between large part about foreign policy. usually elections are about economics and how people feel about their well-being and whether the country is on the right track or not. the foreign policy seems to be more and more relevant in this election. so with that, senator marco rubio. [applause] senator rubio: thank you. it is an honor to be back at the council of foreign relations. i appreciate very much the opportunity to address you here today. i wanted to begin my remarks i by quoting from the closing of another set of remarks. from a speech i believe echoes across history due to its proximity to tragedy.

but that stands more importantly, more powerfully, as a testament to the bipartisan tradition of strong american leadership. on the morning of november 22, 1963, president john f. kennedy spoke at a fort worth chamber of commerce event. he spoke on the need for a strong and active america. he ended with this. "i am confident, as i look to the future, that our chances for security and chances for peace are better than they have been in the past. the reason is because we are stronger. with that strength is the determination to not only maintain the peace, but also the vital interests of the united states. to that great cause, texas and the united states are committed." those are the final words of the final speech president kennedy ever spoke. but the commitment to american strength he spoke of lives long across decades and parties eventually bringing about the

conclusion of the cold war and the emergence of america as the world's superpower. president kennedy, make most before and since, understood what i believe our current president does not. an american strength is a means of preventing war, not promoting it, and that weakness on the other hand, is the friend of danger and the enemy of peace. since the end of the cold war, the threats facing america have changed. but the need for american strength has not. it's only grown more prevalent. as the world has grown more interconnected. in recent decades, technology has demolished the barriers to travel and trade, transforming our national economy into a global one. the prosperity of our people now depends on the ability to act freely in the international marketplace. turmoil across the world can

impact american families almost as much as turmoil across towns. it can cause the cost of living to rise, or entire industries to shed jobs incredible. -- and crumble. today as never before, foreign policy is domestic policy. sadly, i believe president obama often disagrees with that simple truth. he entered office believing america was too hard on our adversaries. two engaged in too many places. that if we only took a step back and did more nationbuilding at home seating leadership to other countries, america would be better like and the world would be better off. so he wasted no time stripping parts from the engine of american strength. he enacted hundreds of billions of dollars in defense cuts that left our army contract to be an pre-world war ii levels. our navy at pre-world war i

levels and the air force with the smallest and oldest combat force in its history. he demonstrated a disregard for our moral purpose that at times flirted with disdain. he criticized america ever having arrogance and the audacity to dictate our terms to other nations. from his reset with russia to his open hand to iran, to his and reciprocated -- un reciprocated opening to cuba -- he has embraced regimes that oppose every nation our country has championed. the deterioration of our strength has led to the world more dangerous then went president obama entered office. in the last two years, we have seen emboldened russia invade ukraine and annex crimea. we have seen isis sweep across multiple states and attempt to establish a caliphate. we have seen one of the most

devastating humanitarian catastrophes in decades as hundreds of thousands have been slaughtered at the whim of a tyrant. we have seen the largest migration of refugees since world war ii, bringing instability to an entire region and putting whole generations at risk of radicalization. we have seen china rapidly expand its military capabilities and take aggressive actions in the south and east china seas. we have seen north korea expand its arsenal. we have seen cyberattacks against our allies and people. we have seen peaceful protesters met with violence from their government. most frightening of all, we have seen iran expanded its influence throughout the middle east, and threatened to annihilate israel as it moves closer to a nuclear weapons capability.

the president's proposed deal with iran will likely lead to a cascade of nuclear proliferation and middle east and it could force israel to take old action to defend itself, making war with iran even more likely. president obama's desperation to sign a deal, any deal, has caused him to elevate politics over policy, legacy over leadership, and adversaries over allies. the likely impact of this deal along with the broader unraveling of global order underscored truths we must never again forget. america plays a part on the world stage for which there is no understudy. when we fail to lead with strength in principle, there is no other country, friend or foe, who is willing or able to take our place. the result is chaos.

i believe the element of maintaining american strength lies where the buck stops. it is up to our next president to properly fund and modernize our military. it is up to our next president to restore our people's faith in the promise and power of the american ideal. we simply cannot afford to elect as our next resident, one of the leading agents of this administration's foreign policy. a leader from yesterday whose tenure as secretary of state was ineffective at best, and dangerously negligent at worst. the stakes of tomorrow are too high. to look to the failed leadership of yesterday. while america did not intend to become the world indispensable power, that is exactly what our economic and legal freedoms have -- political freedoms have made us. the free nations of the world still look to america to champion our shared ideals. vulnerable nations depend on us to deter aggression from larger nations.

and oppressed people still turned their eyes towards our shores, wondering if we hear their cries. wondering if we notice their affliction. we cannot bring peace and stability on our own. the world cannot do it without us. the question is not should we lead, but rather how should we lead in this new century? what principles should govern the exercise of power in this new era. the 21st century requires a president who will answer that question with clarity and consistency. one that will set forth a doctrine for the exercise of american influence in the world and will adhere to that doctrine with the principal devotion that has marked the bipartisan tradition of presidential leadership from truman, kennedy, to reagan. today i intend to adopt the

-- offer such a doctrine. and in the coming years, i intend to be such a president. my foreign policy consists of three pillars. the first is american strength. this is an idea that stems from a simple truth, that the world is at its safest when america is at its strongest. when america has the mightiest army and navy and air force, and marine corps and coast guard and intelligence community, the result is more peace, not more conflicts. to ensure our strength never falters we must always plan ahead. it takes forethought to design and many years to build capabilities we may need at a moments notice. to restore american strength, my first priority will be to adequately fund the military. this will be a priority even in times of peace and stability. although the world today is neither peaceful and are stable. we need to undo the damage caused by this sequester, which is why i have endorsed at the

national defense panels recommendations that we return as soon as possible to secretary gates' fiscal year 2012 budget baseline. adequately funding the military will allow us not only to grow forces but also to modernize them, which in turn will allow less to remain on the cutting edge and every arena before us land, sea, and air, and also cyberspace and outerspace here . the battlefields of the 21st century. by modernizing and innovating, we can ensure we never send our troops into a fair fight, but always equip them with the upper hand. when they come home, we should be is firmly committed to their well-being as they have been to ours. a strong military also means a strong intelligence community. equipped with all the tools he needs to defend the homeland from extremism. both homegrown and foreign trained. key this will be extending

section 215 of the patriot act. we cannot let politics cloud the importance of this issue. we must never find ourselves looking back after a terrorist attack, saying we could have done more to save american lives. some argued that with all the fiscal challenges our nation faces, we simply cannot afford to invest in the military. but the truth is, we cannot afford not to invest in it. we must remember the defense budget is not the primary driver of our debt. every time we try to cut a dollar from it, it seems to cost us several more to make up for it. this is because the successes of all of our nations depends on the safety of the american people and the stability of the global economy. with brings me to my second pillar, which is the protection of the american economy in a globalized world. when america was founded, it took more than 10 weeks to travel to europe.

in the 19th century, the steam engine cut that down to around 12 days. in the 20th century the airplane cut it to around six hours. in the 21st century, you can access global markets in a single second with the top of -- cap -- tap of your smartphone. millions of the best jobs in this new century will depend on international trade. it was more important than ever that congress gave the president trade promotion authority so he can finalize the tpp and the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. these will create millions of jobs and cement u.s. strategic partnerships in asia and south america and europe. secretary clinton preached a message of international engagement and smart power, yet not willing to stand up to special interests and support free trade are either hypocritical or failed to grasp trade's role as a tool of craft that can bolster our relationship with partners, and in the process create millions

of better paying american jobs. as president, i will use american power to oppose any violations of international waters, airspace, cyberspace, or outerspace. this includes the economic disruption caused when one country invades another. as well as the chaos caused by disruptions, such as the south china sea or straight up or move -- vermouth. russia, china, iran, or any nation that at times to block comments will have to respond to my administration. gone will be the days of debating where ship is flagged or whether it is our place to criticize territorial expansionism. in this century, business must have the freedom to operate around the world constants. the third pillar of the doctrine is moral clarity regarding american core values. we must recognize that our

nation is a global leader, not simply because it has superior arms. but also because it has superior aims. america is the first power in history motivated by a desire to expand freedom. americans can simply expand its own territory. in recent years, the ideal that formed the backbone of american policy -- a passionate defense of human rights, the strong support of democratic principles and the protection of the sovereignty of our allies, these values have been replaced by at best, caution and at worst outright willingness to betray those values for the expediency of negotiations with repressive regimes. this is not just morally wrong it is contrary to our interest. because wherever freedom and human rights spread, partners for our nation are born. but whenever foreign policy becomes unhinged from its moral

purpose it weakens global , stability and forms crack in our national resolve. in this century, we must restore americans willingness to think big, to say boldly what we think , what we stand for and why it is right. just as ronald reagan never flinched in his criticism of the soviet union political and economic repression, we must never shy a week on demanding that china allow true freedom for its 1.3 billion people. nor should we hesitate in calling the source of atrocities in the middle east by his real name, radical islam. as president, i will support the spread of economic and political freedom by we reinforcing our alliances, resisting efforts by large powers to subjugate smaller neighbors, maintaining a robust and transparent foreign assistance program, and advance the rights of the vulnerable including women and religious minorities who are so often persecuted.

so that the afflicted people of this new world will know the truth. the american people hear their cries, see their suffering, and most of all desire their freedom. these are the three pillars of my doctrine. american strength, the protection of our global economy, and a proud advocacy for america's core values. this approach will restore american leadership to a world badly in need of it. it will reestablish a foreign policy based on strategy and principal, rather than one based on politics and polls. one that is overseen by the white house. not micromanaged by it. and that restore america's status as a nation that shapes global event, not one that is shaped by them. i want to allow plenty of time for discussion and how this provision will work. let me close with one final

thought. the president of the united states is often called upon to make difficult decisions in the defense of our nation. these decisions, they cost far greater than money. my greatest honor in the senate has been to work with our men and women in uniform, our intelligence professionals diplomats and veterans. i have seen the tremendous sacrifices they and their families make. i have also seen the tremendous impact those sacrifices have had on the world. i have talked to filipino typhoon survivors who knew that an american carrier over the horizon meant food and water and survival. i have talked to japanese and south korean's menu that an enduring u.s. presence allowed their nations to prosper. i have spoken to europeans convinced that america's role as a security guarantor has prevented a bloodsoaked

continent for centuries. i have talked to american business leaders who knew their ability to access millions of international customers, and create thousands of domestic jobs, have hinged on american strengths. most personally, i have seen american freedom and security play out in the lives of my parents, my children, and myself. increasingly in recent years i have also met people frustrated by the direction of american leadership. cuban dissidents devastated by the president's confession to the castro regime, for nothing in return. north koreans disappointed by america's reluctance to speak out against it. -- against modern-day gulags. arabs and israelis worried about america's indifference to iran's growing influence. syrians crashed that america did not help prevent their country from descending into chaos.

afghans worried that americans will leave them like we left iraq. europeans anxious about russia's rhetoric. and many of our own people concerned about their safety, in a truly increasingly chaotic world. of all the important duties of the presidency -- and there are many -- protecting our people in their interests, wherever those interests lie, is the highest honor, the greatest burden, and the most profound privilege. the first duty of the president, as written in the constitution is not tax or in chief or regulator in chief, it is commander-in-chief. anyone who advocates averting our eyes from the dangers of the world must be prepared to explain against six years of counter evidence, how retreat will lead to a safer world.

because they will not. only american leadership will bring safety and enduring peace. america led valiantly in the last century, from truman to kennedy to reagan. because of our leadership, that century became known as the american century. following the end of world war ii, pope pius the 12th noted as much. this is what he wrote. america has a genius for great and unselfish deeds. into the hands of america, god has placed the destiny of an afflicted mankind. i believe america still has that genius. i believe mankind remains afflicted, and i believe it's destiny still largely remains in our hands. i believe this generation will continue to advance the cause of peace in our time.

when we do, not only will america remain safe and strong but the 21st century will also be an american century. thank you for this opportunity. [applause] charlie: thank you senator. let me begin by this question. in previous conversations with me you have said that one problem today is that we are trying to fix 21st-century problems with 20th century ideas, yet all of the men that you cited where of the 20th century. senator rubio: first, there are timeless truths. the sun still rises in the east and americans power still matters. the challenges are different. today we face multiple challenges. not just a confrontation with another powerful nationstate, the soviet union, which we face.

we faced traditional nations like china with its own ambitions, particularly in the asia-pacific, and russia where putin wants to be the president of a great country but he cannot achieve it economically so he tries to achieve it militarily. but then we also face north korea, governed by a criminal syndicate. iran, governed by a shia cleric. and nonstate actors with increasing capacity, isis come al qaeda, etc. the need for leadership is still true. the challenge is different. and require a different approach. charlie: should we be the world's policeman? senator rubio: that's not necessarily the role i would advocate. the title is not world's policeman. but i do think these require global response. a global response requires someone to convene the world to take action. only america is capable of doing it. the absence of american leadership, our european allies cannot come up with a

strategy to deal with russia. american leadership is critical in creating alliances necessary to confront these challenges. charlie: this weekend, a meeting with the president and arab leaders will talk about problems in the middle east. there is reporting the bbc about a drone missile strike just killed the number two leader of isis, because the number one leader has already been disabled. the two examples seem to suggest american leadership. senator rubio: a couple points. i think it is good we have leaders of the gcc meeting at camp david. i think it should have happened a while ago. i regret the king of saudi arabia is not among them. i think that is an important part of the coalition. charlie: there may be a series of reasons why he's not here. senator rubio: i would expand on that and also expand to jordan. a predominantly sunni government

who have a shared interest. they are concerned about two primary challenges. the rise of extremism, and sunni countries want to confront extremism. and the other is the rise of iran's ambitions to dominate the region. that is a perfect example of a group of nations that can come together to confront these challenges but it will require america to bring them together. that meeting and effort i hope should have happened a while back, but i suspect, much of those meetings will be dedicated to conversations about bringing these countries some point of ease with regards to negotiation the president is undertaking with iran. charlie: about the effort to reduce the impact of isis. do you give the president bad marks? i mentioned the airstrikes drone strikes that were part of a successful airstrike. to run isis out of tikrit. senator rubio: i believe we could have prevented much of this if we were engaged with the syrian crisis earlier.

at the initial stage, the best majority of people opposing assad were syrians. we should identify people we could work with on the ground and empower them. in the absence of doing so we left a vacuum. no vacuum would be filled by foreign fighters and radicals. that is how it played out. that is what allowed al qaeda et al. nusra that is the condition that allowed isis and a group on the rebound in syria to come back. once isis began to emerge i did not consider them a jv team. i thought they were much more of a potent threat than the president gave them credit for. both targeting hubs -- for the gist of operations and also transit points they needed in order to project power moving forward. the truth is we probably need more airstrikes. but i think it is critical that

a sunni force confront them on the ground. part of the can be iraqi. but i also think it is important to go to allies in the regions. jordanians, willing to put forces on the ground to stabilize the country. charlie: there's no doubt in your mind they are willing to put forces on the ground. the saudi's asked the egyptians and others to help in yemen and the egyptians refused. senator rubio: there are two areas of concern. i think they're more willing to be helpful than the have been. particularly confronting them on the ground with combined forces. the problem is, they need american religious support, air support, and special operations to help them. charlie: should we offer air support in yemen? senator rubio: the saudis are conducting that. it is telling that they did it without notifying the united states well in advance of what they were about to do. charlie: but the u.s. did give them some advice.

senator rubio: we have given them some increasing advice, but not to the level it should have been. ultimately, that is a much more complex situation. it involves iran but also al qaeda. and others that are now in the country. but the answer in terms of confronting these threats of regional influence by iran, yemen has become the latest flashpoint. they played for a joint pan arab sunni force that will stand up to extremism could confront the challenges. with u.s. logistical and air support. charlie: and advisory support on the ground. senator rubio: yes, i think ultimately you can invest special operations forces to help them improve capabilities. but these countries have expressed -- they understand it is their fight. they are not just fighting for territory, there are fighting for the very identity of what it means to be a sunni muslim, and there confronted by a very serious challenge. a journalist said it is important we address this from

muslims, and they need to be confronted. this extremism doesn't just threaten the world, your friends islamic. charlie: when you look at the strategy of the president today against terrorism, you are -- you're significant difference is what? senator rubio: early on in his tenure -- even before that he viewed american engagement abroad as a cause of friction. the notion that we have problems around the world because there was a grievance against the united states because of something we had done. in fact, much of these conflicts are ideologically based. they are not grievance. it goes deeper than that. it is ideological. they want to be the dominant power in the region in want to support the revolution to other territories. the president, during the green revolution of 2009, refused to take a side and said he would not interfere. meanwhile, iranians were in the streets protesting. charlie: what should he have

done? senator rubio: i think he should have expressed. my third point, it is important that our foreign policy be tied to our values. he did not do that in the early stages. beyond that, i have problems with the reset with russia. a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of vladimir putin. even when he was not in power pulled a lot of the strings. charlie: let me just stay with iran. we will come back to russia in a moment. you have said the u.s. is holding back against isis because it does not want to upset iran. holding back? senator rubio: absolutely. iran is on the ground in iraq heavily. not just advisers. iranian fighters on the ground side-by-side with shia militias. they are agents of the iranian government. iran does not want the u.s. presence in iraq of any kind. they have tolerated airstrikes because they can't stop them.

they are not happy with u.s. engagement. they have trafficked in outrageous rumors which i believe some of them believe -- that the u.s. is actually helping and we help them prevent isis. they don't want us there and don't want any american presence. i believe the militias on the ground pose and extraordinary threat to american facilities. they are embedded side-by-side with regular iraqi forces and have full access to all of the iraqi government buildings. i believe that the united states had taken a more aggressive position -- charlie: against isis? senator rubio: against isis and a stronger presence in iraq. it may have triggered them to respond in kind with a text -- attacks from their agents. charlie: what is your principal argument against an iranian deal that seems to be on the table now?

senator rubio: my primary objection is that allows around -- iran to obtain the capability to enrich uranium or processed plutonium. there are other countries that have nuclear energy. iran does not need it. they are oil-rich. assuming they want it, there is a way to do it away other countries do by importing the material. the fact they can retain a country that sponsors terrorism, that is developing long-range rockets, a country that we know has been working on acquiring a nuclear weapon capability despite their life and has always had a secret component, cannot have that infrastructure needed to process plutonium. that is an acceptable risk. charlie: but there is a reduction in centrifuges. and what they can do and new research. the secretary of energy has laid this out clearly. senator rubio: here's the problem.

number one, they retain all the infrastructure they will need to break those. second, enforcing a deal requires for there to be full inspections. iran is saying that will not allow access to military facilities. that is problematic. charlie: the united states has not acknowledged that will be the reality. they say these will be the most intrusive inspections yet, and if they start than they had one year to stop any development. senator rubio: we should never have retreated in my opinion. they do not have a right to enrich uranium or process the plutonium. we should have insisted they stop long-range missiles. we insist they should be open about all projects in the past. what iran is gambling on a simple. you know once the international sanctions are lifted, there is no way they will ever be reimposed. they believe they can evade sanctions.

once the world's attention is diverted. they have learned from the north koreans. i'm convinced that some point, they will pursue a nuclear weapon capability. in the interim they will exploit ambiguous language. any ambiguities or loopholes in the deal to advance their nuclear ambitions. charlie: we talked about iraq and the issue that came up with jeb bush, about the invasion looking back. he was asked a question about megan kelly. he said he misunderstood the question. i last a question she intended to ask. if you look at the iraq war, after finding out there were no weapons of mass destruction, if you knew that, would you have been in favor of the iraqi invasion? senator rubio: not only would i not have been in favor president bush would not. he said so. charlie: but vice president cheney and others have said we want to go ahead. senator rubio: president bush says he is regrets the

intelligence was faulty. i don't think the congress would have voted in favor. but let's be fair about the context. there was intelligence faulty, but also a history in iraq. it had had mobile units in the past that he used for biological capabilities. it is a country that actively had invaded a neighboring country in kuwait. it had an open dispute going on with international bodies about inspections, and allowing international inspectors to do things. ultimately, i do not believe that if the intelligence said, the does not have a weapon of mass destruction, don't believe president bush would have authorized to move forward. charlie: with respect israel, a lot of people across the country who were republican, is your view on iran any different than your view of netanyahu?

senator rubio: i view them as the same threat as he does. the difference is he lives a lot closer than i do. he is the prime minister of a country who every friday say -- iran says they want to destroy. and a country whose iran -- who their leader has said on social media that they want to eliminate from the face of the earth. that being said, my interest in israel is not about people who will support me politically. it is a long-standing belief based on two principles. the first is a moral one. israel was created as a homeland for the jewish people in the aftermath of the holocaust, so never again will there not be somewhere that jewish people can seek refuge. the other is this. it is the only free enterprise democratic, pro-american country in the middle east. if we had more pre-enterprise pro-american democracies, my speech would be a lot shorter.

charlie: do you support the two state solution? senator rubio: i don't think that the conditions for that exist. at this moment they do not exist. charlie: so we should forget about that possibility? senator rubio: that is the ideal outcome. charlie: but in your judgment there cannot be a two state solution? senator rubio: as they currently exist, no. there no unity in the palestinian government. they teach their children that it is a glorious thing to kill jews. they mismanage the current system of government. and they have rejected not one but two very generous israeli offers for peace. the conditions don't exist. charlie: what's the alternative? senator rubio: continue to help palestinian authorities will be able to divide the level of stability in the territory so they will be allowed to go there -- grow their economy and

prosperity. ultimately conditions will rise up with new leadership. charlie: i brought this paper with me because the pope, as you know, said he thinks we should support a palestinian state. he also seems to be part of a renewed relationship with cuba. raul castro went to see the pope. he said, i will consider returning to the church. you're a good catholic. senator rubio: i try to be. it'll be a pretty long confessional. [laughter] [applause] charlie: what's wrong with the pope? senator rubio: the pope is the shepherd of a faith. his desire of peace and prosperity, he wants everyone to be better off. he is the head of state of the nation. a sovereign state in the vatican city. his desire is to separate the faith and the flock. that is what he wants to do. there are many roman catholics

on the island of cuba. he desires a better future. anything he can do to open up more opportunities he will pursue. my interest is the national security of the u.s. in that is the belief is not good for our country or them for a nation that harbors terrorists and fugitives, a nation that harbors advanced intelligence gathering facilities for china and russia. charlie: the first thing you would do if elected, undo everything the president has done? senator rubio: i would reimpose sanctions. that could only be lifted on reciprocal steps on behalf of the cubans. if they want more telecommunications, then the cuban government will have to allow freedom of press. if they want more engagement with american business and travel they will have to allow , more democratic openings for alternative groups. the condition is in law right now. the embargo can be lifted tomorrow. charlie: the sanctions have been in place for 50 years and

achieved none of the objectives. why not try something new? senator rubio: what he is saying is inaccurate. the sanctions are the embargo. the purpose was not to topple fidel castro. that was the purpose of the bay of pigs. that did not work. the purpose of the embargo was to prevent the trafficking of stolen goods. if you travel to cuba and stay at a hotel, you are staying in a stolen property. when you go to cuba and you buy any product produced in cuba that you are going to buy a , product produced from a stolen property. over $7 billion was stolen from americans and others. imagine for a moment if the government went into your business, sees your property forced you into exile in canada and a year later people are buying your stolen product. charlie: but is that the rule or exception in revolutions? in taking over a country and not necessarily about restoring it to those who might have owned it

beforehand? in terms of property rights. senator rubio: ultimately it is not about restoring. they never compensated for that property. the embargo said we are not going to allow you to traffic in stolen goods with our economy. there is no japanese embargo on cuba. there is no south korean embargo. why doesn't cuba have samsung phones? why isn't it full of toyotas? why does everyone drive a car from 1956? charlie: why? senator rubio: because they are incompetent. there is no cuban economy. the entire economy is owned by a holding company, run by raul castro's son-in-law. we don't have an opening to cuba. we have an opening to the company. charlie: let me give members an opportunity to talk.

this was in today's "new york times." it's a philosophical question. this may be what you were talking about. it is a mood of overreaching uncertainty and profound anxiety, so ingrained we cannot overlook it. if one of the people can get voice to america's insecurity and trace a believable path out of it, he or she will almost certainly be victorious in 2016. senator rubio: he's right. that is what has happened for a decade now. americans have been getting bad news. we had the american century economically, we had a country -- my parents came here and had no skills. they were immigrants. they were able to achieve a middle-class lifestyle. they owned a home and raised a family. they were able to retire with dignity. they were able to leave their children better off than themselves. they took enormous pride in what america had achieved.

now, there is a feeling none of that is true anymore. globally we no longer appear to be able to shape events. domestically we have millions of people working hard, but now they are no longer in the first -- middle class. they live paycheck to paycheck. the question is, why is this happening? why do the old ways of doing things no longer work? why can anyone tell us with a new way of doing things is? the answer is because the world is undergoing an extraordinary economic and geopolitical transformation. we need transformative leadership to help make that transition. charlie: i may assume everything you have said before, is the answer to this question. what is your believable path? senator rubio: i think the 21st century has the potential to be better. but it will require us to have an economic policies that make us globally competitive in a global economy. that is why tax reform and regulatory reform and energy policy and dealing with that are integral. all the main jobs of the 21st century and require advanced

education. but we have outdated higher education system. they goes back to things i talked about -- national security. in a globalized economy, foreign affairs have never mattered more in an economic perspective. charlie: let me take questions. mary? >> i'm a lawyer. china has been aggressively building airstrips and ports in disputed territories in the south china seas. they have not denied that they can in fact, be used for military purposes. that appears to be their purpose. how would you show american strength and leadership in the asia-pacific area, with respect to this kind of activity? what is your redline and what would you do? senator rubio: they're not just building airstrips, they are building islands.

it's an illegitimate claim. part of their will idea that they own that part. the u.s. navy is thinking about challenging that. we should never accept a truce. -- as a truce that they own that. military and naval vessels go through that show it is international waters open for transit for anyone. i think it is critical to create a stronger alliance to fully pivoted to the asia-pacific region. i think increased military alliance expanding beyond japan and south korea, working even with australia and the philippines, to change the problems japan would have to face, if they tried to move forward on their territorial claims. and improve the capacity of these nations to defend themselves. military spending is critical in

in this realm, because china is investing billions of dollars and anti-access technology to make it difficult for american powers to get close. we also have to invest in the ability to defeat those capabilities. charlie: yes sir. you. >> senator, mark rosen, bank of america. president putin invaded georgia some years ago, more recently crimea. , all the problems on the border of ukraine as well. what would you do -- i think governor romney when he ran for president said he thought russia was a major foreign-policy problem for the united states. he was laughed at at the time. it turned out to be much more

accurate than it seems then. how would you deal with the threat of russia, and it's apparently expansionary policies? senator rubio: the threat is not necessarily russia, but it is vladimir putin who wants to be leader of a great country. he wants to put behind him this humiliation of the 1980's and reestablish russia as a power on par with the united states. because he cannot achieve that economically, he decided to do that militarily by making it very clear any nations in his periphery must turn to him. i think the sanctions should be increased. i think sanctions will prove to be long-term devastating. and already have been from moscow. beyond that think it is critical, whether it is the baltic states or the ukraine, to have the necessary equipment to provide defense of their own territory.

for many years, we ask people to increase capacity to help us. help us in afghanistan, help us another far-flung places of the world. but these nations did not invest enough in the ability to protect their own territory. everybody felt the cold war was over, there is no threat from the east anymore. now we see that is not true. putin believes he can take aggressive action in the ukraine and other countries that have russian speaking populations under the guise of moving in to protect them because he feels there is no consequence. he does not believe these nations will be able to inflict enough pain militarily. it's one of the reasons they have been so paranoid about covering up the death of russians, which an opposition group yesterday revealed was over 200 russians who died in operations in ukraine over the last year and a half. charlie: you would welcome

ukraine initiative would be part of nato? senator rubio: i'm open to ukraine joining nato, but if we want to provide military capability, to say they will join nato is a longer reach. in terms of this administration. we need to help them be able to defend themselves. >> you recognize the relationship between the u.s. economy and the transformations in the globe and the extraordinary growth in the markets around the world and a growing middle class. you also have acknowledged most of the job growth in the u.s. comes from small businesses. could you talk for a minute about how you could get americans in small businesses to understand the world is their market, and how we can transform the culture of the country to be part of the world? senator rubio: the first thing

out of a people is that we americans are 4% of the population. all we do is sell things to each other. we need there to be millions of people around the globe who can afford to buy things we make. in order for that to happen you need global stability. that is what american leadership is important. without it there cannot be global stability. beyond that we cannot have access to these markets. that is why i think the retreat -- trade agreements are important. if we don't have trade agreements with the pacific, we are basically walking away from access to over a billion and a half people or more. these are markets that are growing rapidly. if we are not engaged in the fastest economic area and the world, our businesses will not prosper. beyond that, i have an advantage. i come from miami where many , businesses are impacted by global agreements. the colombian free-trade agreement has been a bonanza. everyone who drive trucks and

import flowers. i think is important for us to ask me to my neck and how critical it is we have access to millions of people around the world -- for us to have access to millions of people around the world. you can buy things online, you don't even have to come here. charlie: yes, sir. you. >> i was delighted to hear you referred to radical islam as one of the threats we face. the great ideological threat of the presidency went referenced faced, truman, kennedy and reagan, was communism. is radical islam the equipment ideological threat we face? if so, what is your strategy for defeating it? senator rubio: that's an interesting question. all of these threats have different characteristics. communism was most certainly an economic and political view of the world but it also tried to basically create nationstates that would implement policies.

radical islam is more diffuse and involves interconnected groups that make us back -- may conspire together to take action. but don't necessarily have an easy understood governance idea behind him. there is no economic model behind them. the history of these radical jihadist groups is once they take over the town, they do a terrible job of taking out the garbage and providing services for the people there governing. they are very brutal and the way they govern. the strategy is multifaceted. they can only prosper if they have a safe haven. that is light libya has become a premier operational state. it has become a safe haven. it has become a launch point for attacks. iraq became a safe haven before that. 9/11 was possible because al qaeda had a safe haven in afghanistan. the first part of our strategy is we cannot allow safe havens to emerge anywhere in the world. these ungoverned spaces where groups can set up camp. do not underestimate where isis

is involved. they are trying to absorb al qaeda and taliban. they are present throughout almost all of north africa. they have extended virtually all of the middle eastern countries. they do have individuals that have never even traveled abroad, sympathetic to their cause radicalized online, involved in the cause here and elsewhere. denying a safe haven is a key part, and taking decisive action. that is why i thought being involved in syria early was critical to preventing the growth of isis. charlie: richard, go ahead. >> as far as we know, hillary clinton supported early intervention in syria. you were critical of her just before. can you tell us specifically where she went wrong?

senator rubio: first of all, what are the successes of her tenure? the reset with russia was a disaster. it misunderstood vladimir putin's ambitions. i thought the libyan engagement was not handled appropriately. the united states intervened for a short time militarily. the rest of the operation was left to the brits and french who do not have our capabilities. the result in libya was a protracted conflict that killed people and destroyed infrastructure and left behind the conditions for the rise of multiple militias. i traveled to libya after the fall of qaddafi, and want -- came back and warned, if we did not get back on the front end, it would the, haven for extremism to take root.

i thought they were completely negligent on affairs in latin america. very little discussion about how to improve our standing in the region. particularly in countries that were prospering. we also ignored the situation in countries moving in the opposite direction. argentina or bolivia or venezuela. i just don't believe there are many successes they can point to during her tenure. she was the chief architect of a foreign policy that will go down in history as a disaster. charlie: right there in the back. >> spoke early on about the importance of holding other nations to high standards in terms of human rights. i think many would argue that has been eroded through continuing opening of guantanamo bay, and our own criminal

justice issues. can you talk about your view of how to resolve guantanamo, in regards to high-level human rights attention from the rest of the world? senator rubio: i believe innocent people deserve to have their rights respected. i think terrorists who plot to kill americans and engaged in plots to kill americans, should should be taken off the battlefield. that is the role guantanamo plays. it was the only place we were able to gather intelligence. today we are not gathering enough intelligence from potential adversaries. many people who have in released had returned to the battlefield against america. i don't necessarily do the same -- when you have an active

combatant against the united states in an effort to defeat us, seeking to destroy as many americans as possible, you need to be taken off the battlefield. and treated for what you are and enemy combatant. that is the role of guantanamo. >> what would you do now about syria? would you support a no-fly zone? like the arabs and the turks are asking. if president obama concludes with iran, you become president, what would you do? charlie: you have to choose one or the other. [laughter] senator rubio: one of the great sticking points between us and allies is they are interested in getting rid of assad as well. i hope someone will ask me the iran question. charlie: i'm taking great pleasure that so many women are raising their hands. >> you are supporting the military quite strongly over various episodes today.

right now, great part is health care. the military is becoming a health care organization. this does not include the v.a.. how are you going to support the military health care programs and returning veterans? senator rubio: that will go into the v.a. system which needs to be modernized. it was designed 87 years ago. it is no longer responsive to the needs of veterans today. a significant percentage of the workload in my office and florida are v.a. i believe veterans should begin in the right to go outside the system if they cannot access in a timely way the care they need. as far as military spending is concerned, military spending is not the cause of national debt. every time we drastically reduce military spending, he requires us to come back later and make up for it and much more expensive ways.

i wish our military contracting looked more like our space contracting. there was more competition, more choices, less change orders. but i can tell you, the number one obligation of federal government is the national security of the united states. we are eroding our capabilities at a time when many adversaries are increasing their capabilities. >> where are you getting the money from? senator rubio: the money is there. i think the question you're asking is what are we not going to pay in exchange. the driver of our long-term debt is not discretionary spending. the driver of that is social security and medicare. that is currently structured, will it survive. my generation will not know medicare and social security if it continues. that is why i call for reforms that lead people like my mother, on social security, exactly the same way.

my generation is going to have to face a hard truth. it will either look different or will not exist by the time we reached retirement age. that is the driver of long-term debt. the next president of the united states will not be able to serve two terms without confronting this reality. those programs were designed when there were 60 workers for every retiree. in the case of social security's, there are three workers for every retiree. the math is not gone up. we need to reform those programs, or they will not exist for me or my children. if we doing now we can do it in a way that does not disrupt beneficiaries. the longer we wait, the more difficult it will be. charlie: we said we wouldn't go past the suggested time. senator rubio: is that the iwatch?

charlie: his wife is giving me an ugly -- she must have some kind of pressing appointment. [laughter] charlie: she will get to her appointment for sure. i assume you have other things to do, as well. with great pleasure, thank you for coming. sen. rubio: thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> today on c-span, "washington journal," is live, next. today they are scheduled to work on the defenseman a bill. in 45 minutes, we talked to congressional black caucus members about amtrak and efforts at police reform. then comes the peter roskam will discuss congressional oversight to prevent irs targeting of political groups. and a proposal to create a new special inspector general to

oversee implementation of the affordable care act. politico transportation reporter heather cagle with the latest on the crash investigation at a house vote to cut amtrak's budget. >> good morning everyone. welcome to the "washington journal" on this thursday may, 14 2015. the senate revived the agenda with a vote to move forward and votes stretching into next week. but senate and house democrats opposed are vowing to fight even harder. over on the house side, lawmakers on a vote 338-38 voted to end all bulk