>> we will take you live shortly to the white house where president obama is making comments on the white house. we will take you there live. is defense secretary speaking at the center for strategic and international studies. he will talk about the plan to modernize the military. his remarks are scheduled for 1:00. a look at a photo tweeted this morning by the capitol hill producer of the nominee to the supreme court as he met with

republican senator susan collins. she is the 11th senator and second republican he has met with so far. chuckth the agreement of grassley, there are 14 senators who are willing to meet with the nominee. he said he will explain to the nominee that he is against considering anyone president obama nominates to the court. we will bring you updates and images as they become available. >> campaign 2016 continues today with the wisconsin primary. tune in for complete election results. we are taking you on the road to the white house on c-span.

>> every election cycle will remind us how important it is for citizens to be informed. c-span is a vehicle for making good choices. you are getting a five-star meal of policy. it's a home for political junkies and a way to track the government as it happens. c-span is on. i think it's a great way for us to stay informed. >> there are a lot of c-span fans on the hill. my colleagues are going to come back and say i saw you on c-span.

>> good morning. much more that c-span does in terms of its programming to make sure that people outside the belt way what's going on inside. candidacy.ce my >> i am officially running for president of the united states. i am a reporter who covers politics. been part of my research, providing quotes and insights about people. there are so many niches inside the blogosphere. >> how many nuclear warheads does russia have aimed at the united states question --? we watched senate meetings and house meetings.

>> phone lines are open. it can start dialing in. >> you never know what you're going to get. >> i am your mother. i disagree that all families are like ours. families thatany are fighting at thanksgiving. this is live coverage of the miami book fair. >> it becomes tv on the weekends. >> it's a way of accessing the work of the people who are writing great books. >> every weekend, c-span3 becomes american history tv. >> you've got to watch. >> whether you're talking about a congressional hearing or an error in history, there is so much information that you can convey if you've got that kind of programming.

they have a camera. we are capturing history as it happened. it lets you have a seat at the table. you can't find that anywhere else. >> i am a c-span a fan. >> i am a c-span fan. c-span,s the power of access to everyone to be part of the conversation. >> we will begin shortly from president obama on the economy right here at the white house live. that's expected to start in just a few minutes. after that, the defense secretary will talk about military modernization at 1:00 eastern time. here are some campaign events from wisconsin with ted cruz.

heidi cruise spoke in a restaurant. >> i help manage about 17 counties. we are on the phones for you guys. >> thank you for all your hard

work. >> it's nice to meet you. thank you for all the work that you are doing. >> isn't she beautiful? >> what a wonderful son you have. [inaudible]

>> how about you get in the middle. >> i am so honored. it's great to see you.

>> we have beautiful pictures. [inaudible] >> we taking out the white house. president obama: the economy added 215,000 jobs in march. that means our businesses ofended the longest string job creation on record, 73

months. is half of what it was six years ago. this progress is due to the grit and determination and hard work and the optimism of the american people. country,el around the what stands out is the overwhelming majority of people work hard and play by the rules. they deserve see their hard work rewarded. they deserve to know that big corporations are playing by a different set of rules. that's why i've been pushing to eliminate some of the injustices in our tax system. i am very pleased that the treasury department has taken -- people are fleeing the

country just to get out of paying taxes. this got some attention in the press yesterday. i wanted to make sure that we highlighted the importance of the treasuries action. this directly goes at what's called the corporate incursion -- inversion scheme. acquiren a corporations small companies and then change their address to another country on paper it or to get out of paying their fair share of taxes home. as a practical matter, they keep most of their business here in the united states because they benefit from american infrastructure and technology and the rule of law. they benefit from our research and development and patents. they benefit from american workers who are the best in the world. they renounce their citizenship and declare they are based somewhere else.

they get all the rewards of being an american company without filling the responsibilities to pay their taxes the way everybody else is supposed to pay them. when companies exploit loopholes like this, it makes it harder to invest in the things that will keep america's economy going strong. it sticks the rest of us with the tab. it makes hard-working americans feel like the deck stacked against them. this is something i've been pushing for long time. it made our tax code fairer. we are trying to make sure the tax laws are enforced. i will say that it gets tougher sometimes when the irs is starved for resources and squeezed by the congressional appropriation process. we have continued to emphasize the importance of tax

enforcement. in the news, we have had another reminder in this big dump of data coming out of panama the tax avoidance is a global problem. it's not unique to other countries because there are people in america who are taking advantage of the same stuff. a lot of it is legal. that's the problem. it's not that they are breaking the law, the laws are poorly designed and allow people with enough lawyers and accountants to wiggle out of responsibilities that ordinary citizens are having to abide by. there are loopholes the only wealthy individuals and powerful corporations have access to. they have access to offshore accounts. they are gaming the system. they are not of the same position in the middle class to do this. this comes at the expense of middle-class families because

that lost revenue has to be made up somewhere. it means we're not investing as much as we shouldn't schools or making college more affordable were putting people back to work. we should be creating more opportunities for our children. this is important. these new actions by the treasury department told on steps we have already taken to make the system warfare. -- warfare. while the actions will make it more difficult and less lucrative for companies to exploit this particular inversion loophole, only congress can close it. thatcongress can make sure all of the other loopholes that are being taken advantage of our closed. i've often said the best way to end this kind of irresponsible thatior is with tax reform

closes loopholes and simplifies the tax code for everybody. repeatedlyard plans go to make our system more competitive for all businesses. republicans in congress have yet to act. they start getting serious about it. when politicians perpetuate a system that favors the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, people feel like they can't get ahead. produce a politics that is directed at that frustration. rather than doubling down on policies that let a few big corporations or the wealthiest among us lay their own rules, everybody should have a fair shot.

we should be investing more in things like education, job creation and job training. breaksthan lock-in tax for millionaires or make it harder to enforce existing laws, let's give tax breaks to help working families pay for childcare, college and stop rewarding companies that are shipping jobs and profits overseas and reward companies that are good corporate citizens. that's how we will build america together. that's the story of the past seven years. that can be the story for the next seven years if we make the right decisions. i hope this is introduced into the larger political debate we will have leading up to the election. ok? i turn it over to josh. given that the release of

these millions of pieces of financial information, are you concerned that reflects on the ability of the treasury department to be up to see all the financial transactions across the globe and whether that suggests the sanctions regime you put in place around the world might not be destroyed as you think it is? president obama: iran would not have cut a deal to end their nuclear program in the absence of strong sanctions. that theno doubt problem of global tax avoidance generally is a huge problem. it's been out of in g-7 meetings and g20 meetings. there been some progress made in coordinating between tax authorities of different countries. we aremake sure that catching some of the most egregious examples.

before, one of the big problems we have is a lot of the stuff is legal, not illegal. unless the united states and other countries lead by example in closing some of these cases you canmany trace what's taking place but you can't stop it. there is always going to be some illicit movement of funds around the world. it legal justmake to avoid taxes. it is important that the treasury act on something this different than what happened in panama. this is a financial transaction that is brokered among major type fortune 500 companies.

the basic principle of us making sure everybody is making -- paying their fair share. something we have to pay attention to. net outflows of money that could be spent on needs in the united states. to see when you combine legal tax avoidance with illicit tax avoidance or some the activities we are seeing, it's not just aliens of dollars. this may be trillions of dollars worldwide and it could make a big difference in terms of what we do here. i'm going to take one more question and then turn it over to josh. front-runnerican

outlined his plan president obama: oh no. >> what would be the real implications of this. obama: yes i think i've been very clear that i am getting questions from foreign some of thet wackier suggestions being made. i have to emphasize it's not just mr. trump's proposals. about hearing concerns mr. cruz's proposals. in some ways they are just as draconian when it comes to immigration. many aremittances, from legal immigrants and individuals were sending money back to their families, that's a

norm us. they are impractical. we just talked about trying to enforce huge outflows of capital. that we are going to track every western union money that's being sent to mexico, good luck with that. got the issue of the implications about the mexican economy. if it's collapsing sends more immigrants north because they can't find jobs in mexico. this is another example of something that's not thought through and put forward for political consumption. as i have tried to emphasize throughout, we've got serious problems here. we've got issues around the world. people expect the president of the united states and the elected officials in this country to treat these problems

seriously and put forward policies that have been examined, analyzed, that are effective. unintended consequences are taken into account. they don't expect half-baked notions coming out of the white house. we can afford that. all right? thank you guys. >> president obama is ending his remarks on the economy. we will have more remarks coming up in about 30 minutes. defense secretary ashton carter will be talking about plans to modernize the military. that is scheduled for 1:00 east coast time. is thee some of -- this washington journal. host: we want to welcome back fred barnes. who will be the republican nominee? guest: i think donald trump

still has the best chance even if he loses in wisconsin today. the ted cruz polls have been much better. withcame back yesterday trump 10 points ahead. that would mean that he's quite a finishing kick. he can afford to lose here. he will probably not have the majority as he approaches the convention. there are a lot of delegates out there that he could deal with who can add to his numbers. he's a great negotiator. there are delegates who are not bound to other candidates. he can add some. the first ballot is

probably the most likely thing. i would not bet the farm on it. host: this is what senator ted cruz had to say yesterday. >> [video clip] >> as we stand here today, there are two candidates who have any plausible path to becoming the republican nominee, me and donald trump. let me say what we are seeing here in wisconsin and across the country is the 65-70% of republicans who have recognize that nominating donald trump would be a disaster. [applause] nominating donald trump elects hillary clinton. hillary wins by double digits is like tying a giant present and giving it to the democrats in of , and by the way, if hillary clinton is the next president,

the supreme court is lost for a generation and the bill of rights is put in jeopardy, our kids are buried in trillions more in debt. and we remain stuck in the same economic stagnation we have seen the last seven years. host: fred barnes, do you agree with his predictions? guest: i think donald trump have would have a difficult time winning the general election. i think ted cruz would have a difficult time winning the general election even with a candidate as flawed as hillary clinton as the democratic opponent. they both have great problems. host: this is the front page of "the new york times" ted cruz is fuming because kasich won't bow out. guest: trump is fuming, too. [laughter] i'm not sure who the john kasich people would go to. it wouldn't necessarily go to ted cruz. a of them are moderates and independents who oddly enough are groups that trump draws from.

i don't think a lot of them are hard-core conservative voters who ted cruz draws from. it's really unclear who would benefit the most from john kasich dropping out. host: if there is a contested convention do you think we are headed toward a contested convention? guest: it was contested in 1976 when ronald reagan challenged incumbent president gerald ford, but ronald reagan won on the first ballot. there is a contested convention and then there is one that opens up because there is no first ballot nominee. host: ted cruz has said the choices should be between him and donald trump. there should be some sort of consensus candidate. the rnc ruled that out. what do you think should happen here for the republican party? guest: for the republican party, i think john kasich makes a strong case and that is that the polls show him running ahead of hillary clinton. i think he would have a better

chance of beating hillary clinton than either ted cruz or donald trump. i thought that marco rubio would be a candidate who would have a better chance than either of those people and perhaps even john kasich in beating hillary clinton. on the other hand, you have to win the republican nomination first. marco rubio will not win it. host: john kasich has 143 pledged delegates. guest: he said when the delegates arrive to a convention, it's magical. if there is some magic that sets in, i'm not sure about that but i think he would need magic. he would have to be on the first ballot where he would not even be on the ballot because he will not have won eight primaries or eight caucuses. maybe the second ballot if he gets there. then he might be viable. sometimes parties are looking for the candidates who have the best chance of winning the general election.

that is john kasich's strong suit. i think he could command the political center more than either donald trump or ted cruz or at least it looks that way at the moment. host: let's get some calls involved. betty in green bay, wisconsin, independent. caller: thanks for taking my call. mr. barnes, i have to say that i hope people look at the big picture. guest: i do, too. caller: i used to work for a republican congressman on the hill many years ago. there is no comparison with republicans as they are now. it's a joke. with donald trump, i always say don't vote for someone who wants to talk about nuclear power. that's a no-brainer.

cruz is not a conservative because if he was, would not have shut down the government and give the bill to the people of the united states. i have already put my vote in. i was the first one in line. i am voting for hillary clinton. bernie would not be bad. they are both good people. people have to use their heads. they need to look at the big picture, not just because they speak good or they promised this . i have seen it all. hillary would be the best to get things done. like donald trump and ted cruz, how many countries have they gone to? guest: let me ask a question . i'm a little confused. i wanted to ask her what

republican congressman she worked for. host: what do you make of what she had to say? serious, getting things done, do you agree? guest: it sounds like she was a republican at one point and is now very disenchanted with the republican party. she doesn't like ted cruz or donald trump. i would disagree with her on one thing. i think ted cruz is a conservative. host: you do? guest: of course. host: what about his relationship with his fellow conservative senators on capitol hill? guest: that is a different situation. that detracts from the campaign. after all his campaigning and after ted cruz is doing better than people thought he would and certainly better than i thought and stories written about how the conservatives are now gathering behind ted cruz, only 2 senators have endorsed him and that's a small number. he is not well liked in the senate club and it shows. host: harry in baltimore, maryland, a republican. caller: thank you. thank you for c-span.

i have a couple of statements. when everybody says donald trump does not have any experience, obama did not have any experience either. the only experience he had was at a reservation home. when you look at trump and the rest of them, i honestly believe donald trump loves this country and he don't care about his money anymore. he's got all he has. he is really trying to help the people. i just don't see the other ones -- it's like washington is in it for itself. host: we hear that a lot from our viewers. they like donald trump because they think he might be able to do something different than the lawmakers that have been here. guest: he does have experience , but it's not the kind we normally associate with voting for somebody for president. look, he has made that case by asserting so often i can do this

and i can stop illegal immigration, i can rewrite the trade deals, i can jack up the economy almost overnight and balance the budget and so on. he has said it so often and so emphatically that people come to believe it. he is a different kind of candidate. i would not have thought he would have the appeal he has. that is the great thing about politics. it's not science. politics never has been. things come along that surprise you. my one rule of politics is that the future in politics is never a straight-line projection of the present. things change and unexpected things happen and candidates do crazy things. candidates do smart things. politics is very unpredictable. it's too bad in the media that -- and i am a great offender of -- we write about the future all the time is up we

.s if we know it we don't. host: texas, democrat. caller: good morning. i'm tired of hearing about donald trump saying america is not great. it's the greatest country in the world. it's the best economy in the world, fred. you have done quite well, fred, in this economy. donald trump has made millions in this economy. the stock market is higher since obama came in and you guys have reaped the harvest. for you and the working class, join a union. you want to complain about your wages being low? these corporations don't love america. they don't care about america. if you people want to raise a fuss, join a union to have competition between labor and corporations. if you did not join a union, don't expect your corporations to give you a raise. they don't need to. they will cut your health care and your pension co. they don't care about america. guest: there is a strong union voice. i expect he will not vote for

donald trump. host: the sentiment is something you hear a lot from democrats and republicans as well who believe that corporations are not on their side. guest: corporations are out to make a profit and they will serve their shareholders. the whole idea of capitalism is that it works well for everybody in the long run. i think it does and that's why we are the most prosperous country in the world. .e is right about that even though donald trump wears his hat to make america great again, america is pretty great. host: front page of "the " state of times," gop's convention still uncertain." he is poised to walk away more delegates after he won the delegates formally assigned to center marco rubio, as well as a patch of delegates that were not allocated during the primaries. there is that programming going on. things are about to get messier

in pennsylvania. most of the delegates are directly elected by voters. once collected, they can decide on their own who to support coul. state's chairman and tumors of the republican national committee are only bound to support the winner of the primary on the next ballot. guest: i think all that stuff is fascinating. the trump organization did not seem to understand that it's not just winning the primaries are coming in first on the caucus, there are steps after that in which real people become the delegates. in some states, you offer a delegate slate. these are people committed to vote for me at least on the first ballot, but in other states, you cited pennsylvania. they are picked in different ways. i will have to say the cruz people have been wise about this. they are externally well organized. all over the country, and i think that has been the biggest strength of the ted cruz campaign.

they went, well ok, this delegate may be committed to donald trump on the first ballot but after that, no. so they will get one of their own people in as delegates who may have to vote for trump or some other candidate on the first ballot. it would be trump, of course. after that, they are free to vote for ted cruz. it's very smart. it's something the trump campaign should have known about theyrganized for and now will be suffering because of that because they did not. host: fort lauderdale, florida, independent. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i just want to ask you, i'm sure you are aware of the polls like out where hillary will beat trump but ted cruz would be even with donald trump so why would you assume that donald trump would become the nominee? if you have not noticed donald trump has been

, self-destructing. whether he goes on a debate with ted cruz where ted cruz will make a meatball out of him or he just goes on tv and avoids ted cruz, every time you open's his he opens his mouth like what , happened last week, he steps in it. ted cruz knows how washington works. trump is an outsider who wants to be on the inside. he says instead of giving the politicians money, he says i'm going to be a politician instead of giving them money. guest: i don't think the polls show ted cruz doing much better than donald trump against hillary clinton. the ted cruz negatives are higher. the most horrible thing they that the polls show about trump is how poorly he does among women. it is one thing for a republican to not do well among single women, which they tend to vote

for democrats more than republicans. but married women, he is doing poorly among married women as well in polls. that's very harmful to donald trump. i think he's going to have a difficult time, but i think cruz will as well. as far as avoiding a debate, we have had so many debates. i watched them all. what did they have -- 11, 12, 13, something with th like that? that's probably enough. in a campaign, when a candidate who is behind as ted cruz is, behind in primaries and behind donald trump and behind in delegates, that candidate is always asking for more debates. s more sanders wantd debates. the one who trails always wants more debates. i don't know that the public would be served by that in particular. host: from twitter -- "the more the media tries to

destroy trump, the more people like him." that caller said that donald trump with his statements on abortion has stepped in it. "the new york times" saying wisconsin never looked good for trump because of demographics because of higher education in .he state coul number ofhas an above married couples. most of the republican districts are in the top numbers for married rates. this is trouble spots for mr. .rumpete iowa, utah, kansas, and wisconsin tend to be nice. that does not bode well for donald trump. guest: everybody knew that a month ago and yet we were saying that trump was going to win in wisconsin. obviously, they have not looked up those figures.

that's pretty impressive reporting. no question about that. i think donald trump's big mistake was not fumbling over and over again the abortion question but attacking scott , walker. he was not a great presidential candidate and he got out early. but he is extremely popular among republicans in wisconsin. they have been through a lot supporting him with two regular elections and then defeating a recall effort. in wisconsin, it's not like there is the grassroots and then there is these republicans at that top like the governor and they are the establishment. and the grassroots doesn't like them. the republican party is pretty unified there in a way that it's not in other states. the republican party is not that unified in virginia. they would love to be. attacking scott walker, he went to janesville, wisconsin, paul ryan's hometown and spent his

whole speech attacking scott walker and i thought that was counterproductive. host: conservative talk radio in wisconsin is also behind the stop trump movement. nick cohen goes on to say this. for those watching the primary tonight, our coverage begins at nine clock him eastern time. 35%key number to watch is -- the expected share of the vote for mr. trump based on the results so far. if you fall short, he has lost ground because of momentum not demographics. let me hear from vicki in florida, republican. caller: good morning, i'm a retired person. when i was younger, i loved william f buckley. the reason i called is the previous caller had said hillary clinton is her girl because hillary will get things done.

hillary had -- previously had hillary care when she was first lady and it did not go anywhere. i want to tell you that we are all suffering from this "affordable" care act. my son is 39 years old. hour and hes $12 an pays $253 per month for his " thatdable health care." includes the market place subsidy he gets. that prevents him from buying a new car and going on to further education and it's killing us and if hillary gets in, i cannot see that it's going to be any better. it seems that these progressives are saying to us, here is what we are going to do for you -- we're going to take this money from you and give it to somebody else. i'm tired of it. if she is elected or sanders is elected, i'm afraid i will drop out of the political process. i am so discouraged. i would love to hear your response.

guest: if hillary wins, don't move to canada. i don't think it will be that dire. hillary clinton has moved to the left. the position she takes now is much more left wing than those of her husband, bill clinton when he was president. , she is not a moderate at all. the money she wants to spend, she wants to spend almost as much as bernie sanders does. she wants to raise taxes as much as he does. democrats have one advantage and that is they tend to agree on issues. they are matters of degrees on various issues between sanders and hillary clinton. other than that, there is not much difference. sanders has not used the kind of issues against hillary that republicans will use no matter who the nominee is against her and that is the whole e-mail fiasco and the clinton foundation. the only thing trump has

mentioned are the highly paid speeches from wall street firms that hillary has gotten. other than that, he is not really attacked her personally. republicans will. it will be quite different. host: we will go to howard in miami, florida, independent, go ahead. you are on with fred barnes. caller: good morning, mr. barnes. i want to ask you about voter suppression. i want to put some facts on the table. there was a gentleman back in 1980 who said in a speech in texas he was one of the founders of the heritage foundation. guest: i knew him. caller: he said i don't want everybody to vote. elections are not won by a majority of people and they are not now.

our elections quite candidly go up as the voting pockets go down . ago, a chairman said voter id is going to allow governor romney to win the state of pennsylvania. that pennsylvania law was ultimately ruled unconstitutional. in the lawsuit, a stipulation was filed. it was an agreement between the parties that they were not going to argue like the sun rises in the east. in that stipulation, they said there were no investigations or prosecutions of in person voter fraud in pennsylvania. the parties, meaning the republican government of pennsylvania and applewhite, who was the plaintiffs, do not have knowledge of any such investigations. they further stipulated that the parties are not aware of any incidents and do not have direct knowledge of any an

fraud -- in person voter elsewhere. the respondents will not offer any evidence that in person voter fraud has occurred in pennsylvania or elsewhere. my question is, how do you justify, as somebody who is a conservative, the enactment of all these laws? the brennan center, a part of new york law school, has said there has never been a greater than a 5 million vote disparity. 900,000 people have been disenfranchised in north carolina. 600,000 or more in texas. 300,000 in wisconsin. how do you justify? how do you look in the public's voterd say that id fraud laws are some justification to keep voters from the ballot? guest: there should be some minimal identification. the supreme court has upheld that. it's something that can be required by states. there's no evidence that i have

seen that the number of people who actually vote has declined. that includes minority groups. it has not gone down. i do not think that is too much to ask for we asked people for credit cards for identification in many other places in life. with so many illegal immigrants in the country and noncitizens requiring someone to hi show some idea with perhaps a photo on it, i think it's a good idea. i will tell you what i think is a bad idea. alowing people to vote over .eriod of months things change in the meantime. donald trump has benefited from this because his voters voted early. i know a number of them that voted weeks before the election, before the primary. i think people ought to be

required unless they have some emergency or reason why they cannot vote on election day, they should be expected to show up at the polling place and cast their vote on election day. host: luis in west virginia, a .epublican caller: i think the neocons are being handed their heads. i was so happy to see marco rubio lose. i will be so happy to see ted cruz lose. guest: he is not a neocon. caller: he's a neocon. anytime you say palestine doesn't exist, you are a neocon. guest: he would refute that. anyway, go ahead. caller: i don't care. you're not going to argue with me. you are the reason most of america is a mess. you are one of those crazy people. you are just like the left. host: you are calling fred

barnes names. what is your evidence? caller: the evidence is just watching over the past 40 years. i've been watching c-span since i lived in oklahoma in 1979. i'm going to tell you something. i've been watching these people. they are unbelievable. and you have led us to this. -- i'm votinging for donald trump. i was for jeb bush. i know they are decent people. but the neocons hated the bushes in a big way. guest: i certainly didn't. caller: i will never forget what happened to george h.w. bush. host: are you a neocon? guest: i am a conservative. i certainly did not dislike the bushes. i happen to have a house in florida. i know a lot about florida politics. i have written about jeb bush. he was a great governor of florida at the time.

for the eight years that he was governor, i thought he was the best governor in the country. i wrote that in "the weekly standard" magazine. i thought he would be a better presidential candidate that he than he turned out to be. it was an unusual election year. it turned out that someone's record that even as impressive b's was somes -- je years earlier, i heard jeb to speak and i thought he was very good. he talked about his record. the crowd was a bunch of active republicans in new england and new york. i thought jeb had done very well. i want to talk to people in the audience and they didn't think so. it was a hint right there that he would have trouble in the campaign, which he did. at that event, ted cruz mainly spoken applause lines and got a

standing ovation. it was the first time i have heard donald trump and he got a standing ovation. there were some hints about what this election was going to be like and it was going to be abou about one for jeb bush. host: jeannie on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. excuse me -- i am 78 years old. i have lived through the time when i couldn't vote because i was in the south. for lack of a better term, when i was freed. the wonderful thing about the united states of america is you have a right to vote for who you want to. that means when the rubber hits the road, the person is elected that got the most votes.

i don't understand all this griping and complaining. if the person i vote for doesn't win, i am like everybody else. i'm stuck with somebody i didn't vote for. in the united states of america, your vote is your opinion. thank you. guest: i certainly agree with that. an earlier caller mentioned paul wyrick was a very active conservative leader in washington. he had said that you don't need to get a majority of the people. that's true. you need to get a majority of the voters. it's an interesting comment. it's not surprising having come from paul wyrick. host: pleasant view, tennessee, ray, republican.

caller: hello? host: you are on the air, sir. caller: i would like to make a few comments and get fred's opinion. first of all, it seems like -- i am 72 years old. it seems like in the last 20 years other than reagan, we have picked bad or not the most intelligent people to run the country. as far as the millennials are concerned, let them go live in cuba for a year and see how they like socialists over there . guest: i have been to cuba. they won't like it. cuba is a police state. it has a terrible economy. one of the things i was surprised at president obama was the decision not to ask them to change anything. that's in order to be recognized

and have the lack of diplomatic relations between the u.s. and cuba ended after all these years . cuba is not a place that most young americans would like. that is for sure. i liked reagan. i think we still attract an awful lot of good people to politics in this country. we will continue to. there were 17 republican candidates. there was a lot to choose from. there were not quite as many democratic candidates. i think we have smart, capable people. and the voters decide. that's what elections are about. host: we will hear from john next in flushing new york. , caller: good morning, c-span. first of all, let me start by saying i am 71 years old. i am african american, born in the south and went to school in , new york. i am a vietnam veteran. i am retired and have watched the political landscape morph into what it is today.

to me, hillary clinton represents the establishment. even to some degree, senator cruz does now that he's got all these establishment republicans aligning behind him. i don't think anything is going to change going forward if either hillary or senator cruz is elected. in order for the system to change, i think you have to have a different direction. i know people are not saying he is presidential material but he , has the capability of putting people around him that know what's going on in the world. change the course of action, the political direction with respect to foreign policy has been the same. host: we hear your point, john. nothing is going to change if you like these politicians.

guest: i think there is a great difference between what hillary clinton will do and what ted cruz would do as president. donald trump though is an interesting case with whether he's presidential or not. he has said in interviews in the last few days that he can be presidential or appear to be presidential as a candidate anytime he wants to. he has just decided not to do that yet. he needs to rough up his opponents in the race for the republican presidential nomination. we will see. i think he needs to start tilting toward the presidential side if he really has one sooner. i think that would help him. people want to learn more. i think people want to learn more from donald trump at this point that he is giving them now. he is saying pretty much the same things he has said since last june. that's when he announced his presidential bid. they have served him well.

i think he needs to offer a little more. not necessarily deep details on any particular issue, but on a number of his claims, how is he going to achieve them? i would certainly like to hear that. host: that brings up our question that we are going to ask in the last hour of "the washington journal." do manners matter in campaigns? michael garson writes that they do. this is what he says. they create ties among citizens that are not based on compulsion. with ourtand a stadium hands over our hearts or refrain from battling much with children on the subway, or disagree about politics with the coming personal and vicious, we add a few invisible strands that hold our community and democracy together. guest: you can see why he was such a good speechwriter. i agree with that.

i think trump by his opposition to political correctness on a number of issues and the way he speaks has probably helped them him in the short run. i think it has stopped helping him now. i think he needs to observe the kind of manners. maybe not quite as rigidly as he would like him to, but the beatings i was talking about a moment ago, but to try to be more presidential. he claims he can do it. i think now is the time to do it. host: we've got one last call for you, mr. burns. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am 65 years old and i have never voted. me or my husband -- mother neither one. we've watched that this year. they called donald trump a bully. every time they put the news on, they're putting him down. they are talking about his hair and not taking a bath.

they are talking about his sprin spray tan. they continually put him down. i think the bullying is in the news media. i would like to see donald trump get that this year. i am an outsider and he is an outsider. they are really concerned about what he's going to mess up when he gets in there. host: you have never voted? your husband has never voted, but this time you're going to because of donald trump? caller: yes ma'am. caller: did you vote for him in the primary? guest: did you vote for donald trump in the primary? caller: yes, sir. guest: i think donald trump gives as good as he gets. he's been getting a lot of lumps from super pac's who attack him. the media covers him a lot. if there is one guy who can take attacks and attack other people as losers, i think donald trump can do it. i'm not worried about him suffering from being overtaxed.

-- from being over attack, that is for sure. host: you can read fred barnes's election 2016e and coverage of the election cycle go to the weekly standard.com. , he is co-author of a book that recently came out. thank you for being here as always. guest: i enjoyed it, greta. on c-span, the center for strategic and international studies in washington, d.c., defense secretary ashton carter speaking shortly about the pentagon's plans to modernize the military.

[applause] >> good afternoon, everybody . we are delighted to have you here. it shouldn't be this cold in april. i can down from new york where it was snowing in wilmington, and i thought, what the hell? we are to warm up this afternoon and we are going to have an

excellent opportunity to talk with secretary carter. thank you all for coming. a brief security announcement -- he has a security detail. they're going to watch out for him. i'm going to watch out for you. a problem, follow my instructions. this is the door with the steps that go down closest to the street. if there is a problem in the front, we will go to the back to the national geographic society. if there a problem in the back, we will go to the front to st. matthew's cathedral. cap heads and say grace. anyway, we are going to be fine. please follow my instructions. ashton carter is a man i've had the privilege of working with from his 40 years. he was at the office of assessment years ago. i remember distinctly once when i interviewed -- he interviewed me i should say for a job and decided i really was not up to what it took to be a success.

i do not resent that. [laughter] time, we have had the privilege of working closely together for many years. i'm very honored he is here. he is doing just a spectacular job. with your applause, would you please welcome ashton carter and thank yo him for coming? [applause] secretary carter: thanks very much, john, for that warm introduction, but more importantly, for many years of guidance, and of wonderful service to our country over some many years, not to mention your leadership of this institution. it is a pleasure for me to be here at csi s this afternoon. since it was founded over 50 years ago, the center for strategic and international studies has come to be considered one of the preeminent security focused think tanks

here in the nation's capital. you provide important ideas and scholarships on pressing issues, ranging from matters of defense strategy and budget to america's strategic future in the asia-pacific to the growing threats that we face in the domain of cyberspace. to reviewing the goldwater nichols act that makes up so much of dod's institutional organization. it is because of that last piece of scholarship that are one to come here today. as many of you know, i recently issued my posture statement for the defense department for fiscal year 2017. the first to describe how we are approaching five strategic china,ges -- russia, north korea, iran, and terrorism. it is in this context that i will speak to you today about some key long-term strategic management questions.

the dod will be detailing and discussing with congressional defense committees and the very next coming weeks. as a learning organization, the u.s. military and the defense department has a long history of striving to reform our command structures and improve our like hows and policies they're formulated come and lamented, and integrated. beinghen world war ii is fought and before the defense department was established, military leaders and policymaking officials were discussing how military services could begin five and explored ways to develop stronger policy processes and advice. the result was the national security act of 1947. which amongts, historic changes, establish the position of the secretary of defense, the joint chiefs of staff, and the national security council. later reforms come up quickly eisenhower year changes help strengthen the office of the

defense secretary and gave new authority to the joint chiefs. it was the goldwater nichols act , enacted 30 years ago this fall , that is most responsible for today's military and defense institutional organization. with memories of vietnam and the tragic desert one rate still in defense ands policymakers again considered reform. after nearly four years of work, not to mention strong opinions i my former boss, then defense , thetary caspar weinberger resulting transformation is what we now refer to as goldwater nichols. it solidified the chain of command from the president to the secretary of defense to the combatant commanders. it affirmed civilian control of the military by codifying and law that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is outside

of the chain of command. in order for him to be able to live fido, objective, independent advice to the defense secretary. at the same time, it also strengthened the chairman's role, created the position of vice chairman of joint chiefs, and centralize the role of combatant command. of seniorize the role officers by requiring them to gain professional experience outside of their service in order to advance further in their careers. all senior officers know these arecies today for they integral to career advancement in achievement and they reflect the reality of power service members train and fight every day. as a joint force. right around this time, albeit unrelated to goldwater nichols itself, important changes were made to reform acquisition. these were based on the

recommendations of the packard institution, lat led by former secretary of defense dave packard. as it happens, if lamenting the recommendations was another one of the first challenges i worked on early in my own career. as a whole, all these changes were overwhelmingly beneficial, a credit to the work of not only the members of congress to pass legislation, but also their staff. john henry being one among them, i should say. they put into law has given us generations of soldiers who have grown accustomed to operating together as a joint force. overcoming many frictions before and has enabled our administration to draw greater benefit from the advice of chairman from general colin powell and desert storm to general joe donnelly today.

this year, as goldwater nichols turns 30, we can see that the world has changed since then. instead of the clear threat, we an environment that is for medically different. it is time to consider updates to this critical framework while still preserving the spirit and intent. in someple, we can see areas how the pendulum between service equities and join this may have swung too far, as in not involving the surface chiefs enough in acquisition the banking -- making and accountability. suggestnt world events nudging the pendulum further, as in taking more steps to strengthen the capability of the chairman and joint chiefs to support force management, planning, and execution across the combatant commands. in the face of threats that cut across regional and functional combatant command areas and responsibility.

that's as many increasingly do. with this in mind, i asked the dod managing officer peter levine and general tom to lead a confidence of departmentwide review of these kinds of organizational issues, spanning the office of secretary of defense, the joint staff, the combatant commanders, and the military departments. to identify any potential redundancies or areas of possible improvement. i like to discuss that reviews preliminary recommendations with you today. over the coming weeks, we will execute some of these decisions under our own existing authority. legislation ise needed, we will work with the house and senate armed services committee and implementation as they consider this year's national defense authorization act. of course, both committees have their own important reviews underway as well, making this area ripe for working together,

something i'm pleased to report we have been doing effectively and will continue to do on this topic. i applaud chairman mccain, senator reid, chairman thornberry, each of whom i was able to speak to earlier this morning, and also promised and smith. i look forward to continuing to work closely with all them in our committees. when it comes to these fundamental matters of our national security, that is what we have to do. work together. let me begin with trans regional and trans functional integration and advice. consideringrative the challenges we face are less likely than ever before to confine themselves to need, regional, or functional countries. our campaign does deliver -- to defeat isil a lasting one example. as we take the fight to its

apparent tumor in iraq and syria, and where it has been metastasizing, ar are combatant commanders have had to courtney efforts more than ever coordinate efforts more than ever before. in these cyber command operations as well to leverage their unique capabilities in space and cyber to contribute to the defeat of faisil. the on terrorism, we also potentially face future nationstate adversaries with widening reach and also widening exposure, something we may want to take into account in order to deescalate a crisis and to deter aggression. in other cases, we may have to respond to multiple threats across the globe in overlapping time frames.

and increasingly in increasingly -- and command increasingly complex command makes is not as agile as we should be. we need to clarify the role of and the joint chiefs of staff in three ways. one -- to help synchronize resources globally for daily operations around the world, enhancing our flexibility and my ability to move forces rapidly across the themes between our combatant commands. objective- to provide military advice and not just for future planning. 3 -- to advise on military strategy and operational plans. for example, helping to ensure our plans take into account and delivered fashion the possibility of overlapping contingencies. these changes recognize that in today's conflicts world we need

someone in uniform who can look andss the services combatant commands and make objective recommendations to the apartment civilian leadership of about where to allocate forces around the world and where to apportion risk to achieve maximum benefit for our nation. and the person best posture to do that is the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. we will pursue these changes in line with goldwater nichols's original intent, to enable the military to better operate in a seamless way while still preserving both civilian control and the chairman's independence to provide professional military advice outside of the chain of command. some have recommended the opposite course -- to put the chairman into the chain of command could both chairman dunford and i agreed that would be eroding the chairman's objectivity as the principal advisor to the president and the secretary of defense.

csis reached the same conclusion. adapting combatant commands and continuing to aggressively streamline headquarters. adapting to new functions will include changes and how we manage ourselves in cyberspace in accordance with the emphasis placed on cyber in my posture statement and off the president made in his fiscal year 2017 budget. that in eachclear of the five challenges facing dod, we must deal with it across all domains come and not just the traditional air, land, sea, and space, but also cyberspace. our reliance on technology has given us great strengths and great opportunities, but also simple mobilities and adversaries -- vulnerabilities that adversaries are eager to exploit. we are totaling $35 billion next

year's and why we should ciber's roleges to in dod's command plan. know that dod is currently in the process of reducing our management headquarters by 25% in needed staff. we are on the road to composting that goal next to the partnership of the confessional defense committees -- congressional defense committees could we can meet these targets without combining northern and southern command or inviting desk combining european and african command. actions that would run contrary to why we made them separate. because of their distinct areas of emphasis and their increasing demand on our forces in the pem. those demands have only increased with each demand growing more visible. instead of combining these commands to the detriment of our friends and our allies and our own commanding control capabilities, we intend to be

more efficient by integrating functions like logistics and intelligence and plans across combatantstaff and commands, eliminating redundancies while not losing capabilities and much can be done here. additionally, in the coming weeks, the defense department will look to improve command control where the number of four-star positions have made headquarters either top-heavy less efficient than they could be. based onary is rank hierarchy. this is true from the platoon to the core level. it gets complicated and some of combatant command partners where we have a deep bench of talented senior leaders. where we see the potential to be more efficient and effective, positions filled by four-star generals and admirals will be

filled by three stars in the future. the next area want to discuss his acquisition. after the packard commission's recommendations led to the establishment of an undersecretary of defense for acquisition, service acquisition executives and the roles of programming officers and managers is clear that we still can and must do more to deliver better military capability will making better use of the taxpayers dollars. six years ago, when i was undersecretary of defense for technology and logistics, dod began what i call better buying power, initiative to continuously improve our acquisition system. under the current secretary frank kendall, we are now in the third integration -- and ration. -- what we are seeing positive improvements and time, but there is

still a constant need for improvement, practically as technology, industry, and our own missions continue to change could on. one way is involving the service ,hiefs more in accountability consistent with legislation congress passed last year, including giving them a seat on the defense acquisition board and giving them greater authority and what is known as milestone b. that's where engineering and manufacturing development begins. that is where programs are first defined and a commitment to fund them is made. as i've discussed with the service chiefs, with this greater responsibility comes greater accountability. themselves and their military staff will need to sharpen the skill set, which in places has atrophied over the years to be successful in discharging their new acquisition responsible these. -- responsible these.

i also expect them to leverage the many lessons they have learned over the last years as operators. many of them in war where speed and agility are critical to help our acquisition professionals deliver even better capabilities to our war fighters. another way we will seek to improve is by streamlining the acquisition system itself. and will include evaluating reducing different members of the acquisition board. aboutrently composed of 35 principles and advisors, each of whom is likely to feel empowered as a gate keeper for acquisition. reducing these layers will both free up staff time and focused decision-making energy on overcoming real obstacles for program success rather than bureaucratic hurdles. we also intend to reduce acquisition documentation. for one example, in cases where

the defense acquisition executive serves as the milestone decision authority and current process dictates that 14 sector documents -- separate documents he correlated with them to department, reducing these paper requirements in a meaningful way and pushing the program dow on a right track will eliminate redundant reviews and shorten review timelines, ultimately getting capabilities fielded to our troops ar sooner, which are chiefs desire and deserve. area where we need to update goldwater nichols is in making changes to joint personnel management as part of what i call the force of the future. it's an endeavor i began last year to ensure that our future volunteer force will be just as fine as the one i have the privilege of leading today. change innerations job markets change. we are taken several steps

already, building on rams and off ramps so technical talent can more easily flow between dod and america's great innovative immunities. opening all combat positions to women who meet service standards , to expand our access to 100% of america's population for our volunteer force. and doing more to support military families to improve extending like maternity and paternity leave and giving families possibilities of giving geographic flexibility in return for additional commitments. one of the hallmarks of goldwater nichols is that it made joint duty required for all officers who wanted to rise to the highest levels of our military. in so doing, it led to great advances in joining us across the military services such that

almost all our people know why and how we operate as a joint team. it is also significantly strengthen the ability of our chairman, our joint chiefs, and are combatant commanders to a conflict there joint responsibilities. towe learned over the years learn what it takes to operate jointly, we have learned the different assignments, which are more narrow and rigid than they need to be. we are proposing to broaden definition of positions for which an officer can receive joint duty credit, going beyond planning and commanding control to include joint experience and other operational functions, such as intelligence, fires, transportation, maneuver, protection, and sustainment, including joint acquisition cou. while the staff officer in a

combatant command would get joint duty credit, an officer in the combined operation center cornet in the services of all different uniforms to courtney airstrikes against isil might not. one does cyber plans and gets joint credit. the other does cyber targeting and doesn't. planner at atics combatant plan does not receive joint credit, there operational plans counterpart does. so what we are proposing will fix these discrepancies to ensure meaningful joint experience. additionally, we are also proposing to shorten the amount of time required to accumulate joint duty. from three years to two years. morelk personnel have flexibility to take on command assignments and other

opportunities to broaden and deepen their careers. , going forward, it is important to make all these updates under the guiding principle of "do no harm." goldwater nichols took two years to write and it has been incredibly successful over three decades. to the credit of the reforms it put in place, which are not driven today by a signal failure, like desert 1. on the contrary, i am deeply proud of how our people have operated in iraq and afghanistan over the 15 years. so we come at this from a different direction. the updates we make now must not undo the many positive benefits that goldwater nichols has had for dod. instead, they must build on

them. today on why we are doing this, why it is important that we deal all the pressing charges and threats we have to deal with every day, and as we do that, we take the moment of addressing the topic of our own organizational structure. we do this because our service members deserve the best defense department and military we can give them. because they are giving their best day in and day out all around the globe. here, on both sides of the river here in washington, both sides of the , ase, to come together barry goldwater and sam nunn did 30 years ago, to give our men and women in uniform what they need to succeed. the the right experience to right capabilities to the right leadership structure for the right strategic thinking. confident we do, i'm that they will continue to excel in defending our great country

and making a better future for our children. thank you. [applause] want people to think we didn't pay our bill and that is why the lights went out. [laughter] i should say you were very gracious about my being on the armed services committee. but we have john watered over here. he is one of the architects. [applause] and i forgot one technical announcement. at the end of our presentation, i will ask you to stay here as we get the secretary out. he needs a clear run out to the car. a very substantive speech. so much we could draw on. we are collecting questions from colleagues. we don't need speeches.

that tends to happen when we asked people to address from the floor. so we have collected questions. just hold them up and we have people who will come and get them. start, secretary, because you talked about cyber command. this is a cop located thing. probably any future war we fight will probably begin in the cyberspace, really. how do you see that we integrate the physical fight, that is led and planned and coordinated with a cyber command? is thery carter: that question and that is why we are looking at this. we have a cyber command today. i have given several command in the counter i sell fight their fight-- counter-isil their first command.

that means bringing the fight to isi in syria and iraql. that means inability -- interrupting their ability to plot, including against us here and anywhere else against our friends and allies around the world. interrupting their finances, their ability to pay people, their ability to dominate the population on whose territory they have tried to establish this nasty ideology. all of that, we can approach in part through cyber. to do withhat have the fentcom, which is the geographic command? it is really not just cyber conquered now there is africom. ucom, as you saw what

happened in brussels. we are finding interregional integration, but interregional functional integration. the lines as clean as we can make them. you have to divide up the pie somehow. once you do that, a have to make sure the slices are able to work together and you have not artificially made barriers. go to joey is i dunford for that every day anyway. so as a practical matter, i've got to have that. and i depend upon his professional military advice and his being in constant contact. that is the role i want to make sure i clarify and strengthen. i don't think that was as a parent of people back in the day. to the world -- was apparent

people back in the day. but the world has changed. john: let me ask you about the power geometry in the pentagon. nobody questions the primacy of the secretary. but then there's the question of how important and how powerful is the chairman, how important and how powerful are the service chiefs, how important and powerful are the combatant commanders. what is your view about the right balance of this power challenge? to eachy carter: i look of them. oron't personally institutionally look to them -- they have a hosting responsibilities but i look to the whole crowd. no me give you an example. be goingrnoon, i will with the whole gang, all the chiefs and secretaries and senior civilians are to meet with the president.

we will spend the afternoon with him and have dinner with him. walk togetherill talking about everything, from budget and programs, through the wars, grand contingency planning and the whole deal. john, i will take you to the ones you named. the service chiefs i look at the be multidimensional. and they are. here are fantastic people. i have had a whole bunch of koppelman's, by the way. because i've had to name almost all the chiefs. but let me to you. if i had given you my second choices, you would say the same thing to me. these are incredibly gifted people. they didn't get there for no reason. the chiefs operate as a joint

chiefs hoping the secretary of. in their them individual services. i look at them to take care of our people because that, more important than anything else, makes our military the greatest. they increasingly, i need to hear from them about what they need. so they play a role that was not in what we early on, buy and organize and train and equip. poeple t senior without exceptiono, do it all. i look around the room and there are 20 to 25 people.

i always say, look around the room, gang. it's just us. and when you look at it that way, it doesn't seem like a very large group of people and you are to have all the help it can get. john: secretary, you talked about this complex in the world. we get a radical jihadist element that is waging a more conventional fight in syria and iraq, a more insurgency set of ,ctivities in northern africa is attacking our allies in paris and brussels. going tots that you're have put a greater emphasis on the chairman. could you have a five? secretary carter: desk could you amplify -- could you amplify? sure, forcarter:

example, we try to move things from one theater to another. has tremendous consequence. each individual has attended this he -- has the tendency to say i needed all. they want to do everything they can to accomplish the omission. -- the mission. but we don't have an infinite amount of step and so there needs to be a global integrato r. it is made clear that the chairman is the principal military visor to me in the president. i respect that and very much want that. but it doesn't mean he is also the one who is supposed to be and periodically as we move forces around giving me that advice on where things ought to be and how they are to be used. self-evidently require

d in the world and wasn't part of the initial conception. who willl be others come along later and it's important to clrify -- clarify that that is necessary in today's world. john: a couple of questions here about the battle against isil. there have been some encouraging press reports about the momentum in the field against isil. yet also there is a metastasizing threat. will you share with us how you are currently looking at this? secretary carter: we've got to get these guys beaten a soon as possible.

we are looking for every opportunity we can take to do that. of course, our overall strategic approach is not only to defeat isil, but to keep them defeated. that means you also have to look ahead to the next stage and who is my to keep the peace afterwards, which is why we try to work with local forces, where made capable and motivated, which is difficult in some places. but we are doing more everyday looking for opportunities to do more. better.er the everyas us looking at conceivable way that we can do that. that's why i mention cyber, for

level. -- ciber, forw example. even a few years ago, that was not in the game. this opportunity. these guys are really using this tool and we have to take it away from them. everythingdition to we do in the air and on the ground and so forth. accelerating it. we are gathering momentum. over with to see it in syria and iraq and everywhere around the world. going to drag you into american politics, but it has been startling to hear candidates talk about how nato is no longer relevant. i know you may yesterday with the secretary general. how important is nato now for our future? scribed a very challenging world. where does nato fit in all of

that? secretary carter: let me just say something i have said in other occasions. this, both on my on behalf and on behalf of everybody else in my department. i know this is an election year and we have a tradition in this country. we in the defense department stand apart from that. so i'm going to be very careful of ever addressing anything as .art of a political debates so i just need to preface anything i say on that basis. with meet secretary-general start and buried yesterday. we were talking about the things the things nato is doing and can do going forward.

waged and was successful inending the cold war in a way.ful and principled then the. balkans came and nato ended up being instrumental in that. today, we're looking to it for two particular things. one, is to stand tall against the possibility of russia and -- russianin europe aggression in europe. i regret it, but it is what it is.

and also the possibility of warfare. hybrid then secondly, hoping us in the counter i sulfite -- in the counter-isil fight. difference does it make as having nato as nato in the fight? the reason is where he can add value. for a lot of the smaller countries, it's hard for them to do anything on their own and to join something ad hoc. but if they get into a nato structure, it is easier for them to make a contribution. and we are looking for any kind -- any conservations we can get. nato is a mechanism for doing that. that is what we were talking about yesterday. it turns out, even after its founding mission was so to speak

accomplished, there have proven to be lots of ways where we end onlye have found it not possible but necessary to come together. you can't take for granted that -- you know, one of the reasons well as a do so military -- i'm discord to brag on the institution a little bit -- is, first and foremost, it's people. the world's most preeminent society. and that's good. but the other thing is what we stand for. say that -- my evidence of that is that we have a lot of friends and allies. why is that? it's because they like what we stand for. they like our people. they love working with american servicemembers. they think they conduct

themselves well. they are not only competent, but they conduct themselves -- and i think it's a great credit to these young men and women how much liked they are to work with. you can look around the world and say where is it that we deeply share values to which we are really committed and europe is a place like that. so something that brings us together, protecting something we share, is pretty important. so for all those reasons, we had a lot to talk about yesterday. testifying these days on your budget. you have a bit of a reprieve this year because you have a two-year agreement. caps thatare budget are in law. your successor is going to have to wrestle with a very difficult

problem. we don't have enough money to do the things we have to do. what do you say to the american people? secretary carter: that we need to come together as we did in the two-year wave behind the bipartisan budget agreement. its's the only way. i can't do much about that as secretary of defense. but as a citizen and you have your eyes open, you know that -- well, as secretary of defense, but i do know is our guest strategic defense is the collapse of bipartisan budget agreements going forward, the restoration of the sequester caps. we know we are in real trouble if that happens. i have been consistent in my testimony that we have got to avoid that. we got a reprieve. i'm extremely grateful that we got people to come together. we need to keep doing that. we all know, john, we can do the math. you can't balance the books on the backs of discretionary spending. got to get in the other

parts of the budget. that's much bigger than somebody who has an executive branch responsibility, even a vital mine, cantal one like influence. if we get back to sequester, we are in trouble. for me and the rest of the department, our biggest strategic risk likes in the restoration of sequestrer cap. i'm disappointed this presidential debate is not more defense.

lots of questioning about people in the region -- where is america? -- is theot we real pivot real? have a newarter: we phase of the rebalance. there doubling down on investments for the simple reason that it's the single consequence. important that there be a system of peace and stability. american military power has been a critical ingredient of that for 70 years. we want to keep that going. it's going to have to be different because the dynamics

is different. first japan rose. there was a japanese miracle and a southeast asia miracle. today, an indian and a chinese miracles, all which is great. but you can't take for granted that the environment in which everyone was able to rise and fulfill themselves in their own way -- that has been good for everybody. but this is a region that has no nato, where the wounds of world war ii have not healed. number of coutnries in the southims china sea. for underway, china has been the most aggressive in that regard.

president xi and were talking about this just a few days ago and we will see if made keeps the word it the last time it was here. we are reacting as the rebalance unilaterally. but most importantly, countries in the region are reacting. that is why we are being asked so much more to do so much more. i will beht, travelling int he region. i will be working with countries that want to do more with the united states, particularly in the area of maritime security. it want to do that because they want to keep a good thing going out there. we're committed to that. john: you mentioned in your. india -- you mentioned india. india is an awkward partner threat the years. acretary carter: i do spend

lot of time. the word i use is destiny. here are two great nations that share a lot. a democratic form of government. a commitment to individual freedom. and so forth. so i talked about values earlier on. many is a place that is cultures, but, like us, it is a multicultural melting pot determined to work together. we have a lot in comon in spirit. common have a lot of interests geopolitically and jewish efficiently -- ngo

geotegically -- and strategically. it is also proud. -- india is also proud. they want to do things their own way. they don't want to do things with just us. we don't want to be exclusive. we want a closer relationship and a stronger relationship as we can because it is geopolitically grounded. the specific things we are doing with them is twofold. rebalnace --the the rebalance westward. they have act east. these are like two hands grasping one another and that's a good thing. defensewe have a technology and trade initiative. they want to improve their

technical capabilities of their own defense industry and capabilities. but they don't just want to be a buyer. they want to be codevelopers and coproducers. they want to be that kind of relationship. --t's what we are woking working with them on. and that is what works with prime minister modi's initiative. we are very much in line with what the government there is try to do strategically and economically and what we want to do with them defense wise. there, there will be a whole bunch of things that we will be announcing. shift to say ast lot of concern about our dependence on space and the increasing vulnerability of space assets. -- how are youn

thinking about this? secretary carter: it is a vulnerability and you have to think through vulnerabilities. and when you have them in your military system, a subtly is a fixed start. in orbital mechanics terms, it is a fixed start. there is no train item. we can't dig a hole. there you are. so it is an inherently vulnerable situation. that said, there are things you can do electronically and in terms of or bootable -- of orbital maneuvers to make it difficult for anybody to interfere with your function and we are doing that. but at the same time, you ahvave -- you have to ask yourself what you going to do if it is disrupted, if it is destroyed, to make sure we can accomplish something like the thing functioned in some other way? looking both at

defense and operate through. i asked -- we set up a couple of years ago an operation center. i'll be there in a couple of week, colorado springs. learn job is how protected are you as possible and what do you thef, despite everything, enemy has some success against the constellation, what do you do next to make sure we have a answer to that. the privilegead of watching this powerful intellect for that he five years.

we all please join me with your thanks -- for 35 years. will you all please join me with your thanks. [applause]