arrest the trend, or at least to make it look a little more favorable to the interests of the united states and our allies? not only taiwan, but other allies in the region, and help arm sales play a role in doing this. when we think about arms sales, and what we should sell to taiwan, it may be useful to have a timeline and a sense of perspective, but it may also be useful to think about all the details that are involved. all the difficult questions that get asked all the time. it is a very complex issue and has only become more complex over time. to give you a flavor of how preparedhis can be, i 10 questions. these are not all of questions that there are, but 10 of them. i would ask you to think through these in your minds, as i ask

them. how you answer them to yourself will tell you a lot about what you think we should sell to taiwan, what might be helpful. question number one. does taiwan a war need arms sales for the most? scenario, aion blockade scenario, or maybe something less black and white. question number two, when does taiwan need to be the most ready to fight? in other words, wendy you think china is the most likely -- when do you think china is the most likely to attack taiwan? soon, like any day now? maybe, maybe one year to five years into the future? much later on, like 5-15, or 20 years into the future, or perhaps, never at all?

question number three. do you believe certain weapons systems are inherently offensive, and escalate tory in nature? the believe there are others that are not? question number four. do you believe that taiwanese and american strikes on pla ores in china are necessary, do you believe that a winnable war could actually be fought and limited to the waters of the taiwan strait? another way to ask this question is to say, do you think that if taiwan was attacked, they should then retaliate and take the shouldo the enemy, or taiwan wait, the invaded and try to defeat them on the beaches and in the densely populated taipei suburb and elsewhere? question number five. do you think the united states

is going to come to taiwan's rescue if it is attacked? if so, at what stage in the fight would it be? would it be before, or after zero day? how long would it take to get sizable, sufficient u.s. forces into the theater? bearing in mind that the u.s. southern fleet in tokyo bay is 1300 miles away. they're in mind that the pacific command is 5050 miles away. it's a long way to go. question number six. do you think taiwan's military budget is too big, too small, or just right? the follow-on to that question is, do you imagine that you actually know what taiwan spends on defense? has never been studied. nobody actually knows what taiwan spends on defense. question number seven.

which service or branch in taiwan is your favorite. who do you think is the toughest or the best and most important -- the army, the navy, air force, marines, or the missile command? who should have priority when we consider our sales? and thisnumber eight, is related. which chinese weapons systems, in your minds, are the most menacing to taiwan security? holistic missiles, cruise missiles or drones -- ballistic missiles, cruise missiles or just drones, mines, or helicopters, or pla marines and paratroopers? maybe it is amphibious ships. maybe it is something else. number nine. in your view, are taiwan's security services doing a good job catching spies and protecting secrets, and how do they compare the

counterintelligence and counterespionage services of our other allies, south korea and japan? question number 10. if you were the president of the united states, who would you want your arms sale to affect, and how would you want them to be affected? would you want it to strike fear into the hearts of beijing, the show resolve, or would you want to convince the top leadership of the chinese communist party that is no big deal? they should not cancel the next summit meeting with you. do you care about resolve and morale?- do you see what our other allies have? or is your priority making congress happy or the u.s. defense industry or the pentagon .these are some of the many questions

related to taiwan arms sale. there are so many things to consider. i should have prepared a slide, i apologize. but it looks like this, it you have it. sheet, you at the in recent years we have .old a lot of arms to taiwan the obama administration has done a good job of providing taiwan with a lot of defensive capabilities. we are talking about very large arms sales packages. i think folks in the obama administration are proud to have sold taiwan more in terms of dollar amounts than previous administrations.

but what they have also done is embrace a policy whereby we freeze arms sales to taiwan for extended periods of time, let all the platforms that we want accumulate, and then announce massive packages , at times when it is calculated to be the least offensive to beijing. and the most favorable, therefore, to u.s. prc relations. this approach to arms sales in my opinion has three negative effects. is that itroblem signals to china that we care more about our relationship with them then we care about meeting our commitments to taiwan in a regular reliable fashion. consolidate the zero-sum approach. this can only encourage bad behavior.

the second problem is by allowing arms to accumulate and then announcing these massive intibillion dollar packages, taiwan it has the effect of giving taiwan's parliament, media and public sticker shock. the u.s. argument said, we care about you guys, we really do, look at how many billions of dollars we are willing to sell you. the people of taiwan, when you say that, it seems that we are doing it for profit, and not as a matter of principle. if the white house is a puppet of the military-industrial complex. becauseot selling arms we're set -- caring about taiwan's democracy. we are not doing it because we care about taiwan's continued freedom and security. the third problem with this approach to arms sales is that it disrupts taiwan's ability to manage its own defense budget.

they have a one-year, five year, 10 year, long-term defense budget, which affects the strategy. but if they cannot know in advance if the u.s. is going to sell them weapons are not and at what level,, and what weapons and how many and when, then they cannot do their strategy very well. it creates uncertainty. it creates tension in our relationship, between the pentagon and their administrative national defense. --reduces morality taiwan moralen taiwan -- in taiwan. the last thing we want to do is to pile onto their strategic challenges, but that is what we are doing with this approach. what i would recommend, and it is an easy fix, to go back to the pre-2008 system. if you have a list, you can see what that used to look like, whereby we announce arms sales

to congress in a very regular fashion and generally one platform or maybe two platforms at a time. shock, and sticker it is more reliable. they have more packages, more frequently. as for the weapons themselves, when we think about what we should sell taiwan, what does , theirneed the most treasury is not unlimited. our ability to manufacture things is not unlimited. we have many other allies that we have to worry about as well. facing argue taiwan is the greatest peril. when we think about arms sales, they can have three effects. strategic, operational, and tactic. strategic matters most, because it is at the strategic political

and military leadership, policy makers. this is the level where words are decided. this is the level where wars are presented and deterred. beyou believe that war can prevented and should be prevented, and we ought to be thinking about how we can do that, then this matters. president sheet and being in beijing, this is an example of a decision-making. these are the two people -- and of course the president in taipei. these are the two people you want arms sales to speak to, albeit in different voices. these are the people who at the end of the day will be making the most important decisions for years and years to come. their decisions are going to be every bit as political as he ought to be -- they ought to be. at the operational level, you have a much bigger audience come up but it is still very much a vip only show.

you have war planners on both sides of the taiwan strait. the top generals and admirals. there are not many of them that ultimately make the decisions or war plans. ideally, we should be thinking about whether or not our arms sales give the pla guys in china a huge headache, and if they give the folks at mnd in taiwan a helping hand. another -- another level is the tactical level. that is huge. everybody on both sides of the pacific and both sides of the taiwan strait looks at and analyzes and takes over the latest system, and where the fire power is, and what its range is, and how fast you can reload it. all those types of things, that are interesting to look at. so, we all do. at this level, the level that i met, and that i think most are unless there is a four-star

general in the room, this level is the least important. it is the least important, decisions, the decisions that affect war and by people att made the tactical level. they are not made by unit commanders or research analyst. thinking about strategic arms sales. we need to be thinking about them strategically. it is quite easy. taiwan is on of record publicly asking for four things. new naval surface ships, new submarines, new air defense capabilities, and new cyber security capacity. what does that do to our option prioritize?ld we if you believe in strategic arms sales and not just tactical and

operational, that means we are talking about aegis destroyers. i think that is what taiwan is asking for, and have been asking for for over 15 years. about, in terms of submarines, program management support for the defense submarine program. taiwan is starting to build their own, but they need u.s. technical support. they do have fine engineers. what they need is program management support. the pentagon has limited, if not restricted altogether, any u.s. license or corporations to help. that is a huge problem, in my opinion. and air defenses. this opens up a wide range of options. you could have an side ballistic nowile defense systems, trading with south korea. you could have new patriot missiles. you could do new f-16 sales, and

future f 35 fighter sales to taiwan. these are the master keys of air defense. this is the future of air defense. this is what matters the most. for cyber security capacity, this would include things like joint training and exercises between our cyber command, and taiwan's cyber command or cyber army. there's a lot of options that are there. whatever we sell taiwan, or don't sell, i think it is important that we always are cognizant of the signals we are sending to beijing and taipei when we freeze arms sales and on the sales. i think it is also important that we do many other things justtaiwan, and we don't fixate on arms sales, because arms sales alone will never be able to maintain the balance in the taiwan strait. we need to be thinking about, doing more politically,

diplomatically, more with trade, more with economies, more with the systems of educations. . we need to do things at all levels, from political to security realms. china's militarism, without a doubt, is making asia more and more dangerous. we need to be thinking about strategy, developing strategy, developing new approaches, and looking critically at the approaches that we have adopted so far, and asking ourselves the question, if they are not working, we are not getting what we want, not going the way we like it to go, should we try something new? i would argue we should. i will turn it back over to seth . thank you. [applause] ian, thank you very much. our next and final speaker this morning is paul. he is an old friend, as if

everybody else on panel. he is president of global strategies and transformations, a professional services firm that provides national security strategic analysis, concept development, military expertise, defense industry strategic history asnd applied a planning tool. a novel idea. after paul is finished with his remarks, we will have a chance for an exchange here and questions, and then possibly answers. paul: thank you. i'm glad to be here. i think we have a lot in common. like you, i came to listen, so here we are.

the hudson institute has asked first, an overview analysis of u.s. policy and strategy concerning cross strait andtions in taiwan policy, an evaluation of both including the good and bad aspects, and recommendations for improving such policy. i have 15 minutes to do it. there's always a q and a section. i realize these are grand strategy questions, having as much to do with global economics and american ambitions for a strategic partnership with china, but it is increasingly evident that military shortfalls on our side, and when i say our side i mean the u.s., taiwan, and japan, are driving politics in the wrong direction by encouraging the prc and the belief that not only are we not serious about defending taiwan, but that we are increasingly incapable of doing so. therefore, i would like to

address the broader questions by concentrating on military issues that have developed as a result of increasing the contrary american strategic choices. doh regard to what to answering that question depends on what is going on. in the words of seth, this has been in my view, very critical. it has been a spectacular anlure, underscored by inexplicable military and political languor. in order to answer some of these questions, i wanted to talk about eight issues. these are the eight issues. there is a plan, but not much of a strategy. a strategic u.s. taiwan china triangle, the triangles , theics, time is a factor

reality of geography as a determinant of strategy, american interests, japan as a committed participant, and five prescriptions. there is a war plan, but not much of a strategy, in my mind. the politics of the u.s. taiwan china triangle have forced us into a false logic, doing as little as possible militarily. reveals thethis political military disconnect at any attempt of a viable strategy suffers accordingly. andresult is the awkward contorted political stance of defending taiwan by not angering the prc. its corollary is the faulty logic of easily controllable escalation, and a pang

conclusion that the defense of taiwan against mainland china would be easy, sort of an afterthought. this comes in the face of the implications of escalations temptation without deterrence. warfarecyber and space with civilizational implications. chinarategic u.s. taiwan we considerer time this to be all about taiwan. so, the u.s. and china planning taiwan.d or retake casesime, those planning have become bilateral, not trilateral. two antagonists earlier in this

theyd after the cold war, could not reach each other and it was easy for the u.s. the u.s. could keep taiwan and china apart, when they could reach each other, and it was easy for the u.s. then, the u.s. concluded it china.eter and/or defeat and then we came to the time now with the expansion and redirection to defend the u.s. and attacked the prc, respectively, is a bilateral enterprise between the united states and china. this is no longer just about taiwan. this is america's problem. the u.s. and china have become one another's primary planning case. taiwan is a lesser included case, and the primary planning case is increasingly problematic. this is not deterministic, but the result of china's

intransigence, and we should not hesitate to say so. the triangles politics. the fix is in. apparently, there is nothing that china can do to get us to change our view that china is in fact a strategic partner. economics hold sway, no matter what. that is job number one. collections their in jenny's kind of issues. in the meantime, china is hardening. china is expanding its military. -- you sos fishers with the earlier presentation, he could have put a lot up there with china's determination to make it clear that taiwan cannot be defended. finally, with regard to taiwan,

i don't blame taipei, but taiwan is very ambivalent about its relationship with the united states. first, because of the recognition of course, and other things that happened earlier in the cold war, but also because american behavior has made it quite clear that the united states is going to do as little as possible. time as a factor. the hardening of china has come over time, and eventually this adds up to something. taiwan's isolation has become more drastic overtime. time, the sense of military problem has been foreshortened. we are now in an era of the battle of the first.

that means attention these kinds of conflicts could be over very quickly, if we are not very very well prepared. it is what some analysts in the pacific theater call short, sharp campaigns. the reality of geography as a determinant of strategy. i will have to step to the screen now for a minute. this is the map i grew up with. created by the dean of the us-japan alliance management. a geostrategic reality for the soviet union and the cold war in asia. this is literally cut and pasted, we used to put them on video graphs. in any case, jim came up with this. you can see how japan is the cork in the soviet union's bottle in terms of getting out into the pacific.

this is an updated view. if i can do this on google maps, anybody can. it points the same to illustrate the compelling geography of japan in this issue. but the third version, which amounts to the same geostrategic view, since the perspective to include the drc's broad ocean approaches, and taiwan, the philippines, vietnam and so on. put -- the fourth its most taiwan and appropriate military operational perspective as a key geostrategic aston. -- bastian. taiwan know this is incredibly important from a military perspective. any amount -- american military strategy in the asia-pacific must take into account the salience of taiwan.

by clearly illustrating that -- taiwan's natural allies, and the next puts it into perspective with the prc's maritime salience. in broad military terms, what is happening now, and what is happening for some time, is that china is coming out to sea. this is what is going on. this is why it is such a kerfuffle in the asia-pacific. you can see, taiwan is in the middle of it. whoever holds taiwan will hold the rest of that salient, coming out into the pacific, that operational and strategic wedge. here's another view. the operational centrality of taiwan, right smack there. here is a view of taiwan's political geography, right in the middle of the entire asia political complex.

finally, here is a view of taiwan's geography with regards to the south china sea. position on the northern flank of any maritime operation in the south china sea. is it any wonder beijing does not want us to look at these maps? there, see taiwan up completely thanking anything else that is going on in the south china sea. on innking anything going the south china sea. it helps to look at maps once in a while. interests. first thing, i would take the humorous will rogers' advice. when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. don't continue to make things worse. unfortunately, we do by, as ian described, politicizing the military relationship in a bad way with taiwan. it would seem to me that we should understand what i just

tried to show you on the maps, that taiwan's role in the bilateral sino u.s. competition, in a geographic ledge and politicalwedge, it is because of taiwan's role as a viable alternative to the prc. legally, politically, and ideologically. forget, japan is a committed participant. pig in the bacon and egg breakfast. taiwan's role in the competition is central. tokyo understands this completely and has a fairly , aust, but necessarily different relationship with taiwan. the geography for japan is compelling. japanese territory and taiwan

are separated at the end of the yus by 67 c miles. that's all. taiwan commands the flank of japanese territorial defense. there is no question in tokyo's perspective, that taiwan is necessary for strategic and operational continuity in any military confrontation, peaceful or operational, operation with beijing. and finally, five prescriptions. i've said itk, and before here at hudson. extend this belief. -- k of necessary essential

and china is waging political, war with us as ell as kinetic war because missiles across the strait is not a friendly act. so i think we have to do that first and foremost. the second american interest is frankly, this war must never start. and the reason is because of what i referred to earlier, the implications for the end of civilization of nuclear cyber and space warfare. certainly civilization as we know it. this kind of thought should be familiar to those of you who are old cold warriors and we understood this quite clearly

inn only nuclear warfare was this context during the nuclear cold war. now we've tripled down on this issue and there is no policy in place for escalation deterrent or control. that means that the temptation to pree. is phenomenally strong in wars of the first sal salvo. ent -- next, i think we have to defend the salient they showed and you hold the line on the first island chain. that gives a clear operational direction to american, taiwanese and japanese commanders and i think in doing so we have to, first, if not foremost, we have to concentrate on defenses first and in the short term because if you can't defend yourself, even

a good offense is pointless. so you have to be able to defend. next, and defense is part of this -- we have to develop credible deterrents and advertise them. this doesn't do any good if it's in a safe in the u.s. strategic command some place and nobody knows about it, because deterrence is public property. it's a public good and the chinese have to understand that we would do and we, you and i, american citizens at least in this room have to sign up for it in advance. this is the way deterrents -- deterrence works. so, with regard to credible deterrence, war fighting to win, because in order to deter so you can prevent the war you have to be prepared and capable of winning it. escalation control as a primary objective and tool. planning for disruption in all

of these things, because china is very good at it and understands the power of disruptive capabilities. and building integrated strategies, doctrines and operational plans accordingly for when? to control escalation and fight under disruptive circumstances. and finally, back to taiwan, because i've tried to lay out why this is our problem, not taiwan's problem. alliances bring necessary mass and capability to a conflict. but there's no liability like an alliance liability if they're not strongly anchored. so i would recommend, number ne, fortified c.f.i.s.r. command control, computers,

surveillance, recon nance -- reconnaissance, as a linchpin of deterrence. why? because we're either going to hang together or hang separately, as our revolutionary forebearers said. second, i would restore taiwan's military credibility on the japan model. the japan model of military credibility does not include power projection and strike. and i think that's probably appropriate for taiwan. however, it's robust in every other way. the u.s.-japan alliance is a work in progress. you've heard me talk about it before. you know i think that but nevertheless, it's a pretty good model. third, we're just starting to see the beginning of this and i would recommend it as a general approach to reverse the cost

benefit equation imposed by china on us. it's much more difficult to defend against missiles than it is to use missiles as an offensive capability but new defensive capabilities are coming out of organizations like the strategic capability office with high-velocity project eyes, rail guns and so on -- projectiles, rail guns and so on that will reverse that cost curve. and pine -- finally, like the roman senator who always ended his remarks by saying carthage hub -- must be destroyed. i would recommend a u.s. assessment. thanks. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, paul. you need to find a latin expression for your last short and pithy remark there. >> history.

>> right, ok. there are several questions i would like to ask but i see that we have 15 minutes left so let's throw the floor open here or at least allow people on the floor to ask questions and then if there aren't then i'll ask questions. here. second row, please. and i'm sorry -- when you get the microphone, would you please tell us your name and if you work for an organization or represent one, tell us that also. thank you. >> my name is grace kaun. i'm with the institute for korean american studies and my question has to do with, to what extent does china's policy towards taiwan affect its policy towards north korea? in other words, how does north korea figure into this larger

strategy? it looks, by looking at your maps, it seems as if china would ver accept a unified korea that was democratic because that would encroach on their projection outward. >> also in the future, if you would please say to whom your question is directed. >> i think there's a consistency in china's approaches to both south korea and taiwan that is quite evident. china doesn't have the kind of claim that it makes regarding taiwan with south korea but it is quite clear that it will control the korean peninsula one way or the other, so i think there's a consistency that's quite evident in chinese policies, actions, capabilities. >> i think there's a direct

relationship and it's historic. mao was convinced not to invade taiwan in 1949 because of a bribe from stalin. a very good bribe but the goal to take taiwan has remained. and now north korea has become a nuclear-armed proxy for china to influence the actions of the united states, japan, and in my opinion, for china to use to create favorable scenarios that y assist the intimidation or metro con quest of taiwan. putting north korea's nuclearized c.b.m. on a chinese-made tell is about as obvious as you can get that china wants north korea to be a threat that it can use to influence the united states,

japan, south korea, and to influence the evolution of the strategic balance in aisa. > in the back of the room. >> my name is rein pickerel. the president -- has made the commonnist party the vanguard of the chinese. mr. fisher, do you think the u.s. with the help of taiwan the squelch's hat will chinese resolve? like can we muster that level of deterrence? >> yes, we can but working with continuously te a

effective deterrence that is pursued in coordination with , hopefully with the philippines and with an attentive eye to not just the balance of power in aisa but also the global balance of power and how the strategic relationship between russia and china is evolving are all components of an effective strategy going forward to deter hina from ville torrey adventurism. adventurism. ry >> can i answer that? >> please. >> i think it's important to think about the difference between deterrence and resolve, or the connection between the two. what we've been describing are actions that might and hopefully

would deter china. but that's different than diminishing their resolve and i think the implications of that conclusion, if i'm right about it is that we're in this for the long haul. i don't think the chinese can afford to back away from this and i don't anticipate that they will, which is why a strong deterrent posture is so important. it's going to have to transcend administrations and may have to transcend generations. as i said, we're in this for the long haul. >> i have a question for the panel in particularly for paul. since we have nuclear escalation dominance, why wouldn't we leverage it over china? >> it's encouraging for me to

e a young man quote herman khan. where is he when he need him? that seems to me to be tied in with the diminishment of american strategic thinking. the earlier conclusion, i think, proved terribly wrong, that we're beyond all of that and don't have to think about deterrence and now what seemed o be financially based objections to the modernization of the american strategic nuclear arsenal but which are in reality ideological thrusts at the heart of american deterrence, so i think first and foremost, we have to kind of get back on the horse here and riled rman kahn because he and his

colleagues, marshall and others, were right about how this has to work and it's a terrifying prospect and frankly, i don't see much interest in going back to that because it's like going back boo the horse of horrors. who wants to do that? >> i don't think we have control over escalation dominance. russians estimate china has 500 tactical nuclear weapons. by some estimates, the united states only has 500 for global alliance obligations. the united states has for-gone the development of immediate and intermediate range nuclear armed ballistic missiles while that is a vigorous and growing concern on the part of the chinese. we need to redreads -- redress

this balance and do it quickly if we are going to have a reasonable chance going forward in maintaining control over escalation. >> but i would also add that the fundamental problem today is not a military problem. it's not the number of chinese weapons or chinese strategy. the fundamental problem is political. right, we don't have a treaty alliance with taiwan. we don't even recognize the republic of china, which is taiwan's official name. we don't even recognize it as a real country. of course it is. i've lived in china and i've lived in taiwan and i can tell you these are two different governments in two different countries. one is a communist country and the other is a capitalist democratic country. but if we can't recognize that and figure out how to move our political, our tip lo -- diplomatic relationship with

way, in a more normal can't even one day envision having an embass -- embassy in taiwan, how can we even start to think about going to nuclear war with this country we don't acknowledge exists. that's the fundamental problem. no one questions our resolve and willingness to escalate to the nuclear level with china if so required. with taiwan, for political reasons, it's a very different situation and very complicated and i would argue that if we had more vision politically about the future, other problems -- things would fall into place. >> reports of the obama administration considering a new policy of no first use of nuclear weapons would, in the

asian region, very quickly become destabilizing. the assurance of the american nuclear deterrent keeps so many corks in the bottle that taking this away, even over some of these bottles will impel some of our alleys to consider very, very seriously their own nuclear deterrence and throw up in the air all kinds of collations. -- calculations. >> i'm trying to be selective here. >> so that we include everyone from all the rows. >> good morning. my name is dennis northeasten. i'm from catholic -- needlessen. 'm from catholic university of america. i'm wondering if in order to say

that taiwan must be protected, do you think that the vietnamese feel the same way about the chinese because of their historic animosity the -- i'm sorry, i'm addressing this question to all you question -- that vietnam would feel just as strongly about a defensive pact potentially with the united states, despite the fact that it's also a communist government, that it possibly has the same thick to fear from china as taiwan does? >> no state in aisa has a longer record of animosity and yet ongoing practical relations with china than vietnam does. and i think your -- you're ordering the real politic implications of better relations, better u.s.-vietnam relations and i think that the

vietnamese are as interested in that relationship as we will let them be. and so far because of human right issues, we haven't let that relationship develop. there's opinion, as you know as well as i do, talks and visits some think that continued chinese bad behavior will make the improvement of u.s.-vietnamese relations a walkover and that it will become such an obvious and apparent benefit to all concerned that it will happen. we'll see. we'll see. i would say yes, as achievable -- yes, vietnam will pursue advantages that it can derive from the united states major on't foresee any shift towards formal alliance. it is to hanoi's credit,

however, that they are not diplomacy much on for anywhere security. they're investing in their own deterrent and the capabilities that they're acquiring are quite impressive and do put the chinese on notice. >> first row? >> my name is -- i'm a member of the reagan foundation. we used to talk about one china olicy years and years ago. i have a pretty good idea of that but i want to hear your comments on that. it's kind of putting our hand in the back, so to speak. so thank you. >> i think this would be the key issue for the next administration.

that right now our china policy is outdated. we made it in 1978, 1979. a lot as changed in aisa since that time. taiwan is now a democracy, for example. at that time, the people's republic of china was a useful partner in our broader global cold warrington with the former soviet union that. threat no longer exists. it's now transformed into something different. so it may be advisable and i would certainly advise, whoever comes into the white house next year within their first weeks to have a national securities memorandum focusing on how we can bring the u.s.-china policy into line with objective reality into what has transpired in aisa because aisa looks in our relationship with china and taiwan, looks nothing like it did in 1977.

so i think we need to we look at that. i agree entirely with paul that need a real, legitimate net assessment at the military level but at the political level -- again, it's at the political level where wars are made and wars are prevented and detered. i think we need to do this. >> i think we have time for one more question. here on the first row. >> hi, nadia sps chow with the liberty times. i have a question for ian and richard. there's only a few months left. i think some people are still expecting the obama administration might have another round of arms sells to taiwan. do you think that's possible? if possible, what type of capability should the other administration should consider? not in a dollar amount.

>> nadia, as you know, of course it's possible and of course there are systems that are outstanding. the last now. came on december 16th of last year. i think the very day that i was last at the hudson institutes and we were talking about this topic. was it the same day or next day? well, that package, which was impressive, and again you can see it in the handout all that was included after that four-year, three-month freeze. it left ironically a lot out. which would include seahawk helicopters for hunting submarines, the romeos. it also left out tay won's outstanding program for their indigenous submarine. it also left out licensing for u.s. companies to provide taiwan with technical support for their

indigenous such -- submarine program. we promised to provide taiwan with diesel submarines. we failed to meet that commit. taiwan has now run out of patience. they realize they can wait no longer and now they're trying to work on an indigenous build and i think we ought to support that. in addition, there are so many capabilities we can provide. abrams tank for the army to new f-16's for the air force. drone support, for example, for electronic attack systems to suppress chinese systems. new capabilities. i would defer to rick on these hardware issues but these would be some of the low-hanging fruit, anytime. the question, is the political will there? that's a big question. >> i would simply add, nadia,

sales , another arms package from the obama administration would constitute n enormous show of support and confidence and are the new administration. if that's possible, it should be welcomed. will it happen? i don't have any inside knowledge that it will. and if it doesn't, that then falls to the next administration to hopefully make a strong statement early in its first term of support for taiwan by offering such a robust package. and what ian has mentioned in terms of what could be on the list is very advisable. and finally addressing the question of support for the submarine program must be addressed. that will be the main judgment

level that this next arms package and will be the measure of our seriousness in our willingness to support taiwan's self-defense. >> i would just like to add the organization that -- observation that whenever it comes, the next arms package is only going a difference in degree, not in kind. and i think what we've tried to make clear here is that we need the change in the whole contexted structure of this relationship because, as ian said so cogently, it's not the same taiwan and china when this relationship was recast in the very late 1970's so it's time to look at this from the ground up and not concentrate and spend all our energy on -- oz important as they are, the arms

packages. >> ladies and gentlemen, first of all, thank you, panel. richard, ian, paul. excellent presentations, as usual. thank you everybody who came out for this event and i just want to make a point here that in the approach to the presidential election and then the time immediately following it, we're going to be holding monthly conferences on the u.s.-taiwan relationship so watch your email spaces and other forms of communication and we hope to see you again soon in the near future and thereafter as well. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> here's a look at our prime-time schedule on the c-span networks.

starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, former presidents bill clinton and jimmy carter on public service and global politics. on c-span 2, it's book tv with books and authors who've written about education and on c-span 3, it's american history tv with our series "the contenders," looking at candidates who have run for the presidency and lost. tonight we examine the life and career of adlai stevenson. voters have been heading to the polls for primary ways races in several vathes states and tonight we have live remarks from house speaker paul rein, who's been challenged in his primary race. the polls in the badger state close at 9:00 p.m. eastern and we should hear comments from speaker rein and mr. nellen shortly after that. then we take your phone calls and reaction. >> good morning to you. guest: good morning, thanks for

having me. host: so i guess we should start in wisconsin with all eyes on paul ryan's primary contest. re we going to see another kanter repeat here? guest: i think no one expects rein to lose or come close to losing today. he has a huge amount for his campaign account compared to his primary challenger paul nehlen. host: obviously they would have to spend them by today if they're going to make their point before election day, correct? guest: yes, but there's no indication that rein has been spending heavily, which you would expect him to do if he was

in any real danger. polls have shown rein with an enormous lead over his opponent. host: when are we expecting to know about that rein race as returns come in tonight? guest: it sort of depend on how long it takes votes to be counted but i wouldn't be surprised if the a.p. called it shortly after returns start coming in as you mentioned, people has paid a lot of attention to this primary in part because of house majority leader eric kantor's loss two years ago in virginia. if anything, i think the press has sort of overcompensated here, treating really someone who's a long-shot candidate as maybe a bigger challenge than he has been. host: are you expecting any reaction from the donald umsfeld -- trump campaign?

guest: donald trump did weigh in but it appears his spat with paul rein is over and i wouldn't expect him to weigh in on behalf of somebody who's getting blown out in a primary. donald trump, by the way, has only officially endorsed in one republican primary in the house so far this cycle. that was g.o.p. rep renee elmers down in north carolina, who is one of the only incouple bentz to lose her primary so he doesn't exactly have the best track record here. host: any incumbents in danger of losing their primaries tonight? guest: uh, no. this has been a pretty good year for indumb -- incumbents defeating their challengers. on the republican side there's

only been three who have lost so far and nobody has lost so far to a tea party-esque challenger in the way that mr. nehlen is. host: there's also a primary in minnesota's second district, the seat of retiring congressman john kline, expected to be competitive in november. it's a swing seat. how is that general election shaping up? guest: yes, there are a couple of different other open-seat primaries that are expected to be decided tonight. one is down in minnesota where republican congressman john kline is retiring. he has weighed in on behalf of one of the candidates at a late date but i think it's expected that jason lewis will be the favorite there and then also in wisconsin, eighth district where republican congressman reid

ribble is retiring. this is a seat that republicans also see as a top target. there are two republicans facing off there for the chance to hold on to that seat. one, mike gallagher, a former marine is generally considered the favorite. host: you mentioned democrats looking ahead to the fall and the possibility of taking control of the house. are democrats putting in place the candidates necessary to take advantage of a wave if it develops this fall? is the house in play? certainlyocrats would say the house could be in play, although they've shied away from making really bold predictions that they're going to retake the house. they have sort of a very, very slim path to retaking the house. in part because they just do not have candidates in a huge number of races. when republicans retook the

house back in 2010, they ran a huge number of candidates who had fairly substantial resources and then many of them won. whereas democrats would have to prevail in almost all of the races that they are in competitive in to retake the house so it's expected to be for them.-- climb there are two primaries, as i mentioned, the one in wisconsin's eighth district today and the one in minnesota's second district, which takes in the minneapolis suburbs, where they'll have to win in november if they want to have any shot at all of retaking the house. host: theo meyer is a campaign pro reporter for politico. we appreciate your time tonight. thanks so much. >> thanks for having me. >> and those polls closing in wisconsin in just under two

hours, at 9:00 eastern. we expect comments from house speaker paul rein and from his opponent in that primary. business executive paul nehlen. live coverage here on c-span and your comments as well. it will be tuesday, november 8 for the presidential election. we'll be talking about presidential results. donald trump on the campaign trail in north carolina, speaking this evening in fayetteville, but it's his comments in wilmington, north carolina earlier today that are drawing criticism. his comments about hillary clinton being able to appoint supreme court justices if she wins the presidential election. here's his comment earlier today. donald trump: hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the second amendment.

by the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. although the second amendment people, maybe there is, i don't know. but i'll tell you what that will be a horrible day, if -- >> the number of democrats calling that an assassination threat, a death threat. here is senator warren tweeting about that this afternoon -- donald trump makes death threats because he's a pathetic coward who can't handle the fact that he's losing to a girl and a response from the national rifle association saying that donald trump is right. if hillary clinton gets to pick her anti-second amendment judges, there's nothing we can do. they also say that there is something we will do on election day -- show up and vote for the second amendment and that again from the national rifle association. and up next here on c-span, we're going to show that you

speech from wilmington this afternoon from donald trump. it's about 50 minutes and those comments on appointing judges, etc., we just showed you, they're about 40 minutes? ♪ make no doubt i love this land od bless the u.s.a. where at least i know i'm free and i won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me and i'll gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today because there ain't no doubt i love this land od bless the u.s.a. i'm proud to be an american

where at least i know i'm free and i won't forget the men who died who dave -- gave that right to me ♪ donald trump: thank you, thank you. thank you very much. thank you very much. so amazing. rudy just left. he just said i don't believe this. this is unbelievable. nobody believes it. [cheers] >> the crowds we're getting. i'm the messen jer but i'll tell you what, the message is the right message. we're tired of incompetence. we're tired of not taking care of our military. we're tired of not taking care of our vets, who have been taken care of very poorly. we're tired of so many different things so our mayor, my friend rudy giuliani just walks out and

says i don't believe this. this is incredible. what he hasn't seen -- and your governor, by the way, who's a great guy, and he's now seeing it. they're walking outside because there are thousands of people outside that can't get in i said rudy, you think this is bad, go take a look outside. i want to thank pat and rudy and i want to thank everybody for being here and we're going to have a good time. we love north carolina. we love north carolina -- we did really well in the primaries, if you remember. we're doing really well now. we have to win. that november 8th date is so important. it's so important. i bring things up like the judges, the supreme court justices. you could have as many as four -- i guess there's a scenario in which this president could pick five supreme court justices and if you pick two that are left,

left, left it's going to be a disaster for our country. your second amendment, the national rifle association endorsed me and they endorsed me early, a long time ago -- [cheers] >> and they're great people. wayne, and chris, they're great people but if you do something with this, i tell you what, justice right now -- you lost a great one with scalia. we want to replace with justices very much like justice scalia and that's going to happen and so important. so -- so if for no other reason -- one of the most important elections for a lot of reasons, not just that. but for a lot of reasons and -- but that's so obvious because for whatever reason, they say this could be the presidency, this next four years, where you'll pick more supreme court justices than anybody has ever had the opportunity to do and

believe me, i'll make you very proud of those justices. they'll be good. ok? so we had an incident a few days cash.th the 400 million anybody know what that looks like? that's a lot of cash. and honestly, it's so sad. think of it. ing to iran, a terrorist statement i happen to think they have plenty of money. we've given them there are 150 million -- billion. so the $400 million -- i happen to think it goes into their demts switzerland, personally. people say no, they use it for terror. but i also think that when you ave 400 million in cash, different denominations.

did you see the size of this? they did, i guess, release the pictures after all. they released pictures and interesting -- i sort of think it goes into bank accounts, right? i sort of think they take it, they probably use some for this, some for that, can do a lot of things and obama said that he did it because we don't have a working account with iran. do you believe it? how long does it take to set up an account, right? you don't have a working account, you set up an account, right, laura? you set up an account. it takes about -- well, look. what's going on in this country -- folks, folks, what's going on in this country is insane. and we have people running our country that don't know what they're doing. they're grossly incompetent and it's time. we have to make change, real change. not obama change. we have to make change.

whether it's sergeant berg tall where we get bergdahl, who was a traitor and they get five of the greatest killers that they've wanted for eight years. i call it the five for one trade. or the iran deal where we get nothing. we get nothing. ultimately they have a beautiful path. they'll get way, way earlier than that. they'll get nuclear weapons. oh, if you get trump, you're going to see a lot of changes to that deal. going to happen fast. you're going to see some big changes and really -- i saw what president obama said, that the $400 million in cash was not -- had nothing to do with the elease of the hostages, right? it really doesn't work, does it? does it? remember obamacare? you're going to keep your doctor, you're going to keep

your plan? over and over again. it was a lie and in fact, if he didn't make the lie he would have never gotten it approved because most democrats -- many of the democrats didn't want to do it. it was only that that got them to sign it, to approve it. and it was a lie. and the $400 million and from what the rumor is and from what the reports are, the hostages couldn't leave the airport until this other plane arrived. they don't know why but i think we all have a pretty good reason why. it's all a big lie. it's all a big lie and it's so sad to say -- see. and let me tell you, hillary clinton is going to be four more years of obama but maybe worse. audience: boo! maybe worse. going to be four more years. four more years of isis, four more years of high taxes.

you know, yesterday, i had a big event, really. turned out to be a very big event in detroit. good event. very good. we got wonderful reviews and a lot of good comments but the thing i'm doing, i'm cutting taxes big league. especially for the middle class and especially for businesses, because businesses are dying. that means small businesses, businesses, period. businesses are leaving our country like they've never left before. they're going all over. they're going to mexico, that i can tell you. mexico is like the eighth wonder of the world. i've been telling a story, a friend of mine, good friend of mine, good guy. he builds plants for cars, for computers, massive plants and i said to him how are you doing? and he's worked in north carolina, by the way. i said to him how are you doing? he said phenomenal. it's like i think the biggest in

the world at this. that's what he does. great guy. i said how's it all going? he said you have to see mexico, donald. it's the eighth wonder of the world. what we're building there is like never has been built. i said how are things going in the united states. i'm more interested in, that right? america first, folks, america first. [cheers] donald trump: america first. get a little tired of these deals, where they actually put -- you know why. because of lobbyists and special interests and people representing and people wanting it to happen. it's just not that they want other countries to benefit over us. there are reasons for us. when i raise money and i'm putting up a lot of my own money

for my campaign. i'm funding me and i'm raising money for the republican party and we're getting a lot of money from the small donors. remember be a few months ago, i wanted to make sure i dot the nomination before i startled. i took a lot of heat from the press, the world's most ishonest people, by the way. >> terrible, terrible. those cameras will not move and show how many people are in this auditorium. those cameras are not going to move, unless we have a protestor. is there a protestor up there in the corner? if we have a protestor, that's the only time they move. because they're showing something that in their find mind is a bad thing. but i like that. then the cameras show these massive crowds and people say wow, was that a big crowd. i go home to my wife and say

how's it going? darling, your speech was very good. were there any people there? i say yeah, about 7,000. you had to see outside. thank you, and i love you too. who said that? who said that, huh? thank you. thank you. but i came up with rudy from new york and we're driving up and we're going block after block after block, the linebacker. and i said are those people going to be able to get in? they said the place was already full and rudy just said man, i've never seen anything like that. maybe a couple of days before an election but this is what's happening. because of the fact we have a movement going, folks. because people are so tired of it. they're so tired of it. [cheers] >> so -- and by the way -- and

by the way. voter i.d., what's with that? what's with voter i.d.? why aren't we having voter i.n. and in other words, i want to vote, here's my identification. i want to vote. as opposed to somebody coming up and voting 15 times for hillary. audience: boo! >> well, and i will not tell you to vote 15 times. i will not ell you to do that. ok? you won't vote 15 times but people will. they'll vote many times and how that could have happened is unbelievable. the governor just told me they're going before the united states supreme court, justice roberts and maybe they can get a

stay. let's see what happens, ok? let's see what happens. that's a very important thing. but i wrote a few things down and to me, so important. yes, darling, thank you. unstable hillary. lacks the judgment -- now, bernie sanders said she lacks judgment, right? and nobody said anything about it. no problem. he said you lack judgment and during one of the debates nobody said -- it was fine. when i say it they say that's terrible the way you talk. she cuzz, she lacks judgment. she lacks temperament and i'm the one that used "unfit" many, many months ago and now they turn it around, use it on me. unfit? i'm unfit? that's a first. but she lacks the temperament and the moral character to lead this country. very simple. she really does. she's a dangerous person who

doesn't tell the truth, which has been proven very loudly. i don't think we've ever had greater proof of that of anybody. and she's disregarded the lives of americans. you see what's happening -- with what she's done with her server and you know why she did that. so i just look at this and i said that if she gets elected, destruction the of this country from within. remember that. remember that. she will allow people into our country that will do damage -- that will do damage, folks. you look at what's going on in the world. look at france. take a good look at france. i have pretends that go to france. they used to love france. they say no, thank you. they don't expect to be going back for a long time.

i have one trip, i said how was your trim to france? he said france isn't france anymore, we're knot going anymore. so many people are saying that. look at germany. what's going on with the -- germany. look at the problems. we have enough problems that are going on in our country right now, we don't need additional problems, folks. we don't need additional problems. and for all we know, this could be the great trojan horse, this could be. we don't know who these people are. now, they're coming in through obama and i looked at a chart yesterday and for years it's sort of like this, a little uptick and the last number or period of time it's like wa, wa, they've never seen anything like it. they're letting them in and again, you can't vet them. you don't know where they come

from. look at the damage that two people in san bernardino, probably radicalized the guy, the woman coming in. look at the damage in orlando. look at the damage that was done in orlando by one whack job, one sick whack job and you know what he was scream something he's screaming what they all scream and we have to get smart, folks. we don't need the problems. and we've already got those problems, just so you understand, because they're coming into the country and they're being put where nobody even knows where they are. it's like, if i were the enemy, i would say i can't believe they're that stupid. they're taking my people and they're putting them all over the place. because you have a great military right here, and our military -- [cheers] >> our military cannot be beaten

but you know what can happen? when we don't know where they are, where they're coming, from you get them all over the place. and folks, it'ssome. you don't need many. one person in orlando. two people. look at in france, 130. now, they have the strictist gun laws -- strictest gun laws anywhere in the world. france, paris. 130 people killed and i've said 100 times this man or that woman or that woman or man had a gun in paris or san bernardino and the bullets were flying in the other direction, would have been a whole different story, folks. [cheers] >> for those foolish people that say second amendment, would have been a whole different -- i go a step further. if these people. bad people.

bad, sick, sick, people. if these people knew there were guns in the good guys' hands, they probably wouldn't have gone in the first place, all right? gun-free. you know what a gun-free zone is? that's like -- oh, they study where the gun-free zones -- if they would have known you had guns. if they would have known that they were going to be shot at from the other side, would have been a who i will different story. maybe wouldn't have even happened in the first place. they better not come here, he said. they better not. so recently a book came out, a couple of weeks ago. a secret service agent, and made a statement because she said the other day she short circuited. hey, could you imagine if i said

that i short circuited? [laughter] > they would be calling for my execution. electric chair. they'd bring back the electric chair. it would be a whole different ballgame if i said it. believe me. but the secret service said she simply lacks the integrity to serve in the office. from the bottom of my soul, he said, i know this to be true. her leadership style, when is volcanoic and impulsive and she makes bad decisions. ok? hey, it's one thing to make bad decisions. it's another thing to be wacky and make bad decisions. [cheers] >> she is disdainful of the rules set for everyone else and she hasn't changed a bit. this is -- that was the good

thing. i couldn't say the bad things that were said. it's so much. nobody would even believe it. you have to see this beautiful. nobody would believe becausest so terrible, so terrible. and she comes across like this woman, nice, easy, but she's not and she's she's -- listen, she's not a leader. not a loader and she is a liar. -- leader and she is a liar. ey -- hey. 33,000 emails are gone. ok? 33,000 emails are gone. that i gone. how do you get rid of 33,000 emails? who sinds 33,000 emails? do you know how many that is? i think that's like 24 hours a day reading them or sending them

but it wouldn't matter. for years. 33,000 emails are missing and she's so guilty. she's so guilty. i think it's a tremendous blotch on our country. i really mean that. i think what happened over the last two weeks with respect to her, especially in light of the fact that general petraeus and in others have suffered unbelievable consequence. i think it's a tremendous ballot on our country. a tremendous blot. just remember that. but i just looked at this, the economic failures of obama and clinton, etc. obama-clinton economic policies have produced 1.2% economic growth, the weakest so-called recovery since the great depression. this is like unbelievable. 1.2. do you know if china goes to 7% or 8% it's like a national

catastrophe. what they do is cut their currency, they devalue their currency big league and then all of our businesses continue to be drained out of the united states. all our money, our jobs. they make our product, sell us to us. no tax, no nothing. they devalue -- devaluing is sort of like cheating. i have great relationships with china. i have great businesses with china. in sanhe bank of america francisco with the group -- thank you, man. got to win north carolina. thank you. thank you. but it's cheating. it's really cheating. and when i look at these trailed deals, it's so sad. $800 billion, with a b dollars a year on trailed with. china alone it's $400 billion

and $500 billion and in 18 years people in the audience are making less money than they were 18 years ago, and in many cases they are working to in three jobs, but making less money now than they made 18 years ago. come out, real wages. they are giving road, so it is supposed to be the other way. hey, bud, how about me? i never worked harder in my life. it, because i have met so many incredible people. a tremendous understanding of this country,

because i am going to places i have heard about, have known about. i am stopping everywhere, and i e the carnage that nafta has brought. i see upstate new york, north carolina, but new england, new england got really wacked. you look at ohio, what is happening there. like it is going to happen. it is getting worse. is going onan, what with the car plants being built in mexico is unbelievable, and they are moving. we were talking about the auto workers yesterday where they have lost over 100,000 michigan, which is our car capital, and it is not the car capital anymore. mexico will become the new car capital of the world in a short time. now, think of it, and that's

only because we allow it to happen. mexico, and i respect the leaders of mexico because they are much smarter, but much smarter and more cunning than our leaders. but you have to see what is going on. indianahe reasons i won was bobby knight, because he is the best, greatest, but one of the reasons is that carrier air-conditioning but 1400 people go and they are building a plant in mexico. we are not going to let it happen. if you think you have great jobs, companies are negotiating from north carolina to move to mexico, and other places. make possible by our federal government, made possible by the --ple that connected this enacted a suicidal pack for this countryn.

-- country. i cannot believe i am a politician. but i have been watching for years, as the government tries to keep businesses from leaving and going to other countries, and i have seen low-interest loans, 0% interest loans, subsidies, forget it. that will not work. carriergoing to work is moves to mexico. good luck. have a nice plant. i hope my friend builds it. when they make their air-conditioners, and they think they are going to sell the air conditioner to people living in indianapolis, where they come from, for similar prizes, and they think the airport to sell it there and have no repercussions? with me, they have repercussions, ok? with me, we inform them that if pay ave, you are going to

35% tax on everything or air conditioner that pours across , andow very secure borders two things will happen. one of two things. one of two things are protected. if you get them in time, they are not moving, throws it all off balance, offkilter. number one, and people would say, why doesn't anybody use this, why doesn't anybody mention it? are controlled by lobbyists and locations, and carrier goes on, i am using carrier as an example, hundreds and thousands, thousands of companies, and millions of jobs we are talking about. i was looking at numbers -- i will not repeat the numbers, say they can't believe they are that high. what it is thousands of companies and millions and millions of jobs, and you say

why aren't -- why doesn't somebody else a what truck is trump is saying? we rate $82 million last month. $82 millionised last month, and a lot of it was small money donations. it averaged $61 a head. the total that we raised, and effect in may i told you i was taking the heat, because they said donald trump did not raise any money. i told you why. i did not raise it because i was not sure i had the nomination. if i had the nomination, i would have gone to turnberry and played golf, in scotland. but i got the nomination, and now we can start, and we raised a lot of itin june,

in small donations, and we raised $82 million in july. people are going, even the the people who truly hate trump, they say that ing, and people want to hear this message, an important message. say and you hear what i just said, you charge a territory tax, and guess what -- and people say, why haven't the politicians spend smart, why haven't they done it? because they are controlled by people that work for many of these companies, and they are not going to do it, whether it is donors or special interests or lobbyists, they control because they want it to happen. honestly, i think it is a total disgrace, i think it is a total disgrace. and formillions of jobs

the thousands and thousands of companies that have left our to speakif i were here to every one of those companies for five minutes -- [booing] bye-bye.: they were so quiet. i like the hillary protesters because they are so quiet. protest -- the birdie bernieers were -- the protesters have a lot more spirit. i think we will get a lot of voters, if you want to know the truth, because they understand that trade is killing them. if you of thes,

fact i wrote, which is the armies. lowest -- forget it, probably much higher. when they announced 1.2%, that isns it is lower, and 1.2% starting to set records. the national debt, almost $20 -- then -- $20 trillion national debt under obama has doubled. figure at, doubled. i think by the time he gets out, it will more than double, but we have to be accurate because they not quitet is doubled. believe me, by the time he gets out it will have more than doubled. the national debt is doubled, and the bad part of that, you think of the national debt has doubled, our infrastructure, we would have beautiful i was, you

see where 50% of the bridges are in danger in this country, and the roads ways are messed. he hadd says four years no problems, and he has these big trucks be in the wheels are getting wiped out because of potholes on the highways. you think with that doubling of the national debt you would good shape from the infrastructure standpoint, right? we are in very bad shape. $800trade deficit, almost billion, nearly 24 million americans in their prime earning years are out of the labor force, right? in the last seven years, another 14 million people have left the workforce. think of it, these are the real numbers, not the 5% nonsense. you look for a job, you cannot find your job, you go home, you go your parents, friends, do whatever. you gave up and now you are considered statistically

employed. those people are not employed. these people are great people. there are plenty of them in here. people, the most loyal people, the smartest people. so many of my people, they are so smart. i do noty, trump -- know if he has a right --we have the smartest people and the best and the hardest working. we have the smartest people. we will put iq's among some of us, you can say all of us can against any of the iq's that we have to do with. i would love to do that. 14the last seven years, million people, one in five american households do not have a single member in the workforce. pretty bad. homeownership -- this is one that is amazing to me. today home ownership is at its lowest rate in 51 years.

you own homes, and used to be the dream to own a home, right? the american home. lowest that it has been in so many years. 51 years. million people and more americans are dependent on food steps, and 2 million more latino americans live in clinton,nder obama and under obama because clinton is going to carry on -- i do not know if you saw, i gave a and decrease yesterday, but clinton will double up your taxes, and she is trying to say that she will double up your taxes. massivegoing to have ma tax increases if clinton gets in. enjoy it, folks, if you get that. african have it american youth are not employed. how sad is that?

american households are earning $4000 less -- listen to this 1 were 16 yearsthey ago. many workers are earning less than 1970 in real dollars. 1970 -- that is a long time ago. they are earning in real dollars less money. , we are goingan to create millions of new and really good paying jobs. it is interesting, because the pro-obama people say about the are bad jobs.y i have heard it from many people, they are trying to defend him, but they are bad jobs. the good jobs have left. but we will create millions of new good-paying jobs, but good jobs, it is so important. it is so important. everyone's taxes will go down. hillary clinton has supported tax increases on the middle class for her entire career.

she has voted for higher taxes 235 times in the senate. that is all? i thought it was more than that. 235 times. i hope there is not a decimal point in there. i do not think there is. voted for higher taxes to 35 times in the senate. now she is planning another trillion tax1.3 increase. that is what the tax increase , folks. not like you are not already paying enough? she will be taxing businesses that are already in deep trouble out of business, then we will make -- and this is so important ivanka trump, so great, so great. we're going to make childcare expenses tax-deductible for

working families. and just many, many other we are going to make some unbelievable changes, and it is so easy. regulations -- i am traveling all over and meeting with owners, even people who are being laid off because of this. regulations -- if i told you, and i'm so surprised -- this is the biggest prize -- if you have a small business and i can say you have one of the other, a major tax cut like we are going to bring it down to 15% from more than double that, but if i told you that you are could have a massive tax decrease or really substantially -- but in a real way, cut regulations, hundred percent of the people i would talk to would take the regulations, if you could have

one or the other. it is amazing, that surprised me. it surprised to them, too. everybody -- businesses cannot form anymore. is sotory burden incredible that you cannot form businesses -- very hard -- and businesses in existence are being put out of existence for regulations that do not do anything. we want safety regulations, environmental regulations. we are not people that do not want these things. we have to have that. we want clean air, clean water. we want clean water. that -- and there are certain things that you want to do, but to do that you do not have to destroy our country and our businesses. so i just wrote this down today.

hillary wants to raise taxes. this is a comparison. i want to lower them. hillary wants to expand regulations, which she does vaguely, can you believe that? i will reduce them very, very substantially, 50 as much as 70%, 75%. henry wants to shut down energy production. i want to expand it. electric.tric, lower hillary wants to a, essentially abolished the second amendment. either way, and if she gets to pick -- if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. although the second amendment people -- maybe there is -- i don't know. but i will tell you what, that will be a horrible day if hillary gets to put her judges -- right now we are tied. you see what is going on,

because scalia, this was not supposed to happen. justice scalia was supposed to be around for 10 more years at least, and this is what happens. that was a horrible thing. so now look at it, so hillary essentially wants to abolish the second amendment. speaking to the nra folks, who are great. -- and i will tell you, so they endorsed me, they endorsed a very early. why sons are members. i am a member. i think we can at the national rifle association, the second amendment to the justices, they almost go in a certain way and in hand. the justices are going to do things that are so important, and we have such great justices. use on my list of 11 that had ttedcted and respected -- ve and respected and gotten great, but ifittle bit equate, you do not do what is the right thing, you are not going to have

a second amendment, you are not going to have much of it left, and you will not be able to protect yourselves, what you need. burst intod guys your house, they are not looking about second amendment and do i have a right to do this, ok? that that guides are not going to be giving up their weapons, but the good people will say, oh, well, that's the law. no, not going to happen. we can't let it happen. we can't let that happen. hillary clinton wants to have totally open borders where people flow into our country and they take your jobs and they do lots of things. and i want people to come into our country, but they have to do it direct process, they have to do it legally, right? so you have drugs pouring in, you have everything coming in.

in new hampshire, great state, they have a tremendous heroin problem. we will stop the drugs pouring into our country from the southern border. we will build a wall -- [cheers] mr. trump: walls do work. walls do work. doesn't lookgee, that way, but she is. invade foreigno custard. since you spent -- for two years, three years i have been saying we have spent two dollars trillion.- $2 i will get the accurate number. they do not know the accurate number. he had no idea what we are doing. we are sending equipment over

and the enemy is taking it. humveesover 2300 pum that are currently armor plated. i thought that meant like 230 was too much. 2300 humvees and they got stolen, taken by the enemies. outlays have these great allies we always become who end up being worse than the guys we're trying to get out -- so terrible. hillary and president obama "radical use the term islamic terrorism. -- terrorism."

big problem, the problem. hillary wants to release violent criminals and criminal offenders from prisoner. -- from prison. enjoy yourselves. i want to work with our police. our police are so incredible. they do not get the respect they deserve. not getting the respect they deserve. and we are going to in our country restore law and order. we have to. we have to restore law and order. and the police will be cu careful and study, but what happened in dallas, where all of those people were shut down -- shot down, absolutely, absolutely for no reason viciously shot down, and so many others. i was with one of the police groups the other day, they are endorsing become and i said that was terrible in dallas, and they gave me a list of eight other in the last while where

the same smaller number, but the same thing was happening, where police are being killed. cherishto respect and our police. school choice we want, common core we do not want. we got to get rid of common core. bring education [indiscernible] mr. trump: and, folks, we have to renegotiate with nafta. going back to the wall, mexico is going to pay for the wall. that i can tell you. politicians, you do not know me, they do not understand me, and i am. 50et a group of fift people who have been running our country forever and they said we cannot support donald trump.

the reason -- because i am not going to hire these people, i do not want to these people. take a look. take a look at these people, these are sort of like the people that have been involved with washington, eking decisions, militarily, on defense, take a look at what has happened to our country. our military is depleted. our vets are not being taken care of. cannot be isis. can you imagine general george patton, spinning in his grave, douglas mcarthur, and we have so many people in this section of the military state, and i love it -- i love it. and you imagine them seeing that we cannot beat these 25,000 or 30,000 people?

we are fighting a politically correct war. politically correct war? you know what is going on. you know what is going on. these are the people that chop off heads. these are the people that in steel cages drop steel cages largehe waters and drown lovers of people. these are the people that bury people in the fans. we got to knock them out. i was against the war in iraq. it should not have been in the war in iraq. a destabilize the middle east, but we should not have gotten out the way he got out. the way we got out was insane. and obama gave a date and that folks?isis happened, hence, the birth of isis, congratulations, hillary clinton. she should get, if i am isis, i call her up and i give her the most valuable player award, ok?

with libya,tee you, which was her baby, and all the other mistake she has made, obama talks now, because obviously for him that is the builder alternative, all right? but he has been an incompetent president. he has done a harmful job. and i guarantee you that if he had it to do again and he would only say this to his wife, but he if he had to do it again, he would not have chosen hillary ofnton to be his secretary state, because she made so many horrible mistakes and caused so many lives -- cost so many ones, and i mean lives both sides. she is a net. she is a net. inepts.s .

edit think she is allowed to run for president of the united states when she deleted 33 , it will always be an embarrassment to our country. it always will be. so i want to thank all of you for being here. look, i am going to be around, we are going to be coming around to north carolina a lot. got a winner, important. people are great. my daughter-in-law comes from north carolina. i am here all the time. people, the people are great, the military is great. we are going to make america great again. we are going to start winning. we are going to put america first. we are going to make america safe again. but never, ever forget we are going to make america great

again. thank you. thank you, everybody. i will be back soon. thank you. god bless you. ♪ you don't always get what you want you don't always get what you want you can't always get what you want sometime thatise -- but if you try sometime ♪ can get what you need

i glanced at her hand was going to m eet her connection can't always get what you want you can't always get what you want you can't always get what you want but if you try sometime

you might find you get what you need ♪ >> donald trump from earlier today in wilmington, north carolina. this speech has gotten a lot of trump'sn after comments about the second amendment. now several lawmakers have weighed in about the comments, acluding clinton, saying person seeking to be the president of the united states should not just violence in any way. introduced mr.ho trump said he met you have the power to vote against her. alabama senator jeff sessions, who was one of the first theakers to endorse republican nominee, posted, trump should not just about harming another candidate. if you missed any of trump's remarks earlier, you can

watch them anytime at www.c-span.org. today voters have been heading to the polls in primary races in wisconsin. tonight we will have live remarks from speaker paul ryan who has been challenged by a business executive. the polls in the badger state close in about an hour, once we hear from them, we will hear from you by taking our phone calls and getting a reaction. right now, it is cut in with former president bill clinton and jimmy carter, talking about public service and global politics. they also looked at ways to encourage more young people to vote, hosted by the global initiative. this is 50 minutes. mr. clinton: now i would like to invite one of america's all-time great civic servants to join me