tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 8, 2014 12:00am-2:01am EST
advocacy work both inside and outside government, and that worked inside of government. andrew cuomo,on one overlooked thing in the selections -- in these elections, the democrat governors who won are all centrist reformers -- andrew cuomo, jerry brown, tom wolfe, and general mondale. she is one of my heroes. she is a serious pension reform her and she showed you can read -- reform pension in a way that and publicxpayers employees. she has broken the mold and shown you can have a democratic party that has a reformist, long-term agenda that can both govern well, but also is politically popular. the: we are talking about future of the democratic party with just democratic viewers. in.ara calling
barbara, where you see the democratic party on this date in 316 -- 2016? caller: well, good morning, and i'm not really sure. people like third way are what is wrong with democrats. where is the middle on the gnome wage, i'm gay people's right to marry, i women's rights to control their own body -- where is the middle on the minimum wage, gay people's rights to marry, women's rights to control their own body -- where is the middle on that? not having a roof over your head, health care -- that is what is wrong with third way people. you ignore those that actually need for the sake of trying to get along with republicans. i think the democrats need to come out be democrats, and stop trying to appeal to the so-called middle. so, i really disagree
woth you -- let me just pick t points. first of all, third way was one of the leading organizations in the united states fighting for marriage equality for all americans. we spent five or six years working on it. we are one of the top groups that fought for it. so, you're just simply wrong. we are also passionate about protecting a woman's right to choose. so, what it means to be a third bill clintonlike means you are highly progressive on social policy, you are centrist on economic issues -- you're for growth and prosperity, you are strong on security, and you want to solve the climate crisis. we do not have a disagreement with court democratic -- core democratic values at all, but we have a disagreement on how you achieve those in the 21st century and what reform and modernization look like.
i spent five years working at department of- housing and urban development. i will not take a backseat to anyone for fighting to fight iselessness, and third way passionate about economic opportunity for all americans. you have taken a caricature of what it means to be a centrist democrat and completely warped it. what it means to be a centrist democrat is you hold core democratic values you are passionate about and acting company or a reformer -- you're looking for it for the future and you're willing to challenge orthodoxies. immediately simple example -- how we better -- let me give you a simple example -- how will we better educate kids? it will not be the status quo. we need 3 million new teachers. we the highest quality people. the only way to get millennial's to teach is to reform and
modernize the teaching profession. what it means to be a third way democrat is you want to enact core democratic values in a modern way. i think that could not possibly be more progressive rather than looking backwards, taking an old playbook, and going back to what worked in another century. i am proud, and third way is proud of what democrats account question the 20th century. we a compass amazing things. we build a social safety net. we help to win in the world wars. the question is what you do in the 21st century. you cannot just repeat. that is what third way democrats stand for it will solve the country's biggest problems. host: in recent cycles we have seen division internally in the republican party. are you worried about division internally in the republic -- democratic party leading up to the 2016? election --2016 election?
host: i do not. i do not buy the divided parties do not win elections. good parties that have good ideas, serious agendas, and strong,m agendas have healthy debates. republicans often have. a test, and if you are not pure enough, you are driven out -- purity tests. if you do not -- if you're not. if, you are driven out. that is how you lose. caller: dell, good morning. --host: del, good morning. theer: there is more in voting deficiencies that you mention -- people standing in line for three or four hours to vote is ridiculous. i was an election judge in pennsylvania at one time because of gerrymandering has been so effective in pennsylvania -- we
had 18 counties, 13 of them were republican. the five democrats had 80,000 more votes than the 13 republicans. is that a democracy? come on. we are so far up the wall, it is ridiculous. thank you fort: the kind words and the contribution. it is appreciated. as i said earlier, we have to change the dynamics of the everybody votes. again, why we should have mandatory voting. you should also not way and line for 304 hours. you would not wait in line -- three or four hours. you would not wait in line for four hours the grocery store. so thatto have reform instead of having a voting system that is from the 19th century -- you fill in a card
and wait in line, you have a voting system that is in the 21st century. that is not just the right thing to do, but it is actually, as you said, what you need to do to get more people in the system. host: charles and fort collins, colorado waiting to chat with you. you are on with jonathan cowan of third way. caller: hi, jonathan. one thing i noticed about the election cycle -- obama had some very good victories. but the deficit, it was decreased by two thirds. obamacare from the reality of the commons hundred saturday 10% aggregate ofrease per year, -- reality it, instead of a 10% i'll get increase, it is down to a 4% increase. all these democrats were distancing themselves from obama. they were not say look at how this works. look at kansas.
the republicans put their dream model in kansas are reducing taxes and increased jobs to do all this -- and it was an abysmal failure. why were they not doing that saying obama is in the white house, i do not know about him? charles, that is a question a lot of people are pondering and will think about a lot for the next couple of years, and historians will think about. spotuick things -- you are on. there is a lot about obama's economic record that he and democrats should be very proud of. it does not mean they solve everything, but they dug us out of a ditch and did important things to do that. one of the paradoxes of our current politics is how can a president who presided over a stock market hitting historic highs and unemployment steadily dropping -- how come his economic record does not sell better?
that leads to my second point. there is a profound disconnect, for some reason, between obama's economic record and what voters are feeling. voters are feeling fairly low things had to satisfy them and why democrats ran from obama. they are feeling that their economic problems are not yet solved. they got us out of a ditch, but there is a long way to go. the second piece is they feel washington is dysfunctional. when you look at things like the v.a. crisis in the health care rollout, there is a sense that partymocrats are the presiding over government is dysfunctional and inept and voters reject that. host: nancy, california. good morning. morning, gentlemen. i think you're going in the wrong direction, mr. cowan. host: go ahead, nancy. caller: i think that the third is pushing the
corporatist way and that will be the demise of the democratic party. mr. cowan? i know what you got those talking points, it is a label, but it is meaningless. host: where did they get the talking points? liberal groups. it is the same as calling someone who is a label a socialist. it is empty, meaningless, simply pejorative. if you mean by that, nancy, that we believe in economic growth and private sector-led economic growth that benefits the middle class, and we believe the democratic party needs to be able to work to business -- with business, not kowtow to
businesses, or work with them -- then guilty as charged. i do not think there is anyway, as bill clinton used to say -- i do not think you can love the jobs, but hate the people who helped create them. as we said before, we are on economic issues, centrists, programs, poor rick -- pro-reform. i do not know what could be more democratic or progressive. about nancy to ask pelosi. no threats about losing her job, but ralph nader put out a statement on election night saying democratic leadership in the house should step down after three cycles in a row of losing seats.
if this was a facebook threat, -- thread, i would put a like on those comments. there is absolutely no working with people that come right out and admit i'm totally against, i mean there is absolutely no rty, so ln office. i just cannot understand how that could possibly work, and they are asking hillary clinton to change her brand to move , and i fearenter that is going to be -- they are finding out that when they start moving away from their positions
and trying to garner that sliver , thedependent votes democratic party is strong. it is vibrant. i am a firm believer in it, and i honestly think that wandering away from their message is going to do more damage than good, and as far as the third parting -- party -- having a favorable message for bill clinton, i used to refer to him as a republican and democrats clothing. i voted for ross perot. i just did not trust the guy from the get-go come he proved to be that guy. -- they get go, and he proved to be that guy. that is my comment. guest: thank you. i happen also to be a ross perot fan even though i did not vote for him. i mean bill clinton fan.
i'm a bill clinton democrat. he got elected twice. he helped to usher in prosperity. you know, you can be a democrat -- we are a big tent party -- you can be a democrat and be very liberal or a democrat and be centrist. clinical parties that are able to hold long-term majorities and able to come up with the best governing ideas have vigorous debates with both wings of their parties. parties that lose, have the wrong ideas, that cannot sustain majorities, have purity tests where they try to drive one wing out. that is not effective for effective governing or winning sustained majorities. some i want to note breaking news that is i -- the jobs report is out -- they october jobless rate, 5.8%, falling from 5.9% in september. the number of jobs added in
october, 214,000 jobs. that news coming out just this morning, a few minutes ago. been waiting in chicago, illinois. our last caller. you are on with jonathan: josh jonathan cowan of -- jonathan cowan of third way. caller: good morning. i do not agree with what mr. i do notsaying, and agree because i think that kay hagan ran one of the most third night, andns of the she did not carry it. i believe there is something else afoot here. money --hat it is bayer in chicago, we had a -- here inrace, and chicago, we had a governor's race, and i was a democrat that got out, knocked on doors, brought people to the polls, and i know how much money -- just ridiculous amounts of money.
thedemocrats were outspent, republicans were disingenuous, and as far as the center, i do not see a center anymore because it has moved so far to the right. one of my problems, and other people like me -- because i believe i am a centrist, but it is kind of like lucy and charlie brown, when you start moving the ball farther and farther to the right, the center becomes somewhere that is not the center anymore. we want to give jonathan cowan the last minute of this segment. guest: glad to hear you're a centrist and thank you for stumping hard in chicago. what it means to be a centrist democrat at the dawn of the 21st century is you hold core democratic values that you are looking for new ways to enact them -- new reforms, new ways to modernize, both our electoral governing coalition and our
agenda. i do not think the party can move back -- i do not think winning political parties do that. i think you look forward. if you are someone -- they be this is you, someone that is progressive, socially, want to equality, who believes in economic prosperity, wants strong security, wants to fix the climate crisis while heine sent -- harnessing the energy revolution, you are a third way democrat. whatever kind of democrat you partyhis, the democratic -- it is what we need to fulfill the dreams of the middle-class. >> also on washington journal, a discussion about the future of the republican party. this is about 45 minutes. "washi.
host: to bookend our discussion, we will open our phones to republican callers to talk about the future of the republican party, and to do that we are joined by john feehery, republican strategist, longtime staffer on capitol hill. kerry, the keys to both roberteehery, to quote redford from "the candidate, what is the gop go from here? with power comes responsibility. they have a responsibility to do bold oversight of the obama administration, especially its many failures. theirlso have to push agenda. if they are going to try to appeal obamacare, which is
unpopular with republican voters -- if that does not work, they have to figure out how to amend it and make it work better. i have other things on their agenda that they want. john boehner has talked about job creation. the way you create jobs is by creating the conditions to create jobs and one of those things is tax reform. the tax code is completely messed up. in more trade agreements so that we can export more of our product. the message of this election was we need the government to start working again, and john boehner and mitch mcconnell have promised to get the government to work again in a more efficient, effective manner. host: are they saying the right things in the press conferences in the days after the 2014 election? guest: i think there are -- i think they are. there is concern about the , and the overreaching speaker and the majority leader have sent the message we have to fix a broken system the right
way, and doing it the wrong way by issuing an executive order is really going to spoil the well and make things more difficult to get things done next year. guest: i think that is absolutely right. there is widespread dissatisfaction with how the senate majority leader harry reid ran the senate, the lack of production from the congress, and widespread dissatisfaction with the president and his leadership. i think they're giving republicans an opportunity to govern, to show what they can do, to see if they can make this thing work again. with that, the republicans have to produce. the gallup party image polling that has been done -- their latest poll from back in
the end of september had a favorable opinion of the republican party by those polled 57% having anth unfavorable opinion of the republican party. so, there is still work to do here. guest: is a lot better than he used to be. i think they are making some progress. the thing that they did was make this a referendum on the president, and i think they were successful. now they have to take the next step and prove that they can produce some things that are consistent with their values, but also that move the ball forward in making government work better. if they can do that, their brand will go up even more. the highs from that party image rating, 61% in 2001 and 2002 for having a favorable opinion of the republican party, and just before the end of 1998, just 31%.
how do you get back to above the 50% margin? after 9/11, we showed we can govern. after we impeach president clinton, the approval ratings went down. can react to bad circumstances with effective movement. i think the popularity rating of republicans went higher when they were actually working in a bipartisan manner, because you can get more of the pool to support you. the republicans have to expand theirtry to base, appeal to all voters, and, you know, whether it is through fixing a broken immigration system, getting the voting -- taking onr any big things like reforming the tax code and dealing with our debt crisis. all these things, they have to do, and i think they will do when they take over the majority
in january. what is possible for republicans in the face of a potential veto, of opposition -- not having 60 seats in the senate? guest: i think there will be a method to their madness. it will start out by putting the principles out, getting as much as they can through the house, the senate, and onto the president's desk. they will see what he vetoes, perhaps, and ultimately will find a way to reach an honorable copper mines, which will not be easy. they are coming from different -- compromise, which will not be easy. our political system is set up that you have to reach coppermine spat on some things they will simply disagree. things.omise on some on some things they will simply disagree. we have to fix the border. we have to make sure we have the ability to know who is in the
country, and we have to deal with the 11 million people that are already here undocumented. we have to figure out a way to get them to a legalized status. we have to make sure we can attract good workers to this to make and we have sure that people who are in this country and committing crimes are taken out of this country. so, i think that if the aspects of a good compromise on immigration. host: the other big issue of the week, the president's health-care law -- is there an honorable, maisano obamacare? guest: i think we will go through a process of agreeing to disagree. i think republicans will try to repeal the whole law and then pieces of the law once the president vetoes. even ted cruz said the president is not going to sign a full repeal of the law, there are certain aspects like the medical device tax, for example,
sticking to the promise of the president made, if you like your health care, you can keep it. that became inoperative after a while. maybe we can make sure the president's promises are agreed to. and there are other aspects of obamacare we will have to take a look at and make work better. to john are talking of the about the future republican party. we are just talking to republican callers in this segment. the phone lines are split up regionally. they are on the screen. we want to hear your thoughts on the future of the party, who should be leading going forward and are you happy with the current leadership. we start with bonnie in ohio. good morning. caller: good morning, and thank you for letting me on. i want to make two comments about what i think was a victory for the republicans.
on sunday night, thousands, if not millions of christians kneeled down before the law -- lord and they prayed for the election,houston, the and i believe he delivered the republicans to victory. if people are looking to the government for prosperity, they are looking to the wrong place. the only way you're going to be prosperous is to come to jesus christ as your lord and savior, repent from your sense, and he will make you the most prosperous person in the world. he has done that for me, and i give him all the praise and glory. that is my comment. , talkingn feehery about the religious right and social conservatives, their role in the victory that happened tuesday, and also the future and the parting -- in the party. extraordinarye part of the party. the buddha go to church regular, they voted for republicans -- the people that go to church regularly, they voted for
republicans by an 18% margin. that willan agenda appeal to all people, but especially christians of all stripes and i think they take that seriously. host: let's go to west virginia where rhett is waiting. caller: good morning. i think john hit something on the head there as far as appealing to the masses. whenever we are engaging in tontity politics, it seems divide people and every kind of dichotomy -- rich, poor, young, old, black, white, democrat, and republican. so, i really think you are onto something there, john. another thing that we might do is soften our image, and not play into these three types that people have of us, and at the
same time, maybe we can do some outreach. but i think it would be a mistake to go after their flagship legislation, obamacare, right away, until we have a chance to soften them up to that idea also. host: john feehery, before you get to the affordable care act, on image and outreach that the caller brings up. guest: i think the democrats huge mistake in the election was playing identity politics. there were going through the war on women motive. he did some race baiting, i thought, in north carolina. they were playing the identity game, and not on issues everyone agrees with. everyone agrees that we need to do better with our economy, and that did not come up at all during this campaign. if you look at what happened in texas -- it is extraordinary.
the republican running for governor got 47% of the hispanic vote because he went after that vote by asking for their vote. if you look at what happened with republicans, you have tim scott in south carolina winning, an african-american, male love winning,-- mia love and if we're going to be successful in the next election, we need to continue to do that. host: a couple of headlines in today's papers -- here is charles krauthammer's piece in "the washington post." "thether piece in washington times" we want to talk to you, our
of the, about the future republican party -- just republican viewers in this segment as we are talking to john kerry, a gop strategist. talk about your background -- john feehery, a gop charges. talk about your bob -- your background. for tom delay in 1999, and started with speaker denny hastert as the chief spokesman. i have seen democrat -- republicans with no hopes of taking the majority in the house and i have them gained a majority. i have seen an evolution for the republican party. they have become much more of a congressional party than a presidential party, and the gold standard, of course, is to have both. that is difficult. in the early 1990's there was the thought that republicans would never take the house, they
would only occupy the presidency, and that has become flipped, actually, it is of how these different midterms versus general elections have gone. the goal of a political party is to get as much influence as possible, and the system is set up for checks and balances. we are in that period right now of divided government. the republicans will help their brand the most if they can make sure they govern as efficiently as possible. host: mark stone on twitter wants us to stay on the affordable care act -- why repeal the aca if obama will not sign it -- maybe repeal parts of the law. way to work on other issues. guest: i agree with that. we spent a lot of time in the last congress voting on repeal of obamacare, and i think a lot of members of the house and senate made a promise they will vote on that again. any to go through the process, but i do not think they should put all of their eggs in the
obamacare bucket. they should talk about other issues -- how to make the economy grow, how to get jobs the american people. doris is waiting in los angeles, california. good morning. --'re on with john kerry john feehery. caller: good morning. the reason why people voted republicans is because we were angry at obama's policy -- how he had policy, children and did not deport them. every time a public official gets in office, they say vote for me, vote for me, and once you get in office, you ignore our wishes because trade -- when you say trade, that is equal to outsourcing.
no one buys hardly anything from us, but you are trading our jobs. tode is equivalent outsourcing our jobs. now, you are working for -- it --only a handful of people it is the rich. a few rich people are benefiting by tearing down the economy. host: john feehery, how do republicans make voters feel that they are not being ignored? guest: the trade debate is an important debate. if you're a family farmer or a farmer, trade is really important because you are trying to get your products exported elsewhere. the problem we have with outsourcing is already happening without these trade agreements. we already have a pretty open system and nobody else in the world does. our goal is to tear down those barriers. i fundamentally disagree with the caller.
i know which is saying. there is some outsourcing the comes with trade, the more comes with trade. we live in a globalized economy. we want to tear down trade barriers to create jobs for american workers. on immigration, let me say that i think she is right about why this election hinged a little bit on immigration. the president messed up on immigration. he has been very unclear about what he was going to do. he made a lot of promises, and then did not keep them. there is a lot of thought because of those promises more young people came in from central america. what we need to do is fix the broken system. the system is broken. we need to have a system where the undocumented get documented, and that we secure our borders. that was one of the true messages of this election. we need to secure our borders. host: that he has been waiting. -- betty has been waiting. caller: good morning.
my concern is the immigration issue -- why do we have to cut my the people coming into this country illegal -- compromise with people coming into this country illegal? basically, black folks. there are a lot of black folks without jobs in this country, and why are we going to allow illegals to come in and demand rights they do not have? it seems to me republicans are caving in, and we do not want you to cave in. the republican party is the only hope for this country, and that is the truth. please, send those folks back. we are spending too much money trying to legalize them and help them. they need to go home. they are here in legal. , how dohn feehery republicans deal with that sentiment from a lot of republicans? is a very widespread sentiment, and it is a thing we have to grapple with. you have to deal with securing
our borders. that is the number one job. there have been 11 million people here that are undocumented that have been here for a long time, and it is simply not realistic to say we are all -- we are going to export them all out of here. we have to figure out a way to get a legalization process so that we know what they're doing and they do did not become a train on public resources. the other thing is -- and drain on public resources. the other thing -- actually, immigration has shrunk in the last couple of years, so we need to understand that as we go through this process, immigrants, especially legal immigrants, add so much to this country, so much to economic growth. they do a lot of the hard labor in all kinds of fields. you know, there are a lot of immigrants that come in here in high-tech fields. i do a wonderful job of giving us the best of their of the -- they do a wonderful job of giving us the best of their abilities. we have to embrace legal immigration.
everyone benefits when there is a working immigration system. host: we want to talk to just our public and viewers in this segment as we talk about the future of the republican party. we want to hear about the issues that we think your party needs to focus on and the leaders of the republican party as well -- who you would like to see lead the party in 2016 in the residential election. mark is in porch are also, florida. caller: thanks --port charles, florida. taking myanks for call. i would like to suggest a republican start with items that all abide by the aca law,on -- obamacare, as much as all the rest of us have to. this would be backed by the majority of americans, it would show we have the agenda in a good place. thank you very much. congress doesy,
have to abide by the affordable care act, and i know that because i had of a lot of friends who work on capitol hill, and they are put in these exchanges, so that is a real issue. i think the caller is absolutely right. going to pass a law, you cannot exempt the congress and the federal government from following that law. that is called a dictatorship. the most important thing for any law, not just the aca, is if you are going to graphic him everybody has got to abide by it. host: this column from two other republican strategists have a piece over the weekend in the "washington post" talking about what a win does and does not mean for the republican spirit of a right to -- it does not mean the mass problem. they say winning in a nonpresidential turnout year, when older and white
voters make up a larger percent of the electorate, should convince no one that we have fixed our basic shortfalls with key electoral groups. guest: they are absolutely right or 75% of the electorate this time around was white, and what happened in 2010, but in 2012 were much lower percentage. the fact is that we have to appeal a broader base. i think this election actually helped us with that because we had tim scott, we have got these , abbott in texas getting 47% of the hispanic vote. we have to continue the strategy laid out by reince p riebus, the rnc chair. next.edward's good morning, edward. caller: good morning.
i have been listening to some of your callers, and i have got to admit, yeah, you can't deport everyone, that is true, but what i also look at is this -- the difference between this election -- the last election is that i think a lot of the tea party members who were kind of being investigated, looked at really hard by the irs, kind of shrunk gave a 2012, which little bit of a reprieve to the democrats. but with this push on immigration, you know, a lot of black people, like you heard, they know that their kids are going to be competing with illegals. ain't goingt
to go and cut it you want to fix the immigration issue? fine. no education. you are here illegally, that means kids, sorry, but if you are here illegally and you do not have a social security card, go back home. if your parents brought you here illegally, you know, hey, find the parents, fine the businesses they work at, given a big ticket, you know. mean, don't try to deport them all, just say look, we are not going to give you any benefits. guest: let me just kind of focus on what the caller set about the irs scandal. really, thatian, the irs was investigating these tea party groups and try to suppress them. i think republicans are going to
more aggressively investigate this scandal, find out what exact we happened and make sure it does not happen again because irsreally cannot have the getting engaged in political activities on behalf of the white house because then people lose faith in the whole system. host: the caller also brought up candidates and candidate selection for the 2014 election on the republican side. i want to play you this from wednesday's press conference with the nrsc chairman. he talked about the types of candidates for republicans recruited this cycle and why they won. [video clip] ask we recruited and encouraged great candidates to run. those candidates did run. we educated and trained them in their efforts to succeed and they succeeded. there is a clear message to republicans in the future that who are candidates are matter and they need to be people who are capable of appealing to the voters in the states in which they are seeking to represent. host: candidate recruitment has
been an issue for republicans in the past where they have run into some problems. guest: candidates do matter because voters -- they do not just go for a brand or a party -- they vote for a candidate. if you have a bad canada, you are going to lose. a bad candidate, you are going to lose. the issue is you support the better candidate but you do that in a way that does not alienate the voters back home. you do not want washington did to dictate who the candidates are, but you want to get for support to the candidates who will present the party's platform in the best possible manner and have the best chance of winning. this election cycle, republicans of a masterful job of avoiding bad candidates. host: are they lessons learned from here on out? guest: i think there are lessons learned here on out. if you have to pass a threshold of being able to appeal, to show that you can win, then you will get the support of not just the
washington establishment would also people back home and also the organizations like the chamber of commerce. how do you present the platform? are you going to say things that are divisive -- not necessarily divisive and going to hurt the party brand? if that is the case, you will probably not get the nomination. host: carney is up next, woodlawn, tennessee. good morning, carney. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am disappointed that you do not allow republicans in on your last guy. some of the things he said, for an example, have mandatory voting to me as un-american, that sounds pretty extensive when i have to have my government demand that i vote. i am 56 years old. i grew up learning from my n american itas an
is my response billy to vote in if i don't vote, i have no right to the plane about what the government has done. -- it is my responsibility to vote and if i don't vote, i have no right to complain about what the government has done. host: we were talking to democrats in that last segment about the future of the democratic party. we are talking to just this segment. john feehery is a republican strategist joining us for that discussion. atlanta, georgia, you are on next on the "washington journal ." caller: good morning. as far as the future of the republican party goes, this is their last chance. democratsto make the pay for changing the filibuster rule in the senate. it had nothing to do with filibusters. it had to do with harry reid. the acawo, as far as goes, obamacare, all you have to budgetass a conciliation
that says no federal money will begi given, just like the law says, two people for obamacare. host: what is number three, steve? theer: number three, republicans were elected not to who operate -- not to cooperate. about election were corporation with president obama, we would have elected it budget democrats. nott: this election was necessarily about cooperation, it was about making the system work. dictate the terms with president obama but to set the agenda and the president can either agree or disagree with it. it is not about cooperation but about making the government function. the previous caller on mandatory
voting, that is i think a very, very dangerous government intrusion into people's lives. when you get into government dictating that you have to vote, it is not that far of a stretch to say who you have to vote for. 1000%e with the caller that mandatory voting is one of the most idiotic ideas. host: a system that has been put in place in australia and other places. guest: it was also put in place and communist countries and also put in place in nazi germany. differenthas got a history than we have. mandatory voting i think is a very dangerous precedent, and i am completely against it. host: maria waiting out in sheridan, wyoming. good morning, maria. good morning, and thank you for taking my call. im in wyoming and this is a republican state. our politicians do not allow a lot of federal funds to come into the state, therefore the
up supporting the school system. we are a poor state. we have a lot of retired people in this state, and we have a lot of people from out of state with money coming in and buying all of our real estate. one other thing -- the republicans need to keep in mind people in the united states did not vote in this election because they did not want to vote for a republican. there are democrats out there that are voting -- republicans out there voting for democrats only because they are going to cancel their vote and cancel the republican vote. host: more than 40%'s not voting this cycle than the number the caller talked about. guest: midterm elections tend to be very low turnout.
all the money that both parties spent on get out the vote procedures did not particularly work that well. i think people look at all of these campaign ads, they get all of these phone calls at home, badgering them to vote, and they get sick and tired of it and they do not feel like they have any real faith in any of the politicians on either side of the aisle. so they drop out. other people just do not really care that much. they feel as if their vote does not really matter. the irony is that their vote does matter and there are plenty of instances, city council elections, mayoral elections, state elections, and even federal elections where the difference of one or two votes, you know, could have turned an election one way or the other. your vote does matter in when you don't vote, you make a choice. if you decide not to the debate as our caller said, you have no right to complain. host: we also want to ask our viewers in the segment who you think should leave the
republican party heading into the 2016 presidential election. joel from new york, who do you think should lead the party? caller: i would love to see rand paul or ted cruz lead the party. one,ree points -- number my head is about to explode every time i hear that people think obama worked with the other side. he did not, and the republicans need to make that immediately clear. number two, as far as deporting the illegals, i understand that you cannot deport 12 million illegal people, but you can once they come after your wallets, once they show up at the hospitals and say give me my free health care, once they show up at the schools, so you give me my free education. that is when you deport them is when they come after your wallet. thet number three, which is most important point, is that republicans, if they ever want to win a national election, have
to reward the people who voted for them. democrats do it. they buy up people's votes. republicans need to offer up a self-sufficiency tax credit, give money to those who do not get government services. you need to compete and fight fire with fire. offer incentives for republicans to vote republican because democrats do it with their voters, and they reward them very well. host: you can pick up on that last point. guest: i disagree with the caller on the last point. i think people have to vote -- i think people do vote for their own self interest is and own economic interest, but the idea of giving people direct subsidies for a vote is i think a bad idea. listen, the first point the caller makes is really important, and that is that the president so far has exhibited no interest in working with republicans. he is going to have to change. the president is going to have to change his attitude with this
new republican majority in the house and senate. if he does not change his attitude, we are not going to get anything done. he got elected twice, yes, but now two midterm elections, the voters have spoken and said you have got to work with republicans, and he had better start doing it otherwise we are going to have a series of crises going on for the next couple of years. mentioned a few champions of the tea party when he talked about who he would like to see lead the party in 2016 here here is a tweet from jenny beth martin, eight name well known in tea party circles. tea party values and enthusiasm pave the way for the gop's victory on tuesday. talk about the future of the tea party within a larger republican party. guest: the tea party has to make a decision -- are there going to be a third-party or part of the republican coalition? if they are apart, they have to find a way to work constructively with republicans. there are a lot of tea party members who are so frustrated with obama that came out and voted for republicans, and that
is a very good thing, but the idea that tea party spent a lot of its money in time attacking republicans. they should think about ways to work constructively with republicans and move a realistic agenda forward. let me say a little bit about hit cruise and rand paul. they are really different -- about ted cruz and rand paul. they are different creatures. rand paul have gone under a strategy of attracting different voters to the party, very smart, especially younger voters with stuff on drug legalization, and he is really going after african-american voters in a very concerted effort. ted cruz on the other hand is trying to consolidate the public and bass, talk to a very narrow section of the republican party, and they're both kind of tea party, but in many ways they offer different philosophical positions. host: we have a few different minutes left with john feehery, republican strategist.
bill in long beach, california. i do not think he is there appeared we go to regina, apollo, pennsylvania. talk about try to demonize the republicans, give me a break. it is a shame that you guys just let the weasley little takers allow them to do that, so let's go, let's defined obamacare. i do not have any desire to pay not only -- be forced to vote but be forced to buy health insurance paradigm heard mr. president obama the other day when he was asked by the what you going to let them do here, let them repeal obama care? what about the individual mandate? oh, well, we did not let them game the system. wait a minute, and arizona, 30% budget is spent on
illegal aliens. these people do not belong here. why did you have to force me to buy health insurance? i have less money to go buy health they really want with an actual health doctor so i can subsidize -- i am not gaming the system. they are because they do not pay the bills. when i go to the hospital, i pay my bills. host: john feehery, do you want to pick up on any point that regina brings up? guest: obamacare is really unpopular with the republican base and with a wide swath of american voters do die personally would like to see it repealed or do i think it is a terrible law. i think it has made the situation worse in many ways. that being said, it has got to is not going to be vetoed in the next few years because obama has the veto ban. but republicans can continue to make the case not only about how they will change or repeal
certain parts of obama care but also what they would do to fix the health care system. a good pointkes about people coming here illegally and then being free writers on the health system. we have got to figure out a way to deal with that because that is part of the rotation and anger that people feel because they are for the health care costs of people who should not be here in the first place. host: west chester, pennsylvania is next, john you are on with john feehery. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call or do i have a comment on the need for doing something in the economy. it has been discussed over and over, and everybody in washington seems to know and understand that the only way the economy is going to be fixed is if we start working on the infrastructure. the only way we can start working on the infrastructure is to have money in the bank, by
reinstating the 34% corporate the private industry is not going to spend any of their money on infrastructure work. e everybody knows that that is the only way the economy is going to improve, then it is ti ando bite the bullet reinstate the 34% corporate tax. it angers me when i see fedexies like comcast and moreg their ceo's 50 times than we pay the president of the united states because they have so much money they do not know what to do with it. feehery on corporate tax rates and where republicans go from here. guest: i think raising the
corporate tax rate is exactly the wrong solution to this problem. if you talk about infrastructure, there is a general agreement that importantture is an part of having an economic recovery. the thing that kills economic growth is when he trucks and trains and things cannot get from point a to point b. raising the corporate tax rate on the other hand is not a smart way to do that. at some point in time we will have to look at raising the gas tax. the gas prices have gone down, not a bad opportunity to raise the gas tax, but we have got to think about ways to get more money into infrastructure. host: something republicans in congress would allow to move forward? guest: i doubt it appeared i cannot think the democrats want to do it, either, but at some point in time you have got to bite the bullet. if gas prices continue to go but down, it might not be about time to do it. that being said, what the caller talked about is ceo's being paid a lot more than the average person to your that is part of tot populist kind of anger
the wealth, the wealthy that is simmering out there, and we have got to figure out a way to increase wages in this country. a growing economy held scroll wages, but people are not being paid what they should beginning paid, and there is got to be a way to deal with that. host: helen is next in texas. caller: good morning. i have always been a democrat, but this time i voted republican. i voted republican because of all of the mess that is going on up there in washington, d.c.. republicansray that will flood obama's desk with everything that we need done. summerigration this past invitation,
our borders were flooded. now, what are we going to do with all of those children? how are we going to pay for them to go to school, to eat, to take care of their medical needs when we are having trouble taking care of the people that we have to? guest: that is a very common theme with republicans. border search, a lot of the undocumented children really angered a lot of voters, especially in texas. securing the border has got to be one of the first things the republicans passe in this coming session of congress. i think it would be a tremendous mistake if the president would put executive amnesty through executive order on the table because i think it would be very unpopular with a wide swath of american voters, and including not just republicans but several
them a crack bases including african-americans. republicans do to keep voters like helen, who voted republican for the first time in the 2014 election, to make sure they bring her back and keep her in the republican column in 2016? guest: well, they can keep their promises and they can have a democraticooting process, regular order in the house and senate, meaning vote ony is allowed to everything and get the system to work again. what happened in the last couple of years as the senate majority leader harry reid tried to protect his members from tough votes so he basically shut down the democratic process. we have that to open up the process again. let everything work as it is supposed to work and let the votes happen as they will. let the politicians defend their votes in front of the voters in two years. host: john feehery, republican strategist, you can see some of his work at
>> on the next "washington journal" the impact of campaign spending. then a discussion on ballot measures to legalize marijuana at the polls. and president of the american academy of physician assistants talks about the role in the you -- u.s. health system p at you could join the conversation on facebook and twitter. c-span.ton journal" on >> the c-span cities tour travels to u.s. cities to learn about their histories. next week and partnered with charter communications. it is a glorious service.
citizen.comes to every it is an unending schedule to make and keep government representatives. >> is probably the most important political figure in wisconsin history. one of the most important in the 20 century of the united states. he was a reforming governor. progressivism is spirit he is one of the first to use progressive to self identify. peers recognized by his in the 1950's. he was an opponent of world war i. he stood his ground advocated for free speech. after the civil war, america
a nationadically from of small farmers and producers and small manufacturers -- by that 1890's, we had concentrations of wealth, growing inequality, and concern about the influence of money in government. giving speeches all over wisconsin. if you wanted a speaker for your club or group, you went to county fairs. went to every kind of event you could imagine. build a reputation for himself. ready to run for governor advocating on behalf of the people. he had two issues. the direct primary. number selecting candidates at conventions.
two, stop the interests. events etc. day starting at noon eastern on c-span's book tv and american history tv. the u.s. ambassador to the united nations samantha power talks about the u.s. role and the peacekeeping efforts. after that, as in's remarks at the cabinet meeting. that, republican national committee chair on the midterm election results. >> samantha power talked about peacekeeping missions around the globe and the united states role in supporting and reforming the operations. she spoke at the american enterprise institute in washington, d.c., for just under an hour.
>> good afternoon. i do apologize, but we have been running a little late. ambassador power has a legitimate excuse. she was in a cabinet meeting. i never had such a good excuse. we will use it and not abuse it today. i am the senior vice president for defense policy studies at aei. it is a pleasure to welcome ambassador power. i think this is your first time here, ambassador power. all the more welcome. today ambassador power will talk about peacekeeping, united nations peacekeeping, and ideas for peacekeeping. there are 120,000 men and women who are serving in u.n.
peacekeeping roles around the world. increasingly, they are under threat from kidnapping and worse, and increasingly there is no peace to keep. the united states spends more than any other nation to support peacekeeping operations idea united nations. and the american people ask are they getting value for their money. ambassador power will give a short talk and the new continuation of conversation and open things up to the audience. let me welcome her to the podium. [applause] >> hello, everybody. i have come here today to talk about u.n. peacekeeping. there is a lot going on in the world right now.
elie wiesel shared with me the following thought -- the winds of madness are blowing, and that is how it feels great the urgent, critical issues on our plate should not diver us from an important fact, which is that the united states has a vital interest and a critical role to play in strengthening peacekeeping to meet demands that peacekeepers are currently struggling to meet around the world. i start from a basic premise -- conflicts in faraway places matter in various ways to the united states. these conflicts matter because we recognize that violence within any particular country can quickly caused national and regional instability, displacing millions of people, upending markets, and spilling over into neighboring countries. conflicts undo the hard-earned progress countries have made toward building democracy. they weaken both governments and civil society, and they allow
criminals and repressors to thrive. they also matter because the instability created by these conflicts increasingly attracts extremist groups, who can use the vacuum of authority to terrorize civilian populations and plan and launch attacks. the suffering caused by these conflicts can be a powerful recruitment tool. even conflicts that are not field at the outset by extremist elements can attract and foster them, or, because state authority breaks down, places of conflict can be comfortable places for extremists to hang out unmolested. whether it be darfur, mali or the central african republic, we endure these crises at our
peril. not only does curbing violent conflict make us safer, it is also consistent with what our hearts tell us is right. a number of public opinion polls have shown that large majorities of americans support action to prevent mass atrocities from occurring in other parts of the world. we do not want to live in a world where more than 9000 kids are recruited in less than a year to become child soldiers, as has happened recently in south sudan. we do not want to live in a world where religious or ethnic communities who have lived together for decades in harmony, such as muslims and christian in the central african republican, learn to hate and fear and demonize one another. neither do america's foreign-policy leaders. the possible next chairs of the senate foreign relations
committee and another can become a senators corker and mccain, have long been strong advocates of preventing such atrocities. so have the committees' current chairs, senators levin and menendez. the question is, what should america do to stop them? the united states has a lot that we must do right now. we have a lot on our plate. our troops are fighting isil in the middle east. they are deployed to west africa to beat back ebola, and they continue to serve valiantly in afghanistan, all of us as we faced substantial budget cuts. crises from eastern ukraine to gaza continues to cascade on the broader foreign policy horizon. as president obama said at west point, america must always lead on the world stage, but we should not go it alone. even if the united states has an interest in seeing confident but were civilians protected, at the mean that u.s. forces should be
doing all of the abating. we should not send the u.s. military into all places where conflict is burning, civilians are hurting, or extremists are lurking. because we have to less capable military does not mean we should assume risks and burdens that should be shared by the broader community. this is were peacekeeping comes in. when conflicts in congo, mali, or south sudan, peacekeeping is the best operation we had. peacekeeping chores other countries shoulder the burden like intruding treats and sharing the cost of operations. provided that peacekeepers deliver on their mandates, multilateral peacekeeping also brings a degree of legitimacy in the eyes of the local population. because missions are made up of troops from multiple countries with strong representation from the global south, spoilers and militants have a harder time cynically branding them as
having an imperialist designs. even in places where the united states has decided to deploy troops, we have benefited from being able to hand off to the united nations as we did in haiti, allowing the peacekeeping operation been to provide longer-term support for security, rule of law, and political transition. the multilateral nature of peacekeeping helps address the free rider problem we see in so many matters of international skew to come from the spread of ebola to the rise of isil to the recruitment of foreign terrorist fighters, whereby countries with vested interests in addressing threats rely on the united states to do the lion's share. we need other countries to stand
up rather than stand by. we start from the premise that in a world where we had a vested interest in seeing the violent conflicts curbed and seeing suffering prevented, america needs peacekeeping to work. precisely at this moment when we recognize this crucial role that peacekeeping can play, shoring up u.s.' interests, demands are outpacing what we can deliver. we're asking peacekeepers to do more than at any time in history. there are currently 16 u.n. peacekeeping missions worldwide, made up of 130,00 personnel, at least 100,000 of them being uniformed military and police, impaired to 75,000 total personnel a decade ago. that is not to mention the more than 20,000 peacekeepers
fighting in the african union's mission in somalia. this is by far the most peacekeepers that have ever been active in history. yet the numbers only tell a small part of the story. the strain on the system would be challenging enough if we were asking peacekeepers simply to do what these to do, to monitor cease-fires between two contending states. but we are giving peacekeepers brought and commanding responsibilities in increasingly inhospitable domains. we're asking them to contain, and at times even disarm violent groups like the countless rebel groups in the democratic republic of the congo. we are asking them to ensure safe delivery of life-saving humanitarian assistance, such as by escorting emergency shipments of food and medicine to civilians as peacekeepers have done in south sudan. we're asking them to protect
civilians from atrocities such as those been carried out in the central african republic. and we're asking them to help provide civility in countries emerging from brutal civil wars, as in liberia, and in virtually all of these missions we are asking them to carry out these duties in countries where governments are extremely weak and often unable to meet the basic needs of their citizens. today, 2/3 of u.n. peacekeepers are operating in active conflict areas, the highest percentage ever. peacekeepers often employed to areas where rebel groups and militias have made clear that they intend to keep fighting, and the warring parties in moderate politics increasingly include violent extremist groups who terrorized civilians and you peacekeepers openly, treat peacekeepers as legitimate targets. but precisely at this moment when we are asking more of peacekeeping than ever before,
and as we recognize the crucial role that it can play, we see both the promise and the pitfalls of contemporary peacekeeping. we see life-saving impact when peacekeepers are willing and able to fulfill their mandates, and we see the devastating consequences when they are not. a few examples. in south sudan, where a new civil war has displaced more than a million people and killed more than 10,000, just since last december, the u.n. peacekeeping mission has arguably played a critical role in preventing even more bloodshed. on december 15, a day that infighting between -- government soldiers went house to house searching for ethnic men and executing them in the streets. in one incident, soldiers crammed between 200 and 300 men into a small building an open fire on them through the window, killing nearly all of them. in the city of -- rebel forces targeted the homes and looting. in response the u.n. gates of the space to civilians fleeing the violence, eventually taking in more than 100,000 displaced persons. on a trip to south sudan, i took in august, i visited a u.n. base
where more than 17,000 people were taking shelter. rough as the conditions were for the people on the base, and they were rough, many of them were living in foot-high for deep filthy water, they told me they had access to food and clean drinking water and protection from deadly attacks, which was more than could be said for the south sudanese outside of the gates. two decades earlier, recall when civilian sought refuge under the flag, peacekeepers made a different choice. in april 1994, some 2000 rwandan tutsi sought records in a base. hutu were chanting "hutu power,"
drinking banana beer, and brandishing machetes. when orders came for the peacekeepers to evacuate, they followed orders. they had to fire over the heads of tutsi to get out. not long after to the peacekeepers walked out of the school, militia members walked in, butchering everyone inside. that was then. now we have u.n. mission in south sudan opening its gates and staying with its people at time of great need. at the same time, south sudan today demonstrates the continuing challenge of rapidly deploying peacekeepers and equipment they need. at the outset of this the summer conflict, which continues to
this day, the security council swiftly authorized an emergency surge of 5500 troops, nearly doubling the number of troops there on the ground in south sudan. yet almost one year later, the mission today is still more than 2000 troops short, severely restricting the ability to project force and provide security for civilians outside the camps. it has also suffered from a chronic shortage of helicopters. this restricts the ability and effectiveness, often in life or death situations. in the democratic republican of congo, there is similar good news, bad news. after years of stagnancy, the u.n. has played a really important role in the last year and a half in disarming and defeating powerful rebel groups. alongside congolese forces, these efforts have been led by a mission unit known as the force intervention brigade. the commander, who has been absolutely critical to a
heightened emphasis on preventing atrocities, told fellow peacekeeping commanders at a recent security council meeting to change their mindset and to stop reporting just what happened yesterday and instead start reporting what we did yesterday, so the accountability is for what we did in the face of what is happening. and the brigade under him has put these convictions into action, neutralizing a number of powerful rebel groups, including the m-23, which had committed atrocities against congolese civilians. the general has set an example of putting himself on the front lines of this aggressive effort, in patrols with his troops and even traveling personally to the headquarters of one rebel group to tell its leader to lay down their arms or face a frontal assault. this is not your mother's or your grandmother's peacekeeping.
and yet even with this singular leadership, we still see you in peacekeepers in congo fairly routinely failing to protect civilians. on the evening of june 6, assailants attacked civilians at an outdoor church service in a congolese town. many people called the nearby u.n. base, only five miles away. they were begging for help. in some instances they were using the free phones that peacekeepers had provided them for just such an emergency. yet the peacekeepers sat at their base come later claiming they thought the local congolese military commanders would intervene. more than 30 people were massacred. one victim was a four-year-old boy with disabilities who was burned to death. these are the stakes of what gets done right and what gets done wrong. we are not done in this case. this incident in congo was unfortunately not an isolated
case, even though the protection of civilians has moved to the heart of mandates. a report by the u.n.'s internal oversight office in march found in 507 attacks against civilians from 2010 to 2013 peacekeepers never used force to protect civilians under attack. thousands of civilians may have been killed. in mali, a teenage girl was whipped 60 times in timbuktu for daring to talk to young boys. music was banned. today peacekeepers are playing a critical role alongside the french to help root out extremists. u.n. peacekeepers are helping those in mali to reduce displaced persons by 60%, and their presence has prevented extremists from taking towns like timbuktu, where the community is reconstituting its long tradition of religious tolerance. at the same time, the peacekeeping mission in mali faces serious challenges in projecting force over the vast territory north of the niger river. the mission has struggled to establish base camps and sustain them in an austere environment with unusable roads. the mission has had to spend millions of dollars to transport
water to its troops in that environment. worst of all, u.n. peacekeepers are facing unprecedented attacks by extremists. to give a few examples, on august 16 a suicide bomber drove a pickup truck in with explosives into the heart of a u.n. camp and detonated. two peacekeepers were killed and seven others were wounded. on september 18, five chad peacekeepers were killed when their truck rolled over an ied. on october 3, there was an ambush, which killed nine peacekeepers from niger. suffice it to say, when peacekeeping was created six decades ago, it did not have suicide bombers or ied's in mind. when we deploy peacekeepers into some of the most complex areas in our time, some of these problems would likely be evident even if the world's most advanced militaries were the ones wearing blue helmets. regardless of the problems i have described -- slow troop deployment, the challenge of
keeping units fed and hydrated, the failure to confront aggressors and protect civilians -- are problems that are in the u.s. interest to see addressed. i would like to share four ways the united states and our partners can strengthen peacekeeping second better meet the demands of 21st-century conflicts. it did not have suicide bombers or ieds in mind. when we deploy peacekeepers and deploy a rather low number of troops proportional to the task they are assigned, some of these problems would likely be evident even at the world most advanced militaries were the ones wearing blue helmets. regardless of the problems i have described -- slow troop deployment, the challenge of keeping units fed and hydrated, the failure to confront aggressors and protect civilians -- are problems that are in the u.s. interest to see addressed. i would like to share four ways the united states and our
partners can strengthen peacekeeping second better meet the demands of 21st-century conflicts. first, the pool of countries that deploy troops, police, and military enablers has to expand. peacekeeping is increasingly funded by developed countries and manned by developing countries. this is unsustainable and unfair. it will not produce the peacekeeping forces that today's conflicts and our national security demand. it perpetuates divisions between the two camps when we have a shared interest in seeing peacekeeping succeed. that is why vice president biden convened world leaders at the general assembly in september for a peacekeeping summit, to press for more commitments from capable militaries and to demonstrate our common cause with those who are performing
this dangerous task. we are encouraging european militaries, many of which are drawing down from afghanistan, to return to you in peacekeeping were they play a very active role in the 1990's. we are asking east asian militaries to bring more substantially to peacekeeping, some for the first time. these countries will not only bring more troops to operations, but also potentially niche capabilities, such as the surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities that dutch and mali, which should help prevent deadly attacks on peacekeepers and civilians like the ones that have taken the lives of more than 30 peacekeepers in mali in the last year. at the september summit, many of our partners answered the u.s. and the u.n. call. colombia announced it will deploy its troops to you in peacekeeping.
japan announced it will change its domestic legislation to permit greater participation in peacekeeping. indonesia announced it will more than double deployment of troops to u.n. peacekeeping operations and create a standby force to permit rapid deployment. more than two dozen other countries, from sweden to chile to china, made commitments. we will continue to urge more contributions of the coming year, and world leaders will reconvene in september 15 to make new pledges to peacekeeping. as for our own military in addition to our heightened efforts in afghanistan, against isil, and ebola, the united states also sent about 1400 troops to the multinational peacekeeping force in sinai. as vice president biden said, we
are reviewing gaps that the united states is in position to fill, and that includes building base camps as we are currently doing for the mission in the central african republic. we're also doing more to share our unique knowledge of confronting asymmetric threats like the ones that peacekeepers are confronting in mali and somalia, lessons we learned from more than a decade of war in afghanistan. they're doing more to help peacekeeping missions make better use of advanced technologies, such as counter-ied equipment. our second goal in this effort is to ensure that countries with the will to perform 21st-century peacekeeping have the capacity they need to do so.
because african leaders see firsthand the consequences of unchecked conflicts, several have been at the forefront of embracing a new approach to peacekeeping, seeking to execute the tasks assigned to peacekeepers and in particular the responsibility to protect civilians. the african union has demonstrated a commitment to building rapid response capability on the continent, and the united states is leading a coalition of international partners in support to this end. in august, president obama announced a new initiative at the u.s. africa leaders summit. united states will invest $110 million each year for the next five years to build the capacity of a core group of six countries -- ethiopia, ghana, rwanda, senegal, tanzania, and uganda -- and we are hopeful our allies in nato and elsewhere will join. and then make a commitment to protecting civilians from violence. to give one example, rwanda's troops were some of the first boots on the ground when conflict erupted in the central african republic. because rwandans reinforced their mission, people from other countries trust them.
aggressors who would attack civilians fear them. the united nations has trained hundreds of thousands of peacekeepers in the past decade to the global peace operations initiative launched under president bush. it is an important supplement to that effort. our military experts will work alongside partners like rwanda to strengthen their institutions and capabilities so they can deploy troops when crises emerge and they can't supply and sustain their forces in hostile and inhospitable environments.
in exchange for this support, these countries have committed to maintain the forces and the equipment necessary to undertake rapid deployment. third, we need to build a global consensus in support of the mandates peacekeepers are being asked to undertake. the security council first tasked a peacekeeping mission with the responsibility to protect civilians in sierra leone in 1999. this was in the face of that brutal civil war in their country. today, 10 missions constituting almost 98% of u.n. troops across the world are charged with protecting civilians. a number of large troop contributors openly express skepticism at the scope of responsibilities the council has subscribed to their troops. these countries cite this traditional principles of peacekeeping, operating with consent of parties have remaining impartial, and using limited force. this approach is understandable. many of the countries that subscribe to this view served in some of the earliest
peacekeeping missions, and which blue helmets were deployed at the invitation of warring parties to observe a cease-fire along a demarcated line. such as one between israel and syria or india and pakistan. in that context, it was that peacekeepers had the parties' consent and that they observe and reported infractions. for more than 20 years, peacekeeping has steadily evolved, and we must question how relevant these principles remain to places like mali at south sudan where peacekeepers are called on to defend peace and protect millions. as the ethiopian prime minister argued, we cannot ask extremist groups for their consent, remain impartial between legitimate governments and brutal militias, or restrict peacekeepers to using force and self-defense while mass atrocities are taking place around them.
if peacekeeping is to be effective in the 21st century, we have to close the gap between the mandates the international community asks peacekeepers to undertake and their willingness to successfully execute those mandates. if not, it puts the lives of civilians and peacekeepers at risk and undermines the legitimacy of peacekeeping everywhere. recently, some of the largest and longest-serving -- introduced have demonstrated a willingness to tackle this issue head on. over the last year, bangladesh has conducted a conference of internal review to craft a new peacekeeping strategy aimed at adapting to the demands of contemporary peacekeeping. it has recognized the evolution of peacekeeping and pledged to make protection of civilians and essential component of its troops' training. meanwhile, pakistan removed a sector commander who failed to deploy his troops to protect civilians under attack, and that send a message to pakistan's 8000 peacekeepers worldwide that
such action was not condoned. last week pakistan declared to the u.n. that it was committed to robust peacekeeping to protect civilians. translating these shifts in posture into unity of purpose will take time, but these are promising steps, and we will work with our partners and the u.n. to encourage more like them. in turn, we must take seriously and seek to remedy the truth when dealing with countries' frustrations that they lack sufficient opportunity to share with the security council the practical experience of their troops undertakings on complex and robust mandates which put in harm's way their men and women in uniform. fourth, we need to press the u.n. to make bold institutional forms. it is easy to criticize the u.n. for all the problems we see on the ground, but that the same time as we create much-needed
capability for failures and for abuses, we should take note of some profound changes that the u.n. secretary has made to peacekeeping since the catastrophic failures of rwanda and srebrenica to improve logistics and procurement, the united nations has made advances. last year we spearheaded the effort to enact further reforms, including longer troop rotations, to preserve institutional memory, financial penalties for troops who show up without necessary equipment to perform duties, and financial premiums for troops who are willing to accept higher risks, incentives and risks. financial premiums for troops willing to accept higher risk. incentives have to be better leveraged in the service of our shared aims. ban ki-moon has just announced a new review of peacekeeping. while we do not expect a review to remedy deficiencies in
capabilities and shortages in political well, the review should address the shortcomings in peacekeeping that the u.n. itself has the ability itself to fix -- inadequate planning, slow troop employment, even mission leadership, unclear and unenforced standards for troop performance, inadequate measures to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse, insufficient accountability for failure to protect civilians, and an inefficient division of labor between peacekeeping operations and other u.n. agencies. most of the issues i've just described the u.n. secretary can take a strong leadership role. member states then in turn have to step up. you have to have both for lines of effort ensuring peacekeeping better addresses 21st-century
challenges. they demonstrate the need for u.s. leadership and to exercise that leadership, the united states must pay our u.n. dues in full. i understand the frustration many americans feel that the united states paying a substantial share of the peacekeeping budget. and with the u.s. share rising of the past decade, due to the formula that the united states negotiated in 2000 which allows our regular budget contribution share, we agree that the formula should be changed to reflect the realities of today's world. until that happens, we also insist on paying our full dues at this critical moment. if we do not, he will dramatically undercut our power to achieve the reforms needed. we will undermine our leadership. and we will potentially underfund important african-led
missions, such as the ones in mali and the central african republic. this does not mean we sign over large check and look at the other way. on the contrary, as stewards of taxpayer funds over the last six years, we are pressed hard to improve the cost efficiency of peacekeeping and to prevent significant costs. through u.s.-led reform efforts, the u.n. has cut the per-person peacekeeper cost by 15%. we've also aggressively fought cost increases, saving hundreds of millions of dollars per year. we have pressed to streamline and right-sized missions where warranted by changing conditions on the ground. in the ivory coast we've cut the number of troops in half, from 10,000 to around 5000. in haiti, we've reduced the number after the from 9000 after the 2010 earthquake just over 2000 today, and we were on course to do the same in liberia prior to the outbreak of ebola. these efforts ensure that
governments do not use peacekeepers as an excuse not to take responsibly for their own citizens' security. and streamlining missions in this manner frees up troops and resources that are needed elsewhere. we will continue to work to make peacekeeping as efficient as possible without undermining its effectiveness in close coordination with congress. as congress reconvenes next week to consider a spending bill, i plan to continue working with a bipartisan group of lawmakers to find a path forward on this critically important issue. before closing, let me touch briefly on a trip president obama asked me to take last week to take stock of the international response to the ebola outbreak in west africa. long before ebola hit sierra leone and liberia, civil wars did. and both nations hosted u.n. peacekeeping missions.
the u.n.'s mission in liberia is ongoing. when peacekeepers arrived in sierra leone in 1999, the cease-fire between parties was shaky. or than 50,000 people had been killed and rebel groups had amputated the limbs of 20,000 people. over the next six years, the u.n. sierra leone mission was performing a lot like the contemporary missions i described earlier. it suffered some very serious failures and setbacks, including credible allegations of an outrageous pattern of sexual abuse by troops, and less than a year after the mission deployed, rebels kidnapped hundreds of peacekeepers, killed four of them, and renounced their cease-fire. talk to sierra leoneans, as i did last week, and you recall a mission that had an impact in helping sierra leone rebuild after a devastating conflict. these efforts helped disarm 75,000 fighters, including child soldiers. the blue helmets decommission
more than 42,000 weapons. they helped 500,000 people who were displaced. after helping the first democratic election in 2005, the u.n. peacekeeping mission was drawn down. one of the questions that kept running through my mind as i toured freetown last week, what if peacekeepers had never come? what if the country had still been at war? how much faster with the virus have spread? how would doctors and nurses be able to fund the country to help support that country's week health system right now? how would the military be able to help build ebola treatment units or bearer operations if they were tied down fighting rebels? we rarely ask these questions of peacekeeping.
we see the many ways that peacekeepers come up short, the slowness to deploy, failure to protect civilians. what cannot see what is impossible to see is the counterfactual. what would any of the more than a dozen countries where u.n. peacekeepers are deployed today look like without a peacekeeping presence? and as the missions do their jobs, as in sierra leone, they make themselves obsolete. they draw down, troops come home, not to parades. in spite of having risked their lives, they come home to anonymity. yet this what if question is one we must ask ourselves with every mission -- what would have happen in south sudan if no u.n. peacekeepers had been present, or if the u.n. had not opened its gates to those people?
what would the central african republic look like today if no african or european union peacekeepers -- no u.n. peacekeepers, had come to prevent attacks all by civilians -- of civilians, being massacred with abandon. the violence and suffering would likely have been much worse. the one in question does not let anybody off the hook. not peacekeepers, not that countries that fund and support peacekeeping and authorize the admissions. nobody gets off the hook. it does remind us of why this effort was so worthwhile and why american leadership is so critical. it is because places like sierra leone and south sudan and the central african republic are better off than they would have been without peacekeeping does not mean that the institution is where it needs to be. nor does it mean that we are satisfied with peacekeepers filling parts but not all of
their mandates, or peacekeepers standing up to protect civilians some of the time rather than all of the time. we are not. when the stakes are as high as they are in these conflicts, when shortfalls can result in atrocities committed, communities uprooted, and communities being split along ethnic and religious lines, getting it right some of the time is not good enough. peacekeeping must be consistently performing and meeting our expectations. we will keep working with our partners to bring about the kinds of reforms upon which the security of millions of people around the world may well depend. thank you. [applause]
good you look today. you said something that was very interesting to me as a former congressional staffer, on peacekeeping. >> thanks for that. >> you are welcome. >> you want congress to react that money. at the same time, how much are the chinese contributing? >> the chinese share of peacekeeping has doubled. it is up around 5% now. >> and you want us to go to 27 percent? >> you are all numbers. >> i am old. the share now that we are billed for is 28.4%. which means that 72.6% -- 71.6% is others. but we are paying a large share. >> you should have stuck with what i said before. that sounded better. that is going to be a hard case to make.
there is a lot of bipartisan support for particular missions, whether it is the syria/israel line, which is now active -- it used to be just sheep, and now it is all nusra. south sudan, of course, the united states -- i think it is true that when you raise the issue of peacekeeping in the abstract, people blanched a little bit. if you can disaggregate it and look at the protection of civilians in the central african republic, and muslims as well -- i think we have a lot of support. >> you make some very specific and persuasive cases.
a couple of the ones you just mentioned are really tough. peacekeepers, i think you rightly outline -- not delivering peace, but keeping peace prevailing. obviously, the peacekeepers -- not a peacekeeping operation, but you mentioned the multinational forces around al qaeda. how do we manage these situations where peacekeepers are more than -- should they be taken out? >> many of them would like to not be present in those roles. refreshing the conversation with the american people, with congress, is so important. the truth is, we do spend a lot of time rightly drawing attention to the ways in which
they fail this environment. with no anti-ied equipment, with no iav's, with extremists in your neighborhood -- there are no obvious candidates to take their place, if we cannot reinforce the efforts they are making. on the list of options, allowing vacuums to persist or civilians to be slaughtered wholesale -- we are in a situation now where we are trying to change the training, change the capabilities, change the mindset. there is a lag between the missions of the kind you have described and i have described in the traditional mindset that many of these broad. we have been in this evolution as well from the 1990's. now, as i said, the huge
percentage of conflicts -- the huge percentage of u.n. peacekeeping being performed not in conflict areas. the exception is when there is actually peace to keep. if there were a door number two, i think we would all walk through it. instead, what we have are these imperfect coalitions of people who are willing to put themselves on the line in service of international peace and security and protection of civilians. we cannot hope to wish them well and hope these tensions resolve themselves. >> are these contributors all going to be game for the notions that they could be in the sorts of conflicts now? >> let me give you an example. with each country, it is a specific dialogue. we need a new contact on the rules of engagement they need to embrace, if for no other reason than the major of the environment they are operating
in. just to give one example, mali, 30 peacekeepers have been killed this year. and you have african companies wanting to walk away? no, they want more robust rules of engagement. i do recognize that if you do not deal with a crisis in the neighborhood, coming to a community near you, you have a lot of political will. you either have a shortage of will, and some capable and experienced forces, or you have a huge amount of will and some issues of equipment, being able to sustain themselves. we have to close those gaps. >> if you would be kind enough to identify yourself.
she is coming. she is right here. >> hello. >> and identify yourself. >> first of all, then you for all the discussion. i saw my first peacekeeping mission in 1960, in the congo. it took the life of the secretary-general. the countries in the congo had so many peacekeeping missions. how much of that did they pay themselves? >> a country like the congo, i think the answer would not only
be nothing, but it would be also that they look to the international community to support their security forces who are operating now side-by-side with the peacekeepers, taking on some of these armed groups. there are exceptions like in cyprus. you had a developed country where they do contribute a very substantial share of the peacekeeping. your larger point in congo, i use the phrase "stagnating" about years of peacekeeping missions in congo that produced no dividends, at least in terms of overall change. maybe civilians were safer here because there might be a
peacekeeper in the neighborhood, but when you look at the net crisis, it looks like more of the same, year to year. this is an example -- they are using a forced intervention brigade, where you had three african armies willing to be part of this -- south africa, which are raring to go against armed groups. they are also using uavs to monitor the border and see whether arms are coming across or actors in the region are getting involved in problematic ways. i think there is actually something different that has brought about meaningful changes for the past year and a half. it is harder to say. >> young lady back here. >> i am caroline. i study peace and conflict resolution in africa. there has been a tendency for african countries to want to consolidate peacekeeping efforts, and want to find larger units to deal with issues. one of the more recent is the
overarching protocols within security governance, these larger themes. we have also seen them come into a conflict resolution role, in congo. i wonder where you see the future of the african g.a.r. and conflict resolution in the region. >> to distinguish that group a little bit and a little bit of effort -- there was a security reform piece. i should've said at the beginning, i hope it goes without saying that the political processes, the mediation and the national reconciliation, that that is the first order priority, of course,
of international efforts. the best you are going to do with the security forces is, hold the militias at bay and hopefully defang them and protect civilians. unless you have that parallel peace at work, where you try to give rise to what gives conflict in the first place, you are going to say -- welcome all. that is what we have seen in the congo over many years. without getting into the technical aspects of what the regional effort is seeking to achieve, i think what we have seen in parallel to these improvements, and this aggressive attitude on the part of the peacekeepers, is way more regional ownership of what is happening. in an interesting and noteworthy development, they have stepped up not only in that region, but also in the central african republic. countries are stepping up to provide peacekeepers that have not before. they are looking to expand the
forces and make sure they have the training capabilities they need. it is probably not worth going so deep into the specifics of what the regional effort is right now. there would be no solution to congo on the peacekeeping side. it is going to come through a political process. there is a deterrent to the armed groups, where they feel like they need to surrender their weapons or face something on the security side. find a place where their constituents can find a home. you have to walk that at the same time. >> she has a plane to catch and i do not know how she is going to get it in 45 minutes. >> thank you so much. thank you for coming. >> thank you all. [applause]
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] next, president obama must remarks and his meeting with congressional leaders. elections.e midterm after that, ed gillespie announcing he is conceding the virginia senate race. >> this weekend on the c-span on saturday, a debate on the future of the internet. and tavis smiley on his latest book, death of a king.