people as long as they're enforced and are on the books. what constrains us more than anything else is our values, as a army, professional military ethic. so what defines us as soldiers are mainly expectation of each other, and i think the army has really taken a hard look at how to make sure that we use -- apply ethics and education, and in units we have discipline and expectations of each other in terms of our coat of professional conduct. i don't see that changing. i think our army is getting stronger every day in that connection, as we prepare soldiers for the ethical, moral, psychological demands of the complex environments environmend afghanistan, by developing empathy for the population, understanding the murderous acts of the enemy cannot be justification for less constraint on the use of fire power but instead we have to

apply fire power with greater discrimination. so to protect innocents. i think the army has come anstromly -- strong way and adapted quickly based on the demands... ... >> nonetheless, it became a

public relations nightmare for the united states. that's a fact. general miller, who i had something to do with him being placed in guantanamo bay and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of that place. and what he did was he got all of the military guards involved in intelligence gathering where in the past they were not just the interrogators. he said that doesn't make sense. after we take x out and interrogate, and he's going back to the population, who's talking to him? what is the conversation about? why aren't we monitoring that? there's a huge amount of information, you should be providing all of that to the intelligence people. that was his major contribution that he made. he was brought postabu ghraib because he was in the so efficientive in using the entire u.s. military presence to gather

intelligence. rumsfeld was frying to fix that. abu ghraib came. there's been this implications that because he was putting pressure on the generals to get more intelligence out of the detainee population, therefore, it manifested itself into interrogation policy that were, in fact, abusive. that thereby interrogation policies that were abusive. i don't believe in my own mind it was driven by that. what took place in abu ghraib fundamentally was abuse of the prison population by the guard population. they were sent there to do another mission. they had never been trained to be a guard population. we didn't train them in some of the psychologicals a -- aspects of dehumanizing the population that takes place in our own prison.

i'm not making a excuse. that abuse took place. the chain of command was not sensitive to the abuse over time and manifested in the horrible instances which were clearly prison abuse. that was not interrogation abuse. that was prison abuse. and i think that issue got way away from us in terms of policies that were driving abusive interrogations and abusive prisoners. that connection has never been able to be made. many people tried to make that connection. it has not been made. rumsfeld's frustration was what is the difference here? i'm getting this value from such a small population and i'm getting very little value here. now did we resolve this in terms of ourselves? yes. in terms of the united states military, we went through how did this happen? how did a unit do something like that and be so ineffective. we did have some abuses on the

interrogation side. but they weren't a matter of policy. how did that happen? and why? those people have been held accountable for all of that. and we have gone through an education and training inside the united states army to make certain that everybody understands what our policy are, and what proper supervision and execution of that policy is. >> okay. our last question. >> right here. >> thank you. my question is probably more for the generals but also just hearing profession ackerman's view. there have been a lot of reports coming out that the lack of arabic translators is an issue. it included plans for 9/11 that had not been translated. with that in mind, and, of course, the title of our talk and the constitution, i'm wondering what your thoughts on

don't ask, don't tell. considering that since 1998, 30 arabic translators have been discharged from the army because of it. >> it there you go, general. there you go. h.r. doesn't want to go near that for sure. but don't ask, don't tell. i supported the don't ask, don't tell when i was on active duty. i'm still supporting it. i will change that position if operational commanders like h.r. believe that it's not going to break down the cohesion of our fighting operation by having home -- homosexuals serve.

it's an operation that has a mission to win on the battlefield. it has to be train organizations to be successful. the only way that we can get people to perform highly -- under that high degree of stress is they have to care about one another and they have to trust each other. so much so that the psychological variable that operating to keep that unit functioning under tremendous stress and going forward and doing what it needs to do is the individual soldier does not want to let down their fellow soldiers. that gives that soldier to courage to overcome their fears. it's the basic training crucible. so the cohesion of that organization is paramount to us. it's one the reasons why in the fighting organizations we do have women in the organizations. because we believe -- our judgment tells us that introducing women into a fighting organization is a

cultural norm that's very different. it would be difficult to maintain the same level of intense cohesion, that could be breakdowns in trust, favoritism, et cetera. that's the basic premise on don't ask, don't tell, in terms of application to the military. i'm supporting that until i hear from operational commanders like general o'deer know and petraeus say something. right now, i still support it. >> obviously, it's a policy decision. our senior leaders are looking and speaking at it as a military device as part of policy decision. one thing our army is good at

responding to whatever the policy is and doing the best job to implement it. i know there's some concerns about civil control of the military, is the military going to push back? i don't see that as a problem. i think that whatever the decision is, that the military leadership will do its best to implement that decision. and so i think as in all other policy issues that involve senior civilian leaders consulting the military, civil control of the military exist in the executive, certainly within the secretary of defense, the civilian secretaries of the services and the president. but it also exist in the congress. and it's issues like these in issues of war where military officers have to provide their best advice to both. the difficulty if than issue is politically charged, -- you don't want officers to cross the line between giving their best advice for a certain policy. you just have to give your best advice and then allow the

constitution to work in terms of developing the policy and telling the military what to do. >> bruce? >> okay. i have to say thank you to everyone. and thank you to our panel. i hope you enjoyed it. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up here on c-span2,

text former aides to senator bob dole talk about his time in the senate. >> if you have a process where it takes years to get an answer and you're bogged down in the courts which is what is threatening our industry right now, that's not a good answer for everybody. and it doesn't make the agency effective. >> verizon vice president and former congressman tom tauke, tonight on the communicators on c-span2. >> let's meet another winner in c-span's studentcam documentary

position. we ask students to tell us about one the greatest strength or challenge facing the country. today we talk to an 8th grader at independent day school in tampa, florida. ben, how's it going trade? >> good. >> thank you for joining us at c-span. you choice to do your documentary on hunger in the united states. why? >> well, normally they tell you the three things we need are food, shelter, and clothing, really the only thing you scientifically need to survive is food. a lot of people aren't getting as much as they should. >> how has hunger affected your community at all in tampa? >> well, i don't live in an neighborhood directly affected by hunger, as a city there's been a huge impact in the number of people going to the food banks has just risen a lot. >> how has the situation changed over the past few years? >> with the unemployment rates, they are forcing people to spend

less on food. they have to choose between food, health care, or telephone service. not only less food, but they can't afford food that's healthy. because the food that's not as healthy is usually the cheapest. and also as i mentioned before, the soup kitchens on christmas day was packed when i went there. the year before, there was a lot of empty seats. >> you interviewed a lot of volunteers at the food bank. what did you learn from them? >> well, two of the three people were paid by the organization. but the one volunteer that i did speak to, he knew the owner of the food bank very well, who also provides on food stamps. he gave more personal perspective to it, but professional numbers and a little more experience as to comparing now to what used to have been there and how much of a difference it was. >> tell me about the people who

rely on those services for food. >> a lot of the people are food stamp beneficiaries who aren't getting enough, the other 50%, they are people who should be getting food stamps and they need to spend on food and a lot of people who are new to the area who haven't struggled with hunger before. the people who just got hit by the recession. >> what ways do you think people could help and volunteer for people who are hungry out there? >> a lot of times in thanksgiving and christmas time there's a box. maybe you could use the one that you got for the buy one get one free deal to donate to the people who beneath need it. a lot of time organizations, they will allow you to get one day off even with pay to volunteer at an organization at your choice. who doesn't want to get off from

work? >> what did you learn from working on the documentary? >> before i made it, i knew there was going to be a large amount of people that were going to need this. when i looked at the numbers, it was astounding the dramatic increase of people relying on the services. i got a lot of knowledge from people that i interviewed, a more professionallive and personallal perspective. >> ben, thank you for talking to me. congratulations on your win. >> thank you. >> now let's watch a portion of his documentary. >> stereotype of welfare queen and they are living large off of the government subsidies. she may get something like $25-$30 a month in food stamps. can you survive on $30 over a month's time? >> it would be great if they had

something available for kids that they didn't have to fill out the forms, they didn't have to be embarrassed, and they could get something for lunch if they needed. >> you can watch ben's entire documentary and all of the other winning entries at studentcam.org. >> now three former aide to senator majority leader bob dole talk about his legacy and career in the senate. senator dole served for 26 years, resigning in 1996 to run as the presidential nominee. hosted by the dole institute, this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> good evening. i'm jonathan earle. we're spending the time on the congressional career of bob dole which began a half century ago. last year we heard from jade thompson who gave us an view of his life over time. tonight we're going to focus on

concrete legislative achievement, something we value more and more watching the 110th to not do some of the things they set out to do. bipartisan deal making, comity and leadership here. jake thompson and many people who attended last week's program talked about the dole leadership and style, that puts the premium on getting the right number of senates, giving each to give as much as they could while being true to their belief. this argues how you got legislation like the americans with disability or the food stamps, the fruit of the across-the political-aisle alliance or the 1983 social security fix or tefra, or the 1982 extension of the voting rights act. granted the numbers game was a little different back then. you only needed 51 votes, not

the de facto 60 you need today to beat back the threatened filibuster. dole's successful legislative leadership relied on the senate rules and personal political touch that made him a legend in the body. it also relied on excolloquy mediaic issues at hand. even that's not enough nowadays. you need help. you need a staff. dole is known for having some of the best staffers in the legislative branch and holding them to a high standard. to emphasize, we have invited several formal dole staffers to give us the inside stories of how senator dole led. before i introduce tonight's panel, i'd like to recognize many other here who have worked on the legislative and campaign staff. i won't make you stand and embarrass, but i see mike murray, dave owen, scott

richardson, leah richardson, john morgan, john peterson, judy krueger, and nelson krueger, thank you for your service. on the panel, sheila burke, staff member. he had been staff member on the committee of finance and deptty staff from 1983 to 1985. she was the first women to hold the post of chief of staff for a majority leader. at tame she was known as the 101st senator in recognition of the latitude given to her in running the day-to-day operations of the senate. a native of san francisco, she learned the masters from harvard and bachelor of science from san francisco. she had deep wells in both knowledge and authority on issue of health care reform. from 1996 to 2000 she served as

executive dean at the kennedy school of government and 2004 to 2007 chief operating officer of the planets greatest office at smithsonian. roderick, a senior leader. he served as deputy secretary of labor in the george h.w. bush administration. he also came up with the acronym tefra, for which people are still angry at him. our old friend has served senator dole in a number of goals from his graduation from ku in 1986 and 2000. those include intern, senior advisor, and body man. in the last capacity, he handled the logistics. every single one of them both in

the senate and during the elections campaigns. as we know from mike's visit here last year, he served as the director of vice presidential operations for the mccain mccain/palin director, a position that has enriched him with stories. please help me welcome sheila burke, roderick dearment, and mike glassner to the institute. >> thanks to all three of you coming tonight. it's a great night to talk about senator dole and his accomplishments and him as a an individual. i'd like to ask each of you how you came about working for bob dole and the various roles that you had in his office. rod? >> well, i came to work in 1979 when the senator rose to the position of ranking member in

the senate finance committee replace paul curtis who had retired. dole was elevated up. i think the senator wanted to get some young lawyers to help staff that committee. and through elizabeth, she called one of her law school classmates and bob and myself worked at covington and burling, i think he was interested in having somebody there who understood tax laws. that was one the areas that i practiced in. >> what else did you go on to be? kind of walk us through chief of staff; right? >> i was the deputy staff director of finance, then the chief council and staff director

of the finance committee, then what senator was elected majority leader, i became his first chief of staff, followed with the sheila was the deputy and sheila followed when she pushed me out. >> right. with a rake. >> tell us your story, sheila. >> i actually have to admit that i was working in new york city at the time. and as a nurse. and i had come to and from washington to sort of help on nursing issues and had gotten to know folks in the finance committee. senator dole decided because he at the time was the ranking republic -- republican on the committee, he was a junior member along with herman who was the chairman of the subcommittee, decided that he was interested in having somebody on the staff that had taken care of patients. there was a physician who worked

for senator long and he ran the medical center in kansas city for a long time, jim mongan, senator dole decided he'd wanted someone who cared for patient and had some understanding of the health care delivery system. so i was recommended by the finance committee staff to interview with senator dole who i did not know having been born and raised in california and in san francisco, very liberal democratic parents. we interviewed, i said this is sort of interesting but not what i expected in terms of a career choice. i said to the senator during the course of that interview in his office in the dirkson building, i'll never forget it, senator, i'm actually a democrat. i'm from california. i have a long history on sort of the far other side of the line. and his comment to me at the time, which remained true in the 20 years i worked for him, was i don't really care what your

politics are. what i care about is whether you care about health care. i want someone who knows and understands those issues. so i went to work for him as a legislative staff person on the finance -- on his personal staff. when he became the ranking on the finance committee, i was asked to join the committee staff by bob and rod, and to handle health issues. then i became the deputy staff director and responsible for all of the spending programs on the finance committee. then ultimately became deputy chief of staff and ultimately chief of staff where i remained with him until he left the senate. >> and you had your conversion to republican. >> and i had any conversion. >> in the midst of it, i decided to go back to graduate school and had been accepted at harvard and announced i was departing the finance committee to go back to harvard.

i began at harvard in the essentially in the fall of 1980. and, of course, the senate flipped and we took the majority and was asked to come back to the finance committee. at the time, mike dew caucus was my advisor. i went to mike and said i have the opportunity to go back to finance, senator dole being the chairman. i'm not sure what to do. should i finish my degree? mike helped me work out where i flew to harvard a day a week and finished my masters and went back to the finance committee. >> mike? >> excuse me. i grew up in rural kansas. so i from a young age, i've been quite familiar with senator dole as a political figure here in kansas. as a matter of fact, in 1974, in a senate race, i was on the

bumper sticker squad in peabody, kansas. that was my first involvement with senator dole. i later went to the university of kansas. in 1985, i had the opportunity to get -- through a friend to get an internship in senator dole's office. that was the start of my official capacity. in 1986, i moved to washington, i was able to work for several -- well, i'm sorry for the balance of '85, i worked as a volunteer in his campaign office in washington. and then in january of 1986, i was offered a position as the junior staffer on what was then his finance fundraising staff for 1986 reelection campaign in alexandria, virginia. and i gladly took that job, having no other alternative. [laughter] >> so, and in march of that

year, senator dole having been elected majority leader the prior year spent a lot of his weekends campaigning for others. and so there was a need identified for someone who was available on weekends, would work 7 days a week, i think i had the added advantage of being a fellow kansan, i was asked to go on the campaign trail in early 1966. -- 1986. we hit it off and had a good personal relationship. i proceeded to travel with him around the united states and abroad for the next 15 years. so during that period, i have a number of roles. all of with the one exception which were for his campaign committees. i worked as his personal aide or as jonathan referred to the body man or body boy in his '88

presidential campaign. in '89 i came back here to kansas and managed his senate field offices. and in 1992, i managed his final reelection campaign to the senate. and following that, i helped to manage his national political action committee. i was still living here in kansas. my presumption prior to the '94, that was sort of the end of the road. didn't seem that there were going to be any further campaigns either here in kansas or nationally. at least it wasn't appearance to me or anyone else at the time. but upon the electoral landslide, the republicans took control ago. senator dole was going to be significant and ultimately successful for the republican nomination for president. i went b