conversation we're able to have been a more flexible environment. again i think we could well get there today and i hope that we give. >> [inaudible] >> let me say this but we certainly are more than glad to convene again friday, saturday, sunday, monday. nobody, everyone understands that there is no, there is some degree of need to get it to the floor within a certain amount of time. i think all of y'all understand all of the procedural hurdles that can occur in united states senate. i think most of the report on that quite extensively here so i think people felt like this morning again was informative. i think that allowed the consensus to develop and hopefully we will see that information this afteron. >> what if you guys don't have the votes to move at this point? >> that's what we're taught about trying to get this into the weekend.

>> no. i think that would be, look, i don't think that's a fair assessment. i think that where we are is we've got a document that is four pages long, and it was to be a place to start as we said several times. my sense is we're going to improve that, as i would hope would be the case in a body like the senate. and my sense is that, that we have a really good chance of having the vote. no, it's just the opposite of what you said. >> when you started talking about the we can from that means you have to massage it is to get the votes? >> no, no, no. i think we know -- we may well complete our work today. it's been made known where more than glad to do this friday, saturday, sunday and monday. but i think there's been a consensus developed that we would like to see if we can get there this afternoon. and i think that's a possibility at this point.

i don't want to overstate but it's possible that we complete our work today, possible. >> can you describe the type of change that needs to take place? >> i don't. i would rather let, i would rather let the authors that are working on some things. again, i feel a gelling that i considered to be very constructive personally. and i would just rather than address the. you have the opportunity to see that publicly here in a while. we're going to probably meet in a closed session because we are still talking about things that probably don't need to be discussed publicly, but we will have an open discussion it appears this afternoon. at this moment that's what it is. you have the opportunity to hear those and see those being debated. >> [inaudible] >> there's all kinds of amendments. look, i mean, believe me. while we were meeting, the administration was also over

here sharing input. we're getting a lot of input, believe me, as i would hope we would get. my guess is we will end up with a greatly improved a minute. >> let me understand this, you would have another close session of your committee first? >> in a little while. >> at 115 time that. >> in an hour we're getting back together. >> so 1:30? >> yes. >> [inaudible] >> here in the building in our normal place. >> [inaudible] spent it will be closed for a little while and then we will open it up for normal business. >> [inaudible] >> if there is a markup. spank you guys are necessarily ready to markup question are still behind the scenes at? >> i think there's a consensus that we are ready to markup, okay, and again i don't want to overload or overstate, but i'm pretty sure that we will have a market. matter of fact i'm 99.9% sure

we'll have a markup in about an hour, okay? we will probably do it portion of it in a closed setting and then we will move to the open debate which all of you will have the luxury and tremendous privilege of watching. >> can you give us a sense of how many of your colleagues -- [inaudible] >> i got a good sense. i think i will keep that to myself. and again, we still have some things to cover it and hopefully we'll cover that terrain over the next couple of hours. >> [inaudible] >> i think we've got, i think, again, there is some consensus developing. i will let the authors -- look, there's going to be a lot of, you know, there will be a lot of input, as there should be. i would rather let those giving the input speak for themselves. i think we had a very, very

constructive morning. >> [inaudible] >> i don't, i don't know where you all are guessing yesterday. my television is a working at home. >> what? [laughter] >> [inaudible conversations] battlefield. senator graham and i were assured that three things would happen as a result of the united states reaction to bush our alice had chemical weapons. one is to degrade his capabilities -- bashar al-assad chemical weapons. second is increase our support

of the free syrian army and resistance forces. and the third is to change the battlefield momentum which presently is in the favor of bashar al-assad to reverse about what you did which would then create a negotiated settlement and the departure of bashar al-assad from power. i believe it to be very important that provisions concerning that, which is the president stated policy included in this legislation in some form. so we are negotiating and discussing how that could happen. we will be marking up the bill later on, but i think it's very important that we have that provision in this legislation. because without the provision for reversing the momentum on the battlefield, when conditions

are not created for the departure of bashar al-assad. there is no policy without fat, and there is no strategy without that, except for significant attacking of facilities that deliver chemical weapons against the free syrian army. >> do you feel you can do that and so giving idea of having no combat troops on the ground? >> i don't think there's any doubt that it should be and is going to be a provision which prohibits any american combat troops on the ground. >> would you still don't know if the condition -- >> i want to have, the strongest terms that we need to have that provision that calls for a reversal of momentum on the ground, battle against bashar

al-assad. if bashar al-assad remains in an advantageous position from he will never leave syria. he has to know that he is losing, and that way you get a negotiate a settlement for his departure. the president has said bashar al-assad must go. so our policy has to be to implement what the president of the united states has said. >> [inaudible] >> i'm going to work to get this done. we'll see if we can't work it out. we will let you know. >> based on the conversations you had, you will work about? >> we are working hard on it. i don't know about the votes. >> but you would offer a name is in the market to try to get some of his language? >> i am working -- [laughter] >> hello? [inaudible] we are trying. i'm a member of the committee and we're working on an

amendment to achieve that goal. >> are your actions that would be incorporated to change the raid? >> obviously the increased support for the free syrian army and the degradation of the capabilities to deliver chemical weapons would have a salutary effect on the ground. >> do you think the admission will be comfortable with this? >> i don't know, because i know that the president of the united states told me and the lindsey graham exactly that he favored this change in the momentum on the battle, and secretary kerry has said the same thing. so i don't know why they should be resisted to that being a sense of purpose embodied in the legislation. >> you heard general dempsey's comments on the estimate? >> the language is not regime change. the language is reverse the battlefield momentum.

okay? >> thank you, senator. [inaudible conversations] >> and the senate foreign relations committee is convening now to discuss that resolution authorizing military force in so you. the committee was scheduled to get together at 11:30 a.m. eastern after chairman robert menendez at the top republican on the committee bob corker announced a deal last night on a resolution for limited action in syria. the proposal would allow no ground troops and limited timeframe of any action to 90 days. but the meeting was delayed after senator john mccain the we just lament ago and presenter screen right now, said he did not support the latest version of the senate resolution to offer rise force. the arizona republican says he wants more than then limited action. but senator corker was the top republican on the committee said there is still a reasonable chance of a consensus developing

and centers proceeding to a vote. live coverage on c-span2 getting underway shortly. [inaudible conversations] >> there will. the committee has ruled against electronic games. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> this business many of the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. in the last few days the

committee has come together in the spirit of bipartisanship, and drafted a resolution to authorize the use of limited military forces in syria that i believe can achieve a bipartisan support. there will be obviously to our processor on the committee and an amendment process, but it is mypectation that we will be able to achieve the goals largely set out by the resolution. i appreciate the spirit in which all members have come to this issue. this is one of the most -- cast a vote on. and they have come to it seriously, and committed to getting the facts and coming to their respective conclusion that i want to thank senator corker for being a close partner in

making the resolution tailored and focused so that it reflects the general sentiment and will of the majority of the committee. i believe the interest of the american people, and gives the president the authority he has, that he needs to respond to serious use of chemical weapons against its own people. this is an authority he has asked for and this is an authority that we believe we have care in such a way that meets that goal but also the concern of members of the committee and the american people. we have developed a language that we believe appropriate narrows the scope, duration, and breath of the authority granted to meet congressional concerns and the concerns of the american people. i want to thank all of our colleagues who have engaged sometimes very passionately, including senator mccain, on this issue for helping the

committee and the nation focus its attention on the importance of what we are doing. this is a tightly tailored or specified authorization to give the president necessary and appropriate authority to use military force in response to use of weapons of mass destruction by the syrian government, to protect measures 30 inches of the united states and our allies and partners, capacity use such weapons in the future. it has a requirement for determination of use of military force is necessary. ..

no boots on the ground. the authorization would end after 60 days of the president having the ability to request and certified for another 40 days and with congress having an opportunity to pass a resolution of disapproval which provides an integrated united states government strategy for syria and including a comprehensive review of current preview for economic and military policy toward syria and requires a report to congress on the status of those military operations. so let me again thank senator corker and all of the members of the committee for working together in the interest of the american people that respond to this challenge. i believe it is a declaration of our values that sends a clear message that the world cannot and will not tolerate the use of

chemical weapons anywhere. with that, let me turn over to my colleague and the ranking member senator corker. >> mr. chairman, thank you for your leadership on this issue and for your patience for especially the briefing that we had this morning where obviously some things were developed through the line of questioning that took place. i want to thank all of the committee members for the humanity and also the fault zone is that everyone has approached this issue. but in particular i want to express my appreciation to senator mccain and senator coons who were able to develop and a sense of groveling things that will further the markup in a very positive way. thanks to the members i've had plenty of time to be heard. i know we have some members that may have had a short period of time with us and i would rather than speak with us at this time.

i know we are also semi filibustering as we wait for the language to be developed that fully encompasses some of the discussions that have taken place. with that, mr. chairman, to you and your staff thanks to bringing us to this place. >> all right. thank you, senator corker. i'm sorry we are trying to logistically get to where we are at. i would entertain amendments that seek to be offered to the resolution. senator paul. >> i commend the president for doing his constitutional duty and bringing before the congress and asking for the authority to go to war. it should be made explicit though that this is his

constitutional duty and that we are bound by the constitution and bound by the ideas of the founding fathers who exclusively by jefferson and the federalist papers that the executive branch is the branch of government most prone to war, and therefore the constitution invested the power to go to war in congress. some will say this isn't a war, bombing is nt war and sailors and ships are not war. we only defying war when there are boots on the ground. the would be an absurd and narrow definition of the war. this will indeed be a war hopefully that will include casualties on our side but there will be a war. i feel we should make no pretense that we aren't getting involved in the war. the president when he ran for office explicitly said the president should unilaterally go to war without the authority of congress. many say and many pay lip service to this setting this is a chance to vote whether or not you believe this to be true.

the sense of the senate resolution that reads the president doesn't have the power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize an attack on a situation that doesn't involve stopping and actual or imminent threat to the nation. and i submit this for the recorded vote if i may. >> mr. chairman. >> senator mccain. >> first of all i would like to applaud senator paul's active participation in this issue. i respect very much his zeal in trying to make sure that the respective authority of congress and of the president is preserved. and i think what senator paul's amendment brings up is something that this -- i hope this committee will start to look on and that is the wars powers act. in a little bit of contrast to

what senator paul's interpretation of the constitution is is that the wars powers act the president can act that has to come back to congress within 60 days. now, no president's ever agreed that the was constitutional. and yet, they have observed this. and i did what senator paul's amendment brought up here is something i hope this committee will address, and that is this whole issue of constitutionality of when the president can take us to war, with the role of the congress is, and how we address that very i think transcendently important issue that i think is a distorted balance between the congress and the president. so i think senator paul for his amendment, even though i may not agree with it. but he really does bring i think an important issue that we need

to -- it's wrong for the law to be on the books and have the president of the united states say it's not constitutional. if every president of the united states republican or democrat thinks it is unconstitutional they can challenge it in court that they haven't. so i would think senator paul for his amendment. >> one of the things that i think is misunderstood about the war power zach is it does allow the president to take action in three specific cases. one come if the war has been declared by congress. member to come if there's been statutory approval under the use of authorization of the force. and the third is an eminent attack. it doesn't give unlimited power to the president to authorize military force. we can debate whether it is constitutional or not but under the war power act those are the only three ways you can go. the press and the media and everybody misinterprets the war power act to be 60 days after the report. that's true, but that's not the

beginning of the wars powers act. the initial part says the president can only go to war eminent danger, declaration of war or statutory approved force. >> can i just say to my friend in response that third provision is what is not clear, the statutory act. we are about to enact a statutory act in the view of many of us. so i don't think it is quite as clear as senator paul -- >> senator durbin. we are going to go back and forth. >> mr. chairman, this is an important proposal by the senator from kentucky. even though this is sent to the senate, we should take it seriously because it is the most awesome responsibility that we have as members of congress under the constitution. i would like to suggest to him that we take care of the language we use and that we use the exact language of the wars powers resolution as opposed to the language that you have added here because i think will create

some ambiguity if we put in a new standard in terms of the president's power. let me be specific. at the end of your amendment, you say that it does not involve, and then you use the words stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. the wars power act says and national emergency created by an attack of the united states and territories or possessions. so if you would consider that as a friendly amendment to use the exact language of the wars power resolution, which you referred to indirectly here, i think that we would be on more solid ground. >> i would be very happy to give the chairman would amend that. >> mr. chairman? >> senator risch? >> first of all, senator mccain is right. this is an important date, but probably for another day. and i submitted an amendment. i see that we haven't got it here. in the chairman wanted it or the

ranking member. but i can make this a little simpler. if you go to page three and go to the feared last line to the word constitution. it says where the president has authority under the constitution. that's where the rub is. whether he has the authority under the constitution. so i would suggest we take out the word constitution instead and whereas the president has authority under the wars power resolution of november 7th, 1973. and that will incorporate the exact language that suggested by senator durbin, and i think it's also senator paul it gets us exactly where you and i want to be as far as our belief as to what the power of the president is. >> senator mccain. >> i like senator risch's point. i think that is a good one. i would just mention this power if she was mine obsess about, and senator mccain and i talked and i hope we will address it.

the debate we had the last couple days demonstrates the importance of it. i would say to senator paul, here is the challenge. and i hope he will tell me i'm wrong on this. but i just read a naep report about your intention to filibuster a report on the ceiling of resolution if it hits the floor. it's hard to praise the president for bringing something to congress for a vote. and then say you're going to try to filibuster to deny me the right to vote about it on the floor of the senate. [inaudible] >> -- misinterpretations in the media. >> i'm just reporting what the ap is reporting. i would hope that if we are going to encourage the president to bring these matters to congress that we don't use procedural tricks to block the congress from being able to substantively vote on these matters. >> thank you mr. chairman. senator corker. >> i want to thank the senator for bringing this up and say that senator kaine has first coming to the committee wanted to address this issue. i know that he has had

substantive conversations with others on the committee. but you know, i think the process might begin with looking at the elevation for the use of military force in general. i know that we have one specific to syria right now. and we have lots of other activities that are taking place around the world. i know that there have been discussions about trying to address that. and then at the end of the police dealing with the wars power resolution. i thank him for bringing in to us today pitting and i hope that we don't do anything today that takes away all the other hand from our ability to pass something out of the committee. >> let me just say that the chair appreciates senator paul's commitment and passion on this issue. and i think the issue is so significant to place into question the constitutionality of the president of the united

states does and does not have. in this particular context, it is not timely. it deserves and i believe we should have that debate. something the ranking member has been pursuing for a long while and it was a debate and consideration of the authorization of the military force looks like more broadly than syria. and the discussion getting some key witnesses. i cannot support in the context of this resolution to make the determinations even though it may be a sense of congress on the constitutionality of this particular set of issues in this timeframe and in these circumstances. >> i would have to oppose the

amendment. >> senator. >> thank you, chairman and invest. let me just say that -- and i know the issue of whether or not we put it in here is one that is pending and the chairman feels strongly the about it giving it but i am very proud of the congress the way that it is stepped forward and has asserted its authority. we have all lost, several hundred members signed a letter that specifically asked the president to not go forward and to bring this to congress. and to me, that is organizing a new era in terms of congress rather than sitting back actually saying we are going to exercise our right under the constitution. the constitution specifically says as senator paul put in here that the power to declare war is

in the legislative branch and not the executive branch. we've heard a lot of statements with the president can move forward on assignment. i think it's important to have this in here. i would applaud him and i yield that we have entered a new era of where the congress will assert its power under the constitution when we get into situations like this. i would support the amendment if we get the opportunity to have a vote on >> any other members seeking recognition? >> this is an important issue regarding ogle of congress and in particular the power to make the war. i want to understand the context of some of the historical look-see balto wan i think that in some ways it reflects kind of what is being discussed in the 86 engagement from president

ronald reagan and decided to launch a limited strike in libya. i think it took 12 minutes. very limited. how this reconcile with president reagan's in grenada and in operation of that magnitude? >> when you look at this and you look at the wars power act, it doesn't do anything beyond what the wars power act says but it does reiterate what the act says. there has been some disagreement. some people don't think that we are getting ready to commence with syria is a war. some people think the lesser the military attack the less it is and the less need for any kind of congressional authority. it doesn't differentiate between small wars and big wars. it does differentiate -- the wars power act does differentiate between the action and the action that doesn't have some sort of an immediate threat. i don't think either of the

cases that you mentioned there is an immediate threat. i think these are written to interpretation but what's not open to interpretation would be an xm evin clich we are discussing now for weeks at a time with their one of the congress should have to give the opposition. >> senator cardin? >> it's interesting we are having this debate on a request by the president for us to act under the war power is resolution. senator mccain is correct. this is the subject of the power of the president and the use of force is a debate we have in congress, it shouldn't be this particular bill. when i'm a strong supporter of the wars power act the president should adhere to the power. i said that on previous occasions. i think the resolution that we have here is probably -- it says whereas the president has the authority under the constitution. the constitution of only the inherent power of the president, the president's responsibility to carry out by congress.

so i think that we have already covered this. there is a specific reference to the wars of powers in this legislation. and i -- we are not going to be able to resolve in this committee or in this congress will longstanding dispute between the executive and the legislative and the judicial branches of government as to how the exercise of the force is authorized and implemented. i would urge us to stick to the issue at hand. this is one of the most challenging for the authorization of force. it's hard wrenching because we know the consequences for the use of force. and i think that we should -- we shouldn't try to deal with the overall issues of the authorization generally which requires far more discussion as senator mccain has indicated. >> mr. chairman, i agree with

senator cardin the president has asked for the authority under the authorization. so as a result of that, we ought to be clear that that is what we are responding to. we've got the word constitution and that is causes the disagreement amongst the parties. so i would respectfully request we take out the word constitution and accept what everybody agrees to come and that is that this is under the war powers resolution of november 7th, 1973. if that goes through the entire argument and we can move on with the merits of it because, as senator cardin currently stated, this will be wrestled with lee every branch of government and there is boe resolution this morning. i'm worried if we put this in here at some point in time somebody is going to be saying they gave him -- we can interpret that to be the power under the constitution, not under the war power resolution.

>> i think it is beyond just the opposition that is included in this resolution -- in this bill. whereas the president has authority under the constitution to use force to defend the national security interest of the united states. it's not in regard to chemical weapons used by syria. >> again i come back to we need to get on the merit of the things so you don't even need this whereas in there. it's superfluous and whoever put whereas in there is causing a fight that we really don't need to have to be a pure argument about the specific language of a whereas that we don't need. we can resolve it by changing the reconstitution to the wars powers resolution. >> senator paul's and and and is -- i understand senator risch's comment, but it's a broader than that specific note so i will give you a final word before we go to a vote. >> what i would say is there never seems to be a good time to debate these. this is a very good time to

debate this. the nation is looking at it and asking us what we believe with regard to what our role is and what congress's role is. congress wants to stand up right now and take back power that's been gravitating the wrong way. this is precisely the time to do it. what i would also say is this precisely comes up because the president has been asked point blank and the secretary of state has been asked point blank on at least two or three occasions what would happen if the congress votes you down? are you going to stand by the authority of congress to make this decision? and they have hedged. so the vote here is a very important because this is about -- like i said to secretary carry you are probably going to win. door probably going to get this war. but the thing is we need to be very clear that by coming here seeking congressional authority and that he would abide by the congressional authority if he didn't win the vote. you shouldn't get it both ways. you shouldn't be allowed to say i'm going to abide by the authority of the congress when i win but when i lose i'm not. we should say that we are for

the congressional authority or we are not. this is a great issue in a perfect time to talk about it. it's a perfect time to take a stance if you were in favor of the war powers act or the limitation on presidential power, this is the time to stand up and be counted. thank you. >> i appreciate the senator's remarks. i think the issue is important enough, but enough to be done in this context. so instead of -- i assume the senator is asking for a vote. his request is put forward. i am going to move to the table on the amendment because it is an expression of my view that this is an important issue that should be held tough for debate in the committee and hopefully the hearings. but that right now is much greater than the issue that is before us.

i will move the table and the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] the clerk will report. >> 14 ayes. of the amendment is tabled -- senator mccain? >> i have two amendments. i ask unanimous consent that they be considered together since they are inextricably ofek

senator coons to this amendment is on behalf of myself and senator coons. before i get into the very excellent ability for all of us to not only hear from the administration that get questions answered. i appreciate you holding those and i thank you. it may be one of the most important pieces of legislation that this committee will consider. and i think you and senator corker for your leadership and your patience. both of these amendments have had to do with the issue of changing to a battlefield situation and syria.

the president of the united states has articulated publicly and to me and senator gramm three basic policy measures that he advocates. bonn is to de duraid de kunkel weapons capabilities of al-assad and give support to the syrian army and those that are seeking to prevail. a third is a change in the battlefield for the hezbollah, russia and equipment being flown every day. it's on the oxide al-assad and i think that to leave power that situation is reversed he can

prevail. tedtates to change the policy in momentum on the battlefield and syria so as to create a favorable condition or negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in syria. a comprehensive u.s. strategy should 18 as part of the court need an international effort to degrade the capability at the regime at the weapons of mass destruction while upgrading the lethal and non-lethal capabilities of those elements of the syrian opposition forces including the syrian army. this requires an amendment to start with that we basically place part of the legislation as

it is presently written and replace it with the following statement. may 21st, 2013, the foreign relations committee passed by the 15-3 vote the act that found the president's goal of us saw the leading power and into the violence and a negotiated political settlement in syria or pre-requisites for the space future for syria and regional peace and security. but absent the decisive changes to the balance of power on the ground and in syria sufficient incentives do not yet exist for the achievement of such goals. i might add that entire active syria transition's the act is passed by a 15-3 vote in the relations committee and as is presently on the calendar to the i hope my colleagues as well i think appreciate that this is really important that we are on

record and we want to change the military equations on the battlefield. i think any of server, all of us in putting blood every unless bouchard al-assad agrees that he is going to lose would be impossible for him to negotiate a peaceful settlement and departure fromyria. i would like tsk my colleague, senator coons if you don't mind to make remarks to the and i hope my colleagues will consider this amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman and senator mccain. i think this adds an important piece to the overall authorization, which is a clarification. nothing about this ads to the scope of the authorization. nothing about this amendment ads to the scope of the authorization for the use of force. but it does i think point out as the rest of the colleagues debate and consider the authorization to the valuable

work done on this committee and that currently sits waiting for the consideration on the floor in the transition support act which considered a wide range of factors and concerns in place here. i want to just draw your attention to the point is made on the overall policy is a negotiated resolution. an international effort to degrade the to the the the the the regime could use on the weapons of mass destruction to change the momentum on the battlefield, to change the momentum on the battlefield in order to encourage a negotiated political settlement for the civil war. that is worth restating and inserting into this authorization, and i would be grateful for the support of my colleagues. >> any other colleagues that wish to speak to this? senator murphy? >> thank you mr. chairman. i think it goes without saying that this does fundamentally alter the nature of this authorization and i think that it is essentially combines the

authorizing resolution that we passed several months ago with the underlying legislation that we have been debating. it does so in a statement of policy that says for the first time that congress by the passage of this act supports the president's efforts which have been reported in the open sources over the past several months arming with both lethal and non-lethal capabilities the elements of this theory in opposition. i would note though that in a authorization that we passed several months ago which adamantly i didn't support that we were very careful to attach to that resolution and the initial authorization some pretty carefully thought out provisions and controls that would go along with the president's new authority to arm the rebels. by stating today that it is the policy of the united states government endorsed by the congress to do that we'd all of that work that we had previously done. i know that this is not the same

thing that is authorizing legislation because it is a statement of policy. but i do think that this is a fairly substantial change. i think it will take some people by surprise particularly in the house of representatives as this goes forward. i appreciate many members of the committee have been calling upon the president to do this work for a very long time. and this committee has spent an enormous amount of time talking of this issue will forming the vetted elements of the syrian opposition. it is not the debate the senate has had more has it been conducted in a full house and i would argue that may complicate the discussion on this moving forward. >> senator corker. >> i just want to thank senator mccain for being such an advocate for having a coordinated strategy. and i don't think there is anybody on this committee that has spent more time trying to press that issue.

i want to thank senator coons for also continually trying to ensure that the things we do that we do in a way that act together in a way that accomplishes the end. so why would thank them both for capturing that theme through the question that they and others asked this morning for offering this amendment. and i would say that i think the administration very much supports, as secretary kerry said this morning a further affirmation of the policies and an integrated way. so i thank them to be a cynic any other colleague that has not -- i will be supportive of senator mccain and kaine team' amendment coming and i want to congratulate both of them for coming together and in particular senator mccain for

his advocacy towards this going and senator coons who has been the advocate of a strategy. the first amendment is just part of the whereas walls and it's an important calls. what it -- does is restates the vote of 15-3. amendment number one is in the context a restatement that exists but it is an important fact. on amendment number two, it is the insertion of a statement of policy. but it's largely a statement of policy the administration itself has brutalized -- verbalized and creates an understanding this is the ultimate policy but it does nothing in terms of as the senator said to add to the scope of the authorization in which

the authorization unlike the transition would have provisions under which the administration if the act became law would be able to pursue. i think it's an important statement removes us to a broad syria strategy with jul commend both the senate terse for that has been on a bipartisan basis accepted and voted on by this committee. on would be supportive of both amendments. is their anyone else that wishes to speak on the amendment. senator mccain? >> if it is agreeable i would ask for a voice vote. all of those in favor will say aye. all of those opposed will say no the ayes have it and the

amendments are agreed to. is their anyone else that offers an amendment on the democratic side? >> was good to offer an amendment on the ground troops that make it clear that the authorization does not authorize the use of american soldiers and syria. the language here is clear. it does say that the restrictions include the limitation of use of the united states armed forces on the ground and syria for the purpose of combat operations but i was concerned about the language combat operations. as a result of the hearings of the committee on the and very confident that there are no soldiers been asked to go then to syria as a result of this

authorization and understand talking to the ranking member that will be made extremely clear in our committee report. there is always the unexpected and i understand that but our authorization is clear there will be no ground troops in seriously will not be offering the amendment. >> i can assure you the committee report will have language that makes it clear the language that gozemba resolution is the stated purpose and would be happy to work to make sure that language is supported. disney is a member wish to make an amendment? senator coons? >> it is co-sponsored by senator shaheen. this amendment simply expands on the required elements for inclusion into the strategy report to be delivered to congress 30 days after the

authorization. section five inserts additional provisions within the broad strategy report and has a section regarding security court mention with allies and regional partners in israel, jordan and turkey and it has a section on planning for security of the existing biological and other weapons supply and syria and last it adds a section asking the policy address efforts regarding the ongoing humanitarian challenges presented by the refugees in neighboring countries and 4.5 million internally displaced persons and syria. i was grateful for senator shaheen's leadership recognizing the need to broaden the policy strategy report that we anticipate from the administration as part of this authorization. i think this is not controversial and we hope for a voice vote to disconnect the

chair is supportive and believes it is a valuable addition to the resolution. any other members wish to speak to that? >> i thank them for the contribution and the way that they have approached this topic and supported it wholeheartedly. >> a voice vote. all of those in favor? de amendment is agreed to treat any other senator wish to offer an amendment? >> senator durbin. >> mr. chairman there is an amendment the senator and i have been working on that addresses a practical consideration. under the proposal before us, the president if this is enacted into law if after submitting to congress has 60 days to exercise his authority under this proposal and he can extend that another 40 days with the certification on s. con. res.

disproves. so it in a hypothetical situation of this became the law and the president implemented it september 15th then ultimately he would have until november 15th until that to use that period of time from 60 days and another 30 days until december. the question that has been raised is what happens on the 91st day. what happens if he decides at this point that he is going to use chemical weapons again? will wheat return to congress and start the debate again or should something also occur? senator mccain and i have worked back and forth on the language but we don't believe it is ready at this moment. as to how that certification might take place but it does leave open the possibility that we ought to consider and i want to raise that to the committee i won't be offering the amendment that was worked on and i would like to ask the senator if he would make that point for the indulgence of the chair.

>> i think my colleague from illinois. there is a perception problem that can be created that we need to of way and that is we will take this action and kill 91st day and then bashar al-assad is able to resume his atrocities with chemical weapons and obviously none of us believe that or agree with it but we are kind of working to try to find a way to give everybody the confidence that any time if bashar al-assad uses chemical weapons again that they will act and we don't have to go through -- we don't have to go through the amendment to the authorization and the the date on the floor etc. so the dilemma that we face is that we don't want to get an open-ended kind of a ready to

the president of the united states either. so we would solicit the input of all members how we can address the perception and the same time reserve the legitimate role the congress plays in determining these issues. so i think my friend from illinois and i hope all of my colleagues will continue to work together by the time perhaps this legislation reaches the floor. >> i'm not going to offer an amendment along these lines but would offer durbin amendment number two. >> if i can comment on the amendment that you have held on. the chair appreciates the concerns that have been raised and i have prepared an amendment in this regard to bring us closer to ensuring that he understands he can't wait the

time per go out and go back to the chemical weapons and face no consequence. and i think we are getting closer and closer to a language that would find both the strength and the opportunity to be working collectively with everyone that has an interest in this as they move towards the floor. but we appreciate the colleagues of the comments here as we try to work towards something. senator dorgan, d1 to offer another amendment? >> i actually have two amendments. one of these was raised earlier when we had the informal meeting. you used the word tailored and limited and that stuck with me from the start. i hope i am not nitpicking but i don't think this is the right word. and i told even the president has used the word. i would hope we without least say that we are dealing with authorizing the limited and

specified use of the egg united states armed forces against syria. i looked up the word and there is no definition that comes close to what we are trying to do with this. the word specified makes it clear what we are trying to achieve. we are limiting what the president can do and specifying what the president can do. that is amendment number one and i can take a voice vote. >> is their anyone that wishes to be heard? the chair is supportive of the amendment and believes it achieves the goal that we are trying to achieve. all of those in favor will say aye. opposed, nay. the amendment is agreed to. senate herber bin? >> when levy wrote the white house draft, and i think that it made it dramatically better in the process. i say that immodestly on behalf of the committee there is one section that troubled me and it is page four, paragraph one.

keep in mind what we are doing is spelling out the authority of the president of the denied it states to use military force for specified forces. we are specific in paragraphs two and three to determine the use of such weapons to protect the national security interest of the united states and so forth to degrade the capacity to use such weapons in the future that the first paragraph troubles me instead of the specificity about the force it says respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the government of syria and the conflict in syria that is as general and it has the risk of this effort what we are trying to achieve. so i am troubled by that reference to respond which i think is open-ended and i am also concerned and this cannot in closed session with a number

of elements that wasn't included. the original white house draft included the following. prevent or deter the use of the proliferation and this is the important language including the transfer to the terrorist groups or the other non-state actors of the chemical and biological weapons and so forth this is something we are genuinely concerned about to the it not just that he might transfer those chemical weapons through some other actors like hezbollah. but in that moment that he is out that the transfer would be taking place as well. so i've included taking up the generalized respond period as a specific language that says the president is authorized to use military force to prevent the transfer to the terrorist group and state or non-state actors within syria of any weapons of mass destruction etc..

>> is there any other men member that wishes to be heard? senator johnson? >> christa sali certainly appreciate senator durbin's amendment. it's very similar to what i was trying to accomplish in my own amendment where i basically had a fourth point to the authorization to secure and prevent the transfer of the stockpiles to the united states allies. i guess i would just like to ask senator durbin i believe this accomplishes about the same thing and giving it i'm not 100% sure though. from my standpoint i believe one of the primary reasons if not the primary reason the defense and syria posey national security threat to the united states and the chemical weapons stockpiles and those were being transferred to enemies of the

united states and allies. i would like to be assured that what you're doing is the exact same thing as i was trying to do with my amendment. >> i think we are on the right track. the testimony that we heard in this room is that the french have analyzed the situation and believe that al-assad has 1,000 chemical agents and weapons including several hundred times. so he may be in the chemical weapon world a super power. we certainly don't want him to use those in his own country but we don't want him to put those on the block or transfer them to the enemies of the united states or allies. we are on the same track. >> what me also say my amendment goes from there because in section 3 where we lynette the authorization -- limit the authorization and basically boots on the ground for the purpose of the comment

operations i do accept as a as required under my authorization. so basically recognize the reality that if the president has to try to secure those weapons bill would require the ground troops. >> i think that you are into new territory. >> possibly but i think that your language implies the same thing. >> let me turn to senator corker. >> i wonder if we might resolve the concerns each of you has by under section 2 and eight, article 1 when it says respond, if we could insert respond in a limited manner and then use the language that senator durbin has drafted as the fourth section of this but leave out the parts including the chemical biological weapons or components

of materials used in such weapons so that you have a fourth portion that says prevent the transfer to the terrorist groups and other non-state actors and syria and any other weapons of mass destruction so we have hit the point that the two of you are trying to address and senator durbin is concerned. >> what i would envision is that we would respond in a limited manner. i don't know that i can clarify -- i know that you are trying to tighten and i appreciate that very much in a big portion of the time has been to specify the words i do think on the other hand of the essence of what we

are doing what's happening with of weapons of mass destruction, and i guess i am trying to address both of the needs here. >> it's everything i've mentioned in my mind of a deal with military force that can't be characterized as limited. it's when to be a powerful response by the country to what we feel is a danger to the people of syria and the world. and i don't want to get lost in the language here to get i appreciate i think this is a friendly amendment that you are offering but it still leaves me uncertain as to what we are trying to say. >> senate herber -- durbin what is the practice the president has authorized the subject to this section.

as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in a limited and may now specified matter and verified by your amendment against syria only to respond to the best description by the government of syria and the conflict of syria. what is it all i'm trying to grasp about the language there that is troublesome to you? >> compare the other paragraphs for the weapons of mass destruction to the degree to their capacity to use such weapons for the future. it's really specified and directly linked to the weapons of mass destruction. respond by so generic and generally concludes virtually any military action which would be a response but it's not a response limited to the views of

or future use of these weapons. >> what if that were to read only to detour and degraded the use of weapons of mass destruction by the government in syria? >> that would be competitive but it wouldn't be inconsistent. >> if you can accept that. >> if i can also had the fourth paragraph that the senator has talked about and senator johnson discusses the prevention of the transfer of these weapons to the terrorist groups. >> and if i could, do you need the entire free is stated or is it good enough to prevent the transfer to the terrorist groups or not of weapons of mass destruction? >> i think that is sufficient because the language i have goes on to explain that you use the weapons of mass destruction.

>> i appreciate the concern that you have with senator durbin. this is the core of the authorization in this language and i want to make sure that we get it right. if the senator would hold on this a commitment for me to work with him and the leadership to deal with this on asl and there would be at some point a managers package or replacement of this. i get what you want to do and i am in sympathy. i just want to make sure we don't undermine the core of the authorization we are trying to achieve. >> let me ask as an alternative if we leave one untouched where it says respond with a

possibility we will have a manager's amendment but add a paragraph number four, sastre corker on preventing the transfer of these weapons. >> i think that would be acceptable. we would leave one has is and add for where we would say prevent the transfer to the state actors with weapons of mass destruction. >> i'm going to agree with the compromise that has just been reached but i would hope that includes looking at the language because of the agree with the center i think this is broad and that every time the president has been asking for this power to degrade and prevent the transfer so i would hope that we could look at that language and

i'm confident that he is in the leadership's. >> at this stage i am committed to working with the senator on this issue, but i think that has for now this would help us to get to a irresponsible place where we will then senator durbin coming your amendment would be amended to say to add a bixby 18 number for the would read to prevent the transfer terrorist groups or other actors in weapons of mass destruction. >> so the amendment as it is amended, mr. chairman this is similar to my amendment so i would like to just tack on my amendment also felt to have similar language under section 2

right after c there would be a d to make the exact same point as a military plan to achieve the goals and it basically reduce the authorization of one, two and three. >> i would also note to be helpful in terms of the weapons as i listen to the administration they have been talking about holding the regime accountable for punishing them for the use of weapons and that is kind of the first goal clothing accountable by degrading so you might want to consider that. but i just think that you need that preventing the transfer into different places. i think that i would be satisfied not to offer my amendment but to also talk about adding it to section 3 because i figure that probably wouldn't

pass. i'm sorry, the staff was in my eager to make sure we get the language street. so you will forgive me. could you tell me specifically what you want to add on? >> in other words, we are adding a paragraph number for according to the durbin amendment we would use the same language under b5 is what we would add to them because you have a, b, c and d. >> i have no objection to that. >> would be a restatement. if the u.s. has a military plan to achieve the specific goals of preventing the transfer of these

weapons which writing offers a good amendment. >> i think that is acceptable. is there any other member who wishes to be held? senator coons? >> i went to speak in support of the senator's amendment making sure this authorization is narrow and specific. his concerns about 1i think were well-founded and i think the amendment that he's offered makes sense. they were also designed to make them clear there are the ultimate goals as the negotiated resolution to the conflict of syria. >> i agree. >> i think senator johnson would like to co-sponsor the amendment. >> so, presently what we have is the durbin amendment has cemented by center durbin to have an additional paragraph number four and further amended

by senator johnson as the suggestion is made to put that in five d. >> and what co-sponsor. >> and the senator would add as a co-sponsor. give me a moment here. >> is there any other senator that wishes to be heard on the amendment as amended by senator johnson? if not, all those in favor will say aye. all of those opposed will say nay. feith ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. senator udall. >> i would offer amendment number one as eight pages back in the handout that has been

given out the members here. i'm proposing to amend section number two to clarify the president does not have a blank check to launch any type of attack. my amendment would authorize only the air base military strikes out side of the syrian territory or airspace as the president determines to be necessary and appropriate. i believe this will help address the concerns i heard from the mexicans and the american people but this narrow strike will lead to further involvement. so this is once again in narrow amendment of the campaign involving u.s. planes flying in the syrian airspace and put them u.s. personnel in arms way and dramatically increases the conflict to escalate this language reflects the president has asked for and i think the history has been very soon that we have resolutions that are

broad they get taken away too far. so with that i would offer the amendment and ask for a vote. >> senator mccain? >> this is a micromanagement that frankly is not only unnecessary, but we really can't tell the president of the united states with tactics he has to employ. we certainly place limitations on certain broad activities or efforts on the part of the president of the united states. but we really don't have the expertise here to know exactly what kind of attack should be launched or not. by understand the senator from new mexico's caution about this entire enterprise but if we start down this road, we are going to be running the campaign from here and as smart as we are i don't think we are that smart.

>> i'm sympathetic to the view expressed in this amendment by the senator that the military actions against the regime should be specified and limited. i also believe based on the hearings the amendment reflects the amendment thinking about what is required to respond to the use of weapons of mass destructions by the regime. however, i believe it would be a mistake for the senate to tie the president's hands by having us dictate the specific types of tactics that he can and cannot use to complete the mission. the language of the authorization already limits the geographic scope of the mission and syria and focuses the mission on addressing the regime's use of chemical weapons and limits the time frame of the engagement and the use of ground forces for the combat operations. so, i appreciated the senator's concern the chair would have to oppose the amendment. does the senator seeking vote?

the clerk will call for the roll [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] >> the amendment is not agreed to. are there amendments by any other member? if not, having all amendments having been considered, having dispensed with all of the offered amendments let us proceed to a final vote on the authorization for the military force against the governor of syria. >> who seeks recognition? >> i do not have an amendment, but i would like to make a brief

statement if i may. i would certainly entertain the request and i would like to note senator cardin has hung in there with us despite the jewish holidays. i want to be able to get him to cast his vote. i will let the senator if any other senator wishes to address it i would urge them to let us take a vote and then express' i will stay here as long as anybody wants to express the reason for the record why they voted the way they voted. >> thank you. this issue is of concern that many of the senators have raised which is the inclusion of the broad exclusion of the policy national strategy and the authorization of the use of military force to respond to serious's use of chemical weapons and this is what i share

and i would argue that section 5 of the resolution on the strategy does not belong in this resolution as it reaches well beyond the issue of deterring and degrading syria's chemical weapons attack capacities and their ability to launch a future attack. in addition it is linked to the presidential determination required under section to be six of the resolution that raises the question whether the 30 day report becomes a mechanism for dragging them into the middle of the syrian civil war to get i don't think that is an appropriate thing to be inside of the resolution and something that the president talked about in terms of what we need. so i just want to make that statement.

>> i ask unanimous consent to allow the technical conforming changes to vignette is there any objection? without objection, so ordered. i move to vote on passage of the resolution. is there a second? second. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] >> mr. mccain [roll call] the clerk will report. >> [inaudible] >> the resolution is agreed to and voted favorably reported by the committee. with that, i am -- i think first of all of the committee members for their serious engagement in this process, and i stand ready to have any member who wishes to make a statement for the record.

senator rubio? >> for the record i wanted to state the following. what is happening is to be a is a vital national security issue for the united states. syria is far away and some wonder why it matters what matters for several reasons. it is a vital importance to iran and the ambition to become the foremost power in the region. the uc reva two arn hezbollah and attack israel coming use traffic weapons to destabilize iraq. second, al-assad is a dangerous anti-american dictator that helped terrorists get into iraq so they could kill american soldiers. third, this prolonged conflict is creating an governed species and syria which are turning into the premier operational area in the model for the jihad to operate. fourth, if al-assad doesn't face consequences for what he has done and is doing, it sends a message to the other rogue governments like north korea and iran the too can cross the red lines without fear. that is why those that are due what happened in syria is none of our business is wrong.

and that is why i have for over two years urged the president to pursue a robust engagement in the hopes of helping the syrian people replace al-assad with a secular nist and modern government. however, while life long argued forcefully for in powering this syrian people i never supported the military force for the u.s. that 34 said the conflict. and i still don't. i remain unconvinced the force here will work. the leading the would prevent us ought from using chemical weapons in the future is for the people to remove him from power. to strike the administration wants us to approve i do not believe it furthers that goal and in fact the u.s. military action of the contemplated here may prove to be counterproductive. after a few days of missile strikes, al-assad would claim he took on the united states and survived. and by the way i also think this action could unleash a series of defense that could further destabilize the region.

but this idea that a military response is the leeway to respond to what's happening in syria is not true. instead, our response should have always been and should be a multifaceted plan to help the syrian people get rid of assad and replaced with a moderate government they deserve. this committee by a vote of 15-3 put forth a plan that accomplishes that syrian act. but openly provide lethal and non-lethal support we would provide the full support and increase the non-lethal support to carefully and add vetted opposition. we should only do this if we are able to identify the rebel groups that will not transfer those weapons to al qaeda or other groups. second we would pursue the sanctions against individuals and financial institutions that have provided or facilitate the sale or transfer to the petroleum and or petroleum products. third, we should create a transition fund that would assist the transition to the

moderate transitional government and syria and the aftermath of the fall and fourth, we should increase humanitarian aid to the people and to the country store hosting the syrian refugees. let me close by recognizing there is a movement afoot in both parties. to disengage the united states from issues throughout the world. and it is true that we cannot solve every crisis on this planet and but if we follow the advice of those that seek to disengage us in the long run, we will pay a terrible price. because america isn't just another country. as an exceptional one. the most powerful and the most inspirational on earth. we must recognize the world as a safer place when america is the strongest country in the world. when america doesn't leave, chaos follows. and initially that keos forces us to deal with the problems in the most expensive and dangerous ways possible.

just because we had more global problems doesn't mean they will ignore us. instead they become bigger and harder to salt lead and sadly, syria is the latest example of the fundamental truth to the it had we forcefully engaged the moderate rebels early in the conflict, today we would have more and better options before us. but instead unfortunately the president with the support of the voices in my party chose to lead others instead. and now we are dealing with the consequences of that action. thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator shaheen. >> i have a longer statement i will submit for the record. but i just want to be clear this afternoon that the decision to take military action is not one that i take lightly. but failing to take action i believe against assad's regime and their use of chemical weapons poses a threat to our national security interests.

now, i am the stand that there are a lot of people and new hampshire, my home state, and throughout the country that are weary and concerned about the consequences of the use of military force. i share those concerns. but i do believe that we have to act to detour the spread and use of weapons of mass destruction. and i believe this limited military action that we have authorized in this resolution will detour the assad regime use of those chemical weapons in the future. this resolution that was passed by the committee is limited in time and scope. it does not authorize american troops on the ground. ..

there's a clear difference between what we are considering today and what happened 12 years ago. but our decision is being made in the shadow of the war of iraq, with the specter of the war in a randomly named. the shadow because that moment 12 years ago when the government of the united states of america was guilty of a political mortal sin. it misled the american people into a war. it told the american people that we had to invade iraq to destroy

weapons of mass destruction, which threatened our neighbors, allies and ourselves. it wasn't true. and we learned that the hard way and we paid a bitter, heavy price for it. thousands of americans lost their lives and more than a trillion dollars was spent on a war that should've been avoided. that was the reality of the war in iraq. on its heels, the war in afghanistan. i voted against the war in iraq and for the authorization for use of force in afghanistan. that seems like such a clear choice. in afghanistan, were going after those responsible for 9/11, responsible for killing over 3000 innocent americans. no one strikes the united states and kills our people without paying a price. i voted for it. i didn't know at the time, no one could have known i was voting for longest war in american history and voting for an authorization for use of military force, which took that

president and many others too far for corners of the world in pursuit of stopping terrorism. i think that is what is behind the american people's reluctance to see the united states engage in any additional conflict, certainly in the middle east. this bitter memory of what happened in iraq where misled and islam war in afghanistan, which the president now brings to a close at such a heavy price to americans and american taxpayers. but i think this is different. i really do. i believe there is a moral component here is critically important. i listened to senator rubio. he's right. the united states bears a special responsibility, one we don't always welcome. we can't be policeman to the world, but we try to be a leader, particularly the civilized conduct and when it comes to the use of weapons of mass destruction, particularly chemical weapons, the united

states must take a strong position and try to lead the world in a civilized pat to avoid the use of these weapons in the future. the president san fran. i was the first senator to endorse him for president. for 14 months i was the only who endorsed him. his time came in iowa and he nominee in president of the united states the united states and i'm proud of him. i respect his eyes because i know in better or well than most people in this town. this president doesn't come easily to water. if the person who understands the heavy price that has to be paid any understands there's moments when a leader, commander in chief to protect this country and make this a safer world has to step up and lay. that's what he's done here. this last saturday was with many friends back in illinois, people who work hard for his election and reelection. they don't agree with the president them and not this moment in his policy in syria any understands that. but a true leader has to step up and do what he thinks is right

and that's way chewing them today. i think we've narrowly defined with this administration and president can do for a purpose that serves the honor and peace and security and good for the whole world and i hope the message comes through from this committee meeting and the floor of the senate and the house that this congress, democrats and republicans are resolute when it comes to discouraging and stopping the spread of chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction. if the united states not take a leadership role i don't know who would. i want to say i take seriously the president's promise that we will not be putting boots on the ground in syria. i've been to too many funerals, visited too many disabled veterans to ever want to see us do that again except when absolutely necessary for america's survival. i think what we've done today is a step in the right direction. i hope it makes it a safer

world. >> thank you, senator durbin. any other senator who wishes to be heard? >> thank you, senator menendez. i'd like to thank my colleagues for the way this debate has been conducted. the secretary said, it's not important what we decide, but how we decide and i think the cautious center of deliberate discussion of the authorization of use of force is one that meets the expectations of the american people that the outcome is not predict it will based on partisanship, but is instead a reflection of the values and insights of each member of this committee is this authorization moves to debate in the full congress. i continue to be mindful that i represent a state as too many of us but is wary of four and input from my home state has been too strongly cautioned against a repeat of some of the issues that have been spoken to by other colleagues that the conflict in iraq brings to the

core. i personally have been reviewed in detail the intelligence offered by the administration and convinced that the administration of bechar al-assad has used chemical weapons, not once, but likely repeatedly, but he attacked two weeks ago have massacred more than a thousand innocent civilians and given the steady escalation of this study rising crescendo of deaths in syria over the last two years and has graduated from using snipers and helicopters and jet fighters to using cluster bombs and scud missiles and i'll chemical weapons in the absence of action by the united states to reinforce a global breadline. and a global treaties and the absence of that action, some people use these weapons that will be less safe in regional allies will be less safe. there are risks to action, but i've been persuaded the risks of inaction are greater.

this has been a difficult debate and i think we will have even more to discuss on the floor of the senate. i'm grateful for the process through which we've achieved it. i'm grateful for my collect such as senator shaheen, senator mccain and others to craft amendments that i think have clarified and improved the overall context and it is my hope that we will ultimately prove this authorization. this is not an act i take with any lightness of heart and with a full recognition of the potential difficulties ahead. but i am persuaded this is an important step the united states must take. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. kearns. senator udall. >> lemmie thank you and senator corker referred the authorization for set up by the administration for the very dignified process you followed and how you shepherded this along. clearly this authorization of force is an improvement over what was originally proposed, but at this point, i don't see

how i can support it and how i can support it in the future. i want to repeat that i am horrified by what it bashar al-assad has done to resolve people. he's committed a heinous act in violation of the geneva convention, no doubt about it. however, i still believe this proposal is the wrong course of action for the united states and its military. i am voting no because this policy means the united states towards greater involvement in the syrian civil war and increasing regional conflict. this is a very complicated set carrying civil war. some of the rubble share our values and wants an open society. many others are allied with al qaeda and a greater threat to the united states than president assad ever was. u.s. military involvement will likely only polis towards greater involvement and with no

clear endgame. i remain concerned we have not sufficiently made our case internationally. as i said yesterday, our attention should be on the source of assad's ability to continue to the ruthlessly kill his own people and not the support from nations, including russia and china, which are cynically trying to hold the high moral ground. so they would not be able to maintain his grip on power if he were not being supported from outside. the full force of international outrage should come down on those nations refusing to allow the u.n. to act and find a solution. instead, an attack on assad puts us on shaky legal ground internationally. just as the president is stronger with congressional support, we are much stronger with international support. but we do not have the support of some of our key allies.

we cannot achieve a u.n. mandate. our recent history also shows the jamaica is very cautious. vietnam started with u.s. advisers in the limited naval presence. they lead to an all-out war in a quagmire that cost lives thousands upon thousands of u.s. service members. the iraq war began as an international effort to kick saddam hussein out of kuwait. as we all know, the limited military action eventually led to what is one of the greatest blunders in u.s. military history. we cannot afford another iraq. another conflict that cost american in syria might amaze the world less stable as a result of our actions. finally, i want to say that we should not take it lightly that the american people are not with us. i have personally received hundreds of calls and letters from the mexicans.

i've talked to scores myself over the last couple of weeks. over 90% of the calls and letters have been opposed to escalating our involvement in syria. new mexicans are tired of war. americans are tired of war. they're worried about the stress it puts on our economy and military. they're worried about the safety of our troops, their husbands, wives, sons and daughters. they know what the administration is proposing will provide assurance that assad will not attack again, that it won't ensure that his regime will not retaliate in some way. the truth is we cannot guarantee even a surgical strike will present the united states from being embroiled in war. we should not enter into a conflict until we've exhausted every diplomatic and international option. we have not done that. the risk of the actions we contemplate an hour to create

and i cannot support this proposal. again, i think senator menendez and corker. i think he fled an excellent effort here and it shows the good work that we can have in this committee and a thank you for trying to mediate the concerns that i've had in this language. thank you and appreciated. yield back. >> thank you, senator udall for your comments and i appreciate your views. senator harkin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. want to add my thanks to senator udall and others and thank you and senator corker for having of a select focus on syria from the beginning every time. we are ready for this debate in large part because we've been talking about syria and the threat that the instability poses to the united states all year. i also want to express my thanks to the administration for being so deliberative in this process. the president has been reluctant to bring military force to bear on the conflict in syria and

that frankly reflects they were the instead the american public. he may differ today with disrespect to give you an immediate subject at hand but i appreciate the fact he's been so careful in reaching the conclusion he does today. mr. chairman, i vote against this authorization today because there's two questions you have to ask when considering whether to use military forces in syria appeared first is whether there is a moral imperative and/or national security imperative. i think secretary kerry and the president and others have made the case very well over the past several days. there's no one on this committee that doesn't believe what bashar al-assad has done to his people is not atrocious. there's those who don't believe he hasn't crossed an international red line. i would also agree what happens in syria is important to u.s. national security interests as well as our allies. the second question we all are asked you is, are the method we

have before us to change the situation on the ground going to be a fact of? are they going to make things better for you in national security interests or could they make things worse? that is what leads to my no vote today is that i cannot answer the second question in the affirmative for two reasons. first, there's a chance the strikes could make the situation worse on the ground in the short run and i'll briefly read a paragraph written by stephen cook is a senior fellow at the council on foreign relations in washington post. in the face of an attack, saad would remain defiant. he probably step up the violence to exert control in this country and demonstrate the united states and allies cannot intimidate them. the reigning pitcher this would increase investment, and many more weapons that were fighters results in more atrocities and on the other side during opposition groups care more about killing allies in shiite.

this would heighten ethnic and political divisions, pulling the country apart. i've heard secretary kerry say the one thing we know is if we do nothing common situation will continue to deteriorate. this sounds even worse. i think everyone has come to different conclusions. i simply believe the risks of action today outweigh the risks of inaction. second, given the resolution also for the first time commits congressional support for arming syrian rebels, i worry we've now committed ourselves to a level of support that will have to endure pass the ball of bashar al-assad in the event is a likely follow-on civil war given the commitment we make today in the land resolution will be difficult for the american government either in a covert manner to untie ourselves from support for the opposition in a follow-on government because of this resolution. i know none of us want to be

involved in a long-term conflict in syria. i worry that the resolution on authorization today would make it difficult for us to avoid that reality. mr. chairman, i thank you for the work you've done here. this language is much better than what was proposed to us in the outset from the administration and i oppose it now because i don't gag every time that i look at those photos of young children who've been killed by assad in its lethal attacks. it simply had deep concerns about the limits of american power. >> thank you, senator. senator murphy for your comments. senator mccain. >> mr. chair, extend my thanks to you and i can never corker for this process and for the courtesy of extended the amendment made and i am impressed by the thoughts of all my colleagues as they listen to this debate and talk to them in these committee hearings and individually. i also express my appreciation to the administration.

it's a curse to bring this back to congress. i think it's the right thing to do for a variety of reasons i applaud them for doing it. to me, mr. chair, the principle that is currently the most unlikely to support this was the principal you elaborated yesterday in your opening statement before the committee. it is the basic fundamental principle that the top of the pyramid of the relations of nations to each other, there's not a more important principle of international law than weapons of mass distraction not be used against civilian populations about a consequence. you can think of any other international norm and there's a lot of important one, but there's not a more important one than this. american writer richard rhodes wrote a book called making of the atomic bomb and there's a chapter called the long gray's already depth about world war i and is about the development of other chemical weapons technologies use during world war i. even though those technologies that may lead to a fraction of

the casualties in world war i, it's an amazing thing to think back to the aftermath of world war i and the nations of the world gathered in that there's just something different about chemical weapons. they passed through the geneva convention, immediately ratified by the united states, soviet union tennessee area of ratified in 1968. a ban on the use of chemical weapons. not against civilians, they says protect its servicemen and women who thought idle since the 1920s. they've been able to go into situations, but knowing chemical weapons would not be used against them. my fear is that the united states does not stand up for the principle that chemical weapons cannot be used especially against civilians, and no one will stand up for the principle. and 90 years of international law and a moral imperative has been respected globally will

certainly be cast into the task because the united states has been on to play a leadership role. if we play a role, we know where partners that will play the wall with ice. if we do not play a leadership role, i don't think there's anyone who will stand up for the principle. i would agree with senator udall's point we wish we had more partners than we do. that's an indictment of the united nations and other nations and quaking before this flagrant violation of important moral principle. there are partners like to stand up for the principle with us. i fear that if were not willing to stand up, no one is spared as voted for this because it's important to stand up for the principle to chemical weapons should not be used against civilians that have produced that will keep around a a safer, cheaper service men and women safer. we'll keep our nation safer. the authorization i voted for today stresses that military action is authorized but only one piece of a larger strategy. the president is required to the

terms that he certified military action that the united states has used appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to prevent deployment and use of weapons of mass destruction by syria. that diplomacy and diplomatic effort is ongoing right now with the president at the g20 meetings and discussions with russia that can happen at the u.n. as we talk about this matter on the floor of the senate as they contemplate and pass this resolution to authorize the president to even use military force to enforce this american international bar. i hope the efforts will continue. if syria were to decide to sign onto the 1990s era of chemical convention or to turn a chemical stop fails over to international spec as if russia were to decide to stop blocking security council resolutions and engage the international community, goes to be that diplomatic efforts that are contemplated by the authorization that we

passed. this is about such an important principle and it is a heavy though to have to cast. all of us are hearing from our constituents. all of us spend time with men and women in the military. we don't want them to be a war at the same time. we don't want men and women to be faced with this type are the chemical weapons are suddenly okay. i'll close with the notion. this is a principle that's been part of the fabric of our collective moral imagination as humanity for 90 years. only adolph hitler and saddam hussein have violated this chemical weapons convention until now. adolf hitler violated an entire world dedicated itself to eradicating him in the third right from the face of your beard saddam hussein violated it and to attach what we we did not act immediately, but we did act as an international community by deciding to beef up the 1920s convention and in the 1990s partially because of saddam hussein's action restrained in the barbican these chemical

weapons around the world with so many nations, including russia signing onto it. and so, if we don't stand up for the principle, no one will and for that reason i support this. i'm glad it's reported to the floor and i look forward to working with you and our colleagues to ensure that it passes. thank you. >> senator kaine, let me thank you for a thoughtful statement which i want to associate myself with. there's a reason the united states is the one dispensable nation in the world. it is a heavy burden, but it's also an opportunity to be the world to a safer, more secure world. so i believe we've met that burden today and i believe we will do so as we move to the senate floor. this meeting comes to adjournment.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> chairman menendez speaking with reporters. the committee approving a resolution that would authorize military force against the syrian government in response to the use of chemical weapons. the bug was tended to seven with one senator, ed markey of massachusetts voting president. to break down, seven democrats and republicans voted in favor of the resolution and two democrats and five republicans voted against. the resolution means larger the same as the deal struck by community leaders last night that would allow no ground troops in syria and the actions

will be limited to 90 days. there were two amendments authored by senator mccain there were approved. one is a provision that calls for the reversal of the battlefield momentum of the saudi regime. on the other side of the capital come in the house foreign affairs committee has been holding its own hearing it. this afternoon. the secretary of state, john kerry, defense secretary chuck hagel and joint chiefs chairman, martin dempsey. the writes is that hearing secretary kerry said that 53 countries and organizations have concluded chemical weapons were used and 37 have said so publicly. he said 34 would support some form of action against assad allegations that proved to be true. some of what secretary kerry said at that today and that continues life right now on c-span. in addition to your tweets, we've also been getting your thoughts on facebook about how you believe your members of congress should vote on whether

to take military action in syria. more than 1600 comments have been posted so far. david ward rice, no more policing the world, not our fight. we need to focus on our issues. sergeant schultz writes why can't the u.s. just aren't those who think they're doing that right being stay out of other people's wars? frank dunham, on one hand we don't need any more questions. on the other, can we sit back and watch mass murder? all i can say is be sure to a place that viewed the chemical weapons. please add your comments at facebook.com/c-span. overseas today, prime minister called for intervention in syria during remarks to the french assembly. this was the beginning of debate on franchise -- we spoke with a reporter for more. >> emma-kate symons is a journalist covering the french national assembly and their

debate over syria for publications like the atlanta. emma-kate symons, what did the assembly debate on syria today? >> guest: well, essentially there was no vote, that they simply debated the merits of france intervene alongside its ally the united states and they hope a broad international coalition strike in against the regime of bashar al-assad. the debate started with a series of speeches with the prime minister who put out a strong case party launched by the president that france confronted by barbarism. this is a quote from him today and he urged the parliament to support the president and the government in the course of action. of course will be winning for the vote in congress on september 9th. nothing will happen before then.

>> host: there's no vote in the french assembly. what happens if the u.s. congress does not approve of a resolution authorizing military force? >> guest: well, that's not entirely clear yet, although the government has suggested it will certainly not act alone without the united states added cider is a supporter of the united states. if the congress rejected the proposition that france even so would take its responsibilities and help the syrian authorization. it's really waiting game and the president will soon address the nation. it might be a few days but is actually work out perhaps the pitch each one in st. petersburg were kind of coalition is working out in syria. will there be other europeans involved quickset this stage, france is the only prominent european nation that's on board. >> host: you published a piece in the atlantic on tuesday.

the headline on the piece is france, the unexpected new hawk is the u.s. and britain debate action. you wrote a not a president élan has revealed himself as the president to be a robust interventionists, willing to take lead in military affairs. what is driving this? >> guest: well, it's a bit of a surprise because a lot was almost no essay today when it comes to domestic policies he likes to pull the blanket over his head and not necessarily launch reforms. on the international front when it comes to foreign policy when he was elected in may 2012, his political personality started in january with the invasion of mali, which is a successful military intervention to try and pull back the islamists and al qaeda allies and that was essentially allowed, although

the support of the united states and not much material support. now once again élan has been speaking out on syria and really a sin as the capital weapons attacks have occurred in the 21st of august, he was front and center. but it's not necessarily a surprise. he was also hawkish and as i said in that piece, i think france has been unfairly maligned since the iraq war as an appeasing nation when it comes to foreign policy. they just didn't live there weapons of mass destruction in iraq in 2003 and therefore shouldn't join the coalition of the u.s. >> back to syria again. with the public opinion like in france on any possible use of military force by the french are an international affair? >> guest: well, the surveys did so little. >> guest: well, the surveys did so little. one came out yesterday, showing that 74% of those wanted the french parliament to vote on the

question of intervention. when it comes to intervention, some survey shows 64% didn't want an intervention, but most of the surveys were essentially the majority want the united nations to back a coalition. they want the international law to be behind any kind of military action and they really would like to see their own parliament vote on the question. this is the debate we've seen in washington and london. on the other hand, at the governmental level, united on this question. so france, if a vote is successful on september 9th, he can join the coalition. he has a guaranteed there would be any vote and he has the right does the president to proceed with military action without consulting. without giving about the national assembly. >> host: emma-kate symons has been joining us from paris.

you can read her writings in the atlantic and also the financial review and follow her on twitter@ek sentence. >> guest: thank you very much. >> a vote on the stereo resolution and u.s. congress is not scheduled yet, but is likely sometimes actually when lawmakers return. we not taken to london for prime minister's questions. britain's house of commons narrowly voted down a motion last week, calling for military action against the syrian government. this morning, prime minister david cameron took questions about syria as well as the economy and local issues. this is just over a half an hour. >> mr. christopher penn chair. [cheers and applause] >> a minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure the whole house will join me in congratulating the duke and duchess on the birth of their son, his royal highness, prince church of cambridge.

i'm sure i speak to the law nation in sending our congratulations and wish them a very happy and healthy life. i can assure honorable members they will be able to offer their congratulations next monday with a formal motion is moved in the proper way. mr. speaker come this morning at meetings with colleagues and others in addition to my duties in this house i shall have further meetings later today. >> i associate myself with the prime minister's congratulations? there has been a space of good economic views around the country. employment is down and the economy is growing. [shouting] is time to stop asking around, give it up and find a plan b. >> by honorable fran makes a point. experts are 5% in a percent a

year ago. business confidence since january 2008. consumer confidence is up in all the figures on construction, manufacturing and service is all in the right direction. they mustn't be complacent. these are early days because of the tough decisions this government took that we can now see progress and we have to remember unemployment would go up and come down. they taught us the economy would go backwards. it's got lowered and it's time to explain they were wrong and they were right. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, join the prime minister and the duke and duchess of cambridge and the birth of prince george. i wish all of them off the happiness in the world. at the g20 summit and either start tomorrow, both

administered do everything he can to get other ministries to match the humanitarian emergency in syria, given we know almost one third of syrian families have been forced to flee their homes and yet the u.n. has let them have the resources it needs. >> prime minister. >> britain has a very proud record on humanitarian aid, not just to this can't wait, but many previous conflicts. we are the second largest there has been. they spent over 400 million pounds. it's important that the g20 two make a number of points clear your proportion of the use of chemical weapons our desire for peace process. above all, getting dumber countries together and make sure we do everything we can to live up to responsibilities and everything we can to help the syrian people. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, there have been profound consequences not just in the country but across the middle east, specifically

jordan, turkey, iraq and especially lebanon with the population is up by 25% since the civil war began. specific support the on the welcomed assistance his government is providing comic in britain get to these countries to help them deal with the burden on their infrastructure, their economies and their parties. >> seen for myself having been to a refugee camp in jordan how great the pressures are. the camp in jordan is now one of the biggest cities there is in that country. we have have well-funded embassies, well-funded diplomatic networks, close relations with lebanon come with jordan and close relationships with turks as well. were doing everything we can to help and advise them. we are spending serious money on the humanitarian aid programs. at the end of the day, need a solution to the syrian crisis. winning the peace process to be put in place and we also need to make sure we're absolutely clear about our repulsion in terms of

chemical weapons that we should be making sure that our aid program is helping give syrian people protection from the polling chemical weapons attacks they've suffered. >> mr. speaker, the repulsion is shared on all sides of this house. i wanted them to come onto the accuser the prime minister raised, which is the tour is going the warring parties. the opposition syrian national council is meeting foreign secretary the next couple days. can the prime minister tell us what work he is doing with them come with the syrian national councils make those talks in geneva have been? >> what we do this syrian national council is twofold. one is a lot disparate elements of the syrian opposition that support a pluralistic democratic and free syria. that is what her engagement has all about. we go further than not because we recognize the so-called rebels who back those views also deserve our support.

our support in terms of training and assistance and advice because the truth is this. we welcome the peace process in syria and less president assad realizes his regime is under some sort of pressure, some sort of thread not just an above post, but the millions of syrians who we must be standing up for who want democracy, who want freedom, who won a better future for themselves and children. it is then decide we should be truly on. >> there's no difference within this house because they need to stand up for the innocent people of syria. the question -- the question -- [shouting] >> the houses approach so far in a calm measured by and we should carry on doing that. the point is how to do that. i mr. speaker, there are large barriers, big ears as we found out over the last year or more

to the geneva peace talks actually happening. whether there is a case for immediate talks between those parties in those countries backing the rebels in those countries backing the regime. that happened during the civil war in lebanon would at least provide a basis for discussion. >> prime minister. >> i agree that britain should use all of its diplomatic muscle to discuss with those countries the fact that the regime enjoyed those countries who back the rebels and opposition to try and bring talks about and that's why it had repeated discussions for instance with president putin most recently last monday on why travel to see him specifically to discuss this issue. i come back to this point. it's all well for the country supporting either side to want these peace talks to take place. what you also need is for those people involved in the conflict. to recognize its interest to see a peace process start to begin.

i think we can convince the syrian national council it's in their interest because a transition could be to generally free elections and change for syria, but we need the regime, assad himself to realize it's in his interest because there was no big hurry he can win against his own people. for that to happen, we need to take in the world needs to take a tough response to think that chemical weapons attacks. the britain camp departure won't be part of any action on that front, but we must not give up our utter repulsion of the chemical weapons attacks hussein would must press this point in every form of which we are a member. sub 10 >> ester speaker, the question is how to deal with it. the thing i said to the prime minister has given the difficulty of getting direct talks moving between the syrian

government and the opposition when there isn't a case for getting the regional partners involved. we all know that while iran has laid into in this conflict. given the successful diplomacy involved talking to those with whom i profoundly disagree, what is the government's position on iran participating either in a contract group for his part is the geneva process? >> is the foreign secretary said yesterday, he will meet with ukrainian foreign minister when he's in new york for the general assembly. let's not forget what iran has done to our embassy and to our country. we shouldn't put that on one side. the point i made to the right honorable gentleman is of course we all want these peace talks to take place. we all went geneva to happen, but we can't one of more than the participants involved in syria's bloody conflict and we have to make sure it's in their interest that these talks go ahead and that's why diplomacy is important, but the work we do

at the syrian opposition that supports democracy, that supports a pluralistic. future for syria is important. they are standing up from the lands of syrians who embalmed lasted out of the houses. those are the people you need to talk to the refugee camps in jordan and elsewhere to see how they feel how bad that the rest of the road is currently letting them down. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, no one disagrees with that. the question is, how are we going to bring the parties together, including the regional parties? finally, does he accept that they remain support across the country for britain taken every diplomatic, political and humanitarian effort to help the syrian people? last week was not about britain shirking its global responsibility. it was about preventing a rush to war.

>> last week the house of commons voted clearly and i've said i respect the outcome not about the time i won't be bringing that plans for british participation in military action. i agree we must use everything we have in our power, our diplomatic effort, membership of all the key bodies of the gh comaneci 20, u.n., e.u. all that influence to bring to bear. i only regret is i don't be too is necessary to divide the house on a boat that could have led to a decision that it was. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. chairman. we hear today the u.k. service business activity index is at its highest level for six and a half years. does this not show that the government's economic policies are working and whether the prime minister commits to ensuring our increased prosperity helps to pay?

[shouting] >> or so it may look at the proposal he makes. i know you must be connected in our country and puts that case regularly. the good news about the economic recovery, as we are eating and more people. they're 935,000 more people employed then there were when this government came to office. 1.3 million private sector jobs than they need to see further progress because the best groups out of poverty, the best way to improve living standards is to see an increasing number of men and women in gainful work. >> jack straw. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i pressed the prime minister on issues that they ran with respect to him from his previous answer sounded as if he taken no account of the fact defense that since her embassy was outrageously fact by ahmadinejad, there's been an election in iran.

however imperfect, that has led to a different individual becoming president, who to my certain knowledge is someone the british prime minister can deal with. could ask them to look carefully at how we take steps now to improve relations with iran, identified as matters of common interest and try to get them involved in solving syria? >> i agree that the election of a president who has a greater commitment to reform is a positive step and i've written to president whereupon he to raise a series of issues that need to be settled between britain and iran and above all we need to see progress on the president for honda himself has said is important, which is trying to come to an agreement for iran gives up the idea of nuclear weapons and in return receive similarly found sanctions. that would be major progress, but we should do this now from

that position but just hoping for the best. we see that this country has been capable of in the recent past that we should go into these discussions very, very cautiously. >> does the prime minister agree that accuracy and physics are vital to public debate? is the prime minister aware that 4% of the people believe that all this is still alive? double the number we hear today that is not a natural leader suppertime >> what i can see my honorable friend has certain he put his stomach to very good years. i'm grateful for his question. you need to see one of opinion polls before you can see a true trend. [shouting] >> why does the prime minister believed that his plan are opposed by organizations from

the salvation army right through conservatives? >> i was listening to exchanges before i came in and it seems to me there's a concerted lobbying campaign being run by the trade unions who mysteriously managed to convince members of parliament offices surveyed days. we all know what's going on. they don't want to trade union brought within the law. they want the union to go on spending millions after millions trying to alter election campaign rather than having them properly contained by the law. as with the lobbying bill is about. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. the u.k. economy since benefits from around 50 million pounds by hosting the ethic clipper around the world, which kicks off this week. but the prime minister khan to see one of the uk's top arenas

saving hot and personally congratulate who have literally flying the flag for britain's tourism, trade? >> i think my honorable friend is absolutely right. i see a model of this incredible vessel in nature and are welcoming the fantastic contribution to the british economy. it was great to see lenin for the first time and even better the flotilla was led by a debate and supported by a great campaign. i'll take into account the kind invitation, but i wish all of those taking part. >> jeremy corbin. >> take the prime minister back a few minutes ago. can he be more positive about building better rotations urgently with the ran as one of the keys? one but not all to bring about a peace process in syria and across the whole region simply

attacking the ran all the time is it going to bring them to the negotiating table. >> prime minister. >> if you're trying to build a relationship with someone, it depends on the actions that they take. now given that the iranian government was complicit in the completely smashing of our embassy in residence in tehran, we'll want to see some action so we can build that sort of relationship. i have reached out by writing to president whereupon he, congratulating him on his succession to power and wanting to discuss these issues. if we agree there some magical key to this searing conflict by suddenly adopted a totally different posture towards the rant, i don't papermaking a very good decision. >> last week we saw that version of household with the lowest level since records began. my right honorable friend agree there is further evidence the government offer forms all of which are proposed by the party

opposite. >> i think that honorable friend makes a very good point. in 2013 days three and a half million worker households in the u.k. down 182,008 year and i'm 425,000 since the election in each one of those statistics tells a story about people who've been able to get into work, provide for families and makes something of their lives. we should be proud of the welfare reform we've put through. every single one opposed by the body opposite. we have a just 83 billion pounds welfare measures they opposed, but we've given hope to millions of families in our country. >> mr. prime minister, i condemn chemical attacks in syria. is it not time to join us in enqueued surely the relative strike now would squander the opportunities offered her the new iranian leadership and by

the new u.s. initiative in palestine? will the prime minister do with the british people want, insist that the g20 searches for a way to bring about a cease-fire rather than the new bombing raid. >> a minister. >> as i said, recycler decision to house came to after the debate last week and britain will play the part of military action, but i would just has to put herself for a moment in the shoes of the president of the united states and others. he said it very clear red lines that if there is large-scale chemical weapons used, something had to happen. we know the regime is chemical weapons on at least 14 previous occasions and i think to ask the president of the united states having said that redline, having made the warning to step away from that, that would be a very careless suggestion to make because in response community more chemical weapons attack

from the machine. of course the honorable right old lady has a long track record of supporting peace, supporting peace talks and i respect that and i'll do everything i can to bring the geneva peace talks together. i don't believe there%together. i don't believe there's a contradiction and taken atop lamesa chemical weapons that are revolting in our modern world and also wanting to peace talks that could bring the crisis to an end. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the funding is half that of birmingham. academic research suggests that the current nhs funding formula discriminates against rural areas and against older people. does the prime minister share my view that the nhs would move as quickly as possible towards fairer funding for rural areas? >> my honorable friend makes an important point that even though we've given a lot of these decisions away from ministers to

nhs england, they said they are looking at a fair funding formula and i'm sure they'll look at arguments he's made. i also ask them to look at the drug fund commotions been a phenomenal success in england. sadly it's not been copied by labor and wales, but i'm full of hope in the drug fund has helped many constituency get treatments they badly need. >> mr. speaker, can the prime minister tell the house would be suing to support food banks and the kingdom? >> what we've done is something the food bank movement has been asking for for years, but labor didn't grant them because they were worried about the pr and that was the ability to say people you needed help that they could go to a food bank. that might be something labor didn't want to do because there is bad publicity. we did it because it was the right thing. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker.

as the prime minister agree the combination of the good weather, deficit reduction and control on public spending has given confidence to business and individuals to create 1.3 million jobs? however, given these encouraging figures, is a somewhat surprised the opposition still believes her policy would cost a million jobs? >> of course, my honorable friend cannot the fact they retain the action. much goodness to be had over the summer. it is important we recognize what has brought the good news about. there is a key judgment parties had to make about whether they get to the deficit and take the tough decisions needed to turn our country around. we made those top positions on the side of the house, the party opposite every single one of them. >> thank you, mr. speaker. however, speaker scholes for a

town councils won't have sufficient places. can a prime minister guarantee all those children will actually have one? >> would put in place funding to provide that for the disadvantaged two euros and i'm confident they will receive the services they deserve. >> unemployment in my constituency is lower than anytime since the general election in 2010. [shouting] two very successful as i've been organizing a third. >> is a right honorable friend agree that shows the government is right despite calls to abandon the members opposite? >> my honorable friend is right. there are more people in our country than ever before. more people in private sector employment than ever before. a record number of women at work in our country and almost a million more people in work compared with the situation we inherited.

at some stage, the party opposite will have to get off the fence and admit they got it wrong. [shouting] they were wrong that even today he's saying he's going to borrow even more, even when we started turning around the economy, he's learned absolutely nothing. [shouting] >> 3.3 billion pounds will ordinarily families face bills going up to 300 pounds a year. why does the prime minister failed to stand to energy companies and get a better deal for our families? >> i don't know with you honorable lady was, but this government is legislating to make sure people are put on the lowest tariffs. this government has done that with the leader of the labour party was energy secretary would incidentally both went through the roof. there is none of this sort of action. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

given that the lns has designed upwards of .7% that there are record number of apprenticeships that are very low on unemployment, very good conditions to get into work. by right honorable friend think that all of this would have been changed if he taken the advice? >> if they're interested with my honorable friend said it every time there's a question about the economy, the factors more people at work of the more businesses established that our economy is growing, the party opposite to want to hear a word of it. they know what the whole country can see. britain is succeeding in labor is failing. [shouting] the >> with the prime minister accepted responsibility that wages, working people will buy the time of the election have lost 6660 pounds in real terms while he's been in number 10? way to get living standards up

investigate the economy growing, which we are doing. that is to cut taxes, which we are delivering, and that's to keep mortgage rates low, which we are doing. and effective if we listen to the party opposite who only have one plan to spend more, borrow more and build up more debt, we would be back to where we started. >> as the syrian tragedies unfolded, i've always had the armageddon question in the back of my mind, which i shall now in an understated form if i may put to the prime minister. if the americans illegally bombarded the assad forces, and assad legally invites the russians in to degrade the rebels, what will nato do?

>> prime minister? >> the first point i would make to the right honorable gentleman is that we would never support illegal action, and we debated and discussed it at some length last week, and it isn't the case that the only way action can be legal is a u.n. resolution. so we would only support action that was legal. we would only support action that was proportion but as i said, britain wouldn't be taking part in any of this action. in a way had to put the armageddon question round the other way which is that if no action is taken following president obama's red line and if no action is taken following for supporting use of chemical weapons, you have to ask yourself what sort of armageddon are the syrian people going to be facing? >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister said it does not support -- [inaudible] over 2 million pounds but because he claimed some people living in these areas are capital rich and cash poor. can the prime minister tell me,

how does he -- support for the bedroom tax when he is punishing -- [inaudible] and who have no cash? >> i think first of all he has to get clear what is a tax and what isn't a tax. currently, before our changes there was a subsidy for people who add additional room they were not using and we believe it's fair that the same rules in private sector rented accommodation and in council accommodation. but the question is now for labour. you have ranted and raved about the spare room subsidy. are you going to reverse it? just in awe do. are you going to reverse it? are you going to reverse it? that means no. that means yes. any chance? absolutely nothing to say, and we get the same time with it. >> mr. speaker, --

[laughter] thank you, mr. speaker. it is no triple decisions that someone can leave their home and the country fleeing for their own safety. how many people must have let syria before it is impossible for its regime to declare any kind of moral entitlement to govern the backcountry? >> i don't believe that the regime has any legitimacy. i think the way that it has treated its own people, i think the bombing and maiming of its own citizens, and now this use of chemical weapons, i see this as a completely illegitimate regime. but what we now have to do is bring every pressure to bear for a transition so we can end up with syria in totally different hands. that is what is required. >> thank you, mr. speaker. [inaudible] 70% of parents have to take out loans to pay for the

uniforms. why has the prime minister failed to act so that his coal policy is now leading -- [inaudible] the profit of companies? >> first of all, like many people and many parents i think it's right for schools if they want to choose to have a robust uniform policy. i was at the opening of a new preschool in birmingham yesterday where all of the parents in that room were very grateful of the fact that exactly the policy that they had. i have to say what i see from the honorable lady is just trying to find a way to oppose free schools. the fact is that now i appoint hundred 94 free schools in the country. they don't like i like you becae actually parents think this is a good education. they're going to have to listen to the figures. two-thirds of the schools are either good or outstanding, and at some stage just as they get run over the economy the labour party will have to admit they got it wrong about free schools

as well. >> it costs the ministry of defence 1.4 billion pounds to extend the life of the submarines in order that the liberal democrats could have a study of alternative. now that study has shown that there is no alternative to trident. will the prime minister consider signing the contract for the new -- for the 270 we can never again be blackmailed by the liberal democratic in the house parliament? >> well, i have to credit the honorable gentleman with a remarkable consistency on this issue, which basically i agree with them. we have tried and. it is the right approach and we need to renew trident. actually the delay of the main gate decision has saved us money rather than cost us money. his point about the review i think is absolute right. it shows that if you want to have a proper functioning deterrence, then you need to have the best, and that means a

permanently at sea submarine base alternative and that is what a conservative only government after the next election will deliver. >> is it not the case that rail -- is it not the case -- >> order. the honorable gentleman is something of an exotic creature in the house. i think that insights the benches budget which a with honorable gentleman has said andy must be heard. >> is it not the case that rail wages have fallen by nearly 1500 pounds a year since he became prime minister in? >> of course we live in tough times because of the incredible mess with had to clear up from the party opposite but i have to say the party opposite complaining about the economy, complaining about living standards is like the accident

complaining to the fire brigade. it's a this, turn the economy around and that's the way we did living standards out. >> thank you, mr. speaker. very recently, an award -- three prestigious awards. would my right honorable friend wish to congratulate the many businesses your members on their achievement in? >> i certainly congratulate businesses large and small for the enterprise they have shown. the fact about this recovery is it's a private sector led recovery. that is what we needed after the massive excessive government spending and it's been very good. businesses up and down the country come have done so much to take people on and to get our ec the senate foreign registrations committee approved a resolution authorizing limited

military in syria. the vote was 10-7. with ed marquee of massachusetts voting present. on the house side members of the foreign affairs committee asked question about the administration's reasoning for action in syria. with secretary of state john kerry, defense secretary change -- chuck hagel and martin dempsey testifying. we've been hearing about number of syria proposals from representatives. the hill writes about congressman mike of kansas who said he's part of the resolution. in an interview, he said he favors language that would ensure the obama administration takes specific military action that helps the syrian rebels. the story goes ton say that -- the house will adopt the own language and possibly force the senate to consider language that is different from its own resolution. here is some of the house hearing on the likelihood that

syria bashar assad will use them good. >> if we do nothing, what is the likelihood, in your judgment, that bashar al-assad will use chemical weapons as a routine weapon to turn the likelihood of the civil war. >> i think the likelihood is very high that he would use them again. >> mr. speaker, i agree completely. i might even put it at 100%. you should project the intel on it. i would say probably 100%. >> mr. secretary, if you like, it's 100 percent, we will see these weapons now used routinely in this civil war to turn the tide if we do nothing, what is the probability that such weapons will also then get to the hands of hezbollah and other

elements supporting the assad regime, and thus perhaps prolife -- proliferate the region against friend and foe alike. >> i can't give you that probability. i don't know what it is. i know this, that there are three principle supporters of assad and the rest of the world is in horror of what is happening. the three principle supporters are ram, hezbollah, and russia. and if iran and hezbollah are are allowed to both see him stay in power as well as do so with the use of chemical weapons, that is extraordinarily danger use for jordan, israel, and lebanon and our interests. >> in that video, you can see behind secretary kerry the code pink protesters including the founder of the group. you can see all of the house foreign affairs committee

hearing of syria on c-span tonight at 8:00 eastern. and here on c-span2 starting at 8:00 eastern tonight booktv in prime time with a look at the civil rights movement. we start with "carry me home." the battle of the civil rights revolution. then a discussion with jonathan reader, "gospel of freedom." the letters from the birmingham jail. the science doesn't actually tell us what to do. it tells us what we any is going to happen, and then we have to make choices about that. and because one of the implications of simon's line of argument is that the earth is always changing. we the societies can change and

adapt in many ways and of course we don't know that necessarily the case with the climate problem. there's maybe something we can adapt to. but what -- if you take that idea that societies can adapt, it leaves us with the question of even if we can adapt is it the kinds of world we want to live in with the extreme heat, the drought, the sea level rise. so many things we care are in dangered by the changes that are happening. can human inagree -- the bet." sunday night at 9:00 on after words. part of booktv this weekend on c-span2. and book club is back this month with "this town mpletd two parties and a funeral and plenty of valet parking." read the book and see what other viewers are saying on facebook and twitter.

now a conversation on how the public views opinion polling. obamacare campaign pollster and republican pollster bill discuss the results of the new recently released polls. this is almost an hour and a half. >> this is sort of dramatic. good morning. i've sort of spent a lifetime intro-- introducing myself. this is poly sigh 104. good to have the overachievers in the front row. i've never actually been announced like that. at the risk of her killing me, she may, i want to recognize elizabeth wilner before we get started. [applause] and give her this event from soup to nuts. the project even the big k that

you see out there is completely due to elizabeth. we have an amazing group of people here in the audience. we're going have an amazing group of panelists up here. as always of you have learned, when elizabeth asks you to do something the correct answer is yes. and i think the fact that all of you are here speaks to both what is interesting program and the great respect we have for elizabeth. she's going kill me. because i'm going off topic here for a couple of seconds. so welcome. and again, as i was walking over here on what the washington, d.c., version of a crisp fall morning as crisp as you get. i spent my life speaking in early crisp fall mornings to young college students about many of these issues. usual think had an m for began

or a w for wisconsin or now a usf for university of san francisco. i've never spoke anyone a big k like the big k here. let me tell a little bit about kantar. unlike wisconsin or michigan. they don't have a football team to have the big letter behind. maybe i'm being american centric here. do we have a soccer team or a futbol team? we do not own an american football team. i think i'm in solid ground saying that yet. wpp may be inquiring an american football team as we speak. but kantar is one of the big companies you have never heard of. it's actually one of the world's largest research, data insight companies in washington, d.c. we are probably best known modestly for a firm you might have heard of, which is kantarz

mag which attracting political advertising. and also through a new member of the kantar family, the benson strategy group who came aboard a couple of weeks ago. so basically everyone in this room is a geek, and i say that lovingly who is involved and interested in survey research. one of the interesting things about survey research and public opinion is really from the dawn of people thinking about public opinion in the united states. unlike many areas where there's a real division between dmeerk, journalist, foundation commercial companies. there really has been a fairly open door or thin door between people going from big research organizations to academia to political pollsters.

and i think while many in politics would say they have never learned anything from political scientists or geeks, that's clearly not the case when it comes to polling. there's a lot of communication going on between the different world, and organizations like the american association for public opinion research is an organization who has people from all the different world. that's unique in an academic organization. so obviously the topic of what is going to be going on with public opinion research is one that has been discussed widely over the last couple of years. and also discussed widely in the after math of the 2012 election. all of us in this room take the measurement of public opinion seriously, and the way that works, and come up with the term, you know, the path to public opinion, akin to the path to purchase. for those working in the

commercial world, people often talk about that path to purchase. which sort of is a funnel ending when someone buying the product. and when we talk about public opinion, the path to public opinion, it usually was a geek whether that geek is from the foundation, whether that geek is an academic geek, whether that geek is a media geek has been the gate keeper of what the public thinks. the public is supposed to sit there. we survey them. they tell the pollster what they think. we report those findings. gene, there's been lots of discussion about the future of public opinions. and kantar thought ironically there's been discussion about the future of public opinion. what is going to happen about polls. nobody asked people about that. so kantar did what geeks do what survey researchers do, and did a poll on polling.

and we're going have a terrific group of people joining us here to discuss the poll, and i just wanted to start by outlining a couple of points that i thought were interesting and then get out of the way here and having a interesting discussion with a combination of media, political, and foundation pollsters. so if i push this button, the slide will appear? oh. so let me just briefly give you an overview, and i'm actually a walker when i teach. but i don't have my mic. i'm going stay here and sit down. one of the major findings was that most americans think polls are biased. so by a very large majority, going across every single cross path, you can look at americans believe that polls in general

are biased. yeah. i'll grab that, actually. cool. great, thank you very much. that said. there is some variance on the level of trust they place in different sorts of polls. so media polls and candidate policy fareless well than academic polls and foundation polls. obviously, americans are distrustful of a wide variety institutions in the united states including the ones on either end of this street. and widely distrustful of the news media. that is pervading people's opinions of polls as well. now not only with my professor hat on, and i see folks here like, you know, doug or charles frack -- franklin run academic polls.

they're sitting in the front row. people hold academic polls -- give academic polls more credibility. one pristine discussion point, which i would love to talk about and folks to think about, there are now more partnerships going on between the news media and academic polls. or between organizations like pugh and the news media. what is going to happen is the halo-effect of universities is going to positively shine on the news media, or the news media going infect all the universities with the same sort of levels of distrust, which we see in other institutions? i think that's going something very interesting to look at, and again, we haven't necessarily done polls that track people's attitudes toward those sort of things. let me say one more thing about this as well.

as organizations -- actually. get to that in a second. no one is more aware of this than the people in this room. yet again, another cell phone conversation. what is going on in terms of cell phone and survey research. everyone in this room is familiar with the fact that nine out of ten americans have cell phones. four out of ten americans are cell phone-only somewhere in between that number are people who mostly use cell phones or mostly use landlines. all sorts of interesting method logical discussions and waiting discussions how one deals with that. we asked a question about, would you rather do an interview on a landline or a cell phone. perhaps not surprisingly a strong majority would rather do a survey on a landline, which isn't great news. but it would be interesting to think about what those trends are going to be.

this survey says nothing about whether it's getting better or worse. we know there is more and more cell phones every year, but, you know, we would love to hear from folks like allen or doug who are doing tremendous numbers of survey whether the response rates are getting relatively better or relatively worse with cell phones. because i think it's at least a plausible hypothesis as cell phones aren't the thing you only use as an emergency or the special expensive toys that as cell phones become more normalized, perhaps i'm glass-half full here. perhaps people will be more likely to do interviews on cell phones as cell phones become primary -- their primary way of -- primary telephone -- what is the word i'm looking for -- tool. as we talked about before, the source matters.

academic institutions are viewed much more positivively than other organizations that do survey research. we asked a question about willingness to participate, which willing to participate in a survey by a foundation, willingness to participate in a survey by a political group, willingness to participate in a survey by an academic institution. people are more willing to participate in surveys by academic institutions. academic institutions will typically put they are from an academic institution in the introscript. i would love to hear from people who are doing surveys what other people put in their intro script. especially what the media are putting in the introductory script. i remember my first job at the cbs survey union.

the intro- script was good evening. we're calling from the dan rather and -- and the thought was it would increase response rates if uncle walter was calling and wanting your opinion. i remember thinking at the time, kansas evening news with "new york times" maybe you could ask fidel castro and get lower republican response rates. i don't know of any systemic research that has been done on what happens on intro -- scripts. ii may be wrong. for the media it's especially interest. this is cool, your attitudes will be in the news media or what we have shown previously how people are so distrustful of the news media. does that make them even less likely to participate? of course, political pollsters aren't calling up from the

romney campaign or obama campaign. there's a more vague language in the introductory script. social media, let me give you a positive and a negative spin here. so people still don't see social media as a good source of information on the attitudes of the public. and quite frankly, i think it's clear they don't understand what sorts of tools are being used to give people's attitudes from social media. we looked at the number -- we looked at another question which asked what the primary role of social media. would they be willing to do a survey on emotional yeed. and what do they think the role of social media is. it's clear if they -- i'm going to be minding my own business on espn.com and someone will bug me and ask me to do a

survey. the fact that people said, though, that social media is not for politics, i actually think if we can figure out how to sample it. it might be some of good news. why is that? because people who are trying to take a random sample and looking for ways to reach people where the people are not predisposed to come in a certain way. and if people are involved in social media, for reasons that are not politics, then it's not like just surveying the people who are watching the debate or just surveying the people who watch cnn or fox all the time and likely have pretty well-developed attitudes and predispositionses. let me just make -- let me just make one last point before i introduce amy walter and turn it over to the panel.

this is a first attempt at what i hope something that kantar will keep doing and keep a conversation going with many of the people who are on this panel, and many of you in the audience. but it's very difficult to do. basically we're studying who is doing public opinion polls, and the way we did that was people who answer public opinion polls. the people we didn't talk to may be the most important people here. and folks at pugh have done very interesting work on this where they have done their regular three-day poor and harassed the people to see how different that is. and compare it to other groups trying to get some sense of the dog not barking. the people they are not talking to. but this research is going to be out there. i hope people will take a look at it. and sort of put a marker down

that as we try and have what can be interesting and technical conversations about survey research, that perhaps question get some guidance also by actually talking to people about it. those are a couple of things that i thought were interesting, and i'm sure we will discuss lots of other things coming up from the audience and from our group of panelists who is going to come up. without further ado you don't get the deep voice introducing you. ladies and gentlemen, amy walter. i would like to introduce amy walter. amy walter is editor of the cook political report. i've known amy for many, many years. it was some disastrous election night, which i can't remember which one it was. many, many of you know amy in these sorts of things, you know,

the words preimminent political analysis or analyst are often thrown around. it's actually true with amy. she's a former political director of abc news. she's the former editor of hotline and overall good egg. a good friend. very smart about politics. press the button and now you talk. >> thank you, ken. i can't do the deep voice quite as well. thank you very much, ken, great job. and thank you, again to kantar for convening this. i think we are going have a great discussion for the next hour here. i can't wait to get the questions too from our very austere agust group of people in -- [inaudible] >> yes. i don't know if that's true. but we'll find out soon enough. of people in our audience, and i do want to stress before i bring our panel up, the points that ken made. we spent a lot of time in this

town talking about the method logical issues in polling. certainly in the wake of the 2012 campaign. in this panel, we want to take a step forward spend less time about what went wrong in 2012 and spend more time looking forward to what polling can be about in 2014, '16, and beyond. thinking about the issues that ken brought up about the way the public perceives polling, but trying to also get to some answers for how public opinion survives, given all of the issues brought up by ken today. so i'm very pleased to bring up the four people who, i think, are some of the smartest people in the world on these issues. they can come up now. i'll introduce them. you can give them a cheer as they come up. [applause] i can't get it. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] a lot of facial hair represented on the panel, which is good. it's always important. let he go down our panel here. joel benson. president of the strategy group and also well known as the obama pollster for those political journalists in this room. and you do polling for anybody who does public polling has gotten a call from joel. usually about how terrible your poll was. or what was wrong -- what was wrong with your polling. mark blumenthal, next to joel is the senior polling editor for the "huffington post." the founder of pollster -- -- pollster.com. you should be bookmarking it or however it works in making sure

you are on getting that information. they do analysis. a good egg and cyclist. which is important. alan murray. the president of pew research. you may remember him from his days being a journalist. right. years ago at the "the wall street journal." and at the very end wearing a baseball tie, you are surveying all the parks in america; is that correct? [inaudible] >> so you to hit the speak button. we'll get there in a second. he's partner at public opinion strategy. he's one of the pollsters for the nbc/"the wall street journal" poll. that's the group in front of us. they have a lot of experience and insight and a lot of opinions about how this goes. so i just want to start with --

this is a question to the entire panel, anybody can jump in. remember to push the speak button so the red light is on. i want to go to the big point to start with. it goes to the issue that ken started with, which is the issue of trust. the fact that three out of four people that were surveyed said they don't trust the polls they're seeing. it seems to me that's really the issue we should start with. which is how do we get as practitioners and people who cover the practitioners, people who actually trust the data that we're putting out there? whoever wants to start. joel? >> well, thanks to kantar, new home, thanks to ken and amy. amy also neglected to say that, you know, she's worked with cooke political report, which was recognized by nate silver in his book as one of the best

forecasting entities in washington with a track record that is verifiable. look, i take on the question why people don't trust polls. i think, first of all, people don't trust the media. you have a plethora of media polls that are taking over the conversation a lot. so that is going, correlating to one another. one of the interesting pieces of data in the survey by kantar that struck me. about half the people believe that there is a common set of standards being used by media outlets on conducting and reporting on polls. and i think -- i'm also a former journalist. i spent about ten or twelve years covering politics. there's not a common set of standards on conducting and reporting polls. maybe the media ought to rethink that so they can communicate that, and penal within know there's a common set of standards that everybody is living up to as opposed to every poll being reported on willie

nilly as if they are equal in quality and tracking each other and make sense when you follow from cnn's poll to abc's poll. they aren't all the same right now. and that's not to suggest any one or the other has more quality, but nobody knows if they are the same quality. so the public may be right in having some toi. say healthy doubt whether they're all trust worthy or not because they're getting indagated with them. they have no way of knowing. no one is telling them there's a common standard. it might be one thing to consider going forward. >> part of me wants to sort of question the premise in this sense. i mean, i think for consumers of polling, people who pay for it. people who seek it out. who write about it. yeah, we have an issue with trust and with sort of proving that the model that has worked for the last thirty years can service the future which is what

we're here to talk about. i don't think we need to survey or attempt survey 230 million americans to get that. what would be nice, i don't have a clue how do it, is how to convince typical americans when the phone rings or there is a message in the e-mail or whatever asking them for a survey it's a trust worthy request and something worthy of their time and not a tell marketing hassle. >> ken raise the point, alan, it's the maybe it's the partnering with either academic institutions or non-profit. that could be the trick. is this the answer, then? >> well, there is an element people don't trust anybody or anything or any institution. you sort of have to -- i'm not sure how much that has to do with nonresponse rates, but we can talk about that. i did want to say, amy and ken, first of all, i was slighted to see the pew research center was the top of the list among polls not trusted. it was the least trusted of the

group which is a great thing. if your poll is biased. at least it's biased in the right direction. we appreciate that. >> there grow. >> look, i -- i should also say i'm the layman on the panel. the others have more polling expertise. people in the audience have more. this is kind of like -- must be what it like to go to a convention to sit with a group. and most of what i know about polling comes from -- casts a cloud over it. but i think that one of the reasons why people made the comments they made about independent foundation because of the lack of other association. i don't believe that campaign pollster try to get the answer wrong. because you are affiliated with the campaign that does cast a cloud over it in people's eyes. people have strong feelings about the media these days. and i think the fact that we don't advocate policies. we don't take positions that we are not part dna has helped us

at least maintain some disagree of credibility in people's eyes. >> bill, do you have any? >> i don't think it's something that is going to get fixed. the it's frustrating. we have a lot of news outlets that have standards and careful about the report. but you can't and so, for example, i think the other thing is we talk about the 2012 polling. when you look at the last eight media polls released. one poll gallop, if you look at the review they had obama up three. they waited -- the plus one for mitt romney. there was one or two that were zero. everyone else had obama by an margin by one to three or four points. out of eight polls, if you took the aggravate, the aggravate of the eight polls the last eight

polls released had obama up by one or two points. overall, i think it was a pretty good result that said that type of pooling -- , by the way, is the same for the folks in the room who do the polls on the internet. the result were very accurate. if you took the pollsters on top of that. you looked at a world that said the last poll said obama is going win by one or two points. the point i'm making that despite the comment about the train wreck of 2012 polling, the last -- all the last of the public polls were in a pretty close election, i think, directionally pretty good. there's no way it's going to be discussed. there's no way we're going improve people's response rates. there's no we're going get around how much they turned off from participating in this process. and it's what it's doing is

simply making our job incredibly expensive, and more and more expensive, and because it's more and more expensive, there's always a relationship because say what you will and say what people say in the poll. what gets covered is the horse race, and every media outlet there's an enormous pressure given that price to comprise a lot of -- think about the survey quality for price. and that means that you cannot refer rei the volume of polling information that will be released. >> amy, if i can -- i think we have to acknowledge there's a lot of it doesn't have anything to do with people's attitudes toward polls or pollsters or political poll. it's the way people live their lives. people don't have twenty many -minute conversations. i don't -- my kids -- the only i have are with my mother. i sometimes thought maybe we should bring her to the pew research. guilt is a powerful motivating

force. it's a change in our society. the response rates -- ken made some hopeful comments. they're going down. it's not going turn around. >> it brings up the other point. given all of that, and mark, i know you have written a lot about this. why are we still using phones? it's not that we had the whole debate about cell phones, how many cell phones should we use. what is the right percent a.j. if -- people don't want to talk on the twenty minutes either. they're in the single digits. how much longer is this a viable model to call people on phones to get their opinion, is this what we're going to be in 2016, 2020? >> the answer, i thought about one thing i want to say here given the topic. the future is upon us. we've been having the same conversation for a long time. i remember distinctly a

conversation i had twenty five years ago the office of the two senior analyst of the firm that was that went along the line wow, look at the response rate we are probably calculating it wrong 40 or 50 or 60%. what will happen when it's 120. we component be in business. i have the folks kindly share the dispositions report for the survey. which is something you tend not to see about news media survey anywhere with the exception of one or two. for anyone in the room who knows how to do that is a little bit like pilling pill -- billing out a 1040 with the instructions the weird incentive to interpret things a little differently. i came with an response rate three of three. okay. now that's not shocking. one of the things we have learned over the last thirty years is that isn't the death

for survey. even though there's a great risk what we call nonresponse bias. if we correct the bias that are there, and they are passive. the people we talk to are -- the people you are able to contact and interview by phone, which is still the best way to try to reach out and grab people. they're older, whiter, have more money and tend to be more urban the population. if you try to correct the things in a dplaicted way. most of the time for the things we can check and scott at the pew research center has done the work. thing are very accurate. we're in a different world. the last little thing. it's the way we take the biased sample and name representative than i think is where the juice

is in what we do now. we need to pay more attention to how it's done publicly. we need to look more carefully. >> i was going ask the question i ask all the time too. do you really think you can wait -- to adjust at 3%? do you know, you know, do you know what the right -- , i mean, that's the biases there are no one in the room fully understand. >> right. that's absolutely right. and that's what, i mean, by the future is here today. it's a far off issue. if the question is valid for a probability sample on the telephone, then the same question applies for -- the nonprobability sample or the internet panel or the other things that start with a completely nonrepresentative pool and try make it in to something representative. we are now yo back to bill's observation.

fifteen to twenty different organizations did polls using a wide variety of different methodology. while they were low, president obama's margin, they were not wildly off. they were win the ballpark which is kind of my lack -- miraculous. joel ease shed going to explode. we're in an area where we can do reasonably well. >> alan, i agree if you start with a hypothesis and a good model whether your response rate is 23% or 5 percent and you adhere to the model. you can get ak rate results. i think people 0 who are practitioners do regularly. as bill said no pollster is trying to get the data wrong. we're not trying to cook the numbers. we're trying to win something. we're trying to win a race and get to 50% plus one on election day. that being said, i disagree with bill and these factors may be

related. they may not be. i think the polling was wildly inaccurate in the last election. i don't think looking at the last day saying eight out of the nine had obama plus one. there was extraordinary moisture volatility. there was periods of nine days where we had seven polls, different polls all being reported on ranging from romney being up three to obama being up five. and the only thing we know about the polls is they can't all be right. and the point of poll is to either be right or be able to inform the electorate about meaningful issue you're polling on. we've been consume by the horse race. if media outlets are going to do polling and you truly want to inform the reporting staff about how people feel about issues and create an enlightened coverage of the race. use the polling for that. don't lead the nightly news showing romney ahead by four in

florida when you reported yesterday showing obama was ahead in florida. treat polling and your data going forward, i think, with the care that professional pollsters, practitioners, and some of the, you know, the people on the stage typically do. i think for those that conduct polling with media outlets push them harder. fit the folks on the stage do when it comes to reporting on data. you have to be careful with it. otherwise you create an environment of mistrust. the kantar people's self-distribution are not accurate. in this poll they -- in a way we know that i don't think anyone in this room would necessarily believe. you know, the other part and the other problem with what we do is are the mobile panel our firm is

starting to work with, pollsters if you do what i do for a living and the other half of my work is the "the wall street journal." there simply not sizes in the other panels or state work. and so, you know, the political culture will be the last, last, last people. when the whole world has changed, give the agree of course if i in which we work, we will be the last folks on the phone. which is why the sufficient becomes important. from a political standpoint. look we we are strug thing no campaign is paying -- no campaign is paying for what nbc "the wall street journal" in term of the money trying to get stuff right. campaigns are always -- no campaign has that kind of budget to do what nbc pew or the other organizations are doing. what you tell a campaign, which

is my first in politics. -- lines go up that's good. and lines go down that's bad. what you are almost in the world of saying is to a campaign is cut the -- we can try to make sure poll to poll the methodologically is rigorously the same. at least direction nayly you can tell which direction the campaign is going on. but this panel is probably correctly devoted to the noncampaign world. because the noncampaign world simply cannot right now afford to keep up. the other thing i would say is our firm this year has been fairly a lot of money where because of nbc and "the wall street journal" we had 50,000 interviews from 2012. that means we have 5,000 that responded because the way we do the screen. and so we have a pretty good profile of stuff that responded in term who they are

demographically and their attitudes. then we went out and did a very large cell phone-only panel on the internet. and we did a very large cell phone-only panel on mobile. and mobile right now, the mobile panels are not -- they are so exciting. what you can do. but they're not going to be the answer because nobody over 40 on the mobile panel right now. but the internet panel and cell phone only was interesting as you compare the phone they're interesting because they are much better educate than some correspondent ease. less latino. and on most attitudes they were the same. except for gay marriage and abortion. the internet and the mobile cell phone-only response were much, much more liberal than the phone folks. and so this notion there's going to be a world where you can combine methodologically where you combine phone, internet, or mobile. maybe that world will come. but as i look at the data of

2013, i don't think you can simply take phone landline and combine with a different methodology and create one unified survey. we are doing tons on the internet. we are starting to do substantial stuff on mobile. but i do see them as not -- i see them as different products with different objectives. i don't see how today from the work we have done in 2013, they ought to be one survey response. >> yeah. let me just jump in on what bill was talking about. we did an experiment at my firm. we don't -- e only polled once for a media outlet in the l.a. mayor race this year -- last year. and our polling was accurate, by the way. we were actually the only poll in los angeles that the race right. we did a test in the swing state the past year to test ibr,

internet, and a traditional phone panel. the way we would normally do it in a race. we didn't try to mix methodology. we want to analyze each one. the truth with a sound model what the elect rate in the state would look like, those three methodologieses produce similar results that take more waiting with ibr and internet with a traditional phone poll? it does. but if you weigh in your demographic to a model and know what your actual model should be, you can get them pretty close. i believe bill is right. we won't be seeing multimode surveys in the near future. but i think in a very short amount of time, we'll be my grating to internet polls. whether they're cell phone-only or not. i have often been on panels with bill and we do a lot of work together as well. i don't think cell phone-only is a determinant of political attitudes. i think there are other changes that are shaping those attitudes. but i think we will be moving within all of our lifetime

sooner rather than later to seeing internet polling in political campaigns. whether the response rates will be any better, whether the waiting will get any better. we might have more data at the disposal in the world of big data. i don't know. we'll get there sooner rather than later. >> ken and then i'm -- [inaudible] do you want to weigh in? >> sure. >> hello? >> a couple of things commenting on some thing people on the panel have said. so people tell us they don't trust the media. as doings have said in the aggregate. the polls have gotten it right. in fact thinking 2008, 2010, 2012, the primary in 2008, the primary in 2012. all the races, i can only think of one where the polls got wrong, which was obama/clinton in new hampshire in 2008. so in the face of what the

public actually knows, all of these polls are doing pretty well. ironically, what they don't know, i think, speaks to what joe was saying. you know, the whip saw of one poll saying plus four and then minus three. and when you look at many of the polls in 2012, again, if you sort of look at the end they basically get it right, but many of you are doing this and actually doing it. not only looking at them, but doing the polls, i think this is a function of the heavy wading going in. some of the internals on the polls were moving in plausible way. independents moving 30240 percentage points in one week or one poll moving, you know, four or five, 6, 10 percentage points in a week. i think it goes to bill's point we may not be getting the exact answer right, but at least poll

pollsters who are doing a good job for their client are getting them the correct tend. how does one communicate that as a member of the press to the lay audience? >> i think that is challenging. what isn't challenging -- i would imagine i'm pretty much speaking to the converted here, and won't name names of certain sites, but certain very well-known, credible, institutions will really coffer any poll. i don't think that's doing the industry any favors. not even getting to how you communicate what are implausible changes in the internal of the poll. >> that's what i want to go to next. speaking of reporting on any polls. so we're going to throw this one to the mix which is the robo

poll. and the you being useness of the ibr people call you and you touch a number to respond. i went on the real characteristic politic side yet to look for the 2014 senate race polling. there was not one nonibr poll in the list of senate race polling. okay. so they're here. they're not going away. people are reporting on them. they're showing up in aggravators. first of all, to joel suggested they can be correct. so are they these terrible things? or are they okay? as measure of public opinion, and number two, regardless how you feel about them, how should the media and the public be dealing with them? >> let me throw one thing to that very quickly. the distinction like mark to take every single poll others who take every single poll who might weight it and others

reporting on the poll. i think there's some distinctions there as well. >> we have done all the above. and continue to do all the above. whether it's known or not. >> okay. >> i don't have a yes or no question for that. from 2004 to 2008, when you looked at robo poll done in the last month of the selection. they were as accurate or inaccurate as other polls done in that period. so if you're concerned about measuring the horse race at the end. the imper call evidence we had were accurate or inaccurate as anything else. that doesn't mean for me that are appropriate to measure other things. now since 2008 we had the explosion cell phone-only household. that's been a major for those socially permitted by law.

they had a rockier time. it depended. there were a couple of high profile surveys robo -- there were others like ppp and -- i'm forgetting some of the name of the smaller ones that were dead on. it gets at what they were doing, what the data they collected after they collected it. to give focus on whether there's an interviewer involve in the call or not, is in some ways i want to come back -- forgive me for doing longer than thirty seconds. the question about standard. joel raised it. it's in the survey. there's a challenge to us all. which is essentially you don't have standards. you're just reporting everything. the hour is short. the trick here is which standards. and there are, you know, apologies to doug schwartz from begin pee yak.

-- quinnipiac the new york city mayor race is upon us in a great study. there are no robo poll. they largely stayed away, probably a large choice in new york. there is one standard i learned from poq over the years that says that a good poll is one that involves random digital dial sample. one for cell phone and one for landlines. and involves live interviewers, it's -- it started by calling all adults. weights them by demographic. ..

pay attention to these, don't pay attention to those. depending who is doing the checklist some of those that are good produce results of the place and that can get you useful information that is as accurate as the ones. >> can i change the topic? >> you can do whatever you want. >> i want to go back. i have a suspicion that 20 years from now or 25 years from now we will look back on this conversation and it will seem very quaint like a discussion on

the social cost of the disappearance of the pony express. the data about people's attitudes and the people's behavior is is exploding. the campaigns notice. they just haven't quite figured out how to extract, but we will. that is one of the things we are going to be looking at that you research center as president earlier this year was to go and say we have a big problem here and we need some money to do some research to find out where we go from here >> when we look at the idea of directly asking people a question as quaint? >> the former census director said that what we are likely to see in the future is a melding together. so the survey committee dhaka other sources of data. i am a stand of the skepticism on the ability to do that. but my guess is sooner or later we have to find a way to do and

we will because there is more data than there has ever been before. we have to learn how to extract them. >> is it more learning how to do it or is it cost prohibited? >> i don't think it is cost prohibited. it's not that there is more data that the techniques for analyzing the data are exploding as well i don't think it's a question of cost is just figuring out how to develop reliable standards for making sense of it. we spend a fair amount of time. we do content analysis of the twitter stream. obviously when you get is in the same as public opinion. it tends to be much more negative than public opinion. it tends to be liberal but not consistently. on some things we have seen it more consistent than public opinion and also it is a limited sample of the population. but people are going to figure out how to extract sense out of

it. he runs around saying that if you have a three month average they could have predicted the fathi election using -- i'm not sure that i believe that there is a lot of data out there, more than there has ever been and we cannot win our hands too much because ten or 20 years down the road we will have better ways of figuring out what people are thinking and doing and how 88. >> we have a lot of smart people in this room lying sure have very smart questions to ask. now there is a microphone. is that true? mali if you would just raise your hand and someone will bring you a microphone. right over there. there she is. >> jennifer from the associated press. my question on this trust is about a sort of an element that wasn't discussed. don't you think a part of the reason people distrust the polls is that they think they are

constantly told to distrust the polls? we live as the pure research centers have shown in a very polarized part of the world and people place for trust and their partisans were the campaigns. the people that agree with them than they do in the generic news media kit and the polling has become a sort of campaign within. what impact do you think that has had on people's impression? >> i would jump in and say yes. they distrust the media and the institutions and politics and democrats, republicans and i felt when we ask the sample of how the polls are seen as a part of all that stuff that they associate with politics. i have a sort of perverse reaction to the result the recorders of the survey said they distrust the polls which i want to try to do in 15 seconds we had a little response rate

which is typical. this is not an unusual response rate for something that is done by not a news media entity or something like the pure research center with a university. and so, you have this dilemma that is one of the cases we are doing the survey about is something that might be of more interest for certain kinds of people. if the result of the survey had been these people what we are able to interview one of the polls, we would want to throw it out, right? and the fact that we were able to get on the phone people that said they distrust the polls and an unfavorable not some of whom think polling companies, they are talking to a polling company representative of that. they said that we can get people on the phone for reasons that are not necessarily related to this topic at hand which is in a weird sort of way. >> can i add something else to that? i guess if people say they distrust the polls could i can tell you having spent the last

eight years of my life on the web site they read them. they may distrust them but the reason the question was asked why did the news organizations report every poll that comes out, it's because they get a response. it's like miley cyrus twerking. it attracts attention. i want to say one thing on bill's defense. the way that you have made several comments that you can about distrusting the media polls and the way that i read your poll, "the wall street journal" and nbc poll came out very high on a list and by sharing my body is easier but he deserves a little credit from that. i don't think that is terrible but that has nothing to do with the poll itself. its commentary about the news organizations. but thank you pity that charitable. i think to the question --

>> that is an important distinction here because the question was about the bias. when people are consuming more and more of their news from cable television where two of the channels have what any unbiased person would have a tilted one way or the other the public isn't wrong. there is a bias in the media they are consuming which by the way is not different historical pivot americans have always tended to consume the media that aligns the point of view and the neutral press as much as i believed in it as a journalist is and how the consumers received at. on the respective news organizations and the public is correct they do think there is a bias so consequently it is produced buy then whether it is this show by chris matthews or o'reilly it is going to have somebody is in it. >> the answer to the question is

yes. obviously in september of 2012 we have this ridiculous website and with the help the standards were going to be. and you were hearing a daily barrage of the conservatives and talk-radio and other regimes. the other kind of conservative outlets saying that they are all lies or they are not right or it's the wrong way to look at 2008. it's ridiculous. it's a lifetime ago and we have had a major recession. so, if there is a steady stream telling people that stuff is by yes of course you are going to believe it. it was a ludicrous effort and wrong. i don't get worked up by this stuff because my point is i can't stop that. i don't have enough power. they just have to work -- again if you are a campaign pollster

they live and work around and these are not problems that are going to be solved or addressed by anything, anyone in this room >> can i just to address jennifer, your question. i think there may be a dynamic when people say you can't trust these polls coming from the pollsters time to time. i try to resist those as much as i can and everybody knows that for the last three weeks of the obama campaign they never showed us having a margin of less than three points. i had to spend a lot of time talking about the polls that were showing him running the campaign which was in the case. that being said, i had more time than i care to. i don't particularly like engaging in those discussions. the american electorate is not a

volatile. they typically don't bounce around like pogo sticks and so if the polls are being reported on and the volatility is being reported, the mistrust is going to become a self fulfilling prophecy. the people that should be less trustworthy are the people that report on them. bring to the profession the same kind of critical why i was taught as a journalist all the time. don't just accept the number you get and if it's not from your own news organizations until this is the latest poll. report on it with the same credibility and mistrust you would with everything else and question your sources rigorously and he will contain some of it as well as we can on the polling site. >> david with cook political report. so, following the polling over the last two or three cycles, i found with universal despair on both sides of the aisle likely

voters screens and seemed like in 2010 when they pull the congressional races they couldn't scream tight enough. and in 2012, they screamed too tightly if anything. the electorate and 2010 was we more republican than the pollsters on both sides expected. in 2012 it was a more space. what is the future of screening for the likely voters and do you trust them to tell the truth with their they will come out to the polls or not? >> i did a lot of work on the campaign. and again, i think this is -- he has corrected me any previous panels that me talk about the republican pollsters in general. which i think -- and i held on the question after 92i request

about interest and the likelihood of vote in the culture. elected you go to religious services? yes. argue likely to vote? yes. there is a social sanction that says i changed the question to interest because i felt there wasn't the same sanctions you have to be. there's a tendency in the republican world to put an emphasis. i think that has failed because we don't have -- you don't get more of a vote because you are jumping up and down compared to if you're dragged to the polls. those models were built in 1992 where we didn't have a 2 billion of the presidential race and we didn't have facebook. we didn't have the way people could be reached or anywhere near the amount of voter contact. nbc and wall street journal description of how much contact. in 2004 which was a huge campaign.

bush was considered the broader context and in the swing states they said they had been contacted. in 2012 we were at 75, 80% personal contact. that is an extraordinary number. that's why the screens and the revised nbc wall street screens are not just based on interest they are also the self-described vote said that there are a multiple ways you can access the likely voter model. then in terms of just observation of trying to do my work better, one of the things i went back and looked at was not on voters to see in "the wall street journal" what can we learn more about them on voters. non-voters are not very engaged. i asked how many non-voters out of my pool work very positive

for one candidate, terry negative for another and said they would definitely vote for a candidate rebel voltmann interviews only about 1% were made up of those people. but obama was winning .8212. was from - 1 furlong to - two. i said looking back if somebody is free plovdiv for one and very negative and voting whatever they are doing on the screen they ought to be looked at. so we are in virginia testing a lot of different questions as well beyond just interest in the previous vote to do a lot more to do to assess the contact and so all of that is going on. we are also doing a lot of stuff we're we're doing felons of interviews and we are using a lot more panels and doing in

large range of stuff that the media to the other thing that happens which is about 15 or 20 states. you have information on the folder faizal. bhatia the thing we did and the firm in 2012 was to take the swing states and take thousands of interviews and then go match them back to see who voted which isn't something we have done enough. that experiment scale is not functioning at least in terms of the land line. so, why all of there is going on you have the second issue which is in a campaign you go to the states and see to people give me the of voter files of people that actually voted to the when you look at the final that actually voted what you find is that it didn't match the polls. it is less of the neck and my fight inside the party has been yet because those are the folks

that can match and a means there are thousands of voters you can't match if they're poor, young and definite and not white beaded doesn't mean that the voter file wasn't wrong it just means it can't be matched. this dispute between what the exit polls look like in the state versus the voter file has been the source of light on these models you are hearing the pollsters say jumping up and down i know what these are like in new york city. these people i know are going to vote and my point has been that i think the pollsters in that case are missing and there's other folks that can vote that don't get matched on the voter file because we can't pick them out because we don't have a phone number. so, that is in my mind why the exit polls don't play a critical function because in 2010 you

could look at the exit poll in new jersey and virginia and say unless things really change we are right to see different electorate and in my mind that is why virginia this year is so critical because you have to not perfect candidates with an amazing sum of money in a lot of money being spent quietly behind the scenes and will be a living laboratory with not perfect candidates how much you can affect the turnout which is what they are trying to do. and in that way i think it is a very powerful signal for 2014. >> a really quick word. the midterm elections have a life of their own and they are different animals from presidential and even the fall through a trapdoor if you are not careful going around them. i think that a lot of democrats could tighten up their screen in 2010. keep in mind that also making general assumptions like the midterm elections will be older,

just remember that in 2006 we had a tilt the other way and in 2010, you know, we had a massive republican landslide that the decline from the presidential to midterm is always going to be about the same but it's not always win to be the same people who show up or who don't say you have to treat every election has its own, creating a model based on your historical knowledge to make the kind of adjustment of bill list talking about using multiple questions and not the same that you have always used. meek sure that you are looking at the the the and to revise the screeners if you think you have the model rahm and if you have a better way to get an accurate electorate. >> we have time for two more questions. going back to this part here. in the back.

>> have a comment in the question. i want to echo the point i think the future is here and we don't know what the big data will look like so we are making multiple. we are investing in the non-probability approaches. the panels in some ways are not workable in our view it may not be around with the river sandlin. lots of mobile as well. but in addition to working with these interests of the linkage analysis and loss of the analysis and a loss of the shrinkage estimators combining multiple data streams combining together into a single lesson that we don't know what it's going to look like so my question is and this is what we are confronting is dewey es

professionals have the right profile and training to confront this new challenge and i would like to have comments on that point. >> we are in an age where there is -- i will say frankly the training i had as an apprentice is not sufficient for the kind of analysis and the skills you need now which is very specific to date of one sample and the way we put it out. if you look at the challenge of the data that is really just data we have a lot of it. there was a comment before or question about do we need the interviewer and i think there are two things we have gained from the interview that we are not about to lose.

we just can't lose. one is the notion of representation. we have all of this data but without the ability to draw conclusions about what the whole population is that you're interested in it isn't useful. i don't know of any of the online panel efforts or any surveys the would be of much use if we didn't have the bulletproof population estimates that we get from the census. if you don't know what the american community survey is and you are in this business, shame on you. you should be reassessed in with a free boehner but the attempt to dismantle that because without that, we don't have the tools to turn to try to turn on representative data. the the thing is conversation. there is no substitute for being able to ask people questions and have them answered.

it's not the best way to figure out what people watch or what they actually do but it's invaluable for attitudes and we need ways to do that that go back to the first point which is we need to be able to do that in ways that represent the population. >> to be direct i don't think the current training is adequate to what has to happen to change the research field. we try to commercialize the social media. the reason no one knows about it is that we have been unsuccessful. here's the point i try to make it doesn't exist yet. but we are a large enough firm and if you have terrific resources we are not quite in that range because we have to make a living, we have to make a profit that our firm will be

either higher during, retaining more subcontracting because i think the world is changing and i don't think my partners and by our expert on what we do have the right academic or other background to do with and we have two extra lines how to get additional thinking to see what's coming. >> can you wait for the microphone for a second. >> people are concerned about this issue of can we get standards and convey them to the journalist said they have an education committee and some people do these dog and pony shows for different journalists. the last one for a bunch of journalism professors and was the first time that really struck me how my presentation how to identify a good poll had become so complex and there were places people would ask me about

the polls where i couldn't give one party line or what about this guy at stanford? he does internet polling. why can't i reflect on that? didn't have the answers. and also instead of a grateful audience with like danish, i got all this pushback of do you understand these journalism students and how much time they are going to have to report? you seriously expect them to go through and try to figure out all the stuff about this survey? the two lines are intersecting in a way that is just problematic for improving the coverage. >> fax -- i do try to make a very simple -- address the ball with devotee which i share. i am in an awkward position. buying in the media pollster so i share the concerns about the poll and jill was nicer to me maybe than he might have been to the other journalists. he was charming as always in

that conversation. [laughter] but my point to joel in a nice way is i could be wrong. i could be wrong. i'm doing the best i can. it's tough. but here's my point about i could be wrong. we are doing the same thing every single poll. our numbers are changing a point or two. please, you know, focus on the people where it's gone oliver the map. [laughter] and so my point is -- my point is look, if you are going to cover politics you have to be able to compare that person's survey over time. you have to understand the way to evaluate the poll is and whether it is perfect. it's whether that data, the weight and everything about them

are stable. and there are the polls i particularly like and that have a strong history of right or wrong. there is an enormous stability and you can treacly push whether they are doing it right but there are national polls that have been all over the map and those to me are worrisome because if you are getting that much variation it means you are doing methodologically that is not replicating the data and that is an enormous caution. that is a very simple standard to say if you are covering politics you have to know the shift change and then look and about whether the change has been and that to ease the guide when i use on the polls that i

actually carefully pay attention to and that i think i don't look at or trust. >> can i make one point here? most of this discussion has been about the pre-election polling which i think is the most socially valuable stuff we do. it may be important to bill's business and it's important to the political report and media organizations love it and it is the nice market test that in terms of social value it isn't much better than miley cyrus' twerking. at the end of the day somebody is going to win the wreckage. you don't need the poll and in fact we would be better off if people went to vote with a little less of a clear idea about who is going to win so the social value is very small. what's more important are the polls when we are able to show

people that even after newtown there are more people worried about their right to own guns as well as gun crime which is something if you lived in washington or new york corporation haleh alto he wouldn't probably naturally realize or when we are able to show the supreme court house -- and i don't mean to suggest it is a driven organization how rapidly the public opinion has changed on the issue of gay marriage over the last decade. i'm sure that no one of the court would admit to be influenced but come on. they make their decisions and a winstrol contact. how do you not have good data showing you what people are thinking? so i think there is a bigger issue at stake and i didn't want the panel to end without making that point. >> there was something i wanted to say and it sort of dovetails. i save my defense of the social utility. of course the pulling for

another day. but i will see this. it is by far the curiosity about who is going to win particularly among people who get politicized near the end of a presidential race and care very much about the income is by a factor of ten or 20-1 more likely to jolt people to our work. and i'm not exaggerating. in terms of the web traffic and would b.c. on or survey. and succumbing word about aggregating both in general and to answer in the partisan answer to question what is its role? the way that we take virtually every poll and use the innovation charles franklin here today helped us create, which is and hugely different than the notion of taking them both and averaging them are taking a step further and doing a model is to provide some context. ..

maybe it's misleading and have something to compare it to. it's not necessarily true more of an industry average. that's helpful. i think that's the primary benefit of aggregating. >> i will be brief and i want to echo what alan said and praise pew for the work they do and the social utility and data transparency.

i can call up the folks at pew. if i have a question, i ask and get an answer. i think people need to use organizations like that. one of the great misconceptions and misconstruction is relying on an old definition of white -- it was driving me crazy. and ron browne seen, i love as a journalist and probably knows about polling than any other journalist. i called ron and said i don't think it's a good definition anymore. he said give me a better one. i called up pew and said can you run a cross tab what percentage of white even evangelical. they tended to be older, white, and conservative. 56% of white noncollege voters -- that's twice as high in the electorate overall. is the group being driven by the economic and working class? are they being driven by the religious values? i think it's being driven by religious value.

there should be another definition and the point quickly for those covered them. alan is right. the social utility is where the value lies. you should be using those as resources. they'll dig out information for you. i'm not a geek, ken. i do keep the last two pew-typology decks and cross tabs in my office all the time so i can refer to them. there a wealth of data about the american voter. people should use studies like that more. >> my other point about the ability of the american public is how do you know that? ere once awhile between polling and election breakout. they have a certain effect. thrz a wisdom in the e electorate if you do it long enough so you to learn to

trust. it's a country that tends get it right over time. our job it try to figure out what they're trying to -- what signals they are trying to tell us. in some way there is normally something pretty powerful that the public is trying to communicate. by the way, it overall at the end influence in term of what we do. we're probably watching a great history where the caution about syria and the syria they're hearing from the multiple survey as having an enormous hearing. i think the president's decisions and what is happening in the congressional debate. and, you know. so i do -- so i just kind of want to just say there is, as you said what everyone in the room does. it's a unique group. but there is the -- with the trying to get it right, which is becoming very difficult and all the discussions are meaningful

but also recognizing that the thing we're trying to get right the body of politic has a certain judgment that we need to listen to and understand. >> i want to make three quick points. now i'll make four. you are a geek. that's a loving thing say. the social utility of poll is not the horse race. let's be honest. as alan said it is why the media does polls and may be the social utility buy product is the more useful stuff. no one said they stop and stare at the crar car crash. none of you ran to the fight in junior high school. got to get the horse race better. it's going to be the most visible part of polling and, quite frankly, it can sub disiez the most socially interesting stuff. two other quick things. i think actually there's a big

philosophical divide. joel used the term modeling the e lek trait. and there really is a difference between many pollsters. it's a little bit democratic. but it crosses a bit between those who, you know, look at microtargetting and integrate microtargetting and voter lift with their surveys, and use that model of the election as their target weight along with census and historical data to figure out what is going on. if you know x is going 20b%, we can be pretty confident if we talk tat 20% we're going get the margin right. it's a question of how big a number of they are. i said it and i think others have said it. just so really be careful for journalists reporting the volatility of polls. i think there actually, it's complicated as claudia said. marc gave a simple answer. if the entire average of

pollster.com or any other aggravators is x and you're way off, everything we know suggests that one poll is off the average is not off. >> thank you to the entire panel. i think i'm happy we ended on a very optimistic note. we started out a little bit down how terrible the industry was. how everything was wrong. we get to the bigger point. i think we ended this quite well. to remember for the journalists in the room, i think the context becomes very important too. it's not quite as sexy. giving people, i think, what they are frustrated about in many ways they see a top line number they don't understand not only how they get the number but why people are saying that. we get the data for getting a sense of people's attitudes. thank you to kantar. we hope to see more research from kantar about the important subject. thank you to you for being here and a wonderful day.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] the the senate foreign relations committee approved a resolution this afternoon that authorize limited military force against the syrian government in response to the use of chemical weapon. the vote was 10-7 with one senator, ed markey of massachusetts voting president. the vote break down of seven democrats and three republicans voted in favor of the resolution, and two democrats and five republicans voted against it congressional quarrelly writes some g.o.p. lawmakers may be willing to vote for an authorization against syria if they can obtain an extension from the pentagon from sequestration. an example from the story the communications director for oklahoma senator jane, the

ranking republican on the armed social securities committee said he would want an exemption for the defense department from sequestration. and reversal of the president's $500 billion and defense spending cuts. on the house side of the capitol this afternoon, members of the foreign affairs committee questioned secretary of state john kerry about syria. here is an exchange between the secretary kerry and congressman duncan. you'll notice the code pink protesters seated behind secretary kerry. athisnk you, mr. chairman. i can't discuss the possibilityn in syria civilhe possibi war without talking about benghazi. administration has a serious credibility issue with americani people, question surrounding thy terrorist attack in benghazie americ almost a year ago. when you factor the irs attack t targeting of conservative groups, the ap and james rosen issue and the nsa spying program. there's a need for accountability and trust progra, building from the

administration.ountabilitand i'm not upset a you're not am notg me the truth. from now on i can't believe the administration has a credibility issue. they are watch for the response. almost a what difference does it response make now? this is a difference -- these issues call in to questioi the accountability of thistheses administration. the commitment to the personnel on the ground and the judgment that it uses when making these determinations. the american people deserve answers before we move forward talking about military to involvement in syria. section four of your testimony today said it's about accountability, sure it is. the american people deserveif answers about benghazi before wt move forward with military peope involvement in syria's civil war. i

this is a picture. you're not going to be able to see it from there.you ca you'll be to be see it on thes a screen. pictu given t this is give to me by a father of navy seal. he was killed in benghazi. america deserves answers before am send another man or woman in to harm's way especially in another country's siflt war.arml especially when there's no clean indication there's an imminent threat to the united states. i don't question that chemical weapons were used in syria. t looked at the classified briefing. brfings. that if so, where are the other signatory chemical ofr the chemical weapon as u.s. beat the drum of war against the regime in syria?u.s. be i have spoken to hundreds of subsequent -- constituents.i have it represents about 300 e-mails my office has gotten. not one in my district in south carolina or the e-mail of people distct arected my office say go syria and fight this regime office to say, go to syria and fight thisegime.

! to eighth graders. about 150 of them get it that we should not be drug into someone else's civil war where there are no good guys. i can only envision an escalation of this conflict. the same administration that was so quick to involve the u.s. in syria now was reluctant to use the same resources at its disposal to attempt a rescue to four brave americans that fought for their lives in benghazi. kerry, you have never been one that has advocated for inthing other than caution past conflicts. the same is true for the president and vice president. is the power of the executive branch so intoxicating that you would abandon past caution in favor of pulling the trigger on a military response so quickly? the reason that i say benghazi is germane is this.

kerry, had there been any efforts on the part of the united states directly or indirectly to provide weapons to the syrian rebels, and that would also include facilitating the transfer of weapons from rebels to the syrian rebels. >> have there been efforts to? >> to put weapons in the hands of syrian rebels and also transfer weapons from libya to syria. congressman, by challenging your proposition that i have never done anything except advocate caution because i volunteered to fight for my country and that was not a conscious thing to do when i did it. i'm going to finish, congressman. i am going to finish. and i was in the united states senate, i supported military action on any number of occasions, including her innate in panama. i could run a list of them.

i'm not going to sit here and be told by you that i don't have a theof -- a sense of what judgment is. we are talking about people being killed by gas and you want to go talk about benghazi and fast and furious. >> absolutely. americans lost their lives. be athink there should worldwide response, but we should act cautiously. are acting cautiously. we are acting so cautiously that the president of the united states was accused of not acting because he wanted to have sufficient evidence and he wanted to build the case properly. >> it has been 15 days. privilege, here. this is important. i think this is important. it is important whether or not wayre going into syria in a that the congressman describes, which i think most people in america do not want us to do.

would you not want to do that. that is why the president has said no boots on the ground. this is not about getting into syria's civil war. is about enforcing the principle that people should not be allowed to gas their citizens with impunity. do this, at vote to sod will interpret from you that he is free to do this any day he wants to. that is what this is about. not getting involved in syria's civil war. let's draw the proper distinction here, congressman. drag us intorve to another benghazi discussion when the real issue here is whether or not the congress is going to stand up for international norms with respect to dictators that have only been broken twice until assad. you can see the senate foreign relations committee hearing at

8:00 eastern. and the house foreign affairs committee today on c-span. arizona always they are both available on c-span.org. you can read white house document on the scope of the chemical weapons attack. >> the science doesn't actually tell us what to do. it tells us what we think is going happen. and then we have to make choices about that. and because one of the implications of simon's line of argumenting that the seater changing. we the society can change and adapt in many way. we don't know this is necessarily the case with the climate problem. there's maybe something we can adapt to. but if you take that idea that societies can adapt, it leaves us with the question of even if we can adapt is this the kind of world we want to live in the with extreme heat, the drought, the sea level rise.

so many things we care about are endangered by the changes happening. and we have a choice about this. >> is catastrophe all but certain? paul on "the bet." sunday night at 9:00. part booktv this weekend on c-span2. and book club is back this month with "this town: two parties and a funeral plus plenty of valet parking." read the book and see what other viewers are saying on facebook and twitter. on tomorrow morning's "washington journal" andrew parasiliti former adviser to chuck headache l. -- hagel.

"washington journal" is live every morning on c-span at 7:00 eastern. on this morning's washington journal. we heard about chinese hacking of u.s. companies. her story here is the headline the ceo who caught the chinese spies red handed. welcome. >> guest: great to be here. >> host: who is the ceo? >> guest: the ceo is kevin man diaz. he's the ceo of a smawm northern virginia been in business twins 2004. no one has heard of him. it wasn't on the map until he released the report that came out on the front page of the "new york times" in february. that showed ties between not just hackers in china but the

chinese military and hacking in to fortune 500 companies in order steal trade secrets. >> host: was it a new revelation? >> guest: it's interesting. what was it was proof of a lot of allegations either been classified or are part of corporate knowledge and corporations don't want to be waving the flag and saying what we've been hacked in to. this is something going on since, i mean, the chinese, russians'res have been hacking to the system for years. but since about 2004, 2005, we have seen an increased intrusion by chinese hackers. hackers out of china. what they do is get in to computer systems, corporates systems and they download trade secrets everything from factory blueprint to ingredient to executive e-mail. it's been increasingly building. it's been a big problem, but it's something that we as the

administration and congress have dealt with more through quiet diplomacy. so they'll talk to the chinese behind the doors and say, look, it's not good. it has to stop. the chinese will deny it. they'll take offense. and keep doing it. and so what has been happening on a separate track from the report that came out in february is that the administration is starting to take off the gloves on the issue. the obama administration. they decided to get tough on china. so we saw in the president's state of the union speech, he made references to cybersecurity threats. he didn't seek point out to china. at the same time national security advisers about to make a speech saying, look, china you have to stop doing this. this was a big thing that factored in kevin's mind when he had the report. his company has been looking at

-- they respond and it goes webster fashion to cybersecurity intrusion companies. they have done this and there are 147 companies that he cites in here. not by name, but it's based on those intrusions that he did this report linking the intrusion to a military unit in shanghai. >> a specific -- >> yes. with a number and with a building. massage parlor and noodle shops. he had the evidence he's a former air force intel officer. he built the elite unit of the intelligence officers. they have been building evidence for quite some time. companies are reluctant to talk about. as i mentioned before, the government officials have been reduck lant to go openly about it. they had a report and the question was do we go public

with it? the information is not classified, and there are no naming of companies. in fact he passed it through intel officials who said tellingly, go ahead and release it. we don't have any problems with you releasing it. it's back in january and february. with the president citing the cybersecurity threat and administrations giving off signals that it was going to be more open, more tough on china, he decided it was the right thing to do. somebody had to speak up and actually show proof that this was coming, again, as i said before not just from hackers based in china, but from headachers who work for the chinese military. >> some of the highlight of the report, our guest highlight there was a military unit responsible for the cyber hacking. cost lists and behind that this is about money. >> guest: this is about

money. this is about, look, we're in an economic competition with china. they're getting there not so much by the suggestion but not by so much by stealing our trade secret and our invention and when i say our. these were western company. it was also in europe. u.s.-english speaking companies were targeted in the take. they are -- they apparently don't think it's a problem to steal ip intellectual property and use it to build their industry and military as well. >> host: our guest with us to talk about her cover story a little bit her about the ceo. the the topic of cybersecurity. here is how you can talk to her this morning. 202-588-3880. democrats 202-a

how did he respond to the response that his report got? >> guest: it's interesting. he was nervous about releasing the report. he's a small company and his name is on the report. it's the only name on the report. he was a little bit nervous as he said i'm going have a giant target on my back. i'm taking on the second largest economy. the response from the chinese ministry said the report was unprofessional and irresponsible. and he was fearful they might do things not he wasn't fearful for some of his friends and investors that the chinese might hack in to his company and internal e-mail and do what is a reputational attack. release e-mail that might undermine the credibility of the company. taking things out of con terks and so on.

on the other hand, that is not necessarily the mo of the chinese. as kevin likes to say, there are certain rules of engagement that the chinese follow. there are hackers from other countries as well. the russians come in. when they come in it's about money. credit card fraud, getting debit cards, it's stealing basic money. when iran or possibly terrorists-linked country organizations come in, they may be coming in to destroy. to paralyze grids, to take down hobbles. that's very destructive and dangerous in a national security issue. and the chinese come in, they download information. they collect reames of information. you may not know they're doing it. you might get a call from the fbi or a competitor hacked in to to say, hey, giving you a heads' up. they don't damage systems.

neither have they engaged in reputational attacks or anything like that. kevin's view was, you know, yeah, there's a danger in doing this to his company, but it was something that had to be done because companies were uncomfortable talking about this, because they didn't want to say, hey, we have just been hacked. it hurts their company. and frankly, companies want do business in china and reluctant to take on the chinese individually. since he knows these companies, he thought he would be on the front line of this. surround bid former military intelligence officers in his company. >> host: does the report name specific about the companies, what got hacked? >> guest: it doesn't. because again, you know, the company, you know, if you raise the flag and say we have been hacked, it's hurtful to your business. no, it doesn't name companies. it cites as he said, the number

of companies. and it cites and they talk about how these are and how vulnerable they are. you can have all the fire wall you want. you still be vulnerable to an attack. the way it happens is that the chinese or any hacker will go in and learn about a company and the employees. it's become more of a problem with facebook and social media. they can find about youing with everything, all your friends. your favorite movies, they'll send you an e-mail based on that with an attachment. it. you are likely to open the attachment and virus comes in. they peak inside the window and go in and -- the story with a chart where the hackers are. 30% in chinese.

there's hackers emanating from the u.s. there's hackers that came out from the snowden, ed toward snowden the nsa hacks for national security reasons in to other systems. u.s. hackers hack in to others in the u.s., by the way. so there's a national security hacking that comes from our military and nsa and ourses like that -- organizations like that to get a heads up a lead on national security issue to protect the country and so on. what we don't do is on any scale that anybody knows talked to me is steal trade secrets from competing companies in other in order build our economy. the nsa director keith alexander called this the greatest national -- greatest transfer of national wealth in history. there have been estimated knead stealing ip from american

companies is costing $300 billion a year. $1 -- 1 minute.2 million in lost job. >> host: first call in los angeles california. democrats line, gm. >> caller: good morning. i answered my question. i did have another question. sorry -- but it seems like china already has a middle class and they have met nature. so what was compelling them to continue their hacking and things in that nature? >> guest: i'm from l.a. myself. it's great to hear from you. the chinese middle class is actually growing but it's very limited compared to us, for example, in fact economists have pointed out that, you know, why we worry about the rise of chinese i believe it's the year

2020. their per-capita-income won't be anywhere near what ours is. while they are building a middle class, it's still only in the early stages. they base the potential of social unrest. you have winners and losers in their economy. there's a lot of poor people. there's a lot of people who just are, you know, getting by. we have seen a lot of crisis in china like the collapse of schools in earthquakes and stuff in the poor areas that have lead to unrest. the chinese are worried ability unrest. they know they have to keep building the economy and actually bringing that gap between the welloff and the not so well off. they have to figure out a way to close it. >> guest: washington. independent line. >> caller: yeah, my question relates to to history of this kind of intelligent yule property. wasn't israel in some of the other ally country involved in the same kind of activities even

before the computer -- they benefited gain from this as well? and -- >> guest: yes. >> caller: talk about the history with a little bit. >> guest: i think there's business espionage on some level. there have been cases, obviously, where the spice have been planted internally in companies. that's sort of a way that it was done in the past. a company finds out they hired a spy. my dad worked at the aircraft company there was a polish spy there. it was an investigated and prosecuted by the fbi. so that's been going on. what happens with the internet is it opens up vulnerability in a way that, you know, never been before. it just hacking to computer. having thousand of people as the particular military unit appears to have having hacked, you know, had the thousand of hackers just

going day after day after day hacking in to companies. and finding their data. it's just some scale we have never seen before. and poses a threat to our economic interests. >> did the military react specifically once the report came out? >> the mill -- no. they have been pretty quiet about it. i quoted recently that the department official as well as some other top people in the field that said the report was very important in giving the white house leverage to say, look, you keep denying any part of this for the chinese officials. in fact, this report shows publicly shows that these hacks from coming from chinese military. that's one of several operating. they went after that because it's gotten more complacent and

easier to go after. there are more advanced systems that are still online and very, you know, going after companies. >> host: did he talk about how he found the specific unit or what lead them back to the specific units? >>. >> yes. there are two pieces. someone for the technical side. they track these ip addresses back to the same places in change high. then they -- he has the air force intel officers who went googling in chinese and found things like résumes posted on a university

in china seeking people with computer skills, english-computer skills, hacking skills that like to work for the unit. there's a lot of evidence that lead them to that. >> host: military. the hackers within the military are they military themselves or hire hackers to cothe work for them? >> it's a building with military. it's not just -- it's a military unit. so it's, yeah, people who, you know, check it out and as kevin said. they badge in and out and presumably wearing uniform and so on. >> host: bobby is up next. actually we'll go bill in hains city, florida. democrats line, hi. >> caller: hi. this is bill. >> host: you're on, sir. go ahead. >> caller: i would like to ask a question about how much do you figure that the ceos and corporate leaders in the american corporation who rush to take their jobs oversea and

disfranchise american worker, they are responsible for losing a lot of proprietary processes and patent and everything else. they contributed as much as the chinese spies do. >> well, i think they contribute in that they are unwilling to stand up to the chinese they want to do business in china. back to your premise, though, there's studies that show is it companies with overseas operations that are successful as overseas operation build jobs in the u.s. as well. so they aren't, you know, all guilty of shipping jobs overseas. and companies have to expand globally. we're in a global economy. you can't just, you know, and you have to manufacture -- that's not to say that sometimes they go in and, you know, and they're taking jobs because they getlesser paid labor and so forth. they have to operate and sell products and companies and often have operations there and factories there. i think that's a more

complicated question than shipping jobs overseas. you talked about a little bit about when it comes to cybersecurity a lot of people take a preventive measure. the philosophy to wait until something happens and investigate. >> guest: his view is that you can't prevent it all. you can narrow the gap. of your target area. the fire walls won't frequent. you shouldn't think that you will. and so his company is set up to -- he sells a software that detects it. but doesn't -- the prevention, i mean, as i describe with the e-mail and so many ways. you hire human beings as

employees terrorist too -- there's ways for you to get around it. and the other thing is this is the interesting number to me. a hacker can be in your system for -- he found the average i think about a year and tried to keep reducing that before getting found out. so that's, you know, it's hard to prevent. what you have to do is limit the damage basically. the chinese hackers went to the "new york times" after they did a series of investigations the then prime minister of china they did an investigation in to the scandal surrounding him the chinese went in and hacked to "the new york times."

"the new york times" hired kevin to go in. what he did, the company did that the point was sit back and watch. they went in for six months to kind of track them and understand almost like a detective to understand how they were operating, where they got in and got everything off the system. it was very interesting. kevin, by the way, is somebody who is trained in forensics somebody a fan of detective shows growing up. he likes and understands the whole element of this is a detective going after a criminal in all of these cases. >> and spent some time in the air force as well >>. >> guest: he went to the air force right after college. he did rotc. went to the air force, and ended up shortly after joining in the military intelligence unit at

the pentagon. he goes back to this back in the 'out. the early 90s the mode dumb dem -- mode m were dial up. he was looking back then. a lot of same players. it really took off, you know, probably seven or eight years later. the intrusions really expanhandled. >> host: you mentioned specifically in your story. does kevin talk about at least the policy that the u.s. takes toward cybersecurity in general and how they can be improved? >> guest: he supports. i think he sees the first step being able to share information. this is actually going on in congress and the white house right now. there's legislation an executive order. having a way to share information about what is happening between companies and companies with the government.

and doing if in a way that is not going get a company in trouble with the shareholders because they're disclosing this. he tsh i think he thinks the first step is information sharing. the. big question is, you know, the limit of dipty. do you, you know, there are people calling there's a policy makers. people on the hill who call for really punishing china over this. there's a fear of a trade war if you take action on the trade front as a punishment to them. it's a delicate balancing act. china is -- they're not an enemy. they're a competitor. how to you deal with a sort of bad behavior while we're still looking at china as a major market? we're hoping to expand. it's one of the few places really growing in the world. the growth has curved a bit this year. it's a growth market.

earlier caller talked about the middle class. really which is really still in the ages of growing. it's big markets for american companies which builds american jobs. we're enlinked. the chinese own a percentage of the u.s. security and treasury bonds. we are linked. it's are -- glows you said the president of the united states met with the leader of china discussed what is said about cybersecurity. >> guest: i he can. face to face they raised the issue and got nowhere. it was a kurt denial from the chinese. >> host: texas up next. ray, gm. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i would like that ask you if you know about the nor

telecommunications take over by the chinese? >> guest: i don't know enough to talk about it in depth. yeah. i know, of it. >> host: why do you think it's importanter, caller? >> caller: that's a significant amount of technology we lost. and market sales too for telecom. it's been taken over by the chinese now. that particular market segment. they were hacked. upper management ignored warnings. and the secrets were gone. the company is basically. >> guest: the case has been cited as an example particularly in the telecom area. you really see the damage from chinese cyber espionage. >> host: thomas, i don't know if he means this. it's stealth -- make it cheaper to consumers? >> guest: no, because you -- no. stealing -- it's an interesting argument.

i would argue that it again, it outers -- hurts the u.s. economy. if you have copy cats. it's a perfect example if so you copy cat you are building an industry off -- and the reason it was going back to this. i think it through. so you companies that put millions and millions of dollars in to research to develop technologies, and to for china to make money off it. it hurts the company and the company's employees. who is get the important thing to know about the graph they are hacking in to defense industry looking are for and the pent go on as i mention the earlier came out with a report of very

concerned about chinese hackers getting to deference contractors and building their military and building advanced weapons system based on our technology. we put the money and effort. it's a national security issue, obviously, because they are a military competitor as well. as an economic matter getting in to these companies have poured all of this effort and resources and money in to these weapons systems, and suddenly it's showing up in the chinese military. >> caller: good morning. how are you? >> host: fine, thank you. go ahead. i would like to ask two questions of your speaker. we know how to do -- [inaudible] we know how they work and don't work. why is there not some technology embargo we can put in place here? and i don't think that the market of the chinese should be the one thing in front when

they're stealing from probably every country in the world. slap them hard and can't we source them? >> guest: i think that's an excellent point. i think i'm surprised there isn't more kind of juice behind that on capitol hill. in the 2012 presidential election, governor romney talked about currency war and manipulation and called them a currency manipulator. i would argue it should be slap their hands, as you said on these issues. it's something that people can understand and get their hands around is the idea of stealing our technology. it's something that, you know, i agree with you but there's been, you know, i've heard experts taunt it and so on. i haven't seen much action on capitol hill to really do something. >> host: jane is up next. he's on a republican line.

hello. >> caller: hello. >> host: go ahead, james. >> caller: hello. > host: you on. stop listening to the tv. make your comment or statement. >> caller: how did the chinese get away with -- [inaudible] >> guest: we just talked about that. >> we'll leave it at that. when he answers the call he is hyper aware that the club of the hack is a lonely one. >> guest: yes. and the reason for that, again, i talk about this a little bit before. but you don't talk about it if you are a company that has been hacked. if you've been hacked you worry that -- i think particularly early on. that's why the report was important companying thinking they're the only ones. when in fact most american corporations rate about a c in their protection against the

chinese. very few have the kinds of, you know, systems in places it can really protect and crack down on this. so it is a lonely one. you don't want to talk about it. because you are you're subject to shareholders saying you didn't do enough. you're subject to regulators and banks saying you haven't done enough. i think a lot of companies feel like they are not victims but can't talk about it it. >> host: if you -- it's interesting because the story actually came out in final edit right as snowden was breaking. i had to address it. and the way i addressed it in the story was simply to say that it complicates our diplomatic conversations with china over this. because what he did is, first of all, he went china with his

documents. and he made the allegations that ability the nsa hacking in to all sort of other governments. so that becomes a problem for the white house about cyber espionage. the chinese come back and say look what you're doing. and, you know, you're hacking. even though it's not cyber espionage in a different issue. it's whatever reason it's separate a national security issue or not. whatever side of the wall you're on that issue. it's still muddies the water and makes it a less clear compelling case. why don't we do that and trade action against china. this sets back. ting makes it more difficult to have those conversations or, you know, round up the support to do that. does kevin have a ear on capitol

hill? do people talk to him? >> guest: yes. house intelligence committee, senate intelligence committee. there was a sense of this report documented what other -- there's been a number of government reports on the chinese cybersecurity threat. but done in a general, general way with large price taughts associated and everything. to drill down on the very specifics. there's a military unit that is in shanghai that is, you know, several stories high. thirteen stories high. from there the hacks are emanating. here is how they are emanating. i think legislators appreciate it that it gave them, you know, it gave them that proof and evidence and talking points they needed to make this a more clear cut issue. if you're talking generality people don't get it. >> host: it gives a

perspective that not many people have heard before. >> guest: right. >> host: a few minutes left with her. talking about her cover story about the ceo here in washington, d.c., area. kevin and what he found about chinese hacking especially when it comes to businesses. because he put out the one report is he working on others in a similar fashion? will there be a followup? >> he left out in a lot on the purpose. he said, look, i don't want to sucker punch -- he wanted to let them know they have -- we have proof. but without giving them not being too much -- not being too aggressive. and so they held back. he has said, i heard him saying openly and congressional testimony that, look, if they

keep denying we'll put -- [inaudible] out. that kind of threat hangs out there. they have more evidence. they have, you know, i can't go in to all of what they have. they have more evidence that they think would solidly make clear what the chinese have. >> host: not put everything out not wanting to embarrass the government. >> guest: not wanting to -- yes. it has to do with not naming names and not wanting the government to just get so back them so much in to a corner it has destructive effects. >> host: here is jay from fishers indiana, democrat line, hi. >> caller: good morning. how are you? >> host: fine, thank you. go ahead. >> caller: thank you. my question or concern if you look at the growing and middling class of the chinese and the size of the middle class that has yet to come, and you look at the different way they can take our technology.

whether it's through the old fashioned message of getting employees to the companies or having people -- 1989-type of way and you add that the impact that technology and what it brings. the size of the middle class yet to come versus what we have. the scale behalf we have to lose. >> guest: right. i would add to the point about cybersecurity and the chinese. one other thing understand the chinese have a policy called indigenous innovation. which basically means they're trying to promote state-owned imbrices as innovators so that when a -- an american company wants do business in china. they're often forced to partner with a chinese company and hand

over technology. as part of that agreement. so companies in some ways are kind of hurting themselves. they don't want to stand up to the chinese on any of this. and kind of playing and letting the chinese set the rule and the term of agreement in that country. >> host: steve from mississippi, republican line. hi. >> caller: where are they getting the people qualified and training them to learn how to dot hacking. chinese is basically a third-world nation and a average person doesn't have access to the computer? >> guest: these are highly trained military people. as i mention the earlier one one of the ways that kevin was in his company were able to find this particular unit is they found résumes on at the university there -- or postings asking résumes looking for people with english-speaking skills, hacking

skills, and certain kind of computer skills. and please apply to the military unit. so, you know, there's certainly universities there churning out very sophisticated computer systems. obviously they have a sophisticated science and technology systems there. >> host: here is george from missouri, independent line if our guest. good morning. >> caller: hello? kissell: you're on, sir. >> caller: i think what ought to be done the americans ought to wake up and quit buying anything that is made in china, and then the people in this country put an import tax before they start making any other country were $17 a pair now they are $49 a pair. our government needs to put an import --

put import tax on them of ten times what it cost. the companies would come back to the united states. >> guest: it's interesting to hear you. i think really it needs to come from voters like you guys. i think if the issue was raised more and town halls and so forth with lawmakers why aren't we doing something about it. it's not something that people hasn't talked about much. if there was a groundswell, grassroots, you know, determination to sigh to china, you know, as you said, we're going to buy your goods we'll trade action we took. i do think, you know, i would encourage viewers to take --

i think in some ways companies are complies it. they don't want to stand up make an issue. they don't want to be named. they want to partner with company even if it means turning over some of the technology. there isn't that -- i have heard, you know, off the record behind the scenes some corporate executives saying it's not worth the cost. i'm not doing it. whether we'll really see that as growing movement unlikely but, you know, it's interesting to hear that. >> host: what is the reaction to your story from dismefn >> guest: i just interviewed him at the fortune brainstorm tech conference which we haven't -- it's a fabulous con februaries. we get to see the cool stuff coming out of silicon valley. i talked to them then. he hadn't read the story. he doesn't like -- he's an interesting guy. super smart and confident but

also a little bit shy. he said it was weird walking through airports and seeing his picture on the magazine. displies when -- >> host: when you initially approached him for the story what was his reaction? >> guest: i think they were ready to talk because of the report that came out in the "new york times" ready to talk about the issue and ready to get out. going back to my earlier point, nothing is going happen unless people start talking about the issue. >> host: one more call from colorado. dan, you're the last caller on the independent line. good morning. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i wonder if your guest has every delved to bigger considerations back in 1996. the chinese acquired our missile defense our missile guidance system from the clinton administration. i wondered if she has any thoughts. >> guest: i don't.

i do, again, would reintegrate. if you are interested in the issue read the pentagon report that came out a month ago. not a month ago, two month ago i guess it is by now. looks at where hacking is happening now inside our military industrial complex. >> host: the cover story for "fortune" magazine. the ceo who caught the chinese spice red handed. thank you. on the next "washington journal".

it's one of the most iconic and recognizable symbol of the state house. but a lesser known fact it's actually not the first dome to cover the building. when the building is completed in 1779, it's topped by a small undersized -- which is decried from all sort of architect yule problem. it leaks because it was hit by a hurricane in the 17 70s. by the 1780 it's being described contrary to all law of modern architecture. in 1755, less than two years after congress -- construction begins on a new dome to the state house. they, of course, have to dismantle the original. it takes them about twelve years to complete it. the construction on the exterior begin in 1787, it's completed about 1797. it's the largest all-wooden come

in the united states. it's held together with joint and elaborate iron strapping. it's truly a massachusetts masterpiece. in the 19th century during the war of 1812 it's used as a lookout. it's the tallest point in town and affords a commanding view of the river and chase peek bay. we have tremendous documentation of william on maryland -- joshua going up to the state house dome and using what he call the excellent glass to observe the troop movement on the way back and forth september of 1814. more about maryland state house as booktv and american history tv look at the history and literary life. ..

>> have to wonder if it is what the professors time to write a theoretical thesis on shakespeare. >> host: where did this start, the need to publish? >> guest: it started in the 1920s at a research university. it sort of planted itself our shores. especially with that is a logical and biological sciences,

there is a lot of new ground broken and the whole idea was that nobody really could judge the quality of the work must you are really familiar with this sort of new complex system. what happened is the social sciences, suddenly those professors always had to be saying something new. it was supposed this untransformed the expert in society. it sort of added to the store of knowledge. i think that this is one result that we see today. that the professor indicates that we are not supposed to really question what it is that

they are doing when they are engaged in the research. >> host: the title of your book is "the faculty lounges." >> guest: we are looking at the surveys and we're kind of having a crisis. americans love education. one poll said that it was like mom and apple pie. but i think right now the costs have gone to the point where people are really questioning our educations value. they are spending a lot on tuition bills may need to have a

good sense of tuition. >> host: how many schools grant for your degrees? >> guest: about five or 6000 accredited colleges. they consider themselves at times more vocational, some consider themselves more liberal arts, someone to be researched universities. but even i community colleges, so-called teaching universities, the drive to publish is always what is reported at these schools. >> host: were kind of a school did you go to? >> guest: my parents were

getting a phd is and now my sister has her own. education is extraordinary worthwhile, i learned. it can really change your character and your life and your career. it can change everything if it's done right. but what i worry about is that many of the faculty, and it's not just a faculty the faculty individually making decisions, but the incentives that are put into place in the system, i think that is what is undermining the undergraduate education. >> host: where did you get your degree? what was then? >> guest: harvard in english and government. i think it was worth it. but i had an advantage, i had parents that were actually inspired and they were able to

advise me on what classes to take. you know, they knew what to look for and so few people have that going to college and their parents are just thinking that this is the next logical step. i want generic to be a member of the upper middle class and i want them to get something out of college education my father teaches at holy that holy cross and my mother doesn't teach anymore. >> host: so what do they think of this book? >> guest: well, i joke with my father about it a lot. the subtitle of the book could have been confessions of an on grateful child. [laughter] but i think that he does take

the criticisms of the book very seriously. i think that he feels that digging out a small liberal arts college are not as applicable. but in many ways small colleges are not really representative of what most americans experience in higher education. but i always emphasize that none of the most important things that i learned was for every additional hour teachers spent in the classroom, he or she will get paid less. that is true, not only at this big state university, but it is true that small liberal arts colleges as well. >> host: so what are you really saying? you are a teacher, you are in the classroom come in the more you spend there, the less you make? >> guest: depending on how you divide your time, that will determine it.

>> host: the way writing for? >> guest: each other. when you consider a lot of these libraries, that is harvard university press. when you think of all the smaller university presses that have even smaller than not, this includes academic librarians and students that complain as well. so many wrote a paper recently and they said that the academic publication industry was driven by the producers and not the consumers. i think that that is all.

>> host: was this your idea? >> guest: yes. >> host: can you explain how someone gets tenured? >> guest: when you go to university you can be offered a tenured position about 40 to 50% of physicians out there when you arrive at the university, the clock starts and it goes for about seven years. and so what you do on that time, the university is part of the

publication record. it includes your teaching record and your service to the university. they call this the three-legged stool. so it coincides with a lot of other things going on in your life. people have pointed out that this is between 30 and 41 women of our me to want to have children. it is kind of an all or nothing. so the committee as part of this record so it's not like it is the people here basically been with the last seven or eight years will be sitting in secret judgment.

about how they did not get tenure at the university of chicago number of years ago. so they were talking about this, what is actually considered this. so they go to the bathroom and kind of the sign about your future. what happens with the 10 year, you either get to stay on permanently, or you get out. so it's not like, oh, well, the publication record improves. >> what is the percentage of professors teaching? >> well, i am not sure.

but i think that -- you know, if you're on a 10 year track, that means that they have a tenured position available. some universities have started to cut down on the number of tracks. that is when someone retires, they will say that that is going to be an adjunct position. we should get to it in a minute. but it is a very common thing. i think a lot of people feel like they have been let on. and once you have been turned down at one university it is very hard to get it at another university. >> did they let you know that you're not doing well? >> some of them give you updates along the way. but again, it is a very personality driven process.

so some judge you on the way that you play with others, which is kind of insulting to professionals. but they also, you know, they will give you sense in terms of how big the stack of publications is and how they think you are doing relative to other candidates. but from what i have read, a lot of people find it to be a surprise if they don't get tenure. >> host: is there any appeal process if you don't get tenured? >> guest: some schools do have that. but again, there is not a lot of transparency in the process. and i think that that should bother more people than it does, particularly universities. some schools do have their back alleyway of finding your way and saying that you wanted to have this be considered. some schools have more formalized procedures. a lot of them as part of this.

>> host: help me out here. they don't have a process. they are demanding all the time openness. >> guest: there's not a lot of talk about what they have going on in the academy. so this is one of the biggest problems that i see in the track >> host: if you could pick up the person that this has affected most come who would it be? >> guest: well, let's see. ahead of the university of professors was asked to comment on my book by inside higher education. and i think that he said that it

left him speechless. so i was happy to take credit for that. but he was very angry. in particularly, i think what most professors disagree with in a book is my argument about tenured connection to academic freedom. that is sort of the first thing that comes out of a professors mouth. they've automatically without thinking saying that though, because of this or that. so it's the first chapter and i talk about what is academic freedom and why does it protect them. one argument i make is vocational education. the original idea that professors could be protected if they say something difficult. and i say, okay, maybe on the margins i can see how this could be interesting about the cutting

edge sciences and some of the new disciplines that have come up like security studies. basically those who are professors of nutritional studies. when pressed, someone will say, well, we need someone so they can talk about immigration that is controversial. and someone in nutritional studies needs to be able to say something controversial about obesity. this could go on indefinitely. there is no limit to that number of controversial things that need protection. but i think that the bounds of freedom have just gotten pushed too far. >> host: you read about the american people themselves are directly responsible for what

she sees as the oppressive atmosphere on campus, and referring back to a woman named bernstein. we talk about their? >> guest: elizabeth bernstein is a vice president of the ford foundation and i went to hear her talk a couple of years ago. ford foundation gives so much money to higher education that the audience is just enthralled to hear her talk. she begins with the threats that she saw in the american academy to academic freedom. listed conservative groups, anti-evolution groups, republicans, it just went on and on. at the end she says at one that one of the biggest problems that she saw was cable news networks that were telling the american people about professors, like the man at columbia, who wished

upon america. or telling people that the outrages of american universities are imperative. but the problem is not the outrage. it was now the american public was interested in the outrageous. so the idea again, we get back to the question of, you think that university professors and the people that are interested in higher education wants transparency. you think that is one of their buffers. but now, they look at this as the little people are now looking over my shoulder and they couldn't possibly understand this. >> host: you say just to be clear, the sugar daddy of modern liberalism complains about this. the sugar daddy? is that what they are? of the liberal foundation?

>> guest: basically was responsible for a sort of funding of the society before it was funded by the government. even now if you look on campus, the programs fund and that the college they will give you -- the college administration will be $100,000 to promote the dialogue on your campus about race and sexual orientation and so forth. but the answers are already clear. the problem with race is that the minorities are oppressed and they are still present today. they are suffering. they are all good, and it is just a matter of choice. they are not dialogues. they are just sort of one-sided propaganda campaign's. >> host: where you come from on the political scale. >> guest: on the right.

my parents are both conservatives. that is probably how i got there. although i have thought about it enough. i largely agree with that sort of philosophy on free markets. you know, economically. >> host: the implication is that there are not many conservatives in academia. >> guest: there are not. one of the things that people like to say is that i have interviewed a lot of conservatives who defended it. because they said that i would lose my job tomorrow if i didn't have tenure. but the idea that it has really protected this is something that we have learned about.

american professors gave a 10th as much money to him as john mccain. obviously john mccain wasn't quite by that margin. i have talked to people that were not part of this. they were kind of pushed out. it is not an environment that tolerates this very well. we are talking about journalists, and then he got tenure. and then now that he has this come how he'd react from now on. basically he said that i am

done. it was like someone that had been beaten down. it is a list of people every day. you are trying so hard because you want that job i think it just promotes this. >> host: have you ever run into someone who keeps her head down on their politics? >> guest: you know, this was sort of the famous line of someone who sort of advises those who talk about this. >> host: he talked about how he was only one of six professors at harvard.

>> guest: well, yes. it is a rare person, i think, who can control themselves for that long and then suddenly at the age of 40 or so they would start speaking her mind they all of a sudden wake up and say, i have tenure. i can speak mine everyone. good for you, but i don't know how many of us can sort of keep it to ourselves or once we have, really talking about the people that we have defended. >> host: there are many conservatives teaching at harvard, but they didn't change her mind? >> guest: no, they did not. you know, i mean -- talking

about political conservatives. first of all it was a major in english. and it took government classes with peter berkowitz and the number of other people. but what i really like about the professors that i had is that they left it up to me. i took classes on chaucer and shakespeare and plato in fact, i remember the last popular graduate seminar was done with him during my senior year, i believe it was. and a number of radical individuals that showed up

really wanted to disrupt the class and get their views heard in protests and opinions heard that we would even have such a class. he was very sort of mild-mannered and he started talking about plato. it's like, where do we go from here. i thought we were going to talk about gloria steinem were some texas pigs that we could start harassing. my point is that so many of the professors that i have, i appreciated the fact that the politics were not part of the curriculum. >> host: you say in 1994 that they could not restrict the age with which you had to retire. >> guest: that is right. >> host: it was originally passed back in the 80s and

what have i done to universities? >> guest: exacerbated the tenure problem. many people say why not just reinstitute them? what you have is a number of baby boomers who are not doing their job very well. and every time the market takes ahead, it is like one more year. so it is a problem. i certainly see how it can be solved. but i'm very tempted to go that way. and many professors that i had were certainly good teachers after that.

so why should we kick them out because some decide they're not going to do the job anymore. you know, i have to say i've talked to so many administrators -- it is almost never worth it to fight that battle. when i started this book, i thought i will not mention churchill on every page. and by the time that the book comes out, it will be old news. and this is a man six years after he was fired was still fighting this battle. so you're the president, and it's like, gosh, this man will

not give up. it cost them so much money. even when they have a great case. plagiarism, shoddy scholarships, so much wrong, but yet will continue to go through the courts. so to me me the lesson that i've gone and that is, if you look at this in one of the industry newsletters, they periodically run advice about how administrators can gently push these people out. one of them i was shocked to read was how an administrator can say to a professor, well, you can still teach one class. then they had a fight over who is going to teach this one

class. the compromise is they would each teach a section of the class. in the plato private sector might cold dead hands. so half the students are utterly incompetent. for me, it demonstrated that it has nothing to do with the students. >> host: it's kind of different. so what are some of the overall differences to the unions and tenders and cost? >> guest: people go back and forth and they largely have the same system.

especially with what is protected speech with the public schools, the courts are more involved. so the system is not much different. unions are certainly somewhat different to what happened was in 1990, there was a ruling of the supreme court that said that private universities do not want to recognize faculty unions, they did not have to. and what it said is that faculties are like management.

this is where unions have recognized a manufacturing-based and private union basis as well it is private sector white-collar jobs. we saw some of this. i think people were surprised a couple of months ago to hear that there were actual unions at the university of wisconsin. especially for people who are in jobs that can be exploited. they are not always as educated, but yet it is going. so that is one big difference. i think you are seeing the effects of that. there's less distinctions in terms of this, the pay will be based on the level of seniority. a lot of professors will say

that this is a force for mediocrity. >> host: so i guess i have to have a phd if i'm going to get a tenure? >> guest: yes. >> host: it takes how many years? >> guest: you know, used to be five or six or seven years. >> host: do you teach while you're going through that? >> guest: yes, you do. but it's not because you're working on your phd part-time. and he speculated that this was the whole mandate to have a new twist on things that people have read about so many thousands of times. you will finally find the topic and realize that someone else has written a.

he will start from scratch. >> host: can you characterize how much money people make with professors? >> guest: not a law. this is a full professor. so means you are at the top of your game. so let's say that you're in your late 40s. depending on the universities, the area, the salaries -- i don't think that that is the problem. >> host: okay, i wanted to go on and they make such a salary like

$70,000. so how much teaching do they do? you have a tenure, and you are home free. >> guest: okay, so you're home free now. a research university you could be teaching as little as two classes a semester. and what happens at research universities that you will be spending approximately half of your time doing research. so if you ask how much are you subsidizing research for, and you say, it's not that much. but the answer is a lot. because you are paying people a full salary only be teaching have the time. >> host: do you know who gets the most amount of money of all the universities of research?

>> guest: no, i don't. they're about 100 universities in the only way you get into that club is by getting a lot of federal grant money. so they left voluntarily. i think the university of nebraska actually just left as well. what is interesting is that they were actually getting some private money for some of the research they were doing. that doesn't count. you have to be getting federal money. but the prestige is all wrapped up in the public government funds. at a time and we are trying to figure out how to cut back and how to reduce this, they are thinking, how can we get more out of federal dollars. >> host: that could make money outside the classroom when there are tenured professors making

$70,000 a year. in other words, who holds them accountable for research? >> guest: do you mean that they could be doing research for a private company? >> host: well, i've been at school for 15 years, teaching my two classes. and i find myself capable of making money over here. you just blow the school off? >> guest: it is hard to blow them off. what happens is this has to come from the university program. it is hard for one professor go up on his own and say i want to get research from the science foundation by myself. so this is where some of the controversy has happened recently, where you have

professors who have reached their own private agreement or drug companies and it is possible that the research is actually in some ways coming into conflict with their jobs. because the companies obviously have ideas about the domain and who owns this. where is the university understand what is going on in the labs. sway professor was recently talking about a story that was in "the wall street journal" about a student that had to do with this or something like that. and the student was actually

working for a company and so he couldn't complete this without violating the contract. so there is a lot of conflicts going on. >> host: was an adjunct professor. >> guest: is a temperate position. but there are some that can be there in the same place for 25 years. but the contract renewals typically happen on a semester basis. they don't get tenure and they are not on the tenure track. >> many of them don't have a phd. but many of them do. they do the bulk of the teaching. especially in large universities where you have those that opt

out in the classroom. or perhaps upper-level undergraduates. >> host: so how much do they pay? >> guest: is very little. but in some cases, a little bit less than minimum wage. they are working. there was a film that i watched that actually compared them to migrant workers. and i have to say that i thought that compared to may have gone a little far. they found out whether they had a job at all. they get paid next to nothing. >> host: give me an idea what they get paid. >> guest: there was someone at cal state fullerton and was getting paid may be a thousand dollars a month or $1200 a month. >> host: you had when he was getting $549 a month?

>> guest: yes. >> host: okay, so it's not just this. but they are also responsible for all of these things outside of the classroom. and it's like, at i could have 200 kids in a class. so what do you do that? are you personally going to grade 200 papers? a friend of mine actually went to a large university and she has been told by her department to stop assigning papers altogether. everything should just be multiple choice.

why's that? >> they don't have a labor available, they say, to grade those papers. >> host: what is the percent of those who are adjunct professors? what about a place like harvard? >> guest: it is not a private and public thing. it has to do with the size of the university and to what extent they expect people to do research and teaching. so i'm not sure what they teach. >> host: what does he teach? >> guest: he teaches courses a year, three in the fall and three in the spring. >> host: at a school like holy cross, why is it that he is free and not one? >> guest: because harvard is a research university.

>> host: you mentioned this. when did you work your? >> guest: i left about a year and half ago. i worked there for about five years. >> guest: i edited columns and i wrote about this. >> host: how did you get the job? >> guest: i wrote another book prior to joining the journal. >> guest: why did you do that? i had visited two schools. and i wrote a piece in the magazine. i wanted to investigate about

this. >> host: what did you find out about the two schools? >> guest: they were attracting some extremely smart kids, even though at the time no one was accredited yet. they were attracting kids who did not want to just stay in a religious ghetto, but really bring their ideas to bear. with public policy, law, or anything. >> host: what did you take away from this? >> guest: well, i was in charge of editing the letters. and i kind of became familiar

about domestic politics. i kind of became more familiar with the way the magazine works and how it actually gets produced. >> host: going back to this, who thought of the title? >> guest: it was me who thought of the title. >> host: were major interest get started at? what triggered the idea to publish this book? >> guest: well, i started that process about three years ago. and i think that the driving force behind the book was the sense that i kind of understood what was going on behind the scenes book because of my background.

what happens when a student walked onto campus today is a an 18-year-old walks onto a college campus. and it's like, pick anything, see what you like. and administrators sort of candidates to choose your own adventure. and it's not. 18-year-olds don't know what they don't know. pretending that they are going to be able to do this for themselves in education, when oftentimes many of our general education requirements have been dropped, people like to talk about how they think that people are wrapped up in a core curriculum. i want a quicker kill him because people need a basic foundation. the education that an 8-year-old will crapper himself is

haphazard. french literature from 1800 through 1850 on wednesday. can you really say what this education is supposed to be? professors are doing us as well. because they want to spend their time researching their subject than they would also be perfectly happy to teach a class in a narrow subject. no one is saying now. you may prefer to teach a seminar on this. but what they really need is a broad introduction. >> be so your sister teaches as well? where does she teach? >> guest: she teaches at new england conservatory were they do not offer tenure.

>> guest: so you write about higher education that is so broken that it's time to change the picking on in the distance. not to mention the strikes on the number of players of each team. is it that broken? why are all these schools listing these to get in and it's much vigor that brings students and? >> guest: many are part of the colleges and universities. there are many who are coming here for the hard science classes. it's not all american higher education. but the second thing that i think that people forget is that higher education sometimes has a

monopoly on credentialing. people want to get into college because college right now is that the middle class. and i don't begrudge people that. i don't say you should find another way. because right now we really don't have this in that way. we really don't have this in college has become kind of a catchall for every different kind of career that you want to pursue. i think we could do better and i think there was a story a few weeks ago about this. one individual who offered his students $100,000 if they would drop out of college and create their own kind of start up instead. you know, a lot of these kids party working for ibm.

so i think that the point that they were trying to make is that there is a price for this. you could spend four years and this my money on something. but you better understand what the value of it is. for some people it doesn't have much value. but the other question is can't employers find a way of measuring someone's qualifications for a job without just using a college degree. i think we need to think creatively about that. >> host: who have you listen to in your professionalized talks? the thing to do that is right. >> guest: well, that is an interesting question.

i guess there are a number of conservatives to talk about it. i don't think john is in favor of getting rid of tenure, but i think he thinks of reform. >> guest: he has very strong opinions about higher education. and i think that it has protected some very smart people and understands better argument is part of this. i entered a former secretary of education about this now works on education reform issues. which is saving the jobs of 400,000 conservatives is not worth saving the jobs of 400,000

liberals. it is because of the few conservative professors that are out there. >> host: what is that cherry award? >> guest: it is a ward where you get maybe $200,000 for being the best professor in america. so i did a story and you can nominate you and others can nominate you as well. there is basically a committee that eventually decides when this award based on their ability to convey information to students at. >> host: in case you don't know

where it is, it's in waco, texas. he wrote about the three that were the contestants. and two other gentlemen. you remember their names? mr. burr and edward berger? >> guest: yes, elliott west and edward berger. i actually went to see them and they are two very different kind of styles. you know, he is telling a story about american history. i was sitting in the audience of 200 people and was putting up some slides of historical photos. and he kind of knew how to tell a story in there was a lot of information being conveyed.

i mean, he really was engaging with the audience. and berger was one of dynamic. doing more jumping around. and he did a speech of parents and students. in this sort of struck me. the best professor in america is a math professor. you have to not only convey these ideas, but you have to engage people who take his class because it's a requirement. he is teaching kids were not necessarily part of this. >> host: you set the best teacher in america. who judges the cherry award?

>> guest: faculty at baylor them outside the university. >> host: the winner gets $200,000? >> guest: yes, and a semester in waco. but the reason i highlighted this is that when people are talking about why we judge them by publication, the first responses you can't really measure teaching, it is all subjective. you know that teaching many see it. i don't think that's true. i think that is a total copout. these are professors who have ways of measuring things. everything from this lecture style to the grading. it is all marked up. is there a sense of the professor is really engaged in this process with you, or are they just going through the

motions? >> host: do you think by the time they are old enough, you will think it is a good idea to go to college? >> guest: is always part of this. >> guest: i think that if you pick and choose very wisely, it is possible to get a decent college education. you have to be really careful and it begins with the process of choosing a college. i can tell you the number of people that are going to visit colleges that are high school juniors in the middle of the summer. there is no teaching going on. and don't just sit in on classes that they say to you can visit this constitutional law seminar.

, go to an intro class in the subject that you are interested in. >> host: where did you do that? before you went to harvard? and why did they do that? >> guest: those are the places that they were going to get education. >> guest: it is in the middle of vermont. and i felt that the students weren't as engaged as i found them to be. >> host: were did you meet her husband? >> guest: in new rochelle. he's an editorialist. >> host: do you have another book in mind? when did he finish this? >> guest: the book came out in

june. and i finished it last fall. >> guest: are you on your way to the next book? yes,. >> guest: is that what your situation is? >> guest: not quite. the thing that i write about most is education. >> guest: if the editors are listening, that's great. >> guest: i think the next book is a lot of funding to do a national survey. so it is doing this around the country. it is sort of a summary of a lot of things that i have learned about higher education over the last couple of years. >> guest: the name of the book

again is the faculty lounges and other reasons why you won't get a college education that you pay for. we thank you very much. ♪ ♪. ♪ ♪ >> for a dvd copy of this program, called one, 8776 is to and to give you a comment, visit us at c-span.org. ..

>> wilson was so intellectual and he was almost academic and the most educated president and the only president with a ph.d.. as a result of that most of the books that were written about him have been academic in nature and i think they have missed the

very human side of this man. he was deeply emotional, passionate romantic figure. he had two wives. hidden first wife died