>> host: joining us for "the communicators" is representative joe barton chair of the house energy and commerce committee and congressional privacy caucus. since the last time we spoke, the merger between comcast and time warner had failed and neutrality has taken hold is now a lot of the land. what is your opinion of the actions of the fcc over the past year? to read this is a family program. i cannot give you my explicit opinion but then that neutrality rule is wrong. they better enjoy it while they can. we have the votes to change the law to make it that what they're doing is inappropriate weathering have the votes to overturn a

presidential veto is debatable. but there is a new presidential election coming next year. eventually we will change it. the open internet or whatever they call it, is just wrong you should not regulate the internet. the regulatory solution looking for problem. i am disappointed in what they have done in the courts have allowed it but i am confident it can be changed. >> host: in the next 33 years it is the law of the land? >> is open to interpretation so with the fcc commission

that least so far the courts have upheld it. if you have a monopoly service run by the bell companies there are all kinds of providers with content in the transmission capability. i have a cable and satellite auction and a telephone option. in the town of 50,000 people. the marketplace is doing it in to add complexity with the regulatory burden that does not need to be there.

>> date you for having me. congressmen with net neutrality the republicans especially have been pushing for a net neutrality bill with that bush hand how does it reflect that evolution over the last year? >> with the chairman's efforts but i certainly support what they're doing and as i have said if it passes is the house does the president veto? and at least so far the indications are the president would. although chairman's are

working to find some common ground to get the democrats to support the bill. >> it seems there is the good chance so far? >> i think there is a reasonable chance. i will not try to predict a political calculation within the democratic caucus. i think common sense will tell you what the fed is trying to do that it doesn't make common sense so we would expect some democrats to support it. >> host: and congressman asking about the privacy caucus with the hack into the federal government with opm there are calls for catherine arch auletta resignation do support that? >> at this point in time i

don't see a reason for her to resign. i have a member of my personal congressional staff had stuff stolen. he received a letter to that a fact and i got a general letter myself that my staff may have been compromised but i have not received further information. for them to be under constant attack not just the military servers at the pentagon. so with the house office buildings so the contractors

those seven the protective program is somebody got into the system in 3-1/2 to find out how. it i would say that if the head of opm to resign. >> host: what about legislative efforts? >> guest: it is a good question. the short answer is possibly. it is politically complicated but that is against their privacy with the security people and haven't the brunt of the

mill they all want special access with the naked data -- the metadata when you try to legislate to protect the privacy of the individual while at the same time provide legitimate exemptions or special case uses for the intelligence purposes for a marketing purposes it gets pretty complicated i am willing to do that. i was co-chairman of the privacy caucus. our objective is to protect the individual's privacy that stars with the individuals. it is not the government's war internet providers.

it is my data. i should be the only one to have access. five deceit is as i see it comes from the fourth amendment when it is called unreasonable searches and seizure. the fourth amendment to the constitution but if we had it the founding fathers that protect the individual's data with private information could be put out into the public domain. >> on data security with of nonprofit is breached. >> is there any hope the energy commerce committee could pull out a buy partisan -- a bipartisan

compromise bill? >> i think so. there are a lot we have lots of people sides of the i/o balance to do something about it just like mr. a goal from new york but go back to basics. if we start from the premise his mind is yours to give the individual that has the right to have access what happens is somebody breaches it is not quite as complicated if it is in public domain then try to protect access as opposed to not even make it available

in to break through the firewall but it does happen and. so to take that legislative step that we can take to penalize those for better protection in not have this many people attempting to do the hacking. >> cry of the newer and broader privacy question we have seen the administration that can sort out facial recognition privacy in rand drones but they walk through that process and as somebody who was so active but those that face the obama administration but when interest -- congress doesn't

have access to consumer privacy legislation. >> my children and grandchildren definition of privacy or their expectation of privacy is much lower than my expectation. lsi a lot of mobile apps or the internet it isn't automatic if i make us cellphone phone call or somebody calls me to think it is already automatically recorded so they don't listen to the content and should not do it period. but in terms of what has transpired, i respect the privacy groups that did walk away and a good faith effort was made but i keep going back to the basics whose

information is it? is an automatically in the public domain because i choose to use the mobile app that go into the cloud or can i use it and still have a reasonable expectation of privacy? but it is personal and that changes the way you regulate and legislate. and to be a part of by participating to forgo my individual rights to privacy that is an issue in its entirety. >> host: congressmen and joe barton go back to the generational thing. to not being as concerned as

you are. i don't think they don't care but they realize they have a right. i am old enough to remember before you had surveillance cameras in stores, before the internet or cell phones. you communicated by a telegram or actual mail what now we call snail mail in the regulatory authorities of the u.s. postal service guarantees the privacy. it was a federal crime for someone to reach into your mailbox to steal an open letter you had an absolute right to privacy and less a law enforcement official got a court order to monitor or intercept your mail.

and then to get a court order to monitor your mail and absent that that they were personal and private. but then they don't have any expectation privacy. to be a part of the navy said database. >> host: doesn't have to be that way? >> guest: i don't think so but for it not to be the congress to reestablish with of modern era and the equivalent of the fourth

amendment but in this session we have begun to do that a little bit. we have stopped some of the data collections inflict off -- after the patriot act and we have stopped that. that is the right direction to go. >> we have talked about how current law has not kept up with current technology. is there lodged -- legislation that can help this? >> of a bite to tell you to do this with an omnibus realistically battled think that is possible but in order to establish privacy you have to do it in a bipartisan and bicameral basis house and senate with

republicans and democrats with the president. we don't have an environment right now. not that we could not create it but to make it last we need to get there and have the trust basis between individual members and committee leadership of the republicans and democrats in the house and senate that is my opinion that it is not there. >> there is a lot of talk lately about the fcc will with privacy with net neutrality rules to give more authority over internet service providers how do see that role changing? is that good or bad? >> fcc? i think they're wrong. i don't thank you need to regulate the internet.

i flat don't think that you need to. they're trying to take this back to the 1930's. if there is a problem you solve it in the modern era to make it more transparent with the transaction is more open and. to set up the expedited complaints the provision the fcc the things that you to do to go back to a regulatory authority that you don't need them right off the bat we will forebear here or there. if you start off talking about forbearance then don't do it in the first place. it is more about political correctness and less about

getting it right to do what the 21st century requires. i do agree with the statement just made that technology is moving so fast it is difficult for the legislative record for the lot to keep up with. that is not a fault of the fcc. in to be more innovative. >> as a former energy commerce chairman what you make of the republican effort to overhaul the communications act in its entirety? is that bennett neutrality debate? >> it is a noble thing to do

i commend them for attempting that and those in the senate on the same track it may take awhile to do but to get it done right you need bipartisanship. you probably need a new president. hopefully we will get that hard things are worth doing and it would take some time in and chairman john dingell the democrat from michigan and a one of the things i complimented him on was the clean air act amendments 1991. and first career four years it was not an overnight success but a big issue contentious issue and complicated.

the e-mail it bipartisan for conservative republicans like myself of the early '90s because of the process to get it right you can say the same thing about telecommunications. is a good thing to take on a big project and if it takes a little time to do it, so be it. but with laws that reflected a not those passed in the 20's or 30's or 40's or 50's or '60's. but the primary telecommunications act was the act of 1996 that i was on the committee to vote for

that big factor is almost 20 years old. >> host: and other bill that is taking time to get through that senator markey is look king to get past, what is the extent of that bill? >> i just introduced the latest version in the house last week that should be a no-brainer. and i talked to them a couple weeks ago and we don't have a commitment from chairman up dash bonneville -- on that bill but i asked them to put it on the watch was. it is something we need to do. with a children's privacy law is almost 10 years old and a lot has changed from the internet. i don't need to go into the

bad things that our possible but we do need to protect our children from the various creditors and purveyors that are out there with this safe kids active just introduced last weekend a bipartisan basis that would be improvement that can be and should be bipartisan. >> you both have pushed legislation to allow states to set up online gambling, a poker. >> there is a difference. >> it seems there is some fischbach -- pushed back. will that be held up again? >> i have not introduced my bill this year but i intend to but many states are

allowing -- allowing their citizens to play within their states because it has the state's rights protection to opt out if the governor does not feel the citizens of his or her state should participate but poker is a game of skill. the best overtime wins the most money. it is it mandatory people that play it but for those that wish to there should be some rules of the road to make sure it is an honest and fair game but poker only and opt out for the states so it is not federal pre-emption of states' rights and is simply setting up a regulatory scheme run at the federal level of the department of commerce so if the state allows it in my

bill becomes law, poker room.com with money is an honest and fair game and the funds that you deposited in the account will be protected and when you decide to cash out, your money will be there. >> host: a couple more issues. talking about internet governance of moving towards more international regulation with less responsibility for the united states. what is your view? >> then i certainly understand the stakeholders that want to go forward and

to a degree i am okay with that but as i said in committee hearing there is the reason we have sheriffs and jails. nine everybody is honest or plays by the rules. as the internet has become international over the last 20 years, the west department of commerce is a share if if you go from a government structure which has the backstop of the regulatory power of the federal government that is totally voluntary dependent upon self governance

especially if they would move their headquarters from the united states, taking the extreme case of the vienna cuba or moscow or beijing, that could be problematic. you don't have to look much further than the u.n. to see the international structure that in most cases is dysfunctional. if it is and broke, don't fix it at all think the current structure is broken. i respect that as it moves to the next generation so to speak in you have to be very careful when you do that because it is working now they have the full faith and credit of the u.s. government behind it we are a nation of laws and transparency and

constitution with everything in writing we believe in openness and fairness and all the good things but if you move away from that you have the best of intentions but without a share of someone says i will ben that rule or do something i should not do then you don't have the authority to stop them. >> kate tummarello final question. >> passing the final version of the oversight transition. does that mean we can expect to see more bipartisan compromise out of the house energy commerce committee? >> that is a hypothetical question but this short answer is i would be bipartisan in everything for

that open bipartisan process in the most immediate bill that people are familiar with is the affordable care act referred to by many as obamacare that was a cram it down your throat approach and you realize it doesn't work like they hoped it would but you want to repeal and start over. anything the energy commerce committee would do would be bipartisan and then know the chairman wants to be in there ranking member wants to be but sometimes it isn't possible. but the more bipartisan we are the better the prize and the more likely it is if it

does become law. >> former chair of the energy commerce committee and co-chair of the congressional privacy caucus is our guest on "the communicators". kate tummarello from "politico" is the guest reporter. thank you. >> for many people in our state the flag stands for

tradition of history and heritage the hate filled a murderer who massacred our brothers and sisters in charleston has a sick and twisted view of the flag and inouye is to reflect the people in our state the respect and in many ways ways, revere it. south carolinian is reviewed as a symbol of respect and integrity and duty also as a memorial a way to honor ancestors who came to this service of their state and during the time of conflict. that is not hate nor racism. at the same time for many others the flag is a deeply offensive symbol of beverly a person's past -- a overly oppressive past but as the state we could still be home to both viewpoints we do not need to declare a winner or

loser. we respect freedom of expression and for those who wish to show their respect to their flag on their private property nobody will stand in your way but at the state house is different. and the events of this past we call upon us to look at this a different way. 15 years ago after a contentious debate south carolina came together to move the flag from atop the capitol dome. today we are here in a moment of unity without ill will to say this time to move the flag from the capitol grounds. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause]

150 years after the civil war the time has come. there will be some who see this as a sad moment and i respect that but notice, for good and bad weather on the statehouse grounds or in a museum the flag will always be a part of the swale of south carolina. but this is the moment we can say that flag, while interco part of our past is not represent the future of our great state. the murder locked up said he hopes his actions would start a race war perk we have an opportunity to show not only was he wrong but just the opposite is happening. i hope by removing a symbol that divides us we can move forward as a stay in harmony to honor the nine soul's

better now in heaven. >> i and the executive vice president of the wilson center on behalf of our present ceo as you know we are a trusted non-partisan in dialogue on global issues we do a great deal of effort research on science and technology and population environment and other areas. we're delighted to have senator murphy with us. in the past couple weeks we have the pleasure to oppose many of his colleagues from

both parties including john cornyn who was your in chairman ed royce was here one week ago. let me introduce the two speakers. aaron miller is the moderator today in what ask some questions the vice president for new initiatives in the state department as a secretary of state is part of the arab-israeli peace process and in the arab-israeli negotiations in he has received awards and has authored a number of books i forgot to bring my copy but it is a fabulous book, the end of greatness.

with a book he published a few months ago. much our main speaker today at a junior senator for connecticut elected 2012 whose serves on several committees appropriation health and pension and committee on foreign relations. prior to his election he served the fifth congressional district in the house of representatives of also served in local politics as well produce me great honor to welcome him to the podium. [applause] >> thanks for that kind introduction to the wilson center for hosting me today i am looking forward to the conversation and to my great friend jane harman for all the work she's doing here. in connecticut, we are very

proud with our largely unpublicized connection with the history and legacy of president wilson. he actually started his academic career teaching at wesleyan university and credit his positive experience as the inspiration to stay in the profession and. they spent many of their severs in the artists' colony and some of the most important decisions about his political future was sitting at the kitchen table. we love the connections that we have to the wilson legacy did it is wonderful for me to hear from you today. i remember this particular day like it was yesterday.

spring 2011 in a small village in afghanistan. it was my a third and most memorable trip to afghanistan the president's search was under way and they sent us our delegation to the tiny little village to see general petraeus strategy in action. we went out and met with a group of 100 army commandos lead from a man from my a town they were wildly impressed -- impressive and no doubt they brought a modicum of peace and stability to the province that was under the thumb of the taliban months ago. after a briefing they've put

this on the heavily guarded walk through the town with the collection of village elders there was beautiful with the roads surrounded by acres of the most beautiful flowers that i had ever seen. irrigation canals maintained for u.s. dollars that disappeared into the field where workers were harvesting their crops and i finally asked a host what the crop was. poppy. of course, he said plainly. i said what do you do with it? he said we sell it to the taliban who buys it for a good price. that is what he said within earshot of u.s. soldiers who no doubt knew about this arrangement for which they were sent to provide cover

and protection i cannot set was stunned because by this time i had heard it all but this was a clear-cut indictment of our presence as you could imagine 100 troops buying temporary space we could claim we had purge the taliban of that town but they were lying in wait and surrounded the village and worse marching into a telephone to collect the revenue that will fuel them once we left we were cheating the military duty but we had done nothing to change the underlying long-term susceptibility to the extremist influence. we still have no way to feed their families other than producing poppy which was sold to the very guys we were sent there to eliminate. local governance was irrelevant or corrupt or

nonexistent in all pointed to the unsurprising reality while it was practically meaningless if we did not have a viable strategy to change the political reality on the ground. and iraq played out with more devastating results in the aftermath of the late bush administration is surge waves of troops in bigger waves of cash provided a security blanket over parts of iraq will progress with in the opposite direction in the west handed out for the long term of the prime minister waged a quiet war against the sunni that they were happy to align themselves with anyone that would fight the central

government. i am confident the vast level of diplomats fully understand the feeling in every u.s. military intervention and just last week said this when asked about calls to put them back into the middle east. >> my worry is that i put 150,000 soldiers on the ground to defeat basis but then what? goes right back to where we are today before we even consider anything like that we need to solve a political problem and of course, secretary gates remarked any future president that contemplates and interests back should have their head examined but yet there are creeping signs that we're on the verge to repeat those mistakes the architect of the of iraq for

our back unapologetic, the intraparty fight between john mccain and rand paul and the isolationist is over with a convincing new conservative victory senators are calling for thousands of troops to march back. and recently the senators are making the claim that we would not have thought possible a year ago that the americans are on our side and they have proof to back them up surveys suggest that americans want washington to do something dramatic to the answers the powerful shock that only america can muster so some polls show americans support to put them into the fight but they ask a battery

of questions how concerned they are or how they feel about obama handling the problem the when it comes to possible responses they ask only one question to support combat troops or not? there is no other option or alternative send troops or do nothing in then how people really are scared day to the only thing they are presented with the simple touch and feel says america is larry about war without backlash against the president's plan to bomb syria in 2013 a matter what this new conservative say other places have not gone away so that is why i believe americans want an alternative vision to how we protect itself from the taliban that is more than

military intervention. americans will respond with forward-looking progressive strategy rather than simply relying on intervention that was designed with a grand peace treaty. an to be political for just a moment, this is a moment for progressive democrats to seize the opportunity i argue the congressional democrats have been absent over the future course of american foreign policy we weigh in on those issues but only obama in the republicans offer the opposition with the rules of how we engage of very scary threats. vb our silence is understandable as we leave on a president we read his

speech and there is little to argue with so we only have his cover for the next 18 months. i support secretary clinton better foreign policy ideas but in the 50/50 country we cannot hold our tongues to hope she wins we have to show leadership so the american people have a choice how to respond to the new enemies that we face this is the context in which we decided to produce us set of common-sense principles we think should guide foreign policy agenda as we reorient from the challenges a level take a few minutes to lay them out. for street argue america tool set is dangerously under resource we seem to have forgotten post-world war two we were spending 3% of gdp on foreign aid in the attempt to rebuild stability

in the war-torn areas. we learned lessons after world war i and invested gigantic sums of money in the effort to use economic development and political inclusiveness to stomp out what could undo the first world balance of power and to a foreign aid is 4 percent of what it was as a sheriff our economy. a 96% reduction so we believe the new marshall for the at risk region like the middle east can get this the kind of stability that produced by a large non-military investment of the '40's and '50's and '60's we don't need to spend 3 percent gdp but you cannot justify spending 15 times more money on military aid to then usaid diplomacy and peacekeeping. we believe in working

multilaterally to increase effectiveness to reduce the practical burdens to work through international bodies to make us stronger and multilateral support could be a check american hubris if no other ally will join us then why should it cause us to question the wisdom of that intervention in the first place? yes we are under immediate threats three cannot wait for the partners to sign up but when our actions are more effective with a coalition with the thoughtful and more restrained approach you have to have a clear goal and an exit strategy that has to be authorized by congress if you measure calls to dramatically increase those levels i argue nancy's can be met. we believe military action

is only worthwhile with a political strategy this is the caution u.s. military is the most powerful in the world but it has limits if there isn't a political answer on the ground than military gains are temporary and rarely worth the price to simply believe that covert action like mass surveillance has to be constrained with erratic expansion of intelligence after 9/11 and needs greater oversight the freedom act is a step in the right direction but more has to be done like taking large scale operations like drones away from the ncaa. american simply will not support more foreign aid if we're not rebuilding our own roads and schools addressing their own economic limitations and not make sense because we lead by

example follow our relief because they look to our track record of but as it slips so does our ability to lead. watch what we say and what we do. how do we tell other countries to get serious if we do the same on torture with guantanamo bay? we listen in on our allies illegally with the ability to affect international change on human rights dependent on our ability to walk the walk and we believe climate change has to be at the center of every relationship we have future generations will judge us if we elevate that discussion given the catastrophe if we don't act in the effects of climate change to increase drought in some places are already here with disastrous effects. it is important to say i am

not suggesting there is anything ground breaking in these principles but at least they would stand in contrast to the simple world view of the competition that argues for ending sequester only for the defense budget we see the other elements are just as important. they believe in participating in international organizations that demonstrates weakness and we think it is the key to strength that terrorism exists in a military vacuum that the policy should respond accordingly and there is a choice with national security. and the difference is played out in realtime. the progressive foreign policy starts with the honest assessment of goals.

it sounds good to save the american objective is to defeat isis. it should it should be to eliminate the ability to attack the united states and if there will be wiped from the face of the middle east is a question for our partners in the region and if the goal is to end that then ground troops make no sense but it would argue for the humanitarian assistance and would argue for a partnership as long as it is broad and it would never rule out to go after high-value targets and calls for us for those bags of cash from the anbar province but a bigger smarter assistance budget to move mountains.

on the night of our delegations we were briefed by the admiral of special operations and we were shown a pyramid of pictures and pictures of the most wanted of course, number one was osama bin laden what we did not know after a briefing he was putting the finishing touches on the raid and the night after rebuffed the blackhawk helicopters set off to take him down. despite what we saw the raid was a reminder of the infinite capacity of our armed forces men and women in uniform when you watch the network it is easy to understand why our influence is viewed through the prism of u.s. military their good at what they do. but today we cannot view every problem as a nail because we have the most effective hammer that tactic is impossible to fight the

epidemic cannot be stopped by the year for 70 epidemic is hard to combat today we're reading reports of attacks of the parliament building on call for after decades of american intervention. that fierce fighting had taken back the four villages in afghanistan in the district right next door. the new threats we face to not look like the old ones and that is why we need new rules for an engagement and new allies. thank you for having me and i look forward to the discussion. [applause] >> senator, welcome again to the wilson center i did not know about that connection but wilson was our only

ph.d. president. also thank you for your thought provoking session there is a lot to unpack but i want to make several points not necessarily directed at your presentation but more a personal creed if i was asked to identify the basic problems of our foreign policy first it is insomuch to identify progressive liberal foreign policy but essentially to find a policy that obviously is designed to protect the national interest but also a policy in essence that should work and working for republicans and democrats should not be between laughter right or republican or democrat but

policies that are smart on one hand or dom on the other. if you want america to be on the sport side we need to focus on substance and effectiveness, reality of the way it actually is before we get around to see how we wanted to be with tactics for sure and understand what american leadership is critical also has limitations. second, for my own personal experience that can be effective to articulate clearly a general approach so congress understands policy and the american people understand those doctrines and principles but

they limit to how they apply to navigate the hypocritical cruel and unforgiving world. think about it we participated in military action and supported arab spring in egypt been on the saudi arabia, we claim to stand for democracy and human rights in the wake of arab spring but our most cable partners right now are authoritarian is in the gulf and egypt in your negotiating even now as we speak a punitive deal with iran but yet at the same time we are unable to take a tough few on the iranian repression at home to a finance their interest in the region so how do you

reconcile these anomalies? in fact, do you need principles but also to recognize that foreign policy to be more suited? and if you ask me the greatest challenge of foreign policy it would be finding a better balance between their risk readiness of previous administrations and risk aversion from the current administration to say we have abandoned the middle ground and the question is, is there a more effective balance with risk readiness or risk aversion to your principles that might serve our interest?

one final point. we have an extraordinary vantages over the rest of the world basically it is our location on predatory neighbors to the north and south it is called a liquid assets these oceans literally create the framework with which we see the world our privileged security position in explains our naivete to abandon the notion of what it is like to be a small power we believe every problem can be fixed in their arrogance because great powers have tremendous margins even with those costly errors.

. . we have large by been out to lunch and what i would agrees is our constitutional obligation to set in some degree of measure

with the president foreign policy moving forward. the constitution gives us very specific powers to decide how much money gets sent -- spent on a variety of activities, not lost on me we haven't passed a state department authorization bill through the united states congress in over a decade. it tells us that we are the only branch of the federal government to declare war and we have chosen not to do that when it comes to the current conflict unless you believe the 9/11 gave us authorization to take on isis. so i think that senators menendez cardin and corker, have done a really credible job of putting the foreign relations committee in the senate back as a relevant part of the debate, the willingness to to take hard votes on syria or iran. that's important. but it's insufficient, i argue

and so these other pieces are left undone. let me -- that's -- i really love your comments but let me take the opportunity to maybe give a little bit of flavor how the guy who gave that speech might respond to a couple things you said. i completely understand the caution on doctrine and principles, and i think it's important that we have tried not to pre-suppose outcomes in foreign countries as an element of these principles. what i mean by that, nowhere in here does it say the united states should always per sue democracy. right? or nowhere does it say the united states should only pursue our immediate security interests by supporting people that we might ideologyie disagree with. but it says you have to eave have a political plan in what

happens in the aftermath of military action. and as for risk, it's a wonderful challenge. it's important to talk about what kind of risk we're debating. we normally think about that in terms of military risk. that's the paradigm in which we exist, and the president has not been willing to exercise the degree of military reaction others one to. there's other kinds of risk we aren't talking about because there isn't even the conversation space with who to debate it. for instance, in eastern europe, it would be risky but incredibly important to make a major u.s. investment in energy independence for our allies to actually put u.s. dollars planning resources on the table to try to change the way in which gas moves in and around that region, but we can't have that conversation because there's nowhere in the budget where that's allowable suspect we can have a conversation about a military risk, increased intervention in syria because there's a common acceptance that

once the president decides to do that it, we'll fund it. but there's no sentence that the president takes a nonkinetic risk that anybody would book him up. i love the conversation about increasing risk. i just want to make sure we're framing the discussion in a way that allows for it to happen in military terms and nonmilitary terms. >> with respect to risk, you do transition into the is issue of authorization to use force elm you have the two longest wars in american history, chit stunning fact but by 0.5% of the country in a voluntary military, which gives the president discretion to use military power and force without controls, without constraints in response to the perception that america is under threat. that would imply a greater role on the part of congress in an

effort to create some sort of sound basis as to when and under what circumstances force can be applied. maybe congress is simply too i suspect this is the answer -- too divided on the questions to create a consensus that would be meaningful, but it does really come -- if you want to change the nature of the discussion, there is a piece of this which does imply a much greater level of congressional involvement and frankly unity in response to safeguarding and protecting the -- this is a very risk averse administration. can you imagine a risk ready administration under these circumstances? you implied it in some of your comments. so congress' role would be even more important. iran. now, you don't know what is in this deal, either do i. but based on what you're sensing, do you think you'd be in a position to support the

administration's case for a comprehensive agreement on the nuclear issue with iran? >> absolutely. i agree with you that we don't know what the details look like, and there's evidence that there wasn't as much agreement in the framework as we might have suspected, or maybe there's just evidence that the political conversation has to play out in a certain way in and around tehran, and we have to accept the reality of that before we get a signature. but to me, this speaks to the principles that we're talking about here, which is finding alternatives to military action that while not being being -- intervention without planning process. that's amazingly absent from this conversation about this debate. one colleague going down to the floor hoff the senate and says taking out iran's nuclear

capability militarily would be a two-day endeavor, without any conversation about what the follow-on effects would be. and so the conversation about the framework can't happen within a vacuum. it has to come in comparative analysis of the al concerns. i think ait's exceptional framework. would i love for the agreement to be longer then ten years absolutely, but elements are and i do buy the arguments that if you are able to give opinion to the moderates it's batter chance than if you reject the disagreement that ultimately you're able to work with that coalition on other underlying festering issues as well, and as the congressal intervention, i just say that the way in which the president decideds to conduct these operations matters how congress is -- how willing congress is to react in syria he said he wasn't going to act without congressional authorization, and a debate was forced in the united states

senate foreign recommendations committee -- relations committee. when it came to the fight against isis, he proceeded in a different way. what would have happened itch he said i need to act and i'm not questioning to do it until congress gives me the power to do it. i argue would we would have come together and figure out a path forward. the division is significant but not irreconcilable, but we are forced to do it because there's no consequence no practical consequence for our inaction. it's incumbent on the president to follow the constitutional balance and alignment of responsibilities as well, and i would argue he should have come to us for authorization on this war before proceeding. >> one final question. you referenced the marshall plan. how do you respond the argentina. the world or the area of the world to which that extraordinary assistance

program, came after it, was directed with simply a parallel universe to the one we see today. we occupied japan from 1945 to 1952. there were no americans killed. not one. during the entire period on the japanese mainland. you're talking about a marshal plan for other region of the world, that is broken, angry disfunctional. how do you reconcile -- in other words, doesn't a marshall plan back to some degree a difficult prospect as an open-ended military intervention, without the political infrastructure that creates the stability the institution how do you actually do that? >> so, good question. it is a fair critique, and it's a very imperfect and precise analogy. i make it more to wake folks up

to how little we're spending on this project today compared to how muchman money we spent -- stunning to think the average american taxpayer thinks that 28% of their dollar is going to foreign aid when one percent arguably is. it's important to remind our country as to how much money we used to spend on this. it is fundmentalitily different but that's why i referenced the surge and the bags -- i can't lay out the precise manner which you develop long-term economic stability that tamps down on the reasons that people join terrorist organizations but i know part of the reason we did get a modicum of stability is we answered people's economic concerns and the political stability follows from economic stability. it's kind of hard to try to stand up a politically stable government when you have over 50% of young people out of work, and so if you start with economic stability and with partners by the way -- i'm not

suggesting that america be the only one but nobody else is going to spend billions if we don't commit to spending billions. if you even attempt to put in a place for economic answers to the problems in places like iraq or lebanon or yemen then political stability at least as a shot. it doesn't without that. i just target people say it's crazy. how can you say we're not trying that? they look at how much money we spent and that must have got ton something. i talk about the marshall plan, because comparatively we are spending a fraction of what we spent on a like, though albeit very different endeavor decades ago. >> thank you so much. okay. two questions. and let me emphasize questions. please identify yourselves before you speak. we have mics. yes, down here in the to front -- the fourth -- right here. we'll get to you next. i prompt miss.

>> my name is alex. divide teach at the foreign service institute. you talked about aid. i would like your views on title 8 programs, which fund international exchange language, our education abroad. the funds have been slashed. how do you see bringing them back. >> so, last fall, i took a trip to the ball balkans. we take for granted the level of stability there but there are few great conflicts that didn't emanate in some way shape or form from that region of the world, and there's simmering military instability there which should concern us. the point in bringing thing is up i was in serbia, a country russia has a lot of interest in, very relevant to us because it's a transit point for energy through and around the region, and i happened to be there on

the day that vladimir putin was marching his army through the streets of belgrade in an enormous show of force and our ambassador there was begging for $20,000 for an exchange program. that he had had cut from his budget. and just the incongruity of putin marches billions of dollars dollars of assets down the streets of belgrade and our ambassador wanted a handful of dollars for an exchange program shows how -- he spoke to how incredibly important this was and if you went around the re-region you saw the graduates of the title 8 funded exchange programs in enormously influential positions of power friendly to the united states and our allies. it was a small amount of money that paid off and as i would argue for how we spend money on these projects, how we allocate a new marshall plan, part would certainly be on that type of

program. >> okay. let's -- yes. right here. >> how big -- >> wait for the mic. here it comes. >> sorry. can you elaborate on how your nonkinetic approach would deal with isis, given the 1400 year disagreement between the shia and the sunni and at this particular time we know that the sunnis are the backbone of isis. how would you handle that situation? >> well, i mean, i'd go book to a couple things. first, i'd go back to the notion we have to be honest about what our objectives are and i don't think that we could have a realistic objective that could be settling that dispute. nor do i argue that we could have a realistic objective on

our own that would use the terminology, defeat isil. i think that our objective has to be degrading them to a point where they are no longer a threat to the united states. that's very different than the objective you might be foreshadowing, which is to somehow find a way for usaid to mediate a fight in the region between the two sides. but i would go back even further. no one can guarantee that this sort of cascading proxy war wouldn't have occurred not withstanding the iraq war but you can make a pretty good argument that if it didn't create the mess we're living with today then it at least exacerbateed it or expedited it. clearly the case i'm laying out today would have never allowed us to go into iraq in the first place because we simply didn't understand the political ramifications of that decision. many of them were tightly knit

inside iraq-but many of them also have spilled out to other places around the region. and so some of this is -- some of what i'm offering is totally unsatisfactory looking forward. it's just a caution to not do something again like iraq, without understanding the hell it often brings to regions like that. >> okay. how about right over here to the left. yes. thank you. >> hi. i am sally from six killer consulting. in question is twofold. the first one is that the press has stated that senate foreign relations committee met to discuss the -- if ask you if you believe that has legs and then the second question is what are you doing to ensure that the 2001aumf sunset is part of this

discussion? thank you. >> well, there's two issues. 2001aumf and the 2003aumf. i don't think nick can hard the -- 2001 can is trickier. we went kate rid of rid of it. our authorization to fight al qaeda and authorizes current activity of the u.s. government. we can sunset and it force us to have a discussion. i'd like that to be baked into any aumf that we pass, but it's more important to get an aumf that limits the authorization of fighting isis to the terms of the aumf. that a greater imperative. i am so appreciate tough of the work senator cain has done in particular and also senatorflake to bring the two parties together around an authorization. i have worries that the limitations in their authorization will not prove to be limitations at all.

i believe that we should put a box around the deployment of combat troops to the middle east. i'm worried their language does not do that. i would be more comfortable with looser language on troop limitations or geographic limitations or language on connected forces if there was a sunset if we were forced to come back and debate the wholing in three years. that's not included in the authorization, either. so i think it's an important starting point. but to me, it allows for a little bit too much leeway for the next administration to take strategic steps i deeply disagree with in the region. there's an important debate over whether congress should be involved at all in the strategy of warfare or, rather, if our job is only to name the enemy and then get out of the way. i would argue there's a long

history of congressional intervention on foreign affairs that suggests we have the power and i'd argue the responsibility to also include some discussion of strategy in our authorization. >> thank you senator for being here. and provoking us. you used the term "box." but books roane around the middle east. which gets back to, what is in our national interest? a term that aaron used earlier and you hinted at. and why are we so focused on the middle east? what happened to east asia? what happened to south asia, lattin america africa, the different parts of europe? what is -- what are american priorities for you and how do you plan to deal with them? because we're totally obsessed with the middle east, and is it or isn't it in our interests?

>> well, listen. our interest multifold. they start with protecting the united states from attack, and that project is not exclusive to the middle east. what we know is that terrorist groups isis at the top of the list the daz -- are setting up shop in a variety of places around the globe and we don't have the resources to meet that challenge itch look to africa as an example the paltry sums that our statement depth has to spend means we can't do planning for how groups like al-shabaab moves. a thoughtful, well-resourced american foreign policy would have seen what was happening in somalia predicted the move of the organization into parts of kenya, and taken steps ahead of time to try to minute that momentum. we -- to blunt the momentum. we didn't have the resources. part of the challenge is plussing up the resources we have available to think outside of the box of the middle east.

we do have an interest in preventing slaughter and genocide. so i accept that as part and parcel of america's interests in the world. i just argue that in proposing an intervening you make damn sure it's going to make the carnage better than worse. i argue in syria dropping bombs in the middle of a stew of civil and military unrest would have made the situation for people on the ground worse not better. so there would begin to be your set of interests but you are right. we are hyper focused on the middle east. there are good reasons for that. not so good reasons for that. and part of this project is to try to hopefully awaken people's interest and attention to other parts of the world as well.

>> right here in the middle. >> my name is steve ven. senator, would you please citi speak about the importance of trade with relation to american foreign policy, specifically fast track authority. >> so, there's no doubt that, as hillary clinton coined it, there's an important element of economic statecraft to all the work i'm talking about here. many of us would just argue about the terms upon which you're engaging in that discussion. so i voted against fast track and this is a little off topic but i'll tell you my opposition. i totally understand the rationale that greasing the wheels of the legislative process makes a trade deal easier to pass. why on earth do we elevate trade for fast track conversation and nothing else that is important. an energy -- a bill increasing

american energy independence would also make this country a lot more secure, but he subject that debate in traditional set of rules rules and nobody talks bat fast track for energy reform or immigration reform which you can argue that tower demographic advantage is one of our primary strengths in and around the world, but nobody is talk bath fast track for immigration reform. it's odd we set aside a process for trade and for nothing else. so i hope that there's going to be one of these deals either tpp or ttip i can support because believe that trade is enter twined with american foreign powers. just has to be on the right terms. >> way in the back. as far as you can goo. >> i hope i'm note only one interested in the china question. tomorrow the dialogue is going to begin. so what do you expect are the

most pressing issues and should be discussed? does congress play a role in it? thank you. >> i think congress arguably has been pretty awol on u.s.-china policy. there hasn't been a lot of significant or really relevant discussion in the united states congress about what to do with china moving forward. a lot of us believe that there are places where we can get tougher. that for those that worry that increased sanctions against currency policy or cyber attacks would erupt a trade war. we suggest that we're already fighting a trade war with china only one country fighting it. but i again look internally when i think about how we deal with china. it's hard for us to say that disputes in the east and south china sea should be resolved through diplomatics means when the united states won't sign the

treaty of the seas. it's hard to make the argument credibly when we're not willing to be at the table. if we expect to china to be a participant in the 2015 climate change negotiation, how do we do that when the majority of the senate and house argue the climate change is not happening and the scientists are wrong. i think there are tangible things that congress can weigh in on the u.s.-china relationship and obama will say the trade agreement is a big part of that. i also think there's a way in which we conduct ourselves -- you have to look inward to look outward. we have to do a lot of that in order to strengthen our hand when we sit across the table from china. on seiber security, the same problem. there's no way to defend what they're doing stealing our secret and invading people's privacy. but they claim that we do it, too. we don't. but when we are tapping into the

cell phones of foreign leaders without much of a credible explanation, it just robs us of the moral authority to get them to change the way in which they do things. >> we have time for a question, one more question. in the back? >> thank you. my name is david. i represent georgian television station. senator you made several statements on nato enlargement and underline the necessity of up aering plans to the states neighboring russia how do you see russia's role in a new foreign policy of the united states. >> again back to the idea that we rolled out. none of these are breakthrough ideas but one is clearly re-investing in the importance of international organizations. i think we threaten nato's future legitimacy as we slowly

close the door on its -- close the open, door policy there are countries that are willing to join that are ready to join. i think georgia obviously has some particular and important problems that have to be work out, but montenegro is ready to join and when we refuse to enlarge, we start to diminish the import of the organization to begin with. just a word about ukraine before we end because it's enter -- intertwined on the question of american responses to crises. i'm just stunned at how our conversation in congress begins and ends with arming the ukrainian military. that is 80% over the oxygen we expend. now, think that's a really important question, and i've come around on it. i oppose evidence it at first but i think as long as we're doing it in coordination with

the majority of our allies in europe children is nothing you can presuppose today it's worthwhile. but the realities that right now the most important debate playing out is how ukraine structures its debt to the point of $15 billion of relief. america has a lot to say about that. in part because it's american companies. american pension funds that have to come to the table and agree to forgive portions of that debt. but nowhere in congress is there a realistic conversation about either putting the pressure on those companies or investing in real economic assistance that would help ukraine. we're willing to spend potentially billions of dollars to hand arms to the ukrainians, apparently for free, but we're arguing over guaranteeing loans to them in a manner that sort of i compare to arguing with your neighbor about how they are going to pay back the cost of the bucket of water before you deliver it to them to put out the fire. i just think that we should be

much more generous with that country, but we're not have that debate because again there's an obsession with a military power of the united states to the point of -- in the ukrainian debate almost ignoring all of the other leverage and resources we have at our disposal. i don't argue for reducing america's comparative military advantage. i just think there are other conversations and other tools that desperately need to be plussed up with we want to keep ourselves safe and want to be table to take the right kind of risks in the world that are really demanded by the new times. >> we have come to the end of the hour there are many more questions than time would allow which suggests a degree of interest and i think your talk has sparked some interest and a good conversation. so please join me in thanking

some murphy for coming d senator murphy for coming. >> thank you. >> our road to the white house coverage continues on c-span2. last week, vermont senator and presidential candidate bernie sanders spoke to an estimated crowd of 5,000 people in denver. that's next. after that, we'll hear republican presidential candidate rick perry. then remarks from wisconsin governor scott walker. later, an interview with texas senator ted cruz. >> goddard joins us, survivor of the virginia tech shooting and senior policy advocate for the organization every town four gun safety. also syndicated columnist ann coulter talk about her new book,

title "adios america." we'll also take your calls and look for your comments on facebook and twitter beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. the new congressional directory is a hand guy died to the 114th congress with color photos of every senator and house member, plus bioand contact information and twitter handles. also, district maps, a foldout map of capitol hill and a look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today. it's 13.95 plus shipping and handling through the c-span online store at c-span.org. >> senator and 2016 presidential candidate, bernie sanders held a town hall meeting in denver last week. the vermont independent was first elected to the senate in 2006 and is running for president as a democrat. this event was held at the

university of denver. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [music] keep on rocking in the free world. ♪ keep on rocking in the free world ♪ >> thank you. thank you. >> bernie, bernie, beie, bernie bernie bernie, bernie, bernie, bernie. >> thank you; thank you. >> bernie! [cheers] >> let me begin by thanking robin for that wonderful introduction. let me thank all the folks up at

the atrium and let me thank the many hundreds on the lacrosse field. thank you all very much for being here tonight. this is an extraordinary turnout and i thank all of you for being here. a few weeks ago we -- a few weeks ago we decided we would do an event in l.a., and i said to my staff look, we're going to l.a. why don't we see if we can get a room in denver. [cheering] >> and let's see if we can bring a couple of hundred people together. see if we can find some supporters. and after about ten minutes after the e-mail went out, we knew we had to change the venue. [cheering]

and here we are tonight! so, thank you. [cheering] >> let me begin by telling you what no other candidate for president is going to tell you. and that is that this campaign is not about me, not about hillary clinton not about jeb bush not about any other candidate. this campaign is about you your kids and your parents. [cheering] >> it is about creating a political movement of millions of people who stand up and

loudly and proudly proclaim that this nation and our government belong to all of us and not just a handful of billionaires. [cheering] people throughout our history have fought and died to defend democracy. and democracy means today that we need a political movement of millions of people who come out and vote, who educate and who organize. democracy is not about the last election in which 63% of the american people, and 80% of

young people, did not vote. that's not democracy. democracy is when people from one end of this country to the other, stand up and say that there is nothing that a great nation cannot accomplish. [cheering] now is not the time for thinking small. we have been thinking small for too many years. we are the wealthiest country in the history of the world. now is the time to think big and to understand all that we can accomplish for all of our people. [cheering]

this country today in my view, faces more serious problems than at any time since the great depression. and if you answer that, the planetary crisis of climate change it may well be that today in our time, we face more challenges than any time in the modern history of this country. and what we are here tonight for is to lay those problems out on the table and to talk about how in fact we are going to solve those problems. [cheering]

today we live, as i mentioned in the wealthiest nation in the hoyt of the world but most americans don't feel that and don't know that. and the reason for that is that almost all of the wealth rests in the hands of a tiny number of people. >> boo! >> america now has more income and wealth inequality than any major country on earth and the gap between the very, very rich and everyone else is wider today than at any time since the late 1920s. in my view, the issue of wealth and income inequality is the great moral issue of our time, it is the great economic issue

of our time it is the great political issue of our time. [cheers and applause] >> let me be as clear as i can be. there is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of one percent today owns almost as much wealth as the0%. there is something profoundly wrong, when today 99% of all new income created goes to the top one percent. there is something profoundly wrong when we have seen a

proliferation of millionaires and billionaires at the same time as millions of americans are working longer hours for lower wages and we have by far the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on earth. >> boo! >> there is something profoundly wrong. when one family in america the walton family, owns more wealth than the bottom 130 million americans. this grotesque level of wealth and income inequality is not only immoral is not only bad economics, is not only unsustainable, it is not what the united states of america is

supposed to be about. [cheers and applause] and you know what? together we're going to change that. [cheers and applause] now it ain't going to be easy. billionaire class controls much of the economy. they control much of our political life. they control much of the media. but what we are doing tonight is sending a message to the billionaire class, and that is, you can't have it all. [cheers and applause]

you cannot get huge tax breaks when children in this country go hungry. [cheers and applause] you cannot continue to send our jobs to china when millions of people in this country are desperately looking for work. [cheers and applause] you cannot hide your profits in the cayman islands and other tax ravens while there are massive unmet needs on every corner of this country.

the up questionable greed of the billionaire class is destroying this nation and it has got to end. [cheers and applause] >> bernie, bernie, bernie, bernie bernie, bernie. bernie. bernie bernie, bernie, bernie. >> and what we say to these extraordinarily wealthy and powerful people is you cannot take advantage of all of the benefits of america if you refuse to accept your responsibilities as americans. [cheers and applause]

>> but when we talk about our economy, we're not just talking about the grotesque levels of income and wealth inequality. what we are also talking about is the tragic reality that over the last 40 years not six years, not ten years but over the last 40 years the great middle class of america once the envy of the world has been disappearing. and i want you do appreciate that's because we don't talk about it often enough. all of you are aware that in recent years we have seen an explosion of technology. and all of you are aware that almost every worker in america is now far more productive than workers were ten or 20 years ago. and yet despite that increased in technology, and the increase

in productivity, the fact of the matter is, millions of people are working longer hours for lower wages and median family income today is almost 5,000 tuesday -- $5,000 less than it was in 1999. that is the reality. and that's the reality that we have got to put on the table and we have got to discuss that and we have got to turn that around. [applause] >> i can tell you that in my state of vermont -- [cheering] >> that's right. and iodate its any different in colorado or anyplace else, we have people who are not working one job they're working two

jobs they're working three jobs trying to cobble together an income and some health care. that is not what the american economy should be about. now, when we talk about the economy, and when you ask people what on their minds the talk about jobs and unemployment. let me tell you this. when you read in the papers once a month that real unemployment, or that official unemployment in america, is 5.4%, don't believe it because the way the government determines unemployment rates is kind of complicated. if you throw in the fact that we have millions of people who are working part-time when they want to work full-time and when

you add to that the millions of people who have given up looking for work, real unemployment today is close to 11%. and let me tell you something else which is not discussed at all. one of the fun thing about running for president is you can talk about the issues that other people don't talk about. [cheers and applause] >> a report just came out a few weeks ago from the economic policy institute an excellent think tank in washington, and what they said should scare every single american. and that is that youth unemployment in this country has reached crisis proportions. if you include those people who

have given up looking for work, people working part-time young people working part-time when the want to work full-time if you're looking at high school graduates from age 17 to 20, the unemployment rate for white and hispanic young people is over 30%, and for young african-american kids, 17 to 20, that number is 51%. >> boo! >> now maybe just maybe we should start investing in jobs and education rather than incarceration and in jails. [cheers and applause]

>> and when we talk about the economy, we're also not just talking about income and wealth inequality. we're not just talking about unemployment. we are talking about wages. and what we're talking about is that millions and millions of people in vermont in colorado, all across this country are working at totally inadequate wages. [cheers and applause] i was in des moines, iowa, week ago, talking to some people, and they were at a farmers market. they were church-related organization. they were collecting food that was not sold at the farmers market and donating it to an emergency food shelter. and what they said is in des moines, and i expect it is true all over this country -- 90% of

the people who went to those emergency food shelves were people who were working and working full-time. one would think that if somebody worked full-time you would earn enough to be able to feed your family. [cheers and applause] and let me state as clearly as i can. the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage and must be raised to a living wage. [cheers and applause]

>> city of los angeles a couple of weeks ago did exactly the right thing. they raised the minimum wage -- they raided the minimum wage over a period of a couple years to $15 an hour, and that is what we should be doing nationally. [cheers and applause] >> and when we talk about work, and when we talk about wages we have got to end the disgrace of women making 78 cents on the dollar compared to men. [cheering] we need pay equity for women workers in this country. equal pay for efall work -- equal work.

now, couple of weeks ago i announced a series of proposals that were a lot of fun to talk about and i'll tell you why. as you know, many republicans talk about family values. oh they just love families. and they just love children. and they just can't get enough of families and children. but when they talk about family values you all know what they're talking about. what they are saying to every woman in this country you cannot control and have destiny over your own body. what they are saying to women -- and this is quite incredible, hard to imagine -- that women cannot buy the contraceptive they want.

>> boo! >> what they are saying to our gay brothers and sisters is, you cannot get married. >> boo! >> well, i have, and i think you have very different vision of what family values should be about. [cheers and applause] let me tell you what i think family values means. it means that the united states must end our international embarrassment of being the only major country on earth the only one, which does not guarantee workers paid medical and family leave. [cheers and applause]

which does not guarantee paid sick time or paid vacation time. [cheers and applause] now, let me tell you about a family value as deep and as strong as one can imagine. today in america a working class or low-income woman gives birth to a baby. and that mom and that father want the opportunity to get to know their newborn baby. that's pretty natural and that is what a family is all about. but if that working class woman does not have enough money she will have to go back to work in four days, five days, one week time. and that is why we need family

and medical leave which says to that mom and that dad you have one month to spend with your baby paid for. [applause] >> this is not a radical socialistic idea. this is an idea that exists in virtually every major country on earth. let me tell you about another radical idea. are you ready? i don't know about you but i go around the country and i eat in a lot of restaurants and i do not want somebody preparing the food who has the flu or who is sick. i want to see workers in this country be guaranteed paid sick leave. [cheers and applause]

>> let me tell you something else that nobody talks about. and that is with the collapse of the american middle class what has happened is that our people, men and women are being forced to work incredibly long hours. i hope some of you know that our people in this country, the wealthiest country on earth end up working far more hours than do the people of any major industrialized country. the american people are working 137 hours a year more than the japanese who work very hard. we work 260 more hours than the british, and well, for the french we work almost 500 hours a year more than our friends in

france. why do i say that? is that an important issue? it is a very important issue you know why? because our people are working incredibly long hours. here's a story. i was in a grocery store out of a grocery store in burlington, vermont, few years ago. all right. and a woman came up to me and said bernie injust want to mention something to you. we -- my husband and i have one kid. we would like too have more children but i'm working three jobs he's working two jobs, and we don't believe that we can be the kind of parents that we want to be. and that story is being told all across the country. people are exhausted. some of you may remember, and read in your history books that 100 years ago in the early

1900s, workers demonstrated all over this country and they held up banners and they held up signs and posters and they said -- 100 years ago -- we are not beasts of burden. we are human beings. we want leisure time. we want to spend time with our kids. we want more education. we want the 40 hour work week. [cheers and applause] brothers and sisters 100 years have come and gone, we have seen an explosion in technology and a huge increase in worker productivity. we are not today even close to a 40-hour work week. today 85% of working men and 66%

of working women work more than 40 hours a week. in my view, at the very least what we have got to do as a family value is to guarantee those workers at least two weeks a year of paid vacation. [applause] ...

>> we do have a major federal jobs program. [cheers]