a safe zone is a zone on the ground. we have analyzed them and discuss them with partners in the region. they are principally not in regions where we expect them to be contested so much by assad so much by isil and al-nusra, so, therefore, they have to be defended against that threat and that's a military undertaking. >> and are we unwilling -- >> we have not made that recommendation. >> at what point, how many people have delete before we make that decision? >> senator, let me go back to come if you create a zone like that, then you do have to ask who is going to come into the zone. are the people who have left syria, who are going to return to syria from turkey or europe? to occupy a zone from which they didn't come?

are there people elsewhere who will come to the zone could you do have to ask yourself for whom would you be attracted to be in such a zone? and secondly who -- >> probably some of the folks in germany who would've rather stayed in their own country. >> if they wish to return to the part of the country for which, in which the zone is created. but again it would depend on where it was and would be contested -- >> let me ask you, barrel bombs, we've talked about this time after time. why are we unwilling to send a message to assad that if he continues with mail bombing we will stop them and crater his runway's? >> we have not undertaken to engage as they use military the syrian military. we have not taken a step. >> how do you ever stop the federal bombing?

>> -- beryl bombing. just to go back to what we've been saying repeal it is for assad to depart and for the to be a political speech i would be depart at this point? >> because the opposition to him is intense and strengthening. >> as far as i can see you said three or four additional allies come on board. if you think isolation for them is his cards are getting better. >> again, our priority has been to combat isil. we are not as the u.s. military undertaking to combat -- >> let me just ask you this. in the process of combating isil, does the united states stand by as another nation barrel bombs the people we are trying to protect? >> we have sought now for some time and continue to do a political transition in syria

that would end the syrian of civil war. we have not pursued a military solution to that. >> i would just say from my perspective, and i'm not an expert like both of you. we seem lost and i have extraordinary confidence into leadership at this table but we seem lost and i would love to see alternate plans that may be out of. general dunford, i was in iraq a few months ago, was with the sunni tribal leaders, and i just want to ask your best military judgment. in spending time with them they said look, he showed an interest in us, if you showed, had a helicopter, every now and then, showed he really wanted to provide us with guidance come with logistics, with advice, et cetera, that partnership, that friendship we've always felt, we will be there, we will get the job done. do you think they have that

capability? >> senator, i do. to our sunnis that can take the fight to the enemy and we have seen that in the past. >> while we try to continue to hope and pray that the iraqis to go before it gets better, or we sitting here with sunni tribal leaders who have the individuals who can actually start to move isis out of ramadi speak with i think if the central government would do better at average, we salute could recruit more, trainer, and equip more soon in a fight. >> so it's fair to say the team is ready to go, they just need to get the signal to go. >> it would take some work with our people out there we could put together to fight isil. >> and that's how we started the isil i think. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you to on behalf of chairman mccain, i recognize -- >> thank you for appearing in front of our committee today and for your service to our country. the white house has been sending

mixed and at times contradictory messages about what our interests are and what threats to our security exist in the middle east. many americans are understandably coming to find our current strategy somewhat reminiscent of the old war seven sun. it seems to be descended lawyers, guns and money whenever and wherever a crisis breaks out. this situation in the middle east is a very complicated problem for our current posture but it is really not historically aberrational. for more than one of years is region has been dominate by either external parts or internal authoritarians have destroyed cultural institutions and disrupted the natural development of societies. the decentralization of power in the states, compounded by

radical islamism and ancient sectarian grievances amongst a e time-tested recipe for the kind of conflict and instability that we are seeing today and it tends to threaten our security. we continue to receive mixed contradict reports about the effectiveness of ongoing efforts to retain, train and equip iraqi security forces. when i asked why we believe it will work this time around, i am usually told by defense official something like the following, something like we have a better political partner in baghdad now than we did before, and we have a partner who will not repeat the mistakes of his predecessor. this is not encouraging. as we know how quickly political institutions, political situations and calculations can change in the middle east, particularly right now. so general dunford, i'm more concerned by what your predecessor, general dempsey, described as the will to fight a factor.

among the isf. i played that extends beyond simply having a better leader in baghdad. do you believe the kind of united iraq that we've seen for the past century, that is come with the borders drawn by the british and french and held together either by a western backed monarchy or a baathist dictator, something for which the people of iraq have a genuine will to fight, especially when they don't have emergency assistance from a coalition like they have right now? >> i think for most people in iraq it's a lot more local than it is national. and i do think if the central government, for example, with outrage to the sunni in the anbar province and provide basic services, that we would get sunni fighters that would fight on behalf of the government. we have seen that in the past. >> i'd like to expand the

question more broadly to places like syria or yemen. to people of those countries have the will to fight for united governments in places where current territorial lines may have been imposed by a foreign force? >> there is no evidence that i would know that would indicate that they would. >> unfortnuately, i think we are looking to hard for an easy answer or a simple answer, to some of these complicated questions. i encourage my colleagues and the american people to thoughtfully consider options in the middle east before continuing down paths that i believe may lead to mission creep into an indefinite u.s. military presence to prop up weak and sort of artificially created states designated around unsustainable boundaries. the department of defenses syria train and equip program failed by a long shot.

defined and trained the level of fighters required as does by congress and the white house. congress put these requirements in place because we were concerned about who would be using u.s. assistance, and for what purposes they would be using it. secretary carter, does the failure of this program indicate to you that the viable ground force we desire for syria simply does not exist within the parameters that the american taxpayer may be willing to support? >> well, i was disappointed in it as well what i don't draw that conclusion. there are forces in syria willing to fight isil and capable of fighting isil. we talked about the series and kurds as an example of that, the so-called syrian arab coalition. and in the new train and equip effort that we described today, we will look to identify and

then support capable and motivated forces on syrian territory that are willing to take on isil. we've identified some of them already and the new approach is to enable them, train them and equip them rather than trying to create such forces a new, which was the previous approach. and i do understand why that approach was taken. and you're right, it was authorized by this committee last december. i understand the considerations that went into that. i have concluded the president concluded that that approach wasn't working the way that it was conceived of a year ago and that's precisely why we changed the approach. so we have a different approach that we think will allow us to gain more momentum. and in particular to allow us to put pressure on the city of rock

which is the self-declared capital of the caliphate. so on this year inside of the counter isil fight -- raqqa -- that is our intent and we're trying to gather momentum. >> thank you. i see my time has expired. >> let me recognize senator mccaskill. >> yes. senator reed, thank you all for being here. by the way let me at the beginning of my questions gets a mention to master sergeant joshua wheeler. he is, there probably is no better example of someone who has run the danger for the start over and over again. i put this was his 14th deployment of wanted to mention his name in their entity. we all mourn his loss and the loss of assam and we support them as they move through this trying time. senator reed asked about the new syrian forces in northern trend for six. have we provided we supplies to

those forces -- northern syria? >> we have, senator spent have they successfully called in airstrikes? >> they have. >> can you tell us how many? >> i cannot. i can do to that information. >> that would be pretty. on iraq trained and. on iraq train and. on iraq trained and equipped as you all live in as you all live in tennessee to reduce i.t. reports, the i.t. reports, when they came on september 30 raised several concerns that i'm worried about. one is asking us to refurbish the conditions under which these iraqis are training. the dig recommends that the coalition work with iraqi minister of defense, devise and implement a plan that clarifies the contributions of iraq and the united states, to improve their living conditions. evidently dig is a mapping decisions because they're living in such squalor in terms of the conditions in which they are training. i just think of the billions and billions on infrastructure we

spent in iraq at a time to get my arms around are we going to go in and fix up something that is going to rot when we leave, or is iraq went a step up and do what's necessary to make these conditions palatable for the recruits? >> and senator, what i would say and this is my perspective and i think this is where we're at right now, is that our relationship with iraq has to be transactional and there has to be certain conditions they would need before we would provide support that is a framework with which -- with which and i will provide recommendations, we be that would be based on their behavior and a willingness to be true partners and meet certain conditions that would indicate be headed in the direction you described. >> capital expenditure is really great i think on many of us who have watched the amount of money that was wasted on capital expenditures in iraq. on that same line of questioning, the m. wraps that

are coming from afghanistan, the singapore points out many are missing parts and there's a request within the capability of maintaining these m. wraps going forward. was to get other discussions about who is going to bear the cost of making fees that we're giving them actually operational? >> send it comes to talk about we get to the afghan security forces to go about the ones the excess ones that were moving over the u.s. is providing 250 mst the iraqi army. they're being shipped to iraq from afghanistan. those are what i'm talking about spent i can't comment on what ththe iranians that arranges our but i would get that information for you. typical and provide the equipment it is in passing condition and would try to another country. i assume that's the rule that speed is out to make sure we're not going to the extent ascended in something that isn't operational, that we don't want to get spent a lot of money to

fix up. secondly, that they don't have the capability of maintaining. sustainability, secretary carter knows, this has been a refrain on the very beginning. it does us no good to give them things if they cannot sustained of course that's one of the reasons we're having the problems in iraq, they were politically incapable of sustainability are briefly on a separate subject i just want to bring this up and i won't go into the details but i'm trying to get at helping the veterans that were subjected to mustard gas experiments. i'm having a really difficult time with your folks about this. they are saying that even if i have a name of a veteran and a privacy waiver, they were not getting information out of your mustard gas database without a letter from the chairman. i don't understand why this is so hard. why is anyone that opening up these records and doing everything we can to get the word to these people?

that are a lot of folks out there that were subjected to mustard gas experiments. and the va wants to point at you and i'm hitting a wall at dod on this. i really need a commitment from you all today that you will give me the information as to why, why me kind of veterans who may have been exposed to mustard gas, why this should be so hard. would you all be willing to make that commitment that you work with my office instead of the -- they just keep throwing up roadblocks. >> i am not only with this issue, but as always i will make sure that we support your request or i will look into it with the chairman and we'll get back to you as appropriate that i've been waiting for evidence to back up your claim that there was justification for the 36 million-dollar -- square foot building in afghanistan. there was a call for discipline

for the people that al-qaeda that building to its sitting empty and i've been asking since july as to come you said you didn't think, secretary carter, you contested the funnies and said you didn't think this plan action was appropriate. i've asked what evidence is that would indicate displeasure action is not appropriate. did you get that on your to-do list i would appreciate it. >> i will do so. >> you haven't able helper behind you. thank you very much. >> senator sessions. >> thank you very much. senator mccain lay down some serious criticisms of how we are conducting policy in the middle east. i share most of those. i don't think they are of little matters but they are important matters. i think we've made some mistakes and struggle in ways that are not well, not good. i think -- so i will just leave it at that.

what i'd like to address today is the need for a strategy, long-term come in the middle east. i asked kenneth pollack of the brookings institution several months ago, he mentioned in the statement of this may take a long time. so i asked him, the whole problem of extremism in the middle east, this thousand thouf violence we're seeing throughout the entire region, how complex it is. so i followed up with him and said, so you're saying this could last 10, 20, 50 years? i remember very vividly, he looked at me and he gave an answer you don't often get. yes. that was his answer. do we need a strategy, a long-term strategy, that could deal with that? i've asked that question to walter russell mead, and he said he has never seen us as a nation be so unfocused in a strategy,

the historian that he is. the entire panel, i believe the week before last, general jim jones, president obama's nationals good advisor, general keane, ambassador, another scholar, all agreed that we need a strategy and we don't have one. that i asked secretary gates last week, and this is what he said that i think is relevant. he said, my concern is that i don't see an overreaching or overriding strategy on the part of the united states with this complex challenge for the next 20 or 30 years. and one of the benefits of containment, there are lots of disagreements about how to apply it is now the worst we have fought hundred and so on, but i've always believed that critical to our success in the cold war was that we had a broad

strategy called containment that was practiced by nine successive administrations of both political parties. it had bipartisan support. the general notion of how to deal with this. so we don't have anything like that with respect to the middle east. and i think that is long come and see what kind of dealing with each of these crises individually rather than backing up and saying what our long-term game plan here? and who are going to be our allies? who are going to be our friends? where do we contain? where do we let it burn itself out as we just haven't really addressed those long-term questions he does it seems to me we are thinking strictly in the short term of month-to-month. i know we have nine points, secretary carter, but i don't

since anyone in the region or anyone in the congress believes that we have a deeply studied and long-term policy for the middle east that can extend for decades. first of all you think we need one? do we have one? >> we have a strategy toward the middle east, and many elements of it are, in fact, of long-standing, decades long standing. again, our strategy begins with the pursuit of american interests, and that involves protecting our own country and our people, defending long-standing friends and allies who included the goal states and a special israel, which was discussed already, opposing the introduction of nuclear weapons to the region, which gets us to the iran circumstances.

and endocrine matter of isil, protecting our people and our friends and allies against isil by defeating it where it began, which is in iraq and syria. we described today that the limitation of the strategy in both of those places to defeat, degrade and defeat isil. so we are doing that. so it is a complicated region. i called it kaleidoscopic in my statement, but american interests are not unclear. they are clear and our strategy is intended to pursue those interests, and that is what we were doing. and strengthening the pursuit of that strategy is why the chairman and i have been describing to you today the new steps we're taking in iraq and syria, and with respect to

unilateral actions. >> well, i know that's the position of the administration but, frankly, our middle east allies that we talk to and come and visit us don't feel confident that they know what the long-term goals of the united states or. were they to defend iraq against isil? who we shared general to general, for decades. are they going to pull out all troops regardless of the situation on the ground? what about red light in syria? article and one of those? .com you can say that but i think it's clear that confidence and understanding of where we stand and what we going to do for the next 10, 20, 30 years as the leader of a middle eastern nation has got to think, and as we should think as a great nation, i don't think we are

there. i really believe more work needs to be done. i'm talking to my colleagues in the senate i believe we can reach a bipartisan policy. i really do. i don't think it's impossible and i'm going to work toward that goal. one more thing. my time is over, but i believe the defense department may underestimate the critical nature of the refugee crisis. this is not like iran, iraq war that went on for many, many years. this is impacting europe right now. it is a humanitarian crisis. it's being exploited by everyone else in the middle east that would like to come to europe. europe is facing what one top diplomat told me was the greatest crisis since world war ii. and i think we've got to think about this, safe haven, these safe zones, and get busy on a.

and general petraeus said it might have done some of our people at risk, defensively, to try to protect those areas but it wouldn't take a lot. you and i talked, secretary carter come about it. can we get moving on this? how many more millions are going to have to flee and being lined up in areas that we don't, before we act? just morally, my judgment is that europe needs to know there is a place for these refugees to go other than to flee the entire region. that will strengthen them. can we not do that? quickly. >> well, insofar as the refugees are coming from syria, there actually coming to europe from several areas, but to the extent they are coming from syria, this is why it is so important that

the seriousness of the work be put to an end. and our approach to that is political -- syrian civil war -- that is a persistent subject of discussion. we have not undertaken to achieve that goal of military for our approach to that is political. we hope that transition occurs and that the civil war in syria pins, and that is something that -- >> what if it takes three years? can't we provide some sort of area there for people who are in danger to have safety and not have to leave the entire region speak with i will just repeat what i've said. we have analyzed a that i'm prepared to have shared with you the analysis we've done up safe zones, buffer zones and no-fly zones. we have look at the advantages and costs of those, and the president has not taken off the

table but we are not undertaken to create any of those zones at this time to i don't rule that out in the future. we are happy just to discuss it with you and discuss in a different setting the analysis that we have done. >> on behalf of chairman mccain let me recognize senator ayotte. >> i want to thank the chair, also thank senator donnelly. appreciated. i wanted to ask secretary carter, recently the iranians have actually tested a long range missile in violation of existing u.n. security council resolutions. this is something that ambassador power has confirmed come and, in fact, if you look at what the iranians have done post agreement, not only have

they tested this missile but, of course, they were wrongfully convicted a "washington post" reporter in iran. and, of course, we got a lot of discussion today about the cooperation between russia and iran undermining stability in syria, and our interests there. so i've also, it's been brought to my attention recently that the supreme leader of iran has actually said about the recent agreement that any imposition of sanctions at any level under any pretext including repetitive and fabricated pretext of terrorism and she writes on the part of any countries involved in negotiations will constitute a violation of the jcpoa. so here's my question to both of you, and primarily to you, secretary carter. what i'm going to do about their violation of already existing

u.n. resolutions when it comes to testing ballistic missiles and long-range missiles? you know, you was when you testified, the i am icbm is intercontinental. as i see it already iran is violating resolutions with no response from us. already the supreme leader is basically saying you imposed sanctions on any reason, even our support for terrorism or other human rights violations, we are going to walk away from the jcpoa. so do not agree that their violation of the missile resolution warrants a response from the united states of america? and what is that response going to be? at this point i haven't seen any response. >> i think that it needs to be very clear come into certain

clear to us in the department of defense that the conclusion of the nuclear deal with iran, assuming it gets implemented just part of what your question gets too, does not address all of our security concerns -- >> let me ask you this, yes or no, should we respond to the testing of this missile that violates existing u.n. resolutions? >> i would describe one response. it's in our area, and that is our continuing commitment to the development of missile defenses. that's one of the reasons why we are developing and speedy spiders and we are developing missile defenses but what is our response when they behave badly already? shouldn't there be a response from the united states? ..

>> mr. secretary, i don't have a lot of time but ending, not ending? it seems like it is just beginning, really as we think about this unholy alliance between russia and iran undermining our interests in syria. as we think about them testing in our face this is long-range missile. as we think about what the supreme leader basically said, any sanctions we'll walk away from the jcpoa i would say it is really just beginning. that said, before i leave, i don't have much time but i need

to ask a question of general dunford. i had the privilege recently on friday going to the guantanamo bay detention facility and meeting with our men and women who serve there and they're doing an excellent job under difficult circumstances, as you know, and one of the issues was brought to my attention, i know you as a leader in our military, one of your jobs, having been a commander and serving obviously in the highest position in our military understand that taking care of our men and women in uniform is so critical and, yet, we have a situation down there where we met with women guards who are being prevented from fully performing their mission because the 5'9" 11 attackers -- five 9/11 attackers will

notallow them to form their duties because they're women. can you tell me what you think about that whether you think that is right and now we should be addressing that? >> senator, i can tell you how i feel about it. i feel the same way as u.s. southern command, general kelly, who describes it as outrageous, i read his weekly report and probably read it last seven or eight weeks to include the two to three weeks before transition. it is outrageous of the he identified it. as you probably know, senator, that is being worked by lawyers. that is injunction. i'm not using that as excuse. i'm sharing where it is at right now. it is being worked by lawyers. the commander identified it. it is outrageous. it ought to be fixed. it hasn't been to date. >> i like to see the administration speak out about this. we talk about giving women more opportunity in combat, this is area where these women, that we meet with, by the way, that are

serving there, they're the very best and they are not being able to perform the full responsibilities of their positions simply because they're women because 9/11 terrorists are manipulating the system saying our women can not guard them. secretary carter, i hope you agree with me this is outrageous and i would hope the administration would do everything in its power to stand up for our women. >> i do want to associate myself with what the chairman said. it is out outrageous what general kelly. this is turn to a federal judge. but if you ask, i think it is counter to the way we treat servicemembers, who are women servicemembers and outrageous is very good word for it. >> i appreciate both of you being here, thank you. >> mr. secretary, general dunford, i've known both of you

for many years and i have appreciated very much your outstanding work and i am great admirersers of both of you and appreciate your service but could i again caution you, mr. secretary, it isn't helpful, when widely spread stories, stating name of the ship, where it went and then how it went that you can't confirm or deny something out there in the media. meaning that somebody has leaked all that information to the media and it's out there but you can't this, members of this committee who have the responsibility. it isn't privilege. it is responsibility to exercise oversight. the second issue i want to mention to you is guantanamo. i understand that the president has said, numerous occasions one of his objections is guantanamo.

you and president's top aide and came to my office said you would give me a plan. i always favored closing guantanamo for a whole variety of reasons, yet we still haven't gotten a plan from you. in fact not only not a plan, until i asked you about it specifically, there was no communication. after coming to my office a saying that you're going to give me that plan. i said we needed it before we marked up the defense authorization bill. we got nothing. not an update, not a briefing what was going on. so we put in the language in guantanamo and then president voices his strong objection to guantanamo. finally, this issue of whether we are protecting those people who we are asking to fight against bashar al-assad and isis. isn't it true we dropped,

munitions, general dunford to a group of we are supporting in syria? >> it is true, senator. >> it is true. and yet, are we going to protect them from russian air attacks? >> senator, we have the authority, we have the capability, and we have options to defend forces -- >> but is it true that the russians are already attacking them? >> the ones we have trained -- >> i'm not asking ones we trained, the ones we dropped munitions. >> no the russians have not attacked ones we dropped munitions too, senator. >> they have not. >> no, chairman. >> they have not. >> speaking to the same group, the group i'm referring to what is known as syrian arab coalition. operating in the northeast part of the country, north of raqqa. and we recently provided, resupplied to those individuals ammunition. >> if they're attacked by the russians we'll defend them? >> senator, we have, the we have the capability to do and provide options. i can't answer that question. >> they would be interested.

they would be interested in knowing i think if we're going to give them equipment and ask them to fight, and they're going to be, we can't answer them whether we're going to protect them or not. immorality. so, anyway -- >> mr. chairman, may i, two parts you raised take a moment. first of all, again, i don't mean to be coy about the ship sailing, i know things are the in newspaper. i'm going to tell you where i'm coming from on that. has nothing to do with this particular operation. there are all kinds things in the newspaper should not be in the newspaper. i don't like to talk about military operations publicly. you're entitled to know about everything and briefed about everything but talking about things in a public setting, i'm not in favor of. i don't want you to think i'm being coy or evasive. >> what is classified about it?

what is it that you wouldn't want -- i mean, in fact i think literally every member of this committee applauds it. i'm not sure what the reason is why you wouldn't want to state what has already been somebody that works for you the name of the ship, where it went, when it went, how it went, but you won't tell us? that causes frustration, mr. secretary. >> i don't mean to cause you frustration. i wanted you to know -- >> i hope you understand your frustration? >> i do, i do but maybe my hesitation is excessive but i don't like to talk about military operations in public, and perhaps this one should be an exception, but let me go on to the other thing you said about gitmo. i too favor, like you, closing gitmo if that it at all is

possible because some of the detainees in gitmo are not, can not be safely transferred to another location in order to close gitmo, as you know, we would need need to find a location in the united states or locations which they could continue to be detained. what is taking the time, chairman, is that we had to survey, a number of sites. we've done that at a number of sites around the country. we've completed that. and we, some of those are department of defense sites. some of those are bureau of prisonses sites. we need to have them nominated by the justice department. to dot site surveys, all of that took some time. >> i understand. >> that process is now complete and i expect you will get your proposal shortly. >> i understand, but would have appreciated an update. the cynicism over on this side

at the capitol is, to my view, somewhat justified because the law was broken when mr. bergdahl was swapped for five people. the law required that the president of the united states notify the congress of the united states and he didn't do it. so, frankly, there is a credibility that is huge when the president acts indirect violation of the law. and using the excuse, well, he was afraid there would be a leak. well, to me that is not sufficient reason to violate the law. and so therefore the cynicism here is immense. and to expect, president complains about the ndaa, to expect this committee would act after the president has violated the law and there is no plan is of course something that is not, neither reasonable nor in keeping with our responsibility

responsibilities. could i say again of my respect, i appreciate the great work that both of you do, as i said, we've known each other a long time. but i also have to tell you there is a certain amount of frustration here because of the lack of communication, what we just talked about at guantanamo is one. another one is, this policy or lack of policy about what people we train and equip and whether we're going to defend them or not. the lack of a strategy to say that we have to take out syrian air defenses in order to establish a no-fly zone is simply not true, i will ask any military expert. that is not true. you don't have to take out syrian air defenses. it is syrians that can't fly into our places. and we've had military members

like general petraeus and general keane who obviously have very different view of the whole issue what we're going to do but doing nothing triggered a flood of millions of refugees which is a problem we're going to be grappling with for many years to come. it didn't have to happen. i look forward to more conversations with you. i appreciate you coming to the committee. i appreciate your service and this hearing i'm sure you will be glad to know, is adjourned. >> thank you, chairman.

[inaudible conversations]. [inaudible conversations].

>> today the senate foreign relations committee considers the nomination of thomas shannon to be undersecretary of state for political affairs, the state department's fourth highest ranking diplomat. we'll have live coverage on 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3 and c-span.org. >> it's a very touchy business, beinghjb the son or daughter ofa dictator. you wouldn't wish this kind of life on most people, really. so it is a collection of very interesting, sometimes lurid

stories. there are points about tyranny and sonship, about daughtership, about loyalty, about nature, future, about politics, even about democracy. >> this sunday night on "q&a," "national review" senior editor jay nordlinger, on his book, "children of monsters" which looks at lives of children of 20 dictators including stalin, mussolini, mao tse-tung and saddam hussein. >> i was able to talk to knowledgeable people. i couldn't talk to family members which is usually the case in preparation for the book. there are only some around and only some willing to talk to divulge what they know or feelings and experiences at all. i was scrambling for any scrap or tidbit that i possibly could, because these sons and daughters, some of them are famous and important, some of them become dictator but some of them are footnotes and asides, and you really have to dig to

find out about them. >> sunday night 8:00 eastern and pacific, on c-span's "q&a." c-span has the coverage of the road to the white house 2016 where you will find the candidates, the speeches, the debates, most importantly your questions. this year we're taking our road to the white house coverage into classrooms across the country with our studentcam contest, giving students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to hear the most from the candidates. follow c-span's studentcam contest and road to the white house coverage 2016 on tv, on the raid and online at c-span.org. >> house minority leader nancy pelosi spoke to students at george washington university about women in politics and other issues including the two-year budget deal, the environment, and the 2016 presidential race. this is an hour and ten minutes.

>> ladies and gentlemen, would you please welcome, steven knapp, the 16th president of the george washington university. [applause] >> good morning. really a delight to welcome you to the george washington university with conversation with house minority leader nancy pelosi on power, politics and leadership. we really are delighted to welcome leader nancy pelosi pack to our campus. she has been here a number about of different times. she has represented what is now california 12th congressional district since 1987. her career reached high point in 2007 when she was elected first and only woman speaker of the house. she is hear to engage our students and community on important subjects of leadership, women in politics

and role of media in our democracy. today's event is part of the conversation series now in its 8th year, one of the signature events hosted every year by our school of media and public affairs of the school is currently celebrating its silver anniversary, marking 25 years of training the next generation of media and public affairs professionals. the school has more than 3700 alumni and there are many more anniversary events planned for students highlighting issues important to the future of meet yaw and politics. now it is my pleasure to introduce frank sesno, the president of the school of media and public affairs and you're mooed rate tore. in digs to be director and emmy-award-winning journalist after 21 years at cnn where he was washington anchor and bureau chief. interviewed five united states presidents, thousands of political and civic business leaders.

here at school of media an public affairs he lead as faculty of a dozen world class professionals who engage in scholarship, teaching, journalism, teaching, communications and digital communications and media. join me in welcoming to the stage, frank sesno. [applause] >> thank you very much, president knapp for that warm introduction and for your leadership of the forge washington university and good morning, everybody. good morning. great. welcome to our silver anniversary event, a conversation with nancy pelosi. and our timing is pretty good because leadership on the house arranged a budget deal so we could have them here today. our goal here at smpa is train future journalists a political communicators with ba and masters programs as you know. our conversation series is effort to bring the real world in and to engage people at an

intellectual and a practical level so we can see what you're studying and what we're researching, how that actually plays on national and global stage, i hope this conversation, i know this conversation will be illuminating and even inspiring to our students and others who join us today. another way that we help our students through the 25 years that we have been doing what we're doing, and this is new, with something we called smpa can, the career access network. we launched to mark our silver anniversary. as president knapp mentioned we're celebrating 25 years. we have 3700 alumni drive innovation in media, politics and advocacy, with can is doing to help students afford to do, unpaid or underpaid internships so they get the critical first rung on ladder of career success and we are building this over the course of this next year and, for those of you who are

aware of it, help us do it. for those of you who don't, learn more about it because we're building something that's important. we're very pleased to have with us here today a couple of special guests who i would like to shoutout from smpa national council. shar beale, thank you. one of our national council members, heather moran. heather, thanks to you as well. [applause] our national council helps guide us, advise us and support us philanthropic to events like this take place and that is important to all of us. i would like to thank one special friend who is here, ed scott. ed, please say hi to everybody. ed supported us a few years ago, inspired and support ad project for face the facts usa for the 2012 election cycle where we had group of undergraduate and graduate students put out a fact a day, 100 facts leading up to the election. was great success.

ed, thanks again and thanks for being with us. now i would like to introduce our guest. democratic leader of house of representatives from 114th congress from 2007 to 2011, first woman speaker of the house. first elected to congress in 1987. now representing california's 12th district which many may know as largely as san francisco. a proud italian-american. in fact we hatched the idea, one person clapping in the room? that is only tallian-american we have here? i don't think so. in fact we hatched idea for today's event last february when she was on a campus for screening on pbs documentary on italian-americans, called, italian-americans. in 2013 she was inducted to the national women's hall of fame. she still has the distinction of being highest ranking women politician in american history. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming nancy pelosi.

[applause] >> thank you. >> i should say as well, we're joined i think by some college democrats, is that right? [applause] college republicans may be here too, if they are, i hope we will hear from them. there is a mic here. we will have questions. thanks for coming in. >> my pleasure. >> taking time out of busy day and arranging budgets and ex-im banks, these like that. >> so happened at 11:3last night. we finished budget and took it to rules committee. >> how perfect. >> something to celebrate. i thought we could start a little differently. can we start with a game? >> whatever you wish. >> play a word association game. i have 10 names or topics. i will give you a name or topic,

you get a one-word response, okay? >> okay. and then do i get the same chance at you? >> oh, absolutely. [laughter]. you can ask me how great george washington university is. ready? budget deal? >> hooray. >> debt ceiling. >> hooray. lifted. >> john boehner. >> terrific. >> oh. okay, i come back to that that. freedom caucus. [laughter] >> isn't free. >> donald trump. >> performer. >> oh, okay. ben carson. >> dangerous. >> wow. >> just came to my mind. >> okay. climate change. >> absolute. >> russia.

>> careful. >> careful. and you're careful with that. that's good. taxes. not texas. taxes. >> investment. >> investments. okay. we'll come back. paul ryan. >> hopeful. >> oh, okay. let's start with that. is hopeful or are you hopeful? >> we're all hopeful. now that we played your game -- >> wasn't that fun? >> i don't think, some people will think so, but nonetheless, it was fun. usually it is joe biden. that is always, ask you one thing, joe biden. sincere. wonderful. really it is an honor for me to be here at george washington in the presence of your very respected throughout the world, certainly in our country, president, president knapp, thank you for your kind words earlier. [applause]

thank you provost for your leadership as well. this school, i've known frank a very long time because i was involved in human rights and china around the time of tianamen square but for a long time after that one when frank was at cnn. i just watched what has happened here at the george washington center for media public -- what is exact title? >> public affairs. >> public affairs. this is fabulous. congratulations on your silver anniversary. >> thank you, thank you. we'll talk about what some has changed in 25 years especially in media later on. talk about the budget deal because i think this is a very big deal. two-year deal. take us to 2017. it gives paul ryan, presumably will be new speaker, some running room. white house says, members of congress from both parties should support it. will democrats support it? >> yes. >> you will support it? >> yes. >> you are telling them to

support it? it will pass? >> i'm presenting them facts of it. i think by removing uncertainty of lifting the debt ceiling, honoring full, faith and credit of united states of america, by honoring principle we've had all along, which is whatever investments we make for the future has to be equal between defense and domestic. in the bill we also present a increase in medicare part b payments for seniors. this is importance to ire families, if not to some of the young people here, as well as addressing the disabilities issue. extending the solvency of the disability insurance part of social security for a long time. and preventing a 20% cut in that. so, in terms of disability and medicare, we've corrected something that was going to happen and now it won't, in terms of a debt ceiling. very important. in terms of the balance in the budget that we are not going

to -- this has been a debate we've had for a long time. that every time we want to lift the caps, there are constraining our investment, people say, well, let's just spend it on defense. but our national security and our strength is measured in the education and well-being of our people. innovation that springs from the classroom, puts us qualitatively ahead. in our research to keep america number one and that means also in the defense of our country. and defense of our country, we take a note to protect and defend. that is our oath and office. so it is our first responsibility. but again, the defense of it is not just the military might, however important that is, but it is also in the strength of our society. >> does, this isn't exactly the grand bargain that boehner was looking for some years ago but as, i think it was one publication i read today it is a big deal. >> big deal. >> does this change the politics and the dynamic on the hill because it takes some of these

issues and resolves them for two years and there is going to be a bipartisan vote, or so it would seem to get this thing passed? >> this is budget. next we have to do the actual bill, the appropriations bill. more on the subject than you may want to know. this is the blueprint for how we to to the next step which must be accomplished by december 11. >> you think it changes the dynamic going to the next step? >> yes. it establishes the framework, the 50/50, the firewall you can't take from domestic to spend more on defense. so it, it has pay fors. the speaker, speaker boehner wanted to have pay-fors first before we understood what we could invest in. so we did the pay-fors. that created the top line of what the investments will be. and that is the framework that is handed to the appropriations committee to write the appropriation bill and pass it by december 11th. >> what does it mean --

>> this makes us hopeful how that will proceed. >> i'm just curious what you think this means? we hear people talking about gridlock in congress, about how nasty things have gotten. freedom caucus, plenty of people criticized this process already, actually including paul ryan himself who said he will not do business in secret. it has to be open -- so does this change, does this change the dynamic on the hill or is it just a gift from and to john boehner? >> well, in terms of, you have to understand where we are. within the past few weeks our speaker said he was going to step aside because there were elements in his own caucus which said, unless you shut down government, because continuing resolution contained funding for planned parenthood. unless you shut down government, we're taking the gavel. and he didn't let them do that. he walked away himself.

this is historic. this is very big deal. you can not let 10% of the congress, 40 members or something, but they have, what, enough to create 218 that a speaker needs to be elect, to say, unless you shut down government you're no longer speaker. this is stunning. and it is harmful to the institution and because he did the right thing, by keeping government open. he knew that meant that he had to, they would vacate the chair over and over again. we had it back, for the institution you don't want speaker boehner instituted -- >> you had his back? >> we had the institution's back. this isn't good for the institution. so we'll see how they proceed from here. but we have to be hopeful. you always have to be hopeful and optimistic. and to paul ryan's credit he

knows the issues and he knows the rules. >> so -- >> and that makes it easier to negotiate. >> as i mentioned freedom caucus criticized this budget deal and heritage action was calling boehner a rogue agent doing this whole thing and there is some discussion this could actually hurt ryan coming in. do you see this deal hurting ryan in any way? >> no. i don't. but i'm sure there will be those who say that. just language, rogue agent, tells you something about the lack of civility that is going on in their caucus. we all come to beautiful president your university is named, patriarch of our country, how great he was. when he left office he was suspicious of political parties. one of the things that he cautioned against as he left office was to be aware of political parties at war with their own government. and i think we've come as close

to that as ever with certain elements in the republican party. all of us come to try to find common ground, to stand our ground when we can't. that's what we do. you try to find common ground but to come and think that you have idea that you have is the only good idea, well, maybe, monarchy or something like that might be better for you, not to respect anybody's opinion, condescending of even those within your own party to the tune of using language, what was it? >> rogue agent. >> you said it. >> so, i didn't say it. i just quoted it. so let me ask you, you have, what you just talked about that dynamic and john boehner is leaving, all the tumult over the next house speaker that followed. we have donald trump and ben carson out on the campaign trail, galloping away with support in the republican party. bernie sanders who is definitely an uncandidate in many ways,

democratic socialist with serious numbers on the democratic side. you've been in politics for almost 50 -- what the heck is happening here? is america mad, confused, alienated? are you guys just getting it terribly mucked up? >> i think elections are always about the future. so whatever it is that somebody might be unhappy about, they want to see what is there for the future and there's absolutely no question that, as we looked to the future we have to see a path that takes us to ending a lot of the inequality in our system. >> you think that is what this is about anger over inequality? >> i think it is anger over the fact that paychecks have not increased for decades. the purchasing power of middle class paychecks has not increased. the aspirations, hopes that people have for their children, their education, their families, pension security of parents, they're freer to invest in their

children. the security of retirement security of seniors so that parents can look to their kids, rather than having to take care of their seniors, all connected and let me just say this, in 2008 america's middle class was deeply scared by what happened then. what happened, because of the greed, i don't paint all on wall street with this brush, but what happened there, what happened there, severely, severely hurt the economic stability of america's working families their homes in some cases were underwater, their pensions were in doubt. they were living off savings, jobs were uncertain, ability to send their children to school was in doubt. it was terrible, and it was wall street hurting main street. that is just the way it was. i will go more into that if you wish. just to fast forward to now, all

these good things happened when president obama took office to correct that. so much happened and when president obama stood on steps to take oath of office, so many things were worse than they are now. the deficit was $1.4 trillion. it is now almost a trillion dollars less, a trillion dollar rejection, reduction in it. a 70% reduction in the deficit. unemployment was around 10%. it is now around 5%. stock market was flirting with six, seven, now flirting with 17. 10,000 points more. auto industry was on its heels with investments and democratic congress made and if i may be allowed to partisan moment, now the auto industry is blossoming, because of that and other engines, enthusiasm and entrepreneurship in the private sector. this is about almost a 70th

straight month of private sector job creation. some of springing from public initiatives and incentives. some of it just the private sector, which is a strong engine in our economy. but what is, list goes on. 17 million more americans having access to quality, affordable health care. >> wait. >> hang on. >> and then one more thing. >> give you one more thing. >> what hasn't happened is the middle income paycheck has not increased. and the consumer, a lack of confidence still prevails. consumer economy. we have to have consumer confidence, for people to spend, to inject demand into the economy, to create jobs. the lax of that has, not in my view contributed to some of the, shall we say, unrest amongst democrats and republicans out there. >> okay, the list is legit. but numbers speak for themselves, you things are so

great, people feel lousy because paychecks haven't changed? >> that is one of the reason. >> there is another historic tradition this country has george washington knew about too. distrust of government. >> that's a healthy thing. >> but a lot of distrust of government we hear around the country and on the campaign trail also reflects distrust of big government and regulation and, and interference and so, it is not all and only about paychecks. some anger directed at washington is directed at what people view, fairly or unfairly, view as interference, isn't that right? >> if i just made, you sound like ideologue talking points of the heritage foundation. >> no, no. i introduced, i was in colorado once and i introduced myself. oh, where are you from. washington. where? washington, d.c. they looked at me -- don't blame me, i just live there. >> the fact is, what do we talk about regulation? are we talking about clean air,

clean water? what are we talking about -- >> businesses having to do more paperwork. >> a lot of that is state. in other words, we should look at all of it. we should subject everything we do, whether investment in terms of dollars. whether it's a tax initiative. whether it's a regulation, subject it to the harshest scrutiny. have common sense prevail but this whole thing of anti-government, the debate about amount of government is as old as our country. >> exactly. >> older. and that's a legitimate debate. that is where people come down on the spectrum, more or less government. how much national, how much state, how much local. and i think, you read this new book on madison where he, don't want -- it's very interesting how he thought that the central government was really important to keeping our country together. so there is a role for all of it. and there is also a role for having suspicion about -- is it

working? are we getting our money's worth? is it doing what it needs to do for us? you can capture that and say it is all about government regulation and that's why the people are out there for trump and for bernie but it really, most of the time relates to how it affects them. tip o'neill said all politics is local, it's all personal. how does this affect me, my family, my financial stability and the rest. and other people hijack that with something about regulations. if we have regulations we shouldn't have, get rid of them. but that includes a lot of things that other people think, almost every day, we are getting doing away with egg -- regulations that relate to air you breathe, water you drink, what is in the food that we eat. i don't think that is really what the uprising is out there about clean air, clean water, food safety. >> talk about the uprising. when we were playing our word

association game, i mentioned trump and you said performer. interesting thing to see in the polls now, ben carson has exceeded trump in the last two polls. you called him dangerous. >> yeah. >> but first is trump fading? what do you think is happening? >> i don't know. i'm here to talk about democrats. [laughter]. >> i'm not going to let you off quite that easily. >> i don't usually even get involved in democratic presidential politics. let it play out. let the public work its will. as far as republicans are concerned, let them figure it out for themselves. then when something happens, we'll be prepared and i will be happy to relinquish my title of highest ranking woman in politics in america. [applause] >> are you making prediction? >> i suspect that will happen. >> i see. [applause] don't you? >> i think there is a good chance that we will see a woman

candidate from the democratic party. how is that? [laughter]. so let's talk about her for a minute. at a time when america seems to want a non-politician, right, clintons have been around in national politics since the '90s. what is new about hillary clinton? >> first of all, i do not buy into your stipulation america want as non-politician for president of the united states. i think it is really important to say that americans are open to whoever comes forward who can be the best person to lead our country. there are sizable number of americans who know that you can have your fun in nominating process but at the end of the day somebody has to get the job done. >> and it requires some -- snoop and, hillary clinton, when she walks into the oval office, assume just for a moment, when she walks into the oval office she will be one of the best

prepared people to walk into that office in terms of her service in the, leadership in the senate of the united states, as secretary of state. being involved in the white house in years she was there. she is extraordinarily talented. she knows the issues. always make a judgment, say this to young people here who are future presidents of the united states, what is your vision? what is your purpose? why would you want to be president? the or speaker or anything else? what is your vision? what do you know about it? so if you decide you want to go into politics, what drives your engine? is it about climate change? is it about equality? what is your, what drives your engine? what do you know about it? so people can trust your judgment. you're making speeches what do you know and do they trust your judgment. do you have a plan to try to get some of this done? do you think strategically? do you have vision, judgment,

knowledge, do you think strategically. when you articulate that, you will attract support. so many times, we have excellent people who are of the end r intellect. they have the vision, knowledge, judgment, strategically and don't make a emotional connection. i think she does all of the above. >> what is, you spent time with her. what's her vision? what -- >> you know what? you can invite her here. she will talk to you. >> you can help us with that. >> myself, my purpose is, that, i have five children, and nine grandchildren but when i was raising my five children, it just, couldn't handle the idea that they had so much opportunity, so much attention -- not even talking about economic attention. i'm talking about everything. one in five children in america goes to sleep hungry at night, lives in poverty, in america,

the greatest country that ever exists on the face of the earth. when people say why do you do this? it is one in five. it is one in five. this is such a underutilization of humanity, not to invest in our children. why, how do you explain that? and then if you put that around the whole world, the whole world, children around the world, so that is what you know, i pray for them at night. the next morning i get up. i don a suit of armor, eat nails for breakfast and get ready for -- one in five. so sometimes when people say, well, why is this so important and that so important? just looking at the particular issue, or the particular race or congress, it all comes back to the one in five. >> leader pelosi, we are, as we mentioned a school of media and public affairs. we are looking at our 25th anniversary and if we think

about what's changed in media in 25 years, it is pretty breathtaking. >> it is fabulous. >> just in the last 10 with iphones and social media and twitter and facebook and google and -- >> talking about my district. [laughter] >> good. well, this could get really interesting. but from a, from your perspective and from governance, from trying to get the job done, how have these changes in media this, greater role for citizens, this much more rapid transmittal, instantaneous, right? at 11:37, you had a budget deal. at 11:37:10 the world knew about it right? how has that changed, complicated, messed up, eased your job? >> you may not agree with what i have to say i think it harkens right back to our founders.

in those days people knew what was going on. they really did. >> took a letter three months to get -- >> you know what? they got it out there and die mock sy that came together. imagine what they did. imagine what they did. this group of people, this "band of brothers.." they, decided they were going to declare their independence from the biggest military force in the world, biggest navy, the brittish. they would declare their independence and their declaration would be founded that all people are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. this never happened in the history of the world. word got out. >> they didn't have twitter. >> the word got out because people paying attention and they put it out there. and then they wrote the founding documents. thank god they made them a

mendable so they could could be amended to, have a more perfect union. this is remarkable. you think of common sense and thomas payne and go up to lincoln's speeches. lincoln's speeches, his fabulous speeches, the word got out. people paid attention. they wanted to know. they were interested. look at teddy roosevelt and all that he did, he used muckrakers as negative term, it was a positive term as it turns out. and, all that he did because people paid attention. and then, for a while people didn't pay -- there were all kinds of things. people weren't paying as much attention. civics used to be a mandated subject. it became an elective. nobody even knew, most people didn't take it. and it became just some people who were paying attention to all of this. so it takes us back to the same

alertness that the people have, beginning of our country. they wanted to know what was happening because they knew it affected them. so i'm thrilled with the real-time communication. sometimes it isn't, shall we say, vetted for truth or fact or something like that, but that's okay. then you have to deal with that. but you wouldn't throw it away because of that. >> so it's -- we talk about this a lot here. it is a much more democratic media now. citizens have access to one another. citizens have access to you in ways that they haven't had before. >> all positive, i think. >> you think that's a positive thing? >> even his holiness, pope francis, when he came, in his speech in congress he talked about transparent sy. said openness. transparency and openness are so

vital to a thriving democracy. there will be differences of opinion and there will be misrepresentations either because of lack of knowledge or because of intend to misrepresent but the fact is, just, the public, you're the boss, are our bosses. they have access to the information. they follow the things that they're interested in, and, i just find it to be so ex-sill eighting, so wonderful, i think our founders would be excited about the demock aization of the airwaves it trumps some ways the traditional press. >> maybe ben franklin would have been tweeting from the constitutional convention that would be interesting. but -- >> i'm not, i think you need the investigative reporting. the substance that you provide because that's what is lost.

>> that is the challenge. that's the challenge in some of the displacement because we've lost some of that. so the new models are getting that back too. >> that's why media and public affairs -- >> why we're doing what we're doing exactly. let's go to issues here. you talked about climate change. you mentioned the pope. when the pope came to congress. he called for action and core rain just and responsible efforts to take action. paris climate talks are coming up next month. you led the way with cap-and-trade which passed house and failed in the senate. what's next? >> the next is paris. if you saw catholic bishops and cardinals and the rest put out call for action for paris to produce real decisions that have the force of law, not just nice things to say. it was a very, very strong statement. just to connect that to, you were mentioning, we passed a bill. when we passed our bill, it was

a wonderful thing. we hoped the senate could do something but 60 votes, a little difference of the opinion on science between democrats and republicans on climate change. but here's the thing. we had at table, groups of people who really weren't used to sitting across the table. scientists, and the evangelicals. labor and environmentalists, and business community. every different side of issues. and evangelicals, some of them very conservative, but not all evangelicals were at the table, but those who were, they had their own papers that were written up about this, that, that this planet is god's creation. i agree with them. we have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of god's creation. and, in doing so, we must be careful not to hurt the poor. and that is exactly what the

catholic bishops said today. the poor bear the, biggest part of climate change affects them. there are environmental injustice and they have done the least to contribute to the climate crisis. and they're talking about worldwide. and it is, it is so urgent, if you travel the world, if you go to the north pole, and you see the melting of the polar cap and you see the, a sidification of the ocean and see what is happening to the flora and fauna there. go to china see encroachment of the gobi desert. you see the big coastline rising. they don't share any part of the polar cap. they affect it and it affects them. so whether it's the air people breathe, everybody is affected. this is so urgent and when we passed our bill in '09, we were

told by, secretary-general of the u.n. at that time, if you don't do this now by 2012, some of this will be too late. >> what do you want to come out? what do you hope comes out of paris then? >> coming out of paris, here's the change. i went, my first one i went to in rio in 1992, earth summit. >> about this a long time. >> to get the language and put the amendment into that. when i became speaker i establish ad select committee on climate and energy independence. we did fabulous things for two terms. and including making capital an example to the world of green, an example of green technologies and all reversed when we lost the majority but not to go there but, over a period of time, think '92, then i was in

copenhagen, the last summit. but, those, in those meetings in the, you talked about developed countries and developing countries and developed countries should be doing this, this and this, and developing countries not much could be expected from them because they're developing countries. that whole attitude is changed now for paris. it's, every country should do what it can to save the planet. >> these are some of the things we're been hearing from china and india for example. >> well, china has come a long way and they have really, they have done remarkable things. and i, you know, you know, frank, as well as anyone, my opposition to china and their tibet, hong kong democracy, tibet autonomy, democracy, i fight with them all the time on the subject but i work with them on the climate issue and i had speaker climate visit to china. they're still a net emitter. so they had to take more actions

and they, now, they have the president, i give president obama such credit for the patience and the attention that he gave this with the president of china, who was just here a couple weeks ago. i congratulated him on china's commitment, not only what they were doing but for their contribution to the fund to help developing countries do theirs. it is no longer developing, you use so much, each one of you americans produce so much carbon 100 years ago, that is much more than our poor people do today. no use going there. they have a situation. we have to deal with it. we have to, we have to do much more by way of conservation, by the way in our own country and we have to help developing countries to reach their potential. one of the bishops was from oceania, but from new guinea and representing those countries and the rising sea levels are

detrimental. and if you study this issue for a long time, for example, in alaska decades ago, the ellers were saying, like 40 years ago, the elders were saying we see changes in the flora and the fauna of our area and it would be reported to the scientists. and scientists at the time said, there was resistance -- there is resistance right now. so it was anecdotally interesting but not scientifically significant. then of course it just accelerated. it just accelerated. >> the one thing pretty much everybody agrees on wherever they are on the side of the debate is, if you were to have a carbon tax, that would actually substantially change behavior, emissions all the rest. that is apart of whether you approve a carbon tax or not. >> right. >> is there a any chance a carbon tax would happen in this country? >> well, you have to put a price on carbon.

what we did in our bill, we did cap-and-trade. >> right. could you go back to that right now? >> i don't know that we can go back now. the carbon tax ask more understandable to people. >> is that down the line? >> you have to look at -- >> or not even a good idea? >> many multinational corporations in europe, because europe is way ahead on us in early part of this century and they basically said, that businesses, the multinational, they basically said, just give us a figure an and we'll work with it. don't keep changing it that would be for cap-and-trade. you have to somehow or another, and the pope and how beautiful the pope was to written cyclical on the climate, god's creation, the encyclical on climate talks about respecting needs of the poor. he is not a big fan much

cap-and-trade. he thinks we have to go another route. we have to go to the route that is sustainable policy wise as well as sustainable global, planetwise. so there are different schools of thought on it. but we'll have to come on the way to price carbon. >> i want to turn to the audience and invite folks, if you have got a question for the leader, there is a mic right in the middle. i ask you not to give a peach. make your questions -- give a speech. make your questions succinct. be brave. it is okay. there you go. tell us who you are, are you ready for questions from the crowd? >> i am, if you wish, in order to facilitate put three questions up and respond. otherwise -- >> i will drop that down, as best i can. keep questions straightforward. >> my name is reed. from sacramento, california, near you. my question about california politics specifically.

there will be a lot of change up coming in our congressional delegation. barbara boxer is stepping down and many suspect senator feinstein will do the same. what do you see in store for the future of california politics on state level and also our congressional delegation? . .

i'm a big fan of your daughter's work. he spoke about in the beginning about the duty of america to provide funding for education and also for defense. seeing as we spend more collectively on defense in the next nine countries combined, and also that we've been lacking behind in discourse and high school graduation rates recently. t. think we found the right balance in the budget for that sunday? if not what would you suggest to improved? >> your future of california politics, let's start with that. >> first of all, do not assume diane feinstein is not running. let's just put that aside. last week with honored senator boxer in san francisco, was the best ever if anyone ever went to because it's a spectacular and

hard act to follow really. great legislator. i had the privilege of serving with her in the house and enjoy and benefit our, state benefit from her, indeed the whole country from her leadership in the senate. that's what elections are about. you never really know. look at this presidential, who would have thought it, right? but, so you know, it's always about, let me just say this ended up listed as states as well. if we want more women, more minority, more young people to take the risk of running because this is a tough thing. we have to reduce the role of money in politics and went to increase the level of civility. and we just have to do it. and when would you many more people will come forward with ideas.

you want to win personally. that is to say, you want to advance your beliefs and ideas that you want that to work. you do want to sign up to run for some outside group of dark money that nobody ever heard of comes in to describe just something, i would say outerspace but that might not be so bad compared to what they can compare to. so people say i don't how you can take the criticism. it's worth it. it's what goes with the public service. and so i hope that many of you will continue to run. we have many new members in our california delegation as it is. >> do you see a rising name, a rising star speak what do you think i would tell you that right now? but i will say this but we have ahead of our future form which is a group of young members, all older i in the '30s going around the campus is, and that's headed by eric falwell from california and we are very out of him.

but look, the whole delegation brings a lot to the table and as my constituents may say, having some seniority brings a lot to the district as well spend and women have it all, whatever secrets. and i may throw in paul ryan's thought that he's a dad, he's got a family come he's not going to work on weekends. is going to spend with his kids and his wife, good luck, i hope he succeeds without. >> i do, do. i would hope some of us who have our beautiful valleys about our families would translate that to the public policy that enables other people to be able to time with their families. for example, if someone in the film is sick, a child, a spouse or a parent, so we hope this will be an omen that cheney voted against sick leave to enabling families to the sickly. this takes us to your question. if we want to unleash the power

of women and family oriented people in the political arena, anyplace though in the world plays come in the academic world, and the military, corporate america, anyplace, in small business and the rest, that's an important interest, then what you did is you have to, for women yo get to value tr work. equal pay for equal work. >> do you have any secrets to share how you didn't? >> i have absolutely no intention of running for political office. very shy and i was the chair of the california democratic party. i was always promoting other people and i love doing that because i really cared. again the one in five driving the engine. and then this opportunity came along to run for congress. and so i went, we won't tell anybody this story, i know. four of my kids were in college.

now see, might issue a sequential. it's a whole different world now. i'm from another era. it with sequential. i raised my kids. i have five children. that day i had my fifth child our oldest of six that week. i could need to wash my face much less go out the door. aspect taken to the parkinson's possible in the morning, get them out of the house. so i never had this on my mind except i volunteered, became the chair of the party. my advice to you is, and i never thought this would happen, but just be ready. and as you go along whatever it is you are doing, take inventory and get recognition for what you do. because there may be something that just happens that this opportunity, people will come to you or you will be motivated yourself to do something. don't let anybody say, you did

less because you're also being a mom. put that as a gold star next to you, that you had, run home. it's the hardest work in the world, right? to be a mom and balance work and home. to be a dad. i don't mean to choose a mom, but for women especially for the primary caregivers we have to public policy that recognizes the value of work, that recognizes the caregiver role that we largely played and have paid come and get sick leave, and to quality, affordable childcare. >> ponte asked about the balance between education and the military. >> some of the scholarship programs that emerged after world war ii were about, there were national security, national defense and scholarships. because people saw the direct relationship between education of our people and the talent of

our military. so i think that it's important of education itself. it's essential to our democracy. our founders want an informed electorate. so education so essential. but it's also essential to our national security. and by the way, nothing reduces the deficit more. nothing than the education of the american people. there's no initiative, no tax credit, tax this, tax that, tax cut. nothing brings more early childhood education k-12 higher education, postgraduate, lifetime learning brings more money to the treasury and reduces the deficit. so when they say where to cut pell grants or we can't do this or that because we need to reduce the deficit, no. it's a false economy. >> let's try to take a few quick questions and get your answers.

>> i am a student. i just want to say thank you for coming and for the work that you do. i've noticed that the sentiment, the prevailing sentiment from the democratic party assumes to be hillary clinton is the nominee as a foregone conclusion. even though sanders has risen in the polls and has gained more donations. do you think this antiestablishment sentiment may stem from the very fact that bernie sanders seems to not be taken as seriously as any other candidate would be? and also do you wonder if electing such come if it actually me qualified a favorite establishment candidate as hillary clinton would do more to exacerbate the unrest in the electorate right now that would to solve it? >> thanks. let's have another one. >> alone. i'm from sacramento, california.

thank you for your service a aso many other people recommended. my question is pretty sure. when it comes to politics what is your greatest disappointment and what is your proudest accomplishment. okay. >> my name is peter. i'm from davis, california, and i have a quick question. the freedom caucus says that among the principal goals are the implementation of more ground up input in the party. they say they want a democratization of the republican party in congress. what do you believe is the right balance between organization order and ground up input from rank-and-file numbers, thank you? >> the first was about -- believe me, hillary clinton.

very appropriate question. very appropriate question, and i have a lot of enthusiasm for the fact would be fabulous to have a woman president. you can't ask someone to vote for somebody because of their gender but i think this is very qualified person who happens to be a woman. i haven't endorsed in the race. burnie colleague was nice -- bernie sanders with my colleague in the house. without against all of the things people are suggesting this gritty no. these fibers and he is a very important topic for the country for the democratic party because he has ideas. he's not just let me criticize immigrants or something. he has ideas. he's a thoughtful person. he has done a terrific, terrific job of drawing people out and hopefully, he might win the nomination i don't know that

because in terms of the demographics of the popular she is in the nordic committee. >> do you think it is possible bernie sanders could win the nomination speak with i don't know. and i'm a big fan of martin o'malley as well. >> you don't think barneveld could win the nomination? >> there's good ideas that he accomplished when he was governor, whether it was the dreamers, act for dreamers, what you do for marriage equality, guns, all the agenda we all want of nationally, he did there. >> does hillary clinton exacerbate the antiestablishment sentiment speak with you have to balance it out. in other words, okay, is the person worse, i don't want to see trouble, but is the person worth the trouble? i'm not crazy about this or that aspect, but as of balances out i see the reason to go to that place. and i think that just being a woman, believe me, being an

office there will be, there's nothing establishment about being a woman in politics. [applause] but i think what you said, and burnie county site was spinning next question, your greatest disappointment and greatest a congressman? >> no question, health care. [applause] there's no question that the biggest is the point is not to be able to pass once again background checks as far as we can safety is concerned. the public wants it. [applause] the public wants it, the votes are there in the congress spend the votes are there in the carter's? >> majority in the senate but they need 60 votes. i think it would pass it in the house that would take away the argument in the senate but why should i do this come a sucker

to pass and medals but that we'll have to get around. and that is to extend the background checks to gun shows and internet sales and that kind of thing. >> peter's question unbalancing ground-up and the organization organizational. >> i don't know how it works in their caucus. i would be the last person to ask how they do things in the republican caucus, don't you think? but from what i hear them say it's quite different from the way we are. i have considered myself as a leader but especially as speaker when we were going to the floor with things, to be a weaver, sitting at a low and say you were my caucus, every one of you is an important thread in the fabric that we're going to leave. so it's with total respect for any difference of opinion. somehow out of that went to build a strong fabric recognizing the value of every thread and having consensus. not probably always going to have unanimity.

because they'll be some people here or there but we always respected again is like a kaleidoscope your sometimes all of us are at one school at all of you are thinking -- >> what is your advice to paul ryan? >> my advice to him is to be speaker of the house. sometimes you to bring bills to the floor that maybe you're caucus doesn't want to vote for. some of them a note it should pass. they just don't want to vote for it. and that, just be speaker of the house and don't let anyone take your gavel. that's what i'm telling. >> we will have to ramp down in the next couple of minutes i'm afraid we're out of time from questions -- out of time for questions o from the floor. >> where in california are you from? >> are you from california and? >> no. [laughter] spin i was talking with my

friend and colleague mark kennedy used a colleague of yours in the house again i said what should i ask nancy pelosi to more bucks he had a bunch of great questions which educate you but one of them was what is your path back to the majority speak with you into politics. i was trying to avoid the subject. [laughter] i do think the republicans have been helpful in the last couple of months. because the jews showing the attendees they have with each other, it's like going past two and then you think we should i stop them a place is just screaming at each other, fighting to take each other down. the other one has some level of harmony. not total because we are a democratic party and i think the people with more ground to the place we had respect for what we are here to do. >> do you have a saturday? >> we have a great chairman. we have a 50th anniversary of the voting rights act and the most important thing, make sure

people see what martin luther king taught us. the ballot, the ballot, about. legislation legislation legislation. your life, your life, your life. the connection that what happens in an election and what law that can be passed that affect people. our assistant leader is taking the lead on this. between the political piece of it, the inspirational piece of it and the quality of candidates that are coming forward our super. spinning when he becomes majority i can? >> in 2005 when we won in 2006, nobody thought that we were going to win majority in 2006. you just don't know. elections, i can tell you more in a few months when i see who all of our candidates are, but then it's just a question of making the contrast. i would say of paul ryan he offers, he knows the issues, he knows the rules. not everybody does.

but he also offers us the clearest contrast. the ryan budget will be a polarizing thing in terms of taking $800 billion out of medicare and giving tax cuts to the richest people come in terms of voucher for medicare, blocking medicaid. so the would be a contrast so it's always about the issues. where does this mean -- what does this mean for the american people? my hope is whoever wins, they will hear from the public, social media, helps a lot with this, they will hear what's important to them. not just the cacophony of some who are anti, anti, anti, for not having a full grasp of what the future is in the country that we are a nation of immigrants and that women have a role to play in all of this. so i'm optimistic.

>> how many students do we have in the room? how many of the students in the room have some idea of going into some form of a book surface in your future? >> beautiful. beautiful. [applause] >> you at john kennedy's inaugural in 1961. when he talked about passing the torch to the next generation. >> fabulous. >> here's the next generation. here's the torch. what is their calling? what should be their mission in? >> it's a funny thing because the more time passes, the more the value still dominate. and john kennedy was such an inspiration in my generation. i was his student at this beach, and then i was a leader limit the 50th anniversary and played the speech at the capitol rotunda. the often harpooned -- harkens back to our founders, what the

purpose was for pentagon democracy. i might add they sacrificed their lives, liberty, sacred honor, a government of the many, not a government of the money. that's a really important point to make. so when john f. kennedy passed the torch and he asked not what you can do, you know all of that, it was so inspirational because he was such a great leader. but also because he tied us to our founding of this incredibly great country. and so i would say that he still remains an inspiration to many of us even though it was more than 50 years ago your that we lost him. but our country, this is the greatest country that ever existed on the face of the earth. god gave us the choice, the opportunity. i always say when i'm visiting

your kids in darfur in camps all over the place, how did god decide we would live in america and they would live in a camp, a refugee camp? i would say his inspiration was america. our inspiration continues to be our great country. and it's not that a newer, fresher approach to it, i think president obama is a beautiful inspiration, but his, and his, the strength he draws is from what this country is about. so have faith in our country. faith in america. have faith in yourself. have faith in yourself, because your unique contribution is just that, unique. know the -- nobody else can do. when he spoke ask not what the country can do for you, remember that, for me that did this since

i heard was the very next sentence which, a citizen of the world ask not what america can do for you but what we can do working together for the freedom of mankind. and i really, the freedom of mankind is really a purpose, and our country in the world, but it all harkens back to these people came up with the idea of freedom and equality. and so i think america continues to be an inspiration. they told us, these founders, e. pluribus unum, from many one. they couldn't possibly realize how many we would become and how diverse we would be and how broad our country would become. geographically. from many, one. we take an oath. every public meeting. liberty, one nation, one, remember this word, one nation under god with liberty and justice for all.

that pledge to the flag, one nation under god with liberty and justice for all is really the inspiration of john f. kennedy, of president eisenhower, one of my favorite presidents, president eisenhower, but going all the way back to our founders. so there's plenty of inspiration in what our country is. we cannot let it be sidetracked by xenophobia, of people ignoring the fact that we are by and large a nation of immigrants. >> so your call is to believe in or caused -- >> have faith in america, a faith in god, and that faith in god means that you respect the dignity and worth of every person, all created equal. there's a spark of divinity in every one of us, including

yourself. you have that spark of divinity. how do you spread that spark? how do you make a difference that you can make? you can make it by knowing your purpose, what you like to do. you know, what part of all of the future you want to take a part of. what you know about it, i think strategically about it, how you show people what is in your heart. at the best advice i ever got running, now this isn't about inspiration but this is about the best advice i ever got running, that was be yourself. as i say, the most authentic person you can be, authenticity is what the american people seek. and when they find it they respond to it. so i'm so excited to see so many of you raise your hand. i guess it would be followed if you come tuesday you might be interested in public service but i didn't realize so very many. i'm very inspired by all of you. thank you. >> you have a job to do.

to have classic to do. i have on authentic gift for you. >> we will see. we will let you know. [laughter] >> so -- >> chocolate? >> maybe. i did my homework understand your something of a chocoholic, but only dark chocolate. so we failed at gw base with dark chocolate. at gw part as a part that has to shout to office and everybody who comes in. we are not from california but we are the best university in america. [applause] >> thank you, frank. thank you. i will display this. [applause] i will display this with great pride in the office as a constant inspiration that all of

you are. please come see us on capitol hill. maybe i will be seeing you there officially sometime soon. you a pretty young, maybe i won't. [laughter] and when new members, those of us have been there a while sit back and we say, here they come, the fresh recruits. who among them local and other office? who among them will be president of the united states? may be in this room. made in this room, so thank you for coming today. [applause] >> thanks to all of you. a very special shout out for helping to pull this event together. thank you. >> let's hear it for frank. [applause] >> thank you so much. thank you so much. thanks everybody. [inaudible conversations]

>> persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states admonished to draw in and give their attention. >> this week on c-span's "landmark cases," we will discuss the historic supreme court case of schenck versus the united states. in 1917 the united states entered world war i, patriotism was high and some forms of criticism of the government were federal offense at charles schenker was general secretary of the philadelphia socialist party handed out and mailed leaflets against the draft. >> this is the by those produced by charles in 1917. 15,000 copies of this were produced and the point was to encourage men who were liable for the draft not to register. the language is particularly fiery. conscription with slavery and calls on every citizen to resist the conscription laws. >> who was arrested, tried and

found guilty under the recent enacted espionage act. he then appealed and the case went directly to the supreme court. find out how the court ruled, weighing the issues are clear and present danger in freedom of speech. that's coming up on the next landmark cases live mind and 19 eastern on c-span, c-span3 and c-span radio it for background on each case while you watch order your copy of the "landmark cases" companion book. is available for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> the u.s. senate is about to start today's session with work to continue on a two-year budget and debt ceiling bill that would adjust spending caps for two years by $8 billion equally

divided between defense and domestic programs. they would raise the debt ceiling until march of 2017. the house passed the bill yesterday. the senate would vote to proceed to the biltmore unless a time agreement to vote earlier is reached. and a light to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. -- and now live to the floor. the chaplain: let us pray. gracious god, you are worthy of our praise. let your name be honored on earth as it is in heaven. fill our lawmakers with a spirit of reverence for you and your purposes. as they seek your wisdom, direct