enforcement first. >> thank you very much for your work. we look forward to continuing to work. we've had enough of cases out of the twin cities with islamic extremism, recruiting of extremists, number of indictments come number of convictions, all of our federal law enforcement is working together and doing a good job. ..

has been taken, has been shifted i should say. don't want to say it was taken away. resides within dea. dea will have i believe six additional heroin based tax forces. while they pull in state and local law enforce law enforcement officers was a great support for local law enforcement. targeted have, very efforts, mikulski's efforts. >> murkowski actually, of alaska. i think barbara mikulski also so we have a good team.

the last thing i wanted to mention, i won't ask a question. i'm out of time, just on opioid bill and we know how important that is. we look forward to continuing to work with the justice department. >> thank you for your efforts in that regard. >> thank you. >> senator sessions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you attorney general lynch >> good morning. >> thank you for your courtesies and tempered leadership we appreciate that. the number of questions are important that we don't have time to go into fully today but i would like to raise some of them. first, in response to my colleague, senator durbin, the leading republican candidate said we should have a moratorium on immigration from, muslim immigration until we figured out what's happening. not a permanent ban. i want to say, critically important, the american people and everybody know that when a

person is in our country, they're entitled to have their religion respected, constitution guarranties the free exercise of religion. that must be honored. but i would note that nato commander, phillip breedlove testified before the armed services committee, not long ago terrorists are infiltrating refugee snows in europe, where he is the commander and that isis is quote, spreading like cancer within this mix. even said russia's actions in syria, wildly exacerbated the problem. fits into strategy of using non-military means to divide nato and e.u. this is not a little matter, i know you know that. i won't go into details about it. with regard to drug situation that is happening today and increase in heroin, and the deaths that we're seeing, do you believe the law enforcement play

as critical role in reducing abuse of drugs, of reducing availability of heroin and cocaine and deaths that are now occurring? >> senator, yes, thank you. we discussed this epidemic is of grave concern to us. law enforcement has very important role to play, particularly in interdiction of heroin trafficking, the apprehension of those bringing heroin both into the country and spreading throughout -- >> i would agree with that. interdiction is key thing for federal official, although that is not all. there are major drug dealing networks in every major city and throughout this country in rural areas too. they need to be attacked by federal officers, but the interdiction i think is first. i would suggest to you that a more secure border is essentially because isn't it true, that the majority of the cocaine, heroin, and methaphetamine now that we're seeing in america is coming

across the border from mexico? >> well, senator, with respect to methaphetamine, a lot of that is just made here. >> i know a lot of it is made here but isn't majority coming across from mexico. >> i couldn't give you -- >> what about heroin? >> certainly the mexican border is major transshipment point for heroin and cocaine which is shift from 20 years ago. >> the majority. it is a shift. when i was prosecuting, we had airplanes and boats and things of that nature and a lot of different things were brought in but the trend has changed, we have seen the movement across the mexican border, have we not? >> it has grown to rifle other other -- rival other areas but i hesitate to take attention from the ships and boats and -- >> it is clearly majority. centers for disease control over 4thousand people died from drug overdoses in 2014 and it is still rising. that is one drug overdose death

every 12 minutes? 61% involved opioids. that the opioid overdoses in the united states have tripled since 2000. 600% increase in heroin overdose deaths since 2001. national survey of the drug use and health under this administration's leadership produced a report saying there were approximately 169 new heroin users in 2013, alone. and i believe -- and they substance, mental health services in 2014 found that 589,000 people in the united states had opioid disorder. this is a huge thing. these things destroy lives, not just overdose deaths. people unable to function and work anymore.

families are destroyed. people destroy their whole careers. young people ability to have a financially secure future. they commit crimes in furtherance of these addictions and uses. dea administrator chuck rosenberg noted that 120 people die a day of heroin overdose in the united states. so i guess what i'm saying to you, is, and you indicate that law enforcement play as -- plays a key role. centers for disease control and prevention noted that law enforcement must intensify the efforts to reduce availability of heroin, fient that noll and other opioids. would you agree with that? >> that is goal of ours. >> mr. rosenberg said, quote, law enforcement must continue to

have tools it needs to attack criminal groups that facilitate drug addiction? do you agree with that. >> those criminal groups are major target of ours as you noted overseas. as you noted, senator, number of new heroin users every year, over 160, sadly over 80% of those are prescription drug abusers. we continue from enforcement perspective and prevention perspective to -- >> i appreciate that as well. are you aware of fact that your own executive office united states attorneys operate under your direction at the end of 2015 found that the six-month average of drug prosecutions by the u.s. department of justice was down 21% compared to five years ago? are you aware that excluding prosecutions in federal magistrate courts, the six-month average was nearly 32% lower at the end of 2015 than five years

ago? >> the number does not surprise me because we have moved through a process of focusing less on the low level individual offenders toward targeting trafficker networks that you have noted are really the appropriate focus of ours. >> my time -- >> we will have -- >> i would say to you that i have heard that argument, that we always focusing on higher people, that is why the numbers are down for over 25 years. i do not believe that. the attorney general holder has abandoned the equitable sharing of drug proceeds with local law enforcement which is degenerating the cooperation needed to attack these gangs. we're proposing more reductions in sentences after senator durbin and i agreed on reduction plan that passed and reduced cocaine crack penalties significantly. now we have to have more.

prison population is declining at rapid rate. down 5000 last year. the budget for prisons is being reduced as a result of substantial decline in population. at the same time, the drug use is surging. and deaths are occurring. and in my opinion it is going to get worse. mr. chairman, thank you for your leadership and i enjoyed working with you. >> to me like kunz, lindsay gram, blumenthal and franken. at noon we are supposed to have vote i would like to go there now and vote and i would like seven more minutes with the attorney general. >> would you like me to chair? >> would you please? >> yes, sir. you will be the last one to turn the lights out.

is that okay with you? senator coons now. >> that our bipartisan sentencing bill may move forward. comprehensive addiction recovery act. that real challenge that heroin and opioid addiction present to america. it is possible for this committee to make bipartisan process, rare but possible. i was mad doom attorney general, encouraged by your response to senator hatch by the defense trades secret act which we hope will move forward soon. let me start by thanking you, madam, attorney general what you do tackling very difficult issues facing our country from counter terrorism and drug interdiction and. let me start with critical issues that relate to start with state and local law enforcement.

as you know gun violence has been a significant problem for my hometown of wilmington, delaware. the violence reduction network has a positive impact. the program is in second round of city partnerships. i'm hopeful that the department intends to both continue to support it and extend it and that there is some likelihood that the annual conference will be held in wilmington. i would be interested in hearing what sort of improvements you see being implemented in the violence reduction network this year and how you see the program's future. >> thank you, senator, for that. i thank you. on behalf of the men and women of the department of justice, all the law enforcement agencies and staff that work to support them, lawyers that implement their cases i thank you for your comment about their service. i greatly appreciate your recognition of them. i'm proud to represent them every day. the violence reduction network is an important tool and we have found it to be one of the ways

which we've been able to bring focused law enforcement resources really cost effective way to jurisdictions that have been struggling with historically high crime rates. in wilmington, delaware, whose been one of our success stories. we have asked for more money in the budget for it for fy-2017. $5 million is not a lot compared to other things we ask for but certainly the benefits will be fright. we currently have at least 10 or 12 cities. we're planning on bringing five more cities on board. as you know from your experience to be a vrn city require as certain level of crime that we don't want every city to aspire to. lessons from vrn could be useful to other jurisdictions. one of the things we're doing in the summer of 2016. is to convene some non-vrn cities, those not in the network by have similar issues to a conference with ojp to share the

ideas and best practices we have been able to glean from cities working like wilmington, little rock and flint, and others in the vrn not only do we find it to be a program that we hope helpful at local level, we feel with so many efforts that are frankly anchored by our state and local partners it will be a program that will provide leadership and guidance for other jurisdictions that are struggling with the same issues. >> thank you, madam attorney general. i continue to support the vrn in the appropriations process as well. let me turn briefly to two other programs shown positive impact for delaware and can and should be more fully supported, federally. one is justice reinvestment initiative. delaware participated in it early. general assembly made a number of changes to our criminal justice system. and have seen some real positive impacts as a result. i would be interested in hearing how you see the future of the justice reinvestment initiative.

also mentioned victims of child abuse act, something senator sessions and i to get reauthorized. disappointed president's budget request was half what we hoped for and bulletproof partnership act, providing bulletproof vests for local law enforcement around the country. all three are programs that provide meaningful assistance to local law enforcement and strengthen criminal reform movement in the case of the justice initiative. could you briefly comment on how these programs fit into the overall objective to improve law enforcement in the country? >> thank you, senator. for the chance to talk about them. i thank you for rising these three programs together. criminal justice reform will have anchor that comes from this committee and body in the form of statutory changes but it really also will be the managed by how we interact and support our state and local partners, for example the bulletproof vest

initiative as we support officer safety, officer health and those important issues and also as we, how we deal with the victims of child abuse. the justice reinvestment act is something extremely important to us. those fund are used to support changes both in local laws and the probation system. states have been literally able to close prisons but seen significant drops in crime. so criminal justice reform for us is really long-range view of the entire system. and these programs in particular focus on three specific elements of it, but they show how everything comes together as it were. and in a way to sort of support the holistic review of the criminal just sis tim and by supporting victims, supporting local jurisdictions in their efforts and supporting local law enforcement we will all have safer community. >> we have a lot of work to do

together healing public safety and healing rift between some community and law enforcement. i'm grateful for your leadership. let me ask a one question if i plight. shelby county, supreme court significantly weakened but some say putted, significantly weakened at least the voting rights act. on bipartisan basis 42 of us are trying to advance voting rights advancement act. senator murkowski is cosponsor and senator leahy and numbers of us. what difference do you think having this committee take up the voting rights advancement act might make in terms of voting rights enforcement? >> senator, thank you for your question and thank you for your leadership in this area and i thank this committee as it takes up this important matter. also certainly consideration of this act and department has been working working with the group on this, happy to continue. we think would restore, help restore an important part of the department's arsenal in protecting voting rights of all americans of the it is vital to us we look at this from a way

which we protect everyone's rights to votes, citizen on the street, our servicemembers, our elderly, people have trouble getting to the polls. all those individuals are of concern to us. certainly we thank you for your efforts in looking for a way to provide legislative support to those efforts and look forward to working with you and this committee as it considers the matter. >> well, the right to vote has been described as the most foundational right in the democracy, nearly sacred right. i hope that we can find a way to make progress on insuring that all americans have access to the ballot and right to vote. thank you for your service and your leadership as attorney general. >> thank you, senator. >> madam attorney general, welcome to the committee. >> good morning. >> that u for the job you do for our country. have you ever discussed clinton email investigation with president obama or anyone at the white house. >> no, sir, i have not. >> okay. do you anticipate that happening? >> no, sir, i do not no so when josh earnest speaks about the investigation and talks about

basically to reassure the american people that this is no big deal, do you know where he gets that information from? >> senator, nop, i do not. but i can assure you -- >> would you tell him he should probably just stay silent. >> certainly my hope when it comes to on going investigations we all could stay silent i can assure you neither i nor anyone from the department briefed mr. ernest or anyone at the white house or this matter or other law enforcement matters. >> he is operates sort of on his only take it? >> i'm simply not aware of the source of his information. >> thank you very much. have you seen more threats to the homeland, more than today in the past? do you agree with me there are more threats to our homeland today than they have been anytime in recent memory? >> certainly i think those threats have increased, yes, sir. >> sequestration, if we go back to the sequestration path, and next year, what damage will it do to your ability to protect

this nation in your lane? >> sequestration would cause significant harm to the department's ability to protect the american people in areas of national security, as well as our other law enforcement functions. >> you will have less fbi agents dealing with counterterrorism, is that is correct. >> we would. >> you will have less capability dealing with the growing cyber threats? >> that is correct. >> thank you. when it comes to the problem with apple and san bernardino are you, would you support legislation requiring apple and other technology companies to create technological backdoors made available to the government in terrorism cases? would you support legislation to do that. >> certainly we would review whatever was proposed and work with this committee or others to talk about the issues and to make sure that whatever was crafted would cover range of issues that arise. reason why we have focused on

litigation on a case-by-case basis because as we noted every platform is different, every issue is different and we've been trying to deal with this situation with our discussions with the tech companies. >> would you be willing to draft legislation, provide to the committee your ideas of what legislation should look like to accomplish the goals you -- >> senator, i don't think the department is at a point at this point where we're drafting legislation here but as i indkitted again we're happy to work with you and others on the committee as you consider proposals. >> if china went to apple in china, said we want a backdoor key to all iphones in china, would, what would your response be? >> well personally i think the company would have a strong response there. >> would you support apple's request to say no to china? >> well we're not asking for a backdoor here. so i certainly do not see us -- >> that is what i'm confused with. seems to be that the judicial decision basically is requiring

apple to create technological devices or, to create a system that would be able to get into the phones. their own phones. that is not true? >> we're asking apple to do is to, to essentially effectuate a system that would remove the password blocker. the password blocker destroys information -- >> to unlock the phone. >> no. we have to find our open way into the phone. essentially the password blocker destroys the information on the device if you guess the password incorrectly 10 times. we would like the opportunity for to us try and do that. >> would you support the chinese government's request to do the same thing? >> i don't think that i would be owe piping on the chinese -- opining on the chinese government's request to do anything. >> the point being if we ask companies here are we setting precedent for russia, china, other countries? >> senator i think one of the issues raised by that question,

and i thank you for raising it, it creates a really false equivalency with our legal systems with other countries, our moral systems way we do business with our other country. >> we're the good guys and they're the bad guys? >> we have system of laws worked a number of years. >> no i agree we're the good guys -- >> with corporate america to allow them to provide information to us for variety of the ways systems and devices and protect privacy tame. that have not led to the parade of horribles often described whenever those particular changes are made. >> one of the arguments apple makes if other companies create encryption, so from a terrorist point of view, you're knot limited to apple iphones that communicate, are you? >> i think terrorists use any device they can to communicate. >> this encryption issue, if you required apple to unlock the phone, that doesn't denied terrorists ability to communicate privately, does it? there are other ways they can do this?

>> we've certainly seen terrorists using variety of encrypted platforms for communication. >> point being getting information this particular phone doesn't protect terrorists using encrypted devices because they exist beyond apple. in terms of apple's point of view, do you think their argument if you require us to do this that other, it will hurt their market share? that it would put them at disadvantage to other companies that produce products outside the united states? >> you know, i haven't seen apple's marketing analysis for that so i'm not sure, i'm not able to quantify that. >> i mean some company in switzerland said, buy our phone, we're not, you don't have to worry about the american government or any other government being able to break the encryption? >> again i think it would depend how people viewed that and how they rated it as important feature and how it compared to apple's device. >> so we're balancing information we're trying to get in this individual case against the precedent we may be setting

that other countries could follow and we're also have balance the idea that terrorists can use encryption outside of apple and also have to balance the idea that we may be hurting american companies who are competing globally. are those sort of the four things we're looking at? >> senator, i will not cac bin the issues at this time because i think for us the issue is about a criminal investigation into a terrorist act and the need to obtain evidence. >> but it is just not so simple. i will end with this. i thought it was that simple. i was all with you until i actually started getting briefed by people in intel committee. i'm a person moved by the arguments of precedent we set and damage we may be doing to our own national security. i have definitely moved to any member of the committee who feels very passionate about this, introduce some legislation requiring the apple, the technology companies to do what you want the judges to do. i would like to look at it. and just not enough to complain.

if you think these companies should be required to do this, let's sit down and sigh if you introduce legislation. i doubt if many people will do that. thank you for your fine work on behalf of our country. >> thank you, sir. >> senator blumenthal. >> thanks, mr. chairman. thank you, madam attorney general for excellent work you're doing and dedicated and energetic work on behalf of law enforcement over misdemeanor years. i want to ask about the freedom of access of clinic entrances act, so-called face act i was involved enforcing while attorney general in state of the connecticut. as you know it was passed in 1994 after particularly troubling time in our nation's history involving threats and attacks on clinics. it continues to serve a vital role in our nation. recently the decades long attack

on the exercise of reproductive rights has taken the form of a serious of highly edited, deceptive and extremely inflammatory set of videos targeting planned parenthood. i wonder if you could tell me whether the fbi has noticed increase in the number of viiv lent incidents targeting abortion providers since the release of those videos beginning in july of 2015? >> so, senator, you certainly raise important issues and it is important enforcement area for the department. the fbi and our civil rights division and u.s. attorney's office. i don't believe i have the statistics on increase in number of face act violations since those videos have surfaced. certainly we are in connection with the colorado shooting, while the state investigation is proceeding we are still reviewing that as a possible face act violation although that case is proceeding in state

court as a murder case. but it is an active area of enforcement but i don't think i have information on the data since that particular time period. >> i wonder if i could ask you to provide any data that is available about the number of incidents and also prosecutions? >> certainly, certainly. >> and i wonder if you could also tell the committee whether the department of justice is taking any inenforcement activity with respect to incidents of violence or threatened violence around clinics. >> certainly i know that with respect to, again not limiting it to the time since the videos were introduced into the public domain but for the past i would say five to six years the number of cases we charged under the face statute has increased. i think we charged a total of 12 cases criminally and nine cases civilly but again that is over the entire course of this administration, not limited to

just that time period. so we have seen that uptick certainly over the last five or six years. we are taking those cases very seriously and pursuing them both criminally and sievely. >> thank you. the -- civilly. the department of justice has been responsive to a number of requests that i have made and i thank you for the responsiveness that it has shown. for example, on the general motors investigation for deliberate concealment of the ignition switch defect where there has been a prosecution and result, the takata airbags where i understand there is an on going investigation into deliberate concealment of test result, suggesting danger from those airbags. trinity guardrail investigation for defective end terminals and faulty testing. volkswagen for the use of a

device to evade emissions testing. recent indications of potential collusion by airlines on so-called capacity discipline. and a number of others. i hope that you would agree that the public interest is well-served by prompt conclusion of these investigations. and also that where there are prosecutions, potentially against individual corporate officers there is a profoundly important deterrent effect as deputy attorney general sally yates indicated in a memo september 9th of last year. prosecutions against individual corporate officers, where there is evidence and where, there is

proof beyond a reasonable doubt will encourage compliance with the law by corporations and those individuals and, that will be to the good of not only the public in general but also corporations, shareholders and its employees. >> yes. we certainly do. we certainly feel that the new individual accountability policy, which essentially puts the onus on those corporations wanting to cooperate to also provide information about individual wrongdoing and also requires in a more systemic manner that we make sure that we are considering those issues in every corporate case. we think that is a very important part, exactly the issues that you raise, for corporate accountability as well as public knowledge. >> lives asked for an investigation of ever source in connection with potential misuse of h1b visas and i hope that perhaps you could respond to

that request if it is possible to do so? >> certainly, sir. >> i want to ask finally about the so-called charleston loophole. i know you're familiar with the situation that enabled dylann roof to buy the firearm he used to massacre innocent people in the charleston church. the charleston loophole in effect enabled him to get a gun after the expiration of 72 hours without the completion of the background check. i wonder, even as we work toward a legislative fix, which i have proposed, whether the department has been able to take steps that may enable prompter completion of background checks. >> yes. thank you for the opportunity to comment on our work in this area. as i recommended to the president and discussed in prior testimony, one of the things that the department is working on is improving the systems

within our background system, the nix system so to speak. currently it is located in west virginia, staffed by dedicated employee all of whom, including all of us were heartbroken at the issues that led to mr. roof being able to obtain that firearm and currently the current law if the background check is not concluded within the three-day period, the licensed firearm dealer is free to go ahead and conclude the transaction. many do not. many do wait if they haven't gotten a definitive answer. but they are lawfully allowed to go sell firearms. many do. in this case that is what happened. the person did submit the information and because of issues of geography and relevant counties and confusion caused therein, the information did not receive the examiner in time to stop that purchase. so we are undertaking a review of the computer systems of the inx facility.

we're undertaking hire, almost double more individuals, double number of examiners i would say, so we can comply to that three-day period. to extend the period would require congressional action of course. should congress consider that we would work with you draft appropriate legislation to provide input there. we are looking to operate as efficiently as possible within the existing laws that we have. that is our framework. so our goal is to essentially strengthen and i am prove the nix system to be strengthened and in allotted time. >> thank you. on topic of gun violence as you know i would introduce legislation that would in effect repeal the lawful commerce of arms act, known as paca. department of justice repeatedly defended the law against challenges to its

constitutionality. as you well know the department of justice also has a history of declining to defend laws that it believes are unconstitutional, most recently with defense of marriage act. and i believe that compelling arguments have been made against paca's constitutionality on due process, taking cause grounds as well as tenth amendment and principle of separation of powers. i wonder if you consider and look carefully at the possibility of in effect, declining to defend the constitutionality of placa? >> senator i have not been involved in the review of placa on those ground. so i'm not aware of the legal review we've done to date on it. we may in fact have opinions that have done the review so far. certainly more information you would like to provide, certainly more analysis we would always consider that. at this point i don't know that the analysis we've done to date on that. >> thank you. and, thank you for your service, general. >> mr. chairman, my team, staff

telling me to go vote. so i will do that. i know you wanted to ask some more questions? >> [inaudible] >> if i run, yeah. if you let me go now. will you let me go now? thank you. >> [inaudible]. >> i think it was senator cornyn brought up put in a little different way, about secretary clinton's email arrangements. can i say something, i've often been accused about asking about secretary clinton's emails since she sun aring for president but to make the record clear, in june of 2013, i started asking questions about this as related to one of her counselor's,

abedine email and conflict of interest and stuff like that. that is where this all started long time before she was running for president. recently a senior, unnamed law enforcement official told "the washington post" about a immunity agreement with the state department staffer who maintained her email server. yet you, attorney general, have not answered this committee's question about the nature and status of that investigation. does the immunity agreement contain a provision requiring that staffer to cooperate with all government inquiries including committees as i had requested and if not, why not? would you provide a copy of that agreement to the committee? >> well, senator, and again, i thank you for your recent letter on this also, on this topic. and we are providing a response

to your letter in writing and so i don't want to get ahead of that as we review the issues that you've raised there. i believe you had asked for a copy of that document. we typically do not provide copies of documents as part of an ongoing investigations but we are preparing our response to your letter on those issues similarly we don't go into details we have with any witness in any matter in ongoing investigations. and senator, i know as you mentioned, you had raised this issue in the context of reviewing another matter several years ago. and you are following through now. what i will say is that my response to this is the same as my response to other questions about ongoing matters, whether now or whether i was u.s. attorney or whether i was a line assistant. the consistency with which the department handles the ongoing matters, whether they involve someone with a fame must last name or not, is something that we take very seriously.

and so, our desire not to discuss this matter in open hearings or in the press is not desire to evade your questions or certainly this committee's oversight responsibilities but it is how we handle ongoing matters. i certainly hope it is taken in that way. we treat them the same. that is you who the public has confidence in the investigations that we conduct. >> if that late every comment is about something i said in my opening statement, i said it was appearance, and no accusation. >> certainly. >> okay. now what you just told me about immunity, i'm telling you, what kind of common sense tells me. that if there's immunity in certain instances, the only simple question we're asking, is, does that immunity carry over to congressional committees? because we asked for that immunity. the counsel for pagliano denied it. seemed to me a pretty simple question.

if it covers him for justice department matters, why wouldn't it cover him so he could testify before congress? you don't have to talk to that now but i hope the letter will address that. let me go to fbi whistle-blowers we, the committee has put a bill on the adenda for tomorrow -- agenda for tomorrow and this is something ranking member leahy and i agree on, to provide better protection for fbi whistle-blowers. i hope we would be able to move forward to the bill earlier. it is truly bipartisan legislation we need to take up. one problem the bill tackles is protection for fbi employees who report wrongdoing within their chain of command. director comey said in december that he supports those protections. do you support legal protections for fbi employees who report wrongdoings to their supervisor?

>> thank you, sir. certainly i do support protection of whistle-blowers in general. the situation that you raise i think is also one that we all of us in law enforcement have an obligation to support and protect as well. you're referring to the issues of the incidents of people who report through the chain of command. and i understand that our staffs have been talking about the bill. we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on it. and what i would say is that, as we work through this issue. please know that again, any concerns that the department raises are not out of a disagreement with the point of view of the protection of whistle-blowers but again just making sure that the fbi east intelligence gathering finkses are also protected at the same time. and we have, as i said appreciate the opportunity to work with your staff on these issues. it is particularly important to all of us in law enforcement because whistle-blowers do bring us important information. we're also going to individual citizens and asking them to

bring us information. we're going to people who are witnesses outside of government. so we try to protect them as well. it is person that we also have strong protections for whistle-blowers inside government. >> you used one word that's central to my next issue. why would there be any reason for not providing these protections to fbi, including people involved in the intelligence of the fbi, given that every other branch employee, even including in the intelligence community, has that protection? in other words what's special about something about the fbi as much as we respect the fbi? >> well i thank you for your statements of respect for the fbi and i appreciate that on their behalf. and certainly i think that the dialogue that we have were having, as i indicated hopefully highlights we certainly support the objective of protecting whistle-blowers in every federal agency including the fbi and we certainly support protecting

those who report within their chain of command and as you yourself noted within the intelligence community and what our hope is to make sure that we retain the consistencies of treatment on the intelligence community side for those issues also and i thank you and your staff for working with us on those points. >> i thank you for working with us and let me bring up one of those issues that was brought up in these conversations. one of the issues that your department has raised is that allowing fbi employees to report wrongdoing to their chain of command could lead to too many complaints. what's wrong with too many complaint? you got a department of, i don't know whether you have 100,000 or 50,000 employees in it but you're the attorney general. you can't know what is going on all over. seem to me you would invite every wrongdoing to be reported to some -- somebody so it could

get corrected anyway, should be good thing for fbi employees to report wrongdoing. the judiciary committee held a hearing last march we looked at government accountability office report. that report found in five-year period, only three whistle-blowers won their cases. those cases took between eight years and more than 10 years. certainly something is wrong with that process. last year the deputy attorney's office told the government accountability office it would give whistle-blowers updates on their case status. then they told me in a letter that they were just too busy to do that i will submit that letter for the record. it does not seem to me like the department has made improving fbi whistle-blower protection as priority. almost two years ago the department promised it would issue new regulations. two years later we don't even have proposed regulation. so question number three, where are the changes that the justice department said it was going to make in april 2014? you weren't even attorney general then, so i can't blame you but that's where we are.

>> certainly, sir, but regardless of when, we certainly will endeavor to respond to you on that point. as i said before, our concerns are always making sure that we protect whistle-blowers and also protect the fbi's law enforcement efforts and deal with the issues raised by also being member of the intelligence community. i think our staff are working well together, looking at specific language of the bill and i do thank you again for that opportunity. >> here is something i think that, that you ought to be able to give to us. one of the improvements that justice said it was making for fbi employees was better training rights and legal protection as whistle-blowers. now, you had a training session on this there was some sort of a video at that training session. and we discovered that that video really didn't say much about how whistle-blowers are encouraged or protected and

reporting up the chain of command or stuff like that. i'm not sure i remember exactly. i requested a copy of that training almost a month ago and have not received it. so i would like to have you give me copy of a video, simple thing. a video, you ought to be able to supply that i assume that -- yeah. okay. so not to harass you but he is going to compact to ask you questions. then i'll be done. recently deputy attorney general sally yates issued a memo that the department will now focus on prosecuting individuals and not just ringing financial statements from corporations. as i said at the time the department's settlement with hsbc was a missed opportunity to bring criminal charges in enormous money laundering case. and this administration failed to prosecute any wall street

bankers or criminal executives responsible for financial meltdown. so the goal of the h-memo is a good one. this is something you and i agree on but president obama's former deputy attorney general james cole has said the yates memo is quote, unquote, impractical, quote, unquote, not based in reality and will lead to very few actual cases against individuals. is former attorney general holder's deputy correct, that this new policy isn't based on reality and how are you going to insure individuals are actually prosecuted? >> well, thank you, sir. i think that the memo does reflect the view within the department of justice that individuals have to be held accountable for their actions particularly in the white-collar area. i'm not aware of the context of former deputy ag cole's comments.

so i don't know what was said about that what i can tell you is this memo and this policy were the result of thought and desire to encapsulate into a specific and clear policy guidance the view that many of us in the department have and have had for some time we always have to look at individual accountability. in particular, as we do white-collar cases, and interact with corporate counsel with the white-collar bar, making sure they also were aware that this was a focus of ours. as you may recall one facet of the policy i think is very important is that when we cooperate in corporations, that is to say when corporations cooperate with the government, provide us information about wrongdoing within their ranks or that their company has carried out, we will of course provide credit for that should be reliable and of course accurate. they will not receive any credit if they do not also provide information about individuals who are involved in wrongdoing.

so it is to both incentivize them, put them on notice that our investigation will be looking at them also and of course, our investigative officers will have their focus on those individuals as well. so that is something that we think will in fact generate results, as we with corporations who do want to work with the government. where we don't have cooperation, we still will continue our focus on individuals, and that memo clearly put together in one clear, concise policy statement, the directive to all litigating components as well, lawyers in main justice and field. when working on cases involving corporations we have to make sure we completely consider all the relevant individuals. certainly this is something that many offices have been doing for some time. if you look at records of individuals who have been prosecuted, i would note under the financial fraud enforcement

task force over 500 individuals were prosecuted for financial crimes related to the housing markets, the financial markets and the like but we wanted to make sure it was clear, it was consistent and it was in one place and we were focusing on not just the entity but the individuals. so again, i'm not sure the basis for former deputy cole's comments. i would not comment not knowing their context. we believe strongly in in policy and we believe it will provide results in our investigations and in our cases, we think it is important step and necessary step making sure that not only individuals with whom we interact on notice about what we expect from them, but that publicly people are aware of how we conduct our investigation. >> thank you very much. senator from minnesota. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, attorney general lynch, thank you for waiting for me or i guess thank the chairman too but for your service

basically and it is good to see you again. >> thank you, sir. >> i think it's, there aren't a lot of colleagues here for me to say this to but i think it is good we're here doing our job. maybe should say we should continue doing our job when it comes to, when the president puts forth a nominee for the supreme court, and, examine that nominee's qualifications and experience. attorney general lynch, as i think you're probably aware, i have been a vocal opponent of further consolidation in certain industries, particularly in the cable and broadband market and i appreciate the tough stance that doj took on comcast's proposed acquisition of time warner cable. now i know that you can not discuss the specifics of any deals that are currently being

reviewed but i have a few questions about the way that doj analyzes mergers and acquisitions and how doj enforce s conditions on, when conditions have been, when mergers have been approved with conditions. as we saw following comcast's acquisition of nbc universal, conditions place on deals approved can be difficult to enforce and are not always terribly reliable. and also sometimes those conditions expire. in general, how can the department of justice insure that the merger conditions actually have enough teeth to protect consumers in the long run. >> well, thank you this is an important area of focus for the department of justice. i think sometimes people think of antitrust as sort of a dry, arcane area of law.

i have always found it to be one of the most vital areas of law because it deals directly with consumer protection issues. the the des -- devices approducts people use in everyday lives and we make sure they're protected in dealings and make purchases and those decisions with hard-earned dollars. when it comes to the enforcement of conditions in our merger agreements, the mergers may provide for certain types of conditions and certain types of reporting for example and we'll conduct periodic review but certainly if there are situations and circumstances and corporations i should say are not meeting those conditions we'll take appropriate steps and actions there. depending how far along the transaction was, take action or consult with the appropriate company and appropriate board. when it comes to more specifics certainly i'm happy to have the staff from the antitrust division provide a briefing to

you on specifics we have done in those situations if that would be helpful? >> well in some of the cases i'm talking about these telecom, when these comcast, nbc, for example, it seems like sometimes, i'm trying to figure out where falls whether it is fcc or doj that has the responsibility of enforcing conditions, and seems like somewhere they have fallen through the cracks. and i was wondering who you -- >> that there might be that middle place that neither entity is near reviewing as closely as they should -- >> seems like the fcc doesn't have the resources to, to enforce conditions. >> we have not been able to comment on the fcc's ability or resources. i haven't had those discussions with them. i'm certainly happy to set up briefing for you. --

>> this is something that fcc and doj kind of work together whether to allow a merger to go on. very often the conditions are put on and then, as we saw there, conditions aren't followed. so -- let me ask about something amy brought up, amy close boo scharre, micro boo char, combating terrorist recruitment in minnesota and about the, about the program, that was put in place where we were one of the three cities for combating, it is called combating violent extremism. we prefer to call it strengthening community resilience. and, in minnesota we have a large somali population as you know and and at first there were

some young people who were recruited to somalia to fight with shabaab which is an al qaeda affiliate and that kind of stopped. that happened after ethiopia had come into, come into somalia. but now we're seeing, we've seen, and this is not all that many but enough to cause real alarm and it is very alarming within the community obviously to use, lose sons, and as you mentioned some daughters who are going to syria or iraq to fight with isis and senator klobuchar brought up the funding. i just want to bring up the approach which is, and this is not an easy needle to thread because we don't want the communities to feel that this is

simply some kind of just surveillance of trying to find out who is -- on the other hand -- and you really want to gain the trust of the community. what have you -- is this something that you've looked at a lot, that you've discussed with say eddie lugar in minnesota and, what, what can we do to make those communities to feel like we're partnering with them in a good way and not simply using this as a way of monitoring possible, for possible terrorists but actually building resilience within the community? >> well, senator, i think you've put your finger on the main issue that, really, hampers a lot of our cve efforts, which is that, as they have been constructed in the past, they certainly have been taken more as surveillance, and efforts to

help the community, regardless of our intent. and i think frankly one of the best things that the twin cities pilot project program did was change the name. as you mentioned, from countering violent extremism to strengthening communities. that was one of the number one feedbacks that i received both as ag and as a former u.s. attorney in my interaction with the muslim community about the nature of the approach. that the initial description casts the program, at least in their eyes as one more of surveillance and in which muslims were targeted. . .

and without that personal connection and trust it is very easy to misinterpret our actions and our concerns. also i think we do have to get out of government some time and realized government isn't always the best voice for conveying the appropriate messages. i mention we're working with madison avenue and as will a silicon valley in trying to come up with effective programs to counter violent extremism. >> how are you using silicon valley? >> silicon valley is also very concerned. it's not difficult to be a platform for terrorism.

they are concerned they're being used as recruitment tools and as repositories for material that is being absorbed by these horrible disaffected young people of varying backgrounds who are then taking it to a deadly extreme. so they are trying to figure out and they on their own come up with program that will counter what is coming across the airwaves and the computer ways. and they, in fact, use their terms of service as we mentioned to take down some content that they are. but knowing all the content is not going to go wit and to be replaced also, what can they do to generate content that is ported, different and -- >> again i think that has a lot to do with interacting with the community. you say changing the name has been helpful. that could have been done on the

front side of that by saying how do you like this name? i mean, seems like a pretty logical and easy thing to do. if you're talking about what kind of content that you're going to do, silicon valley needs to be talking to the community. i'm sure that's what you were doing, but if we're going to counter the propaganda that they are offering, i think there has to be a real cultural understanding of the sensitivity. but more than anything, i know i'm over my time, but i think that, to tell you the truth i'm closer to this obviously man you are. the feeling i get is there's been a frustration in a lack of resources that have been, the

feeling was more promised and delivered. and i think they would rather see a soccer field, frankly, or someplace to have fun. >> or an afterschool venue. >> yeah. i think that's what we are talking about. and that has very little to do with isis propaganda. it has more to do with saying the people of the united states, people of minnesota, or minnesota senators are fighting for us, and we have some challenges and if our young people have better things to do, that might be helpful. and there was a kind of promise of money and resources instead of necessarily doing surveillance on his, if he showed you care about our kids

and their well being, that would go a really long way. of winning over the community. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, sir. i agree with you. >> general lynch, the record will stay open for one week, and you've been a good what does. thank you very much. any correspondence we have that isn't answered, i would appreciate answers as quickly as he gets into his. thank you very much. the meeting is adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> join c-span today at 1:30 p.m. eastern for the funeral service for former first lady nancy reagan at the ronald reagan presidential library. first lady michelle obama,

former president george w. bush and laura bush will be among the dignitaries attending the funeral. mrs. reagan will be buried next to her husband at the library. live coverage on c-span, c-span radio in c-span.org your. >> american history tv on c-span3 this weekend on saturday at 6 p.m. eastern a story in edward ayers looks at the end of the civil war and the dawn of the reconstruction era. >> i think we see the first convergence of the roads that will become reconstruction in the summer of 1864, especially august 1864. that's a strangely specific date i realize so let's see if i can make the case for you. at the beginning of the summer of 1864, no president of the united states had won a second term since andrew jackson. isn't that amazing?

>> at some of the congressional gold medal ceremony to recognize the contributions of foot soldiers of the civil rights movement. >> over 50 years ago a selma preacher and educator, reverend frederick douglass we as president of the dallas county voters league invited reverend martin luther king, reverend ralph abernathy, williams and the members of the southern christian leadership conference to help lead a selma's voting rights protest. today the american people through their congressional representatives bestow the congressional gold medal upon the courageous foot soldiers who dare to march in the 1965 voting rights movement. >> sunday morning at 10 on the road to the white house rewind, from 1980 presidential campaign of new york republican congressman jack kemp as he answered questions from the editorial board of "usa today." >> while i have conservative

values and conservative on fiscal policies and on defense policy, i am progressive with regard to my believe in the republican party being a lincoln party, a party of black and white and blue collar and white collar, and of all people. i call it progressive conservative in order to differentiate myself from the idea that i am up here standing defending the status quo. >> at 4 p.m. unreal america, the 50th anniversary of the gemini eight namespace mission we'll show will show the 1966 nasa film gemini eight, this is used in flight. >> experts said that analyze the gemini eight light. they know it is a three-day mission. its primary purposes include rendezvous in space with a target vehicle, the first docking in space and into our spacewalk by pilot david scott. >> for the complete weekend schedule go to c-span.org.

>> we are live this morning in palm beach, florida, republican presidential candidate donald trump is holding a news conference where he is expected to receive endorsement of his previous rival, dr. ben carson. this is all coming ahead of that state's march 15 primary, and after last night's debate the final one before the primaries next week in florida, ohio, illinois, dealt -- north carolina and misery. we expect this to get under way in just a moment. [inaudible] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the dr. ben carson and the next president of the united states, mr. donald trump. [applause] >> well, thank you very much ladies and gentlemen. it's a great honor.

last night's debate was fun. it was different. it got a wonderful, do a lot of good feelings in that room and i think it's something frankly that the republican party needed. entity is something very, very special because dr. ben carson was respected by everybody. everybody wanted his endorsement and everybody loves him and truly, truly admires what he's done. his life has been an incredible life. it's been an awe-inspiring life. i just want to tell you that having his support really i think it adds total credence to what i'm trying to do and do what we're all trying to do. so i just want to introduce dr. ben carson, special, special person, special man. thank you very much. >> thank you, donald. you know, this whole process getting involved in the political process was something that i never particularly

intended to do. but i listen to the people. it's really all about the people and continues to be all about the people. it's not about the republican party or the democratic party. it's about the people of ameri america. and what i had been seeing recently is political operatives and parties once again trying to assert themselves and trying to thwart the will of the people. i find that that is an extraordinarily dangerous place to be right now. you know, i want the voice of the people to be heard. i want the political process to play out in the way that it should point out. you know, i think the republican party particularly would be very wise not to adopt let's stop this guy and let's promote this guy policy, but rather start

thinking about what other things that are going to be helpful for america? right now we are in a process of going off deep and. we're going off the cliff. we are fiscally irresponsible. you're hating each other. were destroyed ourselves. a house divided against itself cannot stand. we are failing to take a leadership position on the world stage. some people said why which get behind a man like donald trump? i'll tell you why. first of all, i have come to know donald trump over the last few years. he is actually a very intelligent man who cares deeply about america. are two different donald trump. there's the one you see on the stage and there's one who's very cerebral, sits there and considers things very carefully. you can have a very good conversation with him.

and that's the donald trump that you're going to start seeing more and more of right now. some people said, well, you know, he said terrible things about you, how can you support them? first of all, we buried the hatchet. that was political stuff. and, you know, that happens in american politics, the politics of personal destruction, all that. is not something i particularly believe in or anything that i get involved in. but i do recognize it is a part of the process. we move on because it's not about me. it's not about mr. trump. it's about america and this is what we have to be thinking about. i have found in talking with him that there's a lot more alignment philosophically and spiritually that i ever thought that there was. he will speak to that but, you

know, that actually surprised me more than anything. because i do recognize how a person's image can be greatly distorted having been the victim of that. i probably understand it better than anybody. and i think as the american people who we are focusing on, as they begin to see the real individual their, and those who are helping the individual, i think we're going to be comforted as a nation. you know, we have to start working together. we cannot allow the agents of division to continue to separate us. as a nation, our strength is our unity. we just have to sort of ignore those people were always telling to stir up strife. and i'm appealing to some degree to the media as well. you are part of america, too.

and should be interested in strengthening our nation, not in creating divisions. died in creating complex all the time. if we start having that american attitude that american spirit that made us great that took us to the pinnacle in no time at all, believe me, everybody will benefit from the. we are also talking about how to make america a place that is successful for everybody? with 330 million people. we are going to be competing with china with 1.4 billion on india 1.1 billion. we have to develop all of our people. the people who are the downtrodden in our society. we are not doing those people any favor by patting them on ahead and say they are there is you poor little thing here but we need to be doing is concentrating on mechanisms to allow those people to climb out of a state of dependency and become part of the strength and

fabric of this nation. that's what america is about. it's not about dependency. eighth circuit is about socialism. socialism is seen as the panacea by some who don't really understand it or i think a lot of young people think socialism is just being concerned about other people. that's not what it is. it's cradle to grave government, and you let them take care of you but you get them all of your money. you give them control of your life. they all end up looking the same way. small group of elite at the top controlling everything. a rapidly diminishing middle class and a vastly expanded dependent class. that is not what made america great. donald trump talks a lot about making america great but it's not just topic he means it. i'm going to be helping them. others are going to be helping them. you know, one of the things i've discovered in this country is we have some incredibly smart

people. none of us knows everything but we begin to use those smart people effectively to accomplish the goals of america, you're going to see us once again begin to ascend to the pinnacle to a much our pinnacle than we've ever achieved before, and that's where america should be. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you very much. we were talking lengthily yesterday and it was amazing conversation. one of the things i realized is his great love is education, and he was telling me things about education and it was so right on and it was so good and it's such an important element for our country and i said congratulations, you just have to get involved with us with education. because our educational system into united states azure for

from our speeches were ranked at the bottom of the pact worldwide and yet we spend the most money per people, by far the most money. second doesn't even exist. so he will get very much involved in that it is going to get very much involved in health care waste an expert and even during the debate, ben come when it came to health care and talking about health, ben wasn't really a class by himself. it's such an honor to have ben. he's a friend, he's become a friend and a really appreciate the endorsement, ben. thank you. any questions, folks? yes. >> mr. trump, two questions. first of all did you guys gently or formally apologized to each other's because it is politics. it's a tough stuff. it's a tough business. i use used to think real estaten manhattan was tough. this is a tough business and is politics. a lot of things happen in

politics that don't have anywhere else. so we understand that. go ahead. >> secondly, the question that comes up, has to be any discussion between the two of you come any promises made about position for dr. carson into administration either as a running mate or -- >> no. i thought was love. when he called he just wants to help. he feel strong about what's happening and you see the gratitude. we get crowds are amazing. i don't think there's any being anything like it. it's on the cover of every magazine that there's never been anything like it. ben sees that and ben love big, big part i can tell you. me because i doesn't even know this yet a ben is going to have a big part. we want to keep that kind of talent. yes. >> do you see mr. carson, dr. carson playing a policy role principally for your campaign or as a circuit on the campaign trail going places you are not going to? edwin meese is our to donald trump's, do you agree with that

characterization and could you amplify on? >> i probably do agree. there's the public version and people see that and i don't know what they see exactly what it seems to work over my lifetime but it's probably different i think than the original donald trump. i think i've i would say, he said it very well. perhaps there are to donald trump's. i am somebody that is a think of the i'm a big thinker and i have ideas and they are strong and typically they have worked out. what i want to do is, ben over to the thing i have for this anti-campaign is make america great again. very simple. i want to make america great again. we have so many problems with the military, trade, borders, whether it's terrorism. we have so many problems, the debt. you look at our debt $19 trillion going up to $21 trillion in a very short session. we are going to straighten things out and straighten them out correctly. [inaudible] >> dr. carson is both.

dr. carson is both but you'll be very much on policy. ben was always restore the policy and he will be very much on policy. >> you've been talking about unity on the conventional and the debate last night or can you fill us in on any outreach effort should making to capitol hill? >> we have been called by the biggest people in politics, not only republican politics but also the biggest people in republican politics. over the last couple weeks. you saw paul ryan reached out, terrific guy, those respected him, i've always liked them. not message with a grin everything because i'm very strong on borders and very strong on security. and i think paul, i think all is, i think is going have is your on a think probably certain things will change. but paul ryan reached out and we had a great conversation. many of the people of the top top level, i get a kick, i see you coming when producing donald

trump must be stopped. i talk to them two days before and using donald, we must come together. we've been contacted by many of the biggest people in republican comments. [inaudible] >> they are reaching out to us because they see what's happened. we are getting millions and millions of people additional people, people republican party has never had before. it's the biggest story. the biggest star in politics is what's happening. we are having millions and millions of people come up and vote for the republicans. they get out, they register republican. i've had so many people tell me i've never voted republican in my life. i left the democrats in order to register as republican so i could vote for you. independents, democrats. we are up to 65%, more than that. millions of people more. that's what i am saying. the republicans that want to embrace it. i see it. they want to embrace it. >> last night and the debate to talk about potentially sending up to 30,000 american troops to the middle east to fight the

middle east. that's more troops than george bush sent in afghanistan. >> we have to get rid of isis. it's going to be up to the generals. the generals will have to play their own game. i want to find out, i want to find out about the right general. we don't want other wrong general talking to us but we will find the right general. we will find the right guy or persons or woman. >> are you prepared for a long for? >> it's going to be very quick. we are very powerful. we don't use our power. >> on airing the hatchet deal to you mention politics is rough but do you personally regret any of the things you said about dr. carson? >> it's a funny thing i was thinking about yesterday. if you notice, i mean the cnn poll came out 49-15. how do you like that? he wouldn't have been happy. if you notice during this whole thing, national of talking about because, although i guess it's

probably the most important the cnn comes out 49 for trump and 15 for the two others i think were at 15. the one person that just kept sneaking up on me, i couldn't lose him, was dr. ben carson. i could not lose that guy. i was doing well and trump would be a 28 at that time. i remember 28 and ben was 18. then he was in 19 at the next week it was like 22. what's happening? i don't like this, right? then he was 24. that i had a pretty good ball where i took a little feed in one, but then what happened is it was i believe in b.c., "wall street journal" the always gives me bad polls by the have to chile. thank you for the nice things i said about me. you are so nice, thank you. sitting next to david, okay? thank you very much. always so nice.

now she's going to be embarrassed but i want to thank you. ben would always like you would be there and then we had one ball where ben went ahead. it was the biggest story worldwide. i said this guy is unbelievable. and so i started going after ben. it's politics. ben understands it. i was will impress with the way he fought back because he fought back with silence and strength. and even comment on. someone would've said, they would have done well. he has great confidence in himself and i was editor interest and it is true, he's the one person. i use the expression i could losing. i couldn't shaking. he did so well and just go up, up, up so steady, so solid. and i fought back and i hit him hard and he, which is politics and ben understands that and he understood that because i talked to him about it yesterday but he handled it with such dignity. i frankly thought it was amazing.

i actually gained a lot of respect for him. >> you talked about the to donald trump's of the maybe dr. ben carson brought that up, when you sa say things like i wt to punch a protester in the face why when you say things about dr. ben carson, isn't just politics? are you playing a character? >> it's politics and its fact. we've had some violent people, protesters. they are not just people saying, these are people that punch. these are people that are violent people. i get the biggest crowds by four. not even a contest. you people don't like reported but the one thing good about protesters they just ago into these stadiums with 25, 30,000 people and judges, the cameras never turn. the cameras never ever turn. i always say turn and show that they don't when there's a protester in the corner it's great because the camera is there. it's a negative as a postal positive so they turn. we've had a couple that were really violent and the particular one when i said i

would bring them, that was a very come you to come a guy who was swinging, very loud and then started swinging at the audience. the audience swung back. i thought it was very, very appropriate. he was swinging. he was hitting people. the audience hit back and that's what we need, although that were a. i'm not talking about just a protester. this was a guy who should not have been allowed to do what he did. and, frankly, if you want to know the truth the police were very, very restrained. the police have been amazing but the police were very, very restrained. okay, yes. >> did the rnc ever come to you and i don't know if you know about the other candidates but they -- if they can get and save the debate needs to be -- >> no. [inaudible] >> i just think it was done. it was very substantive last but. i have said before it was a very eloquent debate. ben came in and said that was a

very beautiful debate last night. it's gotten great reviews as a debate. i will tell people that want even though i did one, let me just say. i refuse to say that "time" magazine, 80. slate 84. fox 91% at fox. i don't believe it. new jersey.com. anyway, we had a debate last and i think i did what i had to do actually, but it was, i don't know. we've had enough debates in my opinion. we've had debates, they've been live events mcmahon should've put them on because they were wwe. and too much. i think last night was something that was very important that it come off like that we didn't speak and the candidates didn't speak about it but it just sort of morphed into a very dignified debate. >> you said in the debate last night you about is a whether you will accept funding, raise money

for the joke election. but if you go that route does it and wonder pledged to voters you will not be -- >> i don't think so because i wouldn't take any money. if anything the party would taking money. i don't want money but the calm it's up to them, not up to me. it's something i've not given much thought to get i've so funded my campaign. i guess i will be in for 50, $60 million at a minimum. i am somebody who is a businessperson and even when i don't, the money sort of irrelevant but i've a natural instinct to be a little bit careful with money because that's the way i can. that's the way we have to be with our country. i expect to have tremendous amounts of money in this by the time we finished it i guess right now i am into, you would know better, maybe $30 million, maybe more but other people are in for $150 million they are nowhere. they are out of the race. i'm proud of the race we have one. somebodies have easily been doing this for eight months but

i know this is a better than anybody. the reason i know because i was on the other side of the system so when they talk about campaign finance come all these different things, i know it much better and i know it from the real side. not from the politicians side. >> i just want to go back to what major asked and also tom asked about what dr. carson said this but on the radio and hear about the to donald trump's. so many people know you and like you because of your public persona. is that the real donald trump or is it something we don't see? >> it's an interesting question. i don't like to over analyze myself, but i will tell you that i try and be who i can. i want to be honest. certain questions are asked in a give a straight answer as opposed to a politically correct answer. i know the politically correct business better than anybody. [inaudible] >> i don't think so. i answered truthfully. we are adequate we have to start being truthful with our country.

like the question on islam that i'm answering the question and i know the exact answer. i could've given an end to the other night to anderson cooper which would've been perfect and no one would've been talking about it. it would've been fine but it is isa problem and without a fight with the problem is. we've got to solve the problem and you will not solve the problem in russia know that is a problem. i want to answer questions honestly and forthrightly and even if i bought a big stage with all of these tremendous numbers of cameras to read i have to answer honestly. the only way we'll solve the difficulties over country. yes go ahead. >> just along the same lines. why are there to donald trump's prestigious some point make a conscious decision to behave differently in public? >> i don't think the our to donald trump but certainly you have, look, all of this and get somebody else who sits and reads and thinks and i am a thinker i have been a thinker. and perhaps people don't think of me that way because you don't

see me in that forum but i never figured out that is a very nice what ben said actually because it is another side of me. i am a very deep thinker. i know what's happening. okay? >> will we see more of that side of you? if you could elaborate more. >> i'm going to work with ben on so many different things. i will be honest when i was with ben yesterday the thing that most impressed me, i'm all about his use of health care because i forget and i've always felt that he knew more about than the other people on the stage and perhaps he should because that was what he was doing but i was most impressed with his views on education. it's a strength and it's a tremendous strength. so ben will be involved with us in any aspect you wants to be but in particular on those two subjects. okay. >> more of his toned down version we saw last night, your cerebral side. do you plan to tone down your

performances at -- >> they depend. you can say. i didn't go there as a toned down person. i went and whatever happens happens. you have to swing with the punches. to be honest with you i went there, i did not a vice going to be, if i was hit i would have hit back. the are those people are said to me, i was telling ben yesterday the are those people it doesn't matter, let them call you names, but can do whatever they want. stand there and take it. you are leading the united states and to lead. nobody is going to beat you. don't do anything. and i say i can't do that. when somebody hits, i have to get back. so i thought they were very respectful yesterday. i thought frankly everybody did well. i thought it was a how my use of the expression of that is very eloquent debate last night. >> you said you felt we had enough debates. there is potentially another debate scheduled on march 21. is your suggestion to the rnc, we got in a?

>> i we've had enough debates. how many times did he give the same answer to the same question? do you agree without? same question, same people, same everything. it would be nice to finish off with this one. i thought cnn did a fantastic job last the. i thought that jake was a great moderator. it was just, it was just a really nice way to finish off the debate season that i really think it's enough debates. i don't think there's any reason for the debates. i noted getting very big ratings. and by the way, the democrats are not getting ratings at all and our debates are getting very, very big ratings. one of those things. i think we have enough. look, that networks within. i don't think any of the candidates wanted at this point the networks very much want them. >> there's a phrase you been using on the trail in any district used to embrace it to the republicans. as you move forward now and as the contest starts to limit, what are you going to do?

are you going to find those surround yourself with more people who are endorsing you? >> i was saying the republican party should come together and embrace these millions of people that are going down and voting. millions. south carolina, new hampshire. no matter where it is, millions and millions of people. i was going to bring down a list and i said i didn't want to bore you people but we've had some states up 102% from four years ago. 102%. there's something happening that's beautiful to see. these are people in many cases as i said last night these are people that have never voted. ben, had people come up, 40, 50, 60, 70 years old, so many people. they say i've never voted before. they never put a political shirt on and allies. they were not political people. they never had confidence in the people that they were voting for. literally when i shake hands with people or when i sign autographs, people are saying

i've never voted before, mr. trump, but i am so proud to be voting. some people coal early voting. it's been an amazing thing. what i said to the republican party, the establishment of if there is such a thing. i guess i used to be a member of the establishment but i'm not sure that there is. but i said embrace it instead of fighting it, instead of fighting me like these people from, people who came to office, asked me for $1 million. i said or they? i don't even know who they are. they asked me for $1 million i said let me think about it. then i found who they are and i said i'm not going to waste $1 million. acid as they said that they started doing negative ads. if i would give them $1 million, they would not do negative ads. they are extortionist. i see negative ads which are all wrong. so that's what you have. we should embrace it. the republican party should grab

this and we will have the victory right the republican party has never had before. one of the things ben and i were talking about i will win michigan. that's a in the playbook for the republican party. i have a chance to win new york. that's the and the playbook. they always talk about a six-day check to win, florida, virginia, just go down the line, pennsylvania, ohio. you have to when certain states. if you lose one of them it's over for the republican party. the fact is structurally it's much more difficult for somebody to get elected from the republican party. everybody knows that. with me, i at all of the rust belt state. i own states that i will get states that are unbelievable, that are unthinkable for the republican party. and we should embrace it. a couple more. >> you said dr. carson would be handling education for you. here in florida a lot of people worry about, core.

it's up to the states to handle the. how would dr. carson do something about the issue a lot of people have with common or? >> ben knows what's going on and i personally from a post a comment or. i like local education. ben feels very much the same way. i think ben is going to d get a tremendous service for helping the states because we want to see. there's great love in education and when you circle those schools with parents and teachers everything else, instead of some bureaucrat in washington you would do a lot better. [inaudible] >> not yet. i'm sure i will but i haven't. i have not yet. >> what's your reaction to the news that mitch mcconnell had been advising vulnerable senate republicans on running away from you if you were to nominate? >> i'm sure that will change. >> you think the republican party leadership, those in washington are disconnected from

the republican base, the electorate? is that what you think, especially uniting the electorate against the party leadership? >> there's a big disconnect between the so-called leadership. i don't even know what the leadership is. i can't define the leadership because nobody knows what it is. but there's a big disconnect between the so-called leadership and the people. of the people to me are much more important because they are the ones doing the voting. that's what i'm standing up here today under the people are not spent what i do not understand in? >> the republican party lost its way. they have lost two elections that they should have one, sort of the last election they should have won easily. that should've been an easy victory. but easier than the one we have coming up. and they lost. so the republican party lost its way. the republican party now something has happened, call it a miracle, called whatever you want to do, it's the biggest story in all of politics to one of the biggest stories of the

world. the millions and millions of people are poured into the republican party, not to the democrats, to the republican party. and these are people that were disenfranchised, having had a pay increase in 20 years. these are people that have seen their jobs go to china and to mexico and to japan and to vietnam and to every other country in the world but us. is going to all and. >> -- what i going to say to democrats speak with one of the things we're going to do -- let me tell you about the democratic voters to i will tell you one of the things we're going to do is we are going to get so many, it's already been proven. so many democrats have, and signed registration forms for the primaries where they're voting for me. they said they have never done this in their lives. they had an expression democrats were reagan years ago. will have democrats for trump but much bigger. tremendous numbers.

i had friends of mine in hollywood say everybody is voting for you are but they will not admit it. i say why? are you proud? know, because i tough stance on crime, a tough stance on borders. they all know i'm right but they are liberal people. they are going to vote for trump. [inaudible] >> have you don't they could come int down to this conventiof it does come down to the convention fight what are you doing? >> i think we will do it without a convention. i hope we will do it without having t to fight but if you fel and i said it strongly whoever has the most delegates at the end of this trip should win. [inaudible] >> i'm hopin open to prepare anl have i think ohio should be great for me because they are losing tremendous numbers of jobs. using what's happened with the coal industry in ohio. i think i will beat john kasich. john kasich has been absent together. he's been campaigning for the

last, he lived in new hampshire. in fact, chris christie said that absolute john kasich was there much more than him, which is true. and john kasich then went as you know to other states come to different states can very big in south carolina. he was there. he didn't win. he didn't win in new hampshire. he didn't win in michigan. he guaranteed michigan. he said i will win michigan. and i thought he said, you can correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought is that if i don't michigan i would drop out because michigan is his neighboring state. and i win michigan in a landslide. he was living there. so john has been, you know, not really there. john has gaza any problems. he's very much in favor of trans-pacific partnership, tpp. that will be the destruction of ohio. now that the oil is down, ohio got lucky because they struck oil. the budget of ohio went up more than anybody in the entire united states, higher than anybody. but they get lucky because oil was under the ground as opposed

in some states where they don't have the oil. now that the prices of oil or down ohio will have a lot of problems. >> just to be clear you will not be into lake city on march 21 for the next debate? >> i didn't know the was the next debate. i thought we are next debate last night. look, this has been a ratings bonanza. i would do debates frankly if the networks agreed to give all of their money to the, let's say to the wounded warriors go to the veterans. but the networks are making a fortune on these debates. the ratings for the debates are through the roof. but you know what? cannot be honest with you? i think it's time to be -- time to end of the debates. [inaudible] have you personally approached anybody in the republican party to? >> i have been doing from virtually everybody in the

republican party and they're congratulating and they are saying we are going to get together. these are not stupid people. these are very smart people. they want to embrace it. what are they going to do, take millions of these voters -- if you look at the polls and people telling me this every time when i went to nevada which we want. every people, the people to work in the polling areas, they've been there for 20, 25 years. they love it, they do it. every single time i go they said mr. come we've never seen anything like this. you go to nevada and they say we stand and the place would be into all morning line and now we have lines are five blocks long. italy been an amazing thing. >> lastly on the debate stage you said trade is one of the areas on which you -- >> very much so. >> how would you say you differ on trade from hillary clinton? >> hillary is terrible. first of all she has no business. she does have the energy or strength to get the right trade deals me.

you need strength, you need stamina, you need a lot to get these deals done. they come at you in waves. to do these deals with a wrap them up and put 12 deals in one, tpp is inexorable, i want individual trade deals with individual countries. some deals we will make so good, some countries treat us better than others. some are worse. china will take advantage of tpp. it's not in it now but believe me they will come through the backdoor. they are watching it so closely. i have so many friends in china. i have great respect for john. i'm not angry at china. i'm angry at our people. we have a trade deficit with china this year $500 billion. it's unsustainable. we are going to change or trade deals, we will make great deals. we are going to become a rich nation again. we cannot become a great nation and to we become rich again. i'm going to save social security. there is so many things we can do. it's going to go quickly. yes.

>> and we ask questions to dr. carson about your decision to endorse mr. trump over senator cruz. you indicated earlier you are open to endorsing one of the two. why not senator cruz? >> well, first of all we have a lot of excellent candidates. i think any of the 17 candidates who were running could have done a fine job. but one of the real factors for me is what will happen if we allow the political operatives to succeed in their endeavor to stop donald trump? and i think it would fracture the party irreparably, and it would hand the election to the democrats. and they would get supreme court picks and america will be forever changed. that's the big picture but it's a very big picture. it's not about me.

it's not about mr. trump. it's about america. >> why not senator cruz? >> because i feel about mr. trump is willing to do what needs to be done to break the stranglehold of special interest groups, and the political class. >> are there any remaining hard feelings for senator cruz over what happened in iowa? >> i have completely forgiven him. that's the duty one has as a christian. >> dr. carson w. says roger like god has allegedly most important decisions. this truly is an important decision. did god lead you to donald trump? >> i prayed about it a lot and i got a lot of indications, people calling me that i haven't talked to for a long time saying i had this dream the budget and donald trump. just amazing things. but you know, i also tend to think the way god speaks to you

by giving you wisdom. and that wisdom says to me that if we allow this attempt to disrupt the will of the people to be successful, it will fracture the party in an irreparable way. and that will hand the election to people who i personally believe would destroy our country. and the reason i say that is because, you know, hillary clinton was a great friend of -- she was on a first name basis with him when she was a student. he wrote the book rules for radicals. and if you haven't read it, i recommend that you read it and see the kinds of things that are recommended to change can fundamentally change this nation from the great success that we have to a socialist country. and dedication page of that book says dedicated to lucifer, the original radical who gained his own kingdom.

i don't want anything to do with anything like that. >> you talk about burying the hatchet. digest any kind of conversation with mr. trump like that with senator ted cruz? did he ask you for your endorsement? >> he did not specifically ask for an endorsement, but he did apologize, said that, you know, he wasn't really aware of what was going on. he didn't agree with it. >> why mr. trump over ted cruz speak with you said a week ago today at cpac you endorsing we the people and it sounds as if in that intervening time between then and now you have evolved and the central focus what i hear you saying is the effort to stop donald trump is what motivated you to endorsing. is a donald trump's qualities for this movement against them that put you where you are right now? >> it's about we the people. we need to empower the people. that is not going to be done

through politics as usual, be that republican politics as usual would be that democrat politics as usual. it requires somebody who's a bit of an iconoclast but someone who has the ability to listen and to make wise decisions. >> do you think going back to what -- embracing people, a lot of evangelicals come out when i was there, do you think that people will be representative of the american people and do you think you can help bridge the gap for evangelicals as those that people of color now that you're endorsing mr. trump? >> i hope that we can bridge the gap with everybody. all the policies that i've ever talked about, and mr. trump is going to be on board with this, too. we talk about things that are good for everybody, not for this group or that group.

the whole concept of picking and choosing winners and losers is something that i think is antithetical to what we believe, don't you? that simply is not, would not happen with a child administration. we will be looking at ways to do things that benefit all americans that create an equal playing field. equality of opportunity, that's what we are looking for. that doesn't mean that we are not sensitive to people who are downtrodden. in fact, we are very sensitive to people who are downtrodden. and will be putting in place things that will allow those people 2%. many people have been placed in a position that dependency for generations. didn't even recognize what's going on. we have to change that. >> what are you doing to reverse that situation? [inaudible]

>> well, i let mr. trump answer that question. >> dr. carson, you see a future results and politics even though no promises were made in this endorsement. would you be interested in a top child administration? >> i am interested in saving america. my concern is our posterity. all the people who are coming after us. and we are destroying any possibility of the american dream. with the policies that we are doing so i would be very interested in helping to achieve the goal of saving america and making it great, absolutely. >> dr. carson, you talked about -- >> i did notice that was you spent he talked about two donald trumps, the one we see in public, the one we see in private. does that worry you for the american voters? should the voters know that second donald trump? and as it relates to you, you

and mr. trump have started a number of issues whether his muslim database, whether it's religion. are we now seeing a second dr. carson with this endorsement? >> i don't think so, but my point being there's a different persona. some people have gotten the impression that donald trump is this person who is not malleable, who does not have the ability to listen and to take information in and to make wise decisions. and that's not true. now, you might get that impression rom, you know, looking at the dates and looking at some other public appearances, it is much more cerebral than that. at a much more reasonable person and then comes across a. but as you well know because you've me talk about it a lot, the media, they are very skillful at painting people a

certain way and it may not be who that person is at all. and that person can spend all their time trying to change the media, or they can just move ahead. i think he decided issues going to move ahead and focus the attention on the american people, not so much on the media. i think that's right way to do it. >> will you be hitting the campaign trail with him speak with we will do some campaigning together, absolutely. [inaudible] have you been promised a running mate slot or a vp slot in exchange for this endorsement? >> we have not talk specifically about a role other than being involved and helping formulate our policies. and trying to make america great. that's the real key. and as once said by many, it is

great but it is nowhere near as great as it can be. and a lot of the things that are in place and that have been in place and growing over the last few decades have led us to a place of incredible stagnation. we don't need to be there. and if we once again begin to embrace those policies that will create the atmosphere for entrepreneurial risk-taking and capital investment, you will see an explosion like nothing you've ever seen before. you simply haven't been doing that. i don't think it's going to be that hard, and i don't think mr. kubba thinks it's going to be that hard either. -- mr. trump. >> thank you all very much. thank you all, great honor. go outside. with coffee and drinks. enjoy yourselves. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> a reminder that you can see campaign events we cover on our website at c-span.org. more from the road to the white is coming up this evening with senator bernie sanders will speak to reporters at a campaign rally in illinois. he plans to discuss the efforts to take money out of politics, making college education tuition free, climate change and universal health care.

illinois as a number of state holding their primary this upcoming tuesday to watch live coverage tonight at nine eastern here on c-span c-span2. >> the senate discussion about on jon kingsdale mission to abood replacement for arne duncan this coming monday at 5:30 p.m. you can watch us today here on c-span2. former first lady nancy reagan will be laid to rest today at the ronald reagan presidential library. coverage begins at 1:30 p.m. eastern with the service set to start at 2 p.m. though speaking include president reagan's chief of staff, former anchor tom brokaw and daughter patti davis. you can watch that starting at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> this weekend on the tv, live all day coverage of the tucson festival of books from the university of arizona. it begins saturday at noon eastern, and sunday l-1b visa turn. -- sunday at 1 p.m. eastern. >> throughout our live coverage, many authors will join us to take your phone calls and comments.

the practical considerations were want to get elected you want to get eelected. it's one thing to be elected the first black president but to get reelected as the first black president maybe even more remarkable. maybe even more difficult. he had to overcome certain barriers because when he ran the first time, pretty much in terms of national policy. he with senator for a little while. he was a clean slate on which people could ascribe thei the h, dreams, ambitions and project onto his thin body their ideals. but nowdon't like. ..