even closer, friendships and relationships between the people of our countries. >> mister president, thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> the honorable president, this concludes this event, thank you. >> the u.s. senate is in a break so republicans can attend a briefing on their tax reform plan. senators are expected back at

1:45 eastern for more debate on executive nominations, this afternoon they will consider eric can to be under secretary of transportation and vote on moving forward with debate on his nomination , that will happen shortly after they got in. average when lawmakers return on c-span two at 1:45 eastern. and a live picture now from the office building on capitol hill, the house brief main city continues their markup of the house republican tax reform plan with a full day of work on the proposal and leaders expecting to wrap up work within the next few hours according to reporters on the scene. chair kevin mccarthy posting that bill on the floor and completing it by thanksgiving day. july coverage of the debate continues on our companion network , c-span3. you can read the complete original tax plan on our website, and that will take

you to our congressional chronicle page where you can see all 429 pages of the bill. a reminder that the proposal is still being worked on and it's not the final amended version. we will update when it is done. >> the u.s. senate back at 1:45 eastern and until then we are stationed with former news anchor dan rather and who talked about his new book on patriotism. >> joining us from philadelphia, dan rather, president and ceo and the author of what unites us , reflections on patriotism, good morning. >> good morning, thank you very much for having me. >> what compels you to write a book and why did you think it was needed? >> what compelled me to write the book was the realization that we become so divided and so in concrete and very partisan political and extreme ideological positions , that the country is in peril. i'm not thshouting about the decline and disintegrate but

there are troubling signs in the country that number one, we are becoming so divided that we could slide into a version of authoritarianism would lead to extreme nationalism, economic nationalism, racial nationalism which could lead further to decline into tribalism so i fear about the country and i began to ask myself the question, what is patriotism in the second decade of the 21st century? as i explore that question i realized i didn't have any great vision about it so my idea was let's go to conversations about what patriotism is and isn't and during that conversation, remind ourselves about the values that have been the cohesion that has held the country together through all these years. the theory before i wrote the book was that people to present the values that have sustained us over our history. though that's the reason i

wrote the book. one motivation was that on social media, now i have my own facebook page and in which i tried to bring some context and perspectiveand hopefully a steady, reasonable voice to some of these questions and frankly, the social media site was so successful that i said to myself , maybe there areother people who are thinkingabout what i'm thinking about , what is patriotism? i decided to start writing the book and now it's up . >> republicans, 202-7848 8000 and independence, 74 8002 if you want to ask questions of our guests, post on our twitter feed at c-span. going into the book, what was the perception of patriotism and what did you find out from writing the book? >> guest: what i found out is that there is a difference between patriotism and nationalism. they are not mutually exclusive, they overlap one

another. but the biggest difference is patriotism is humble. patriotism is modest. >> patriotism is grateful for where we been, grateful for the strengths of the country but recognizes that we are not perfect, we can't be perfect. but our nations history is constantly striving for the constitutions that say it's a more perfect union. and that led me to say to myself, i need to think about my own patriotism cause there's a feeling that patriotism simply is a deep love for country. that is part of it. but the other part of it is recognizing that we need to keep constantly improving. whereas nationalism, particularly in the most extreme versions, which have reached the most powerful positions in the country, nationalism has a certain arrogance about it. anyone who's taken to the extreme and nationalism times can take the position, we may not be perfect we are as

close to perfect as we are going to get. and we are far superior to anybody else one big difference that i learned between patriotism and nationalism is patriotism includes humility. humility doesn't mean that we are constantly criticizing ourselves, but it does mean we keep questioning ourselves about how we can make the country better as we go along. >> speed one did you write this book with a certain administration, the trump administration in mind where the thoughts came to you at the end of the obama administration? >> know, i can't and won't deny that concerns about where the current administration redepicted the tone of the current administration, was a function but it wasn't a motivation. in the book, it's certainly another screed against the trump administration and in fact president is not even mentioned in the book but when i tried to do with the

book and others whether i was successful or not but is to make the book the most forceful, the most dedicated trial supporter can read the book and atnaturally have some disagreements but say to themselves, that's something to think about. i'll give you an example. one of the things that has made america what it is is the strong sense of empathy, that's the difference between the and compassion. but we aren't pathetic people, not in every year of our history, but empathy is one of those words i think a lot of people don't even know the meaning of the word and i would recommend maybe looking it up in the dictionary, pair the with compassion. but is one of the values that hold together is dissent. dissent has been a strong force for good in the country overall, not every dissent in every decade. but dissent is a key to who we are as people. it is a tendency sometimes to equate dissent with being

unpatriotic. that's an example of the kind of discussion i think we can have in the context of the current administration and i have the concern about the tone of president trump and the tone of his administration, but it does have some as the senator said in the previous section, it's almost demagoguery. that had been the so-called dog whistle comedies links to the worst elements of bigotry and prejudice . not only racial prejudice but religious prejudice and that this is something that i am so sorry about, i'll turn my phone off, i your porn but so the book was not designed to say, we're going to jump all over the trump mpadministration. on the other hand, it's inevitable that some persons reading the book, i host most people read book say what do

i think aboutwhat's in this book. as compared to what's happening within the national media? >> the author of what unites us, i should say co-author with elliot kircher . >> guest: elliot kircher is a longtime friend of mine and andre but also a fellow worker, he worked with me at cbs news. he was an important part of putting this together, particularly he's very good and i give him full credit , he's very good at taking what i say and writing, you know what, this is too wordy, it's way too long or way too boring and sharpening it up. >> our first call comes from jeremy in lawrence kansas, you are on with dan rather, go ahead. >> thank you very much and i appreciate theeffort of this book . i would ask you mister rather about the connection between patriotism and speaking courageous truth, you spoke about dissent and i agree with you.and now that we know from this new yorker article by ronan ferro talking about the extent that

someone like harvey weinstein would go to cover up sexual nation using corporate intelligence organizations that was edinvolved with the security at the world trade center on september 11 and then black to, straight up x boson officers trying to intimidate journalists. >> journey, the question ifor our guests please . >> mister rather, would you talk about the pressure that it put on you to talk about the allegations about september 11, pointing out the building at the demolition. >> you can answer if you wish . >> well, i'd don't feel pressured. particularly since i left cbs news, not that i felt any pressure when i was there but i've been away from cbs news for almost 12 years on my own

, my news company is owned by me, i answer only to myself and i have not felt any pressure to in any direction about 9/11. i do think there are a lot of rumors around, a lot of false rumors about 9/11 but it to directly answer yourquestion, i haven't felt any pressure. i don't feel any pressure now . to report anything other than what i believe to be the truth or to get as close to thetruth as possible. that'swhere i am, that's where i stand and that's where i'll be going . >> robert on our republican line . >> mister rather, we elect these people into office. and i think both sides should work together, otherwise this country is not going to work and you reported the news years ago, it's a lot different than it is now. we do not get the truth. everybody's against each other, everybody wants their

way that we should work together and get don back in this country. >> host: mister rather. >> guest: i certainly agree and that's one of the fundamental pieces of the book, what unites us. that we are a new experiment in history but there's never anything like the united states in the whole history of the world. the idea thatwe could have a country that's as strong a mix ofracial , religious , ethnic differences and have our differences but hold ourselves together, united. we understand that divided we fall. united we stand. >> it's a fundamental that held our country together but in the present environment as you point out, and environments in which often you have elected officials take the position that don't bother me with the facts, i have my mind made up, not

only getting these false truths,because some of this is both atparties. we have to get along in the way we get along is to listen to one another .part of what i'm trying to suggest in united we stand is that we need a more civil tone from the leadership and from those of us in the public and as a whole and listen to one another. that doesn't mean give up our principles and taking on things things such as racial bigotry but it means to have a civil tone, lower our voices, listen to one another and find common ground. what works, what makes our ee system work, is a general proposition of saying listen, you and i may disagree about 100 things. can we find one thing, maybe two things on which we can reach common ground, reach agreement on things that will help the country? in many cases what's happening today is that people want to do what's good for their own political futures or for their party

and what they need to do, particularly those in power and the more power we have, the more we need to do it, this is the fundamental of what unites us. both in the book and the larger sense, is we have to get along. and the divisions in the country, you saw some of this reflected this week, that there is a yearning in the country, to hear a better tone, here more voices and more action along with the lines of we want to be united rather than emphasizing divisions and taking one race against another and one religion against another. we can't continue in this country. i'm not on a soapbox about it, but n'we know somewhere

deep within us that we can't hold ourselves together unless we are willing to get along and getting along frequently is trying to reach common ground. you give a little, igive a little and we reach a piece of legislation, have it signed by the president and it will the country . >> host: you can see the governor elect of virginia ralph northam on that website. >> guest: when i got into social media i was very slow to get into social media, facebook and twitter and that kind of thing. what i found was that there was an audience udwith a position of, i'm not the smartest guy around. far from it but i've been arounda long time . i've been a few places but let me try to put some context and perspective into the news with a steady and reliable voice. so when i started doing facebook, my own personal facebook page, i did find there was an audience . so then we established also on facebook using dots, a different page which expands someone each day's news and

try to point out what we believe to be the most important news stories today and add some perspective and context with it. that's what the facebook site is, it's also the name of my news company which i own completely, news company that tries to develop a strong news content. >> this is from nashville tennessee, robert. >> best to you mister rather, i love what you've done all these years.s. your reaction to the question of why 9/11 happened when you were on david letterman which essentially was you did not know why that happened. represents the disconnect ts that the american people have with our role or our perception of our role in the world. for example, when george bush and the senate led us into iraq, it was an abuse of patriotism that george w. bush had so much support that

we allowed along with vietnam to get us into iraq which is a trap. and the same thing, this freedom of speech to be able to criticize our government, and foreign governments for example, the 3.8 billion that goes to israel every year. and the best way to stop terrorism is to get control of israel and their abuse of the people and in this country, folks are, they have a hard time expressing that without being smeared as, smeared and demonized. >>. >> host: robert. mister rather, you wanted to respond? >> guest: there's a lot in question and we're discussing a good deal of it. one of thepoints i may be in the book , i'm not sure i

stateddirectly, but number one, going into iraq , by a reasonable analysis , there is a strategic disaster. of historical proportions. and we in this country and thmadam in much of the world,, i acknowledged what the united states that i along with other people in the press did not ask enough questions as we were being taken into the iraq war, we didn't ask enough tough questions and that was a mistake from my part and on the part of much of the press. the question now when we consider what unites us and what we can do going forward is to keep in mind some of the things you justsaid. that a free and independent , truly independent press is the red, beating heart of freedom and democracy, one of

the roles of the press is to be a check on power, and to ask the tough questions, follow-up with tough afraid to don't be ask the tough questions. what frequently happens and did happen in the rollup to the iraqi war is that those in power made the case and it was believed by many people that question the strategy of going into the iraq war somehow was unpatriotic. and the opposite was true. the patriotic thing to do was to say i love my country, i am going to back us fighting men and women anytime there put in danger but as a member of the press, going to ask the question. that is just the patriotic thing to do and it's a patriotic thing to do now. >> you write in the book that in the second should about the press saying that when it comes to the institution of a prepress in america, it's a crisis rater that i've ever seen in my lifetime, what do you base that on?

>> i base that on what the president has said. and done. . that no president we've ever had has had as much difficulties with the press, however i've never had a president in the president and the nixon years, i've never had a president that relentlessly attacked the press both individual members of the press, president institutions, saying such things as to paraphrase but members of the press are among the most despicable people in the country. and that members of the free press are enemies of the people. that kind of rhetoric from mouth, sident's own we've never had before. president nixon had that attitude to some degree but he always used surrogates so the reason i say that the press is in a crisis the likes of which i have not

seen is because that's what the facts dictate. and the president singled out individual reporters, you all heard during campaign there was a reporter who had physical challenges and the president mocked him . this is unworthy of any presidential candidate, much less the president himself . the president reckoning institutions, he's threatened the washington post, rather repeatedly because he doesn't like what they're reporting. and i think most americans and this would include scertainly many of the people who still support president trump, the tone of the presidency or the free press, that counts for a lot because of the power of the presidency. the president has tremendous power to regulatory agencies and that sort of thing to pressure on the press so the president is clearly openly and blatantly trying to intimidate the press, not to do investigative

reporting. not to ask the tough questions. and his relentless attacks on the press are unprecedented in american history, there's never anything like it. this is not normal. this is in the long run very dangerous. >> host: independent line, pensacola florida, frank, go ahead . >> caller: i would like to ask, republicans are carrying the constitution and in their pockets and they say we need to go back to the constitution the way the founding fathers noted it but to me, they're leaving out all the amendments because if you look at the original constitution, only white men, property owners were allowed to vote. women were not allowed, blacks were not allowed and when they say that you need

to go back to the constitution, i look at it that we need to go to our constitution to give everybody the rights. >> host: thanks, mister rather? >> guest: this is a good point and it brings up one of the chapters in the book, it's about dissent and how important, principled dissent has been in the progress of the country. and the caller mentioned the instances, i can use the instance of the women's right to vote. when women started talking about this century, they were dissenting, saying women should have the right to vote. they were castigated very widely, sometimes called unpatriotic but that dissent eventuallyresulted , it wasn't until later but it eventually resulted in women getting the hevote. time after time when this was

the case, principled dissent was seen as radical if not indeed unpatriotic. it turned out over a period of years to be a way to advance the country, to make us a more perfect union. we're never going to be completely perfect but we are striving to do it and when i wrote this book, i wanted to put a chapter about dissent in it for the reasons the caller pointed out. it's very american. it's deep in our kid to want to keep improving the country. and we can't continue to improve the country when we listen to the voice of leaders who say we want to return to yesterday. we want america to be the america of the 1950s and by the way, the 1950s, we had our problems, we were imperfect during that time but even if you could go back to a previous time in our

history, even if you want to go back, you couldn't do it. the demographics of the country have changed tremendously. we are a richer mix, if you will, of diverse religions and races and ethnic heritage and we've ever been. any thinking citizen who stops and thinks about it knows that this talk about, let's return to some glory days of yesterday was frankly just a way of trying to manipulate public opinion for something that realistically is not going to happen we have to look forward united. >> host: we are just about done but seaport survey, republican line we will leave this conversation with dan rather to go live to the u.s. senate. if you'd like to see the conversation, go to our website, and click on washington journal. lawmakers will be returning for more work on executive nominations this afternoon, putting on whether to move forward with debate on your

hand to the under secretary of transportation. live coverage of the senate you're on c-span two. >>

the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of derek kan of california to be under secretary of transportation for policy. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of derek kan of california to be under secretary of transportation for policy shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.