and the space race, women's rights, racial strife, a fractious presidential election and the rise of the political left and right. this sunday for the vietnam war from major military, political and diplomatic developments through the undoing of lyndon b. johnson presidency. 1968, america in turmoil, live sunday at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span's "washington journal," and on american history tv on c-span3. >> we are live for a conversation with the cofounder

of microsoft, bill gates. also the culture of the bill and melinda gates foundation. he's been interviewed by politico. >> thank you for those remarks, jake and anna. take a lot of pride in our partnership with political. this is really big event for us here at gallup today. much of the conversation that is around development. you might ask yourself what is the contribution at gallup makes when it comes to development. our contribution is one thing, measurement. we do that about an initiative known as the gallup world poll. in partnership with organizations like the international labour organization we quantify what women want in the workplace and over 150 countries. and a partnership of organizations like the food and agricultural organization in rome, we quantify how hungry people are. that indicator is one of the official sustainable development goals put out by the u.n. one of her most favorite indicators is an indicator that is put out by the world bank and

it's called syntex, the financial solution index pick one of his with a not people and bank accounts around the world and i mentioned that one today because that project is made possible by the gates foundation. we here at gallup would like to stay in a big thanks to bill gates himself for helping make that project possible. so give up half of gallup, thank you your partnership network. now please welcome jake and anna again to interview our guest star today. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, john and thanks again to get for having us. we want to let everybody to tweet us some questions at #playbookinterview and will get them on this ipad, amazing how technology works. without further delay please join us in welcoming bill gates. [applause]

>> thank you. >> all right. thank you so much for being here today. we are excited to kick off the conversation. wanted to just take a step back about what you are doing here, what your message is. >> why are you here? >> talk about what is the message or bring to washington on this trip. >> my full-time work is at the gates foundation, and we have two big things we focus on. why is u.s. education. the other is global health. the u.s. government is a key partner in both of those activities. in the case of the health work, for all the diseases we work on, the nih is either the biggest funder or the second biggest funder and likewise with either the first or second biggest funder. making sure that research is

making progress, how we can work together better. in terms of foreign aid, the overall foreign aid is 130 billion. the u.s. is the biggest sigar country at about 30 billion of that. as a percentage of our economy it's quite a bit lower than some others, like .22 versus that europeans, norway and sweden, .7 like germany and the uk. but it's a huge pool of resources, far greater, our foundation is about 5 billion a year. we need to partner up with all the donors to go after things like polio eradication, the pepfar, hiv it's absolutely miraculous in terms of holding that disease in check for us to get vaccine. a lot of the discussion is about even with the congress about the money allocated to these things, or with the executive branch on

the execution of these things. so i am back here four times a year. >> so when the white house daily guidance came out last night, we learned that you are visiting the president today, this afternoon. talk about your experience with the president and what your message is going into the white house. >> well, i think it's a fairly interesting time because -- [laughing] >> okay. and budgetwise, since there was a demand to get the defense budget and a demand for nondefense not late too far behind, the defense over all will be making a 12% increase, assuming the omnibus passes with some big change. and you know that's pretty

unusual. >> there's more spinning that almost in time in the last decade. >> right. and more than there's likely to be the next decade. and the discussion about okay, of that 12% increase, you know, what are the problems. this is a serious amount of money. 143 billion a year, you know, that's like three times greater than what our foundation gives. it's like 30 gates foundations, a string of measure. severity of, okay, where should that go, is it transport, is it education? and hearing, what does that give me, what are the best ideas from various political groups.

it is, the good news for the area of greatest concern, which is the foreign aid budget, is it means for two years to the normal discussion about hey, what is is really go and visit some of this not spent perfectly, and can someone else just do this for us, that challenge will be far less. often when i come it is because i get to go to africa and see pepfar at work, or the president's malaria initiative, and i can come back and say we really are measuring this stuff, here's how we improve it. there's a huge benefit to the u.s. from a long run in terms of having a stable africa. talking about the measurement way that we make sure the money that we are spending together with the u.s. government, we make sure that is spent as best as a can't be. >> i just want to talk about the budget for a second.

you alluded to this because in one week the budget, the government will shut down, we don't want but you could wave a wand and get one or two things done or get congress to do one of two things, what would those be? >> it's always important to remember speedy you can't wave a wand. >> right. congress allocates money and makes policies science delivers most of the miracles. get those to need to go together, the internet was funded by darpa which is part of the defense budget. most of the great biological advances that have been made or because the u.s. taxpayers so generous with the nih. if you compare globally, way over half the money that's discovering how to cure cancer

is spent here in the united states. and it's a win-win. we get the companies because they people involved in the research go and actually build the products, and the world benefits immensely from that. but if i had a wand i would mostly wave it to say, create magic clean energy source that's very cheap or to take the work we're doing on malnutrition, which is a great problem, and say okay, let's understand and get rid of malnutrition. so the congress is super important, but the miracles still require a hands-on sort of private-sector piece as well. >> when you think about your meeting with the president, what is the best case scenario coming out of it? what would be the a+ meeting where you come out and say all right i did this, i'm going going to travel to africa? >> i have two clear messages. one is about foreign aid, where

we are partnered with the government to help articulate why, even if you just look at the benefit to america of stability, disease being less likely to come here, that this is very beneficial, but having those strong relationships, maintained that commitment, continuing to tune it, that there's great things that are coming out of that. and that's been my primary message. because of this budget increase, a second message for me will be that there's an opportunity to take on some tough, , unsolved problems. one that i would highlight is that the preparedness we have for pandemic, either and naturally caused pandemic or a bioterrorism intention called pandemic, we don't have the

tools, the preparedness, the capacity to deal with that. and yet the science is at a point where, for a very small portion of that increase, say a few percent a year, you could do something quite miraculous in terms of health security. and there's a specific way, this one is a little complicated because the civilian side and the defense side both need to work together to achieve that. so you can get excited about that as something to prioritize with the new spending. >> let's be clear. the president has said, has tweeted instead in other settings that foreign aid is the cause of our budget deficit and is, the country spends way too much on hoping other countries, and it's time to start helping our country. that is a message the president has said multiple times in multiple venues. react to that. how'd you get a president who is

allergic it seems to some of these ideas? >> foreign aid is so obscure that if people bring it up, even in a negative sense, at least they are bringing out foreign aid. then we have a chance to explain to people that is less than 1%, the u.s. budget. and make sure often when you hear that word you don't connect with saving lives, with hiv medicine. under president bush in a very bipartisan way this pepfar program, which if you had the malaria peace to it, is about 8 billion thank you. so very big part of the 30 billion is that specific disease work. if you explain that to them and say should we continue to save those lives so that disease doesn't get out of control, until we get a vaccine, which then will enable us to end the

hiv epidemic, we will still have a lot of people who need lifelong treatment, when you say that people respond positively. if people could go on trips with me and see these things -- >> they could. you could invite them. >> my bags are packed. >> there's a lot more voters than seats on my plane. absolutely, getting members of congress to go visit and see this work, people like lindsey graham are very active and encouraging his college to go out to learn and see. i think that's partly why many elements of foreign aid, particularly pepfar, has continued to have this very, very strong response. that didn't stop an executive budget proposal from including potential cuts. in that case the congress will

he didn't consider seriously cutting that money because they do have the commitment to it. >> but aren't you concerned about the american first rhetoric? it's kind of an antonym -- antonym. >> i don't agree with the first american rhetoric. that is, i think the alliances that we built over time starting with the marshall plan, our role in supporting the united nations, , the bilateral thingse do. we have made the world a more stable, a richer place to come to think that's good just from a pure humanitarian point of view. i do think that foreign aid, because of foreign budget is so small, we pick things that are so effective that even if your lenses, hey, does this benefit americans, americans don't want a pandemics and don't want it

sent soldiers off to create stability in africa. and look at our ratio. we spent over 600 billion a year on defense and 30 billion a year on foreign aid budget. that's a 20 to one ratio. for european countries, the ratio is actually pretty close, like two or three to one. we are very much a hard power country. president bush when he did pepfar and thinking we're going to exercise hard power, wanted to make sure that the soft power peace was made stronger as well and that's why he picked pepfar. general mattis said that foreign aid budget helps and if you cut it got to give him more money for weapons. i'm a huge believer that that framework does not say that we should cut the money.

>> when donald trump ran for the presidency, he talked about being a businessman and that's why he was elected. do you in your experience running businesses and running a big business and creating a business, do you feel like you're a good sense of how he thinks? has anybody that you met in your time, in your career, repaired you to do with somebody like him? [laughing] >> well, in business you meet a lot of different kinds of people. [laughing] and you have to be good at adapting to different styles of working. i was in the new york real estate business or the new jersey casino business, and you know, , obviously i missed a whe different approach.

but you know, you find things in common that you believe in. i think president trump would like to take some of this new money and that something that is new, you know, and makes a big difference that he is personally exercising leadership against that. i think everyone should be creative about okay, what can be taken to him that would fit that, sir of the country's interest and really resonate, particularly that something that presidential leadership would be important to make it happen. >> one of the question would like to take a step back as people are very fascinated by you. we have more interest in this event at almost anything we've ever had. >> they are not here for us. >> no. seriously, take a step back. what is your daily routine? walk us through what is a day in the life of legates.

>> well, the foundation sees most of my time. i still spend about 10% 10% ofy time over at microsoft. i have a board meeting on monday and tuesday. i get to help shape some of the strategies of their, so i kind of, i am thereto or three days a month. i do something outside the foundation in terms of the science investing editor at time of work on clean energy. i have nuclear fission company and a whole bunch of energy related things, a big venture that is over $1 billion that people pulled together to finance breakthroughs in clean energy. but most of my time is at the foundation. so we just had two weeks of strategy reviews will we go through all the things we are doing, what's going well, , whas not going well. we do malaria, hiv, then tv. we do the u.s. program that's

got k-12 and higher red. are the two key components there. -- higher ed. i travel a lot and i need to go to africa three or four times a year. next week i will be in chad and nigeria the entire week. i spent a lot of time on nigeria because it's a quarter of the population of southern africa, and it's a challenge country in terms of the government health systems. and so i'll be over there. a lot of the trips are two other donor countries. the uk and germany give more than half what the u.s. does because, even though the population, economy are dramatically smaller, so talking to them about the joint work. polio eradication is the single biggest project that i put time in on because we are in a very,

very critical phase where we've got three countries, nigeria, afghanistan and pakistan, the only countries that it had wild polio virus in the last three years. and so if we execute well and have a little bit of luck, this will be the last year any child gets paralyzed by polio, ever. [applause] >> we asked some of our readers to send us questions that you like to ask you, and we won't you all of them but one that was very interesting is, how do you decide what areas to fund? i mean, this is from a reader who said malaria, tb and polio are three things that euphoric to eradicate, but there are other diseases like viral

hepatitis which i'm not estimated with some of these diseases and the impact that you might be, but where do you, how do you, take us through your thought process. >> so melinda and i pick the two areas we were going to work in just based on our values, and nobody can work in all areas, so u.s. education and global health. once we picked global health, then within that we are extremely rational about saying okay, of this money, what can have the highest impact? and we can save a life for less than $1000 per life saved. it's only comes in a suggest we should work on cancer because you can do something, well, the pharmaceutical companies with an

r&d budget 20 times bigger than ours as a group are working hard on that. and the incremental benefit of any new advance is more in the $400,000 per life saved regime. going out and getting more meaningful vaccine, that's in the sub $1000 per life saved. so we are working on focusing on infectious diseases, things where either very cheap drugs are very inexpensive vaccines can be invented and get out to people. our biggest metric is under five deaths, and when we got started, over 10 million children under the age of five died per year. that number has now been cut in half. it's under 5 million die per year, that's because we and our partners have done with vaccines and improving the primary health care system and getting malaria bed nets out.

and by 2030 we will cut that in half again so it will go from 5 million a year to 2.5 million a year. so cute progress in a fairly -- huge progress in a fairly dramatic way. and diseases that are very rare, we won't work on. we've made so much progress on the big ones that we just funded tom friedman to go out and look at heart disease and high blood pressure in africa. he's got a group that is doing that. we are talking sickle cell was not a focus for us, but now that we're making progress on others it might be if we can figure out the right treatment or new invention that can help out with that. it's about 2% of of the deaths in nigeria are specifically due to sickle cell your refund a

group called the international metrics at the university of washington where the understanding of what people die from, really getting the numbers right is 100 times better today than when they got started. we didn't have to do things that are hard. no autopsies are done of these poor children who die. we created a thing called a minimally invasive autopsy where we can take a few samples, a get, lung and brain and have analyzed in labs in africa to get a picture of what do we need to do to save these lives. >> we should kick it out to one of our reporters. i don't know where they are sitting. >> hi, everybody. thank you so much when you today. i can perform policy for political. my question is this.

one of the reasons they trump administration is in terms of wanting to cut for a budget substantial is that they feel like other countries are not doing their fair share. they call this burden sharing. they say that the u.s. gives more than it should and that is making other countries dependent on us. i realize you mention some of these countries have smaller populations but to give significant amounts to my question is, isn't their argument a legitimate one to some degree? isn't this the kind of shock therapy for wake-up call the rest of the world needs so that other countries will step up, get more and also find ways to be less dependent on u.s. aid? >> the figure of merit is what percent of your gdp to give as foreign aid? and so norway, 1.1%. sweden%. sweden, one percenter uk is .7%. germany is .7%. we are .22%.

so we are substantially less generous than those countries are. if you like shock therapy it is true if you withdraw pepfar, which was proposed to wind down, not getting hiv drugs is a form of shock. you die. and those people will no longer need for a because they will be dead. i don't totally get the logic of why that would be a smart thing to do, but you all our country to lift themselves up so they become self-sufficient. and when the u.s. started giving the aid out after world war ii, at first i thought of that aid went to redevelop europe, some to develop japan. by the time you get to the 1960s you got very much a bifurcated world where you have rich countries and poor

countries, and almost nothing in the middle. and partly because of aid, and partly because of signs and economic development, a miracle took place, which is that today most people live in middle income countries. in those countries are not aid recipients, brazil, mexico, fairly soon india, china. the bulk of the 7 billion people live in those middle income countries which are not substantial sources of aid or substantial recipients of aid. but you do have still poor countries, the low income countries, and though cause -- those countries, in order to get stability, health, education right so they can have their own domestic tax collection, they need foreign aid. when you have malaria, , when yu have an hiv epidemic, there's no source of revenue that's going to let you go by those hiv medicines for those malaria bed

nets. in particular, the research to create say and malaria vaccine, who should do that? the resources and expertise are not in those poor countries. when we gave our first 30 million rent for a malaria vaccine, we became the biggest funder. a market is not going to provide it. and yet in terms of humanity it is still killing, we've made a lot of progress, it still kills half million kids a year. if i told you hey, there are two kids dying and this audience could say those two kids, you know, i think people would respond. it costs $14 per bed net. can we manage to come up with $28 $28 and help those two kids? those two kids would be dependent on us. think of it, that would be awful. they wouldn't die of malaria. it would be dependent on us. so, you know, it's hard for me to understand the notion that

helping people who are poor than we are is a bad thing. it's kind of in the bible. [laughing] >> in terms of kind of finding partners, i wanted to ask a question. we knew at microsoft you often butting heads with the government here, and now so much of the time is spent wooing leaders, , trying to get country to get more money, trying to do this diplomacy effort. have you had to reshape your kind of framework where government should be involved? >> no. government is a necessary thing. [laughing] huge things, justice, military. and it is true, microsoft had this long lawsuit, i was driving by the district court where i would go out on the sidewalk and

said okay, that was a good day in court, even when it wasn't sometimes. >> these days are probably a little bit more fulfilling than those days. >> no, no. i enjoyed that. the doj lawsuit was not the most positive thing but i loved my time at microsoft. it is true, people treat governments, including the u.s. government, treat me nice as a philanthropist than they did as the capitalist. but that's speedy you have to be a capitalist before you become a philanthropist. >> it helps. [laughing] >> you not be a particularly large philanthropist, and that affects the impact. so it is, you can sit at a tiny bit ironic because when we started the foundation i thought our primary role would be the invention of the new tools. and that is a little over half of what we do, the hiv vaccine,

the tb vaccine all those things. the idea that we would have to get involved in the delivery, go in and help improve the primary health care system, partner with the government to look at okay, where do you put your health clinic, how do you train those people, how do you measure the work, which part of this should be digital? i did know that was going to be necessary. i thought if the right things were invented that that the band was there and other people would make sure they got out there. but, in fact, it turn out that wasn't realistic. there were actually some fairly good tools that had been invented. there was a vaccine for a form of diarrhea called rotavirus, and it was being given to exactly the kids who didn't need it, rich kids never die of rotavirus. poor kids at that time, over 500,000 a year, were dying of rotavirus, and yet those poor kids were not getting that

vaccine. .. now, it has been 15 years since that bar has been very effective in your view in many people's view. congress has a very partisan way, which he said. i wonder now what you encounter when you go try to build new allies on capitol hill. he went to shake shack yesterday, took itself the end had some hamburgers. tell us what you encounter in du

sensor? how do you pick your allies? >> the next generation if you will. >> lindsey graham and john mccain are champions of these causes, but they are veteran lawmakers. how do you go about finding these folks in convincing them of foreign aid end quote to help her important priority? >> well, our team here led by robin neighbors assumes to every member in saying this for any of the new would like to learn about? even people who come in with a fairly negative attitude, our view is the more you learn about this, the more you realize while, this is real, this is pretty important stuff. and so, whenever we come, a fair portion of the time is sitting down, talking about the progress in the hearing what concerns

they might have. we probably more focused on people state and foreign knobs, committees. but we don't limit ourselves to that because this sort of simple ideas about foreign aid, we want to rebut those. even the press coverage of foreign aid, and like a scandal which was awful recently, the good news doesn't travel quite as fast as the bad news. trying to make sure people have an overall picture, something that isn't managed out well, but overall, whether it is health, education, agriculture, sanitation tremendous period of time is in the best ever in helping poor countries up with themselves. >> where one more question from a reporter in the audience. >> good morning, mr. gates.

facebook, twitter and google have the space for what is seen as their platforms to get out of control, which is the effort to seemingly influenced american domestic politics. as you mentioned, you've had government experience with oversight. you think the government needs to step in here? if not, why not. and if so, what would that look like? >> yeah, the interest into these platforms polarize people in a way that exacerbate trans polarization authority taking place and do they allow foreign influence that shouldn't be allowed or trolls, heat speech to come on and affect people's views. those are super interesting questions in a democracy. in the world of media there has always been how media is used

politically. and yet, even as people have a desire to say okay, these platforms need to do something different. let's take facebook in particular. the specific recommendations about what they should do i find fairly frank. you know, the idea though case, is there an exact line where pre-speech stops in hate speech starts and what is it that foreigners are allowed to say? you know, foreigners can go on to these forums and talk. you're probably not going to have only u.s. citizens talking to each other. when does it become a form of political influence in what types of visibility should it have? there were some draft bills that would have created huge transparency about who is buying ads on these art forms if they

didn't choose to move their particular bills forward. there is definitely some being that needs to be looked at. but the actual solutions embarrassing for a little less clear. >> what do you hear from foreign leaders, which allow you see me without time, but the united states? >> well, the way the world has benefited from u.s. leadership is hard to overstate. you know, most of their policies they look out, both say what does the u.s. do? how did the u.s. gave great universities? how did they organize research? even on an issue like what do we do to prepare for a pandemic, the cdc is the best in the world about what they do. it is phenomenal.

the u.n. system has benefited not only from the resources, but the personnel that go there. people from cdc are working a world health organization, really professionalizing it, helping the organization work well. so there is an expectation that the u.s. cares about world stability and world progress. as we surprised people or say that i will miss things will have a short-term showcase on our full benefits in those type committees as opposed to the long-term benefit for all of the different numbers, that is potentially a problem. it creates a vacuum of leadership that people badly miss. when you polled them about do you let the united states, both

say no, dominic country, doesn't do everything well. they pick some things to get involved in that they shouldn't. they don't get involved in something they should. everett has opinion about exercising it leadership. as the engagement has gone down in a lot of these forums and i think people are very much missing it. >> there is the new leadership at the state department with mr. pompeo coming in as head of that agency. do you know him or would you work with him commuting is important to have a top diplomat with the country? >> yeah, we always worked with the secretary of state. mark green is the administrator over at usaid. you know, there's an aids coordinator, but a lot of that money is going back to usaid in

cdc. and so, there's a deep collaboration there. you know, if the hiring of good people and morale at the state department can be improved under new leadership, that will be a good thing. i will certainly go and meet the new secretary and talk about the partnerships we've had and how we can manage those. >> one thing we haven't talked about is a new interest of yours come a new priority of yours. a lot of your work is abroad, so it doesn't touch the u.s. as much as it does in perhaps sub-saharan africa. talk about what you're doing on alzheimer's and how you think you could have a big impact. >> yeah, for the foundation or big thing in the u.s.'s work in education. complicated, but super important area. alzheimer's is unusual because

there is a gigantic market. whoever creates a drug that cures alzheimer's will make billions and billions of dollars. and yet, if they target has proven to be very, very difficult. it's the agency that there's been more failed trials on than any other disease. these are very expensive trials because the gold standard is improving behavior on a cognition test and that takes in some cases six to eight years in the early trials probably recruited patients that were too far along in their disease and this is a disease were even getting the drop up to the place of numbering across the blood brain barrier is very difficult. and so, the human cost and economic cost of dementia are broadly in alzheimer's in particular is absolutely

gigantic. a lot of that liability of long-term care will follow the government. you could site even though we are very generous compared to any other country, our investment involving this problem at a research level hasn't been enough. now, the congress with a few people being reacted is taking the budget from five years ago, the nia, which has the alzheimer's work has gone from 400 million under the proposed budget is likely to get up to about 2 billion. that is as faster growth has the national had the beginning of the cancer. it is an amazing, fantastic thing. my role in terms of saying okay, this is a disease that requires a lot of different actors to come in. my role is on finding people for

a biomarker, getting the data organized. there's a lot of international data, from a data that is not available to research on a form that they could learn about disease progression. that is the thing we've done in the foundation was lots of how young children grow and when they falter. do in that type of database goes back to sort of my microsoft background of how you empower researchers. there's a few things, including investing in early-stage, high risk companies that have no approaches because the mainstream approaches where you clear the box very directly. those are the trials that so far have not worked out. >> we're about to get a rapid i do want to ask about education because that's a big focus of yours. secretary betsy devos has send

me -- that is not in line with yours. what is your concern about? >> and did you watch her on 60 minutes? >> i read articles about it. the truth is the federal government under the obama administration and bush administration was very act is in trying to say, how do we manage teachers? you know, are we looking at how they are achieving things? are we giving feedback to them? a lot see the school is failing, the government has some ideas about what can we go when then change that. once we have the reauthorization, the role of the federal government was greatly reduced. and now, for k-12, most of what counts is that the state for the district level. and so there haven't been under

this administration, there have been slight tweets here and there, but not a dramatic set of changes to the title i money for the overall envelope of money. you know, even in the areas they have talked about, the idea of school choice, actually quite a bit of thought that we agree with that have been really strong charters that try out new things, that can be very, very positive. we are never going to have more than 10% of kids in charter. even if you do the best job possible, you have to use it as a learning lab for the 90% who are not going to be in charters. so we are in a lot of states now, partnering, trying new things that it is fair to say when we started the foundation, i thought global halt would be the hardest thing that would make very little progress in because it's just so tough in

which a really quick wins in u.s. education, maybe move the map up 5%. with their reading scores at 10%. really get that to build our confidence that we can go out there to nigeria on a regular basis. that is not to say every school where we've gotten involved, whether it's a public school or charter, great things have happened. but when it comes to taking matters scaling it up, getting other schools to adopt it or even the school brn, you know, say it is three years after we spend their, does it persist or does that mentoring program for teacher collaboration program, does not go away? we feel good about the direct intervention. as a philanthropy in k-12 comments 600 billion a year being spent in the market.

all you are doing is an r&d pilot programming type of thing. if you want to move the macro statistics, you have to figure out not only good ideas that were, the good ideas they get massive adoption. in the air come in the field including ourselves, does not have a huge success. the one thing we did that is the best as we got people really talking about the drop rate in an honest way which is your entering a nice grade class. people would talk about the country and senior class and most of the drop it now takes place in those first three years. people paid attention to that and the numbers have gone down some. but it is nothing like what we have achieved in global health. >> so we are just about out of time. a fascinating conversation. you do expect you can move

president trump off of his america first rhetoric. >> no, i will take his framework and explain why things like health security and continued foreign aid, even in the narrow framework where you get no credit for saving my in africa, kind of pure humanitarian things. even without that, this is money well spent. >> tell them we say hello. >> thank you so much for this great conversation. [applause] a special thank you to gallup, our host for being so generous into all of of you in the room. thank you for tuning in. have a great day. [applause] [inaudible conversations] /

>> the senate comes in at 10:00 for work on human trafficking bill. yesterday a number of senators gave speeches on gun violence on the one-month anniversary of the shooting of a florida high school that left 17 dead. here are some of the debate. >> mr. president, most people cannot remember what happened in the first grade. but there are certain things that may have been, even at that young stage in your life, that will be remembered. my six-year-old granddaughter who attends first grade in brooklyn, new york a