there are chinese systems. you also see the arms fired into ukraine and they are being manufactured. they are being manufactured by iran so they are getting to every level of cooperation in their efforts. russia realized they don't have the capability and they are trying to their friends and what happens is they learn on the battlefield iran and north korea and china learning of the speed of relevance so as much as we are learning what's happening in the battlefield, our adversaries are learning, to in getting more capability faster than if they test their own weaponry cake

and manufacturing on the face of the earth. an incredible things going on australia, great things and uk, too. there's a reason japan wants to in south korea wants to be part of the offices and why the philippines would like to become part of it. they see the value of the relationships and the agreements bring down with a face and doing things on the cooperative level. that's the way forward to develop deeper relationships and defense cooperation agreements

and scratch the surface for other countries out there. lots of conversations with the ambassador of australia. he was adamant to say you treat canada better than australia and a deeper agreement than with canada and he's one 100% right. they've taken almost 18 months to make those changes so we have to operate at a faster pace and make sure we are less restricted and look to agreements with our friends to counter what we see with this modern evil between china, russia and north korea at everett.

>> thank you so much, i know this is a really busy time of year can you. really appreciate you taking the time to be here with us today. [applause] >> thank you for attending today. i think we saw messages of optimism but also a lot of work remains to be done. thank you for coming.

i will tell youut out elh warren in her lenger participate in the debate tosent massachusetts in the u.s. senate. this is their s debate is because if i boston and new england public m. watch live at 7:00 p.m.rn on c-span2. c-span no, free mobile video app and online at c-span.org. >> the 2024 campaign continues, american history tv presents the historic election. explore the lasting impact on the nation. the election of 1860.

>> for millions of americans who still deny equality of opportunity, there shall be the greatest opportunity. >> we stand today on a new frontier. the frontier of unknown opportunities, unfilled hope. >> i close and controversial election, john kennedy defeated republican vice president richard nixon. rday:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv and c-span2. ♪♪ do not tv every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing the latest nonfiction books. ♪♪ 6:30 p.m. eastern johns hopkins

university policy researcher doctor marty makary looks at what happens when medical institutions make mistakes. 8:00 p.m. eastern, bob woodward shares his poker he talks about wars in the middle east and ukraine in the presintial election and 10:00 p.m. eastern on "afterwards",tephanie baker looks at the global impact of economic sanctions against russia interviewed by author senior fellow. watch tv every sunday on c-span2 and plentiful schedule in a program guide or watch online anytime a book tv don't work. ♪♪

>> c-span is an unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and for. ♪♪ speed, reliability, value and choice. it all starts with the internet. ♪♪ >> the public service along with these of the television providers giving a front row seat to democracy. >> nancy pelosi in london for conversation about u.s. foreign policy and politics. a two state solution between israel and palestinians not possible with benjamin netanyahu in charge and discussed u.s. support for ukraine. california democratic congresswoman interviewed by the

director and ceo maddox. >> a warm welcome, the director can tell from the applause people have been forward to this discussion. many discussions do not get applause. [laughter]

should find one on your chairs. my story is americans first woman speaker of the house, part of what we are here to discuss today. i think we have some more copies. the couldn't be a better time, we enter the countdown if we can call it that it's, the importance of leadership at the front of the debate. so the u.s. and the world and no one better to discuss it with since her first election in 87 she's built i think beyond any

doubt, a central position in american political life and leadership. fifty-second speaker of the house of representatives 2007 -- 2011 and first woman to hold that and served again 2019 -- last year so let me start by saying welcome. >> thank you very much. it's in order to be here. thank you all for weathering the weather to be here. i was just saying the townhouse rules, one is an adjective and the other is a subject. don't have rules. [laughter] reading some of the beautiful

things on the wall from distinguished leaders and speakers saying the best way to resolve differences to resolve differences and it has ruled on in the little force but with the rule of law and that is so necessary. >> that's completely right. some of the statements of our founders, i do look out because we still have so much trying to bring together people.

on, and many others very much on the presidency. >> i am ordered is here, peter of the effort to win the house. we think it is essential because we want to when the hospitals of january 6 jeffries will have the gavel. it is very important and part of the reason we are here and thank you for making this is it

possible. i am honored to visit. it's something less than democracy. democracy and our own country and a large and throughout the world. maloney. in san francisco for a long time in congress but i grew up loving the flag near where the national income was written and they are

probably tired of hearing me say this, my favorite line of the national anthem is gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. that was the war of 1812. [laughter] proof through the night that our flag is still there. we have to give proof through the night during the selection that our flag is still there. if we pledge every day at the end we say with liberty and justice for all. all of that is at stake in this election. we have two very different visions for the future of our country. what is relevant to all of you is what it means through our leadership role in the world and a clear signal and disrespect

for nato. the fight and ukraine if putin wins that and goes into other countries if they haven't paid their 2%, how about them. the president of the united states. how could that be? we would hope -- we have to find common ground but it's hard. the other thing about bringing people together.

>> find common ground. it's our responsibility. this has never been the case with john mccain or walker bush or mitt romney. >> how do you account for the popularity? >> it looks like a very close race. twenty coming down to the state, close, a very close race.

i don't understand it at all. i would say that being respectful of other means of view, there are those who will never get a lot anti- women to look at the lgbtq, anti- anything that's not who they are, so put that over there. then you have very rich in america, there are not that many electorally but there are plenty in the campaign and they don't want to pay tax. many don't pay their fair share and it's a motivation for the cost of doing business and it is a factor but in between their people, this is where we find

common ground, they have legitimate concerns about innovation, globalization and some of them even immigration which is the lowest threat to the job security they don't always see it that way. my father was a truck driver but you all know given the globalization with a fauci down the road now in another country so the impact of globalization, it's fertile territory for the message. what joe biden has done, sometimes bipartisan slightly but nonetheless, to address the concerns and have a rescue

package and infrastructure to have act to make us self related and extended education too many into the pact act for men and women in uniform exposed to brnovich but keep them helpful for the future and inflation reduction act which put $370 billion into reducing and fighting the climate crisis. the fossil fuel industry, give me a billing dollars for my campaign. i will get rid of all that.

give me money and i will get rid of what the ira does to lower the cost of prescription drugs. one was five to $600 from medicare now $35 a month. insulin, we are not talking about research here, it makes a difference, these are kitchen table issues. public sentiment is everything. with it you can accomplish almost anything. without it, practically nothing. people have to know and we have to make sure that they know his

legacy is tremendous and it's our legacy and it's remarkable. 200 republicans voted against and vote no and take the dough in the past act with 24 republicans actively. the would not allow them to participate in that meant 187 of them voted against it and the list goes on. not one republican vote from the climate crisis. >> a lot of money going in why is it biden and then harris?

some of the things you have saying they are worried about migration for all principles donald trump is reasons. again, we would hope they would

be staying for incubus for coverage for all of this. we fully intend on the ground. it's not about polls but about turnstone and we have to actually turn out. when the biggest issues is to make sure they. congress after the dog decision, we put a little on the board is available. she is a good that.

result that says north carolina, she had was bill that such women have a right to contraception. some members of the new are you doing that? i know who i job, okay x230 vote, eight of them voted a woman have a right, eight republicans voted in the right to contraception. women of america. that means 195 said they could not.

in a vast difference between the and the turnout would be tremendous. again, we will win the popular vote, no question about that. the question is can nevada and georgia. when the electoral and the politics of the so will 15 million jobs created under this leadership in the presidency. herbert hoover in the great

depression principal don't know so we have to make sure. right now it is this turnout. about 45, given everything. >> that can be micro. >> regarding. [laughter] i'm not there yet longer 45 and kamala harris 47 and third-party whether left-wing or whatever it is and three of that so if

pharaoh narrow and decided the and the rasters. the uk, get out the vote and all the rest and it was wonderful. and there leaving the house and building into those districts so they will make a difference. but that is relentless and no waste of time. we could have just walked for another day of walking. >> let me just ask you and.

no her weight will and people as a person of strength and filled the policy and strategy. the nominee of the 30 is capable. my politics right now for the less the latches of putting herself out saying over me

because the lord is helpful for me because i'm a woman photo but gives for because of from a woman from a listen to the policies. that is what she is doing nationally. if she wins, it will be so wonderful. but the best person for the job. she happens to be a woman and a woman is reduction of the reason to vote for her. it's what she will or people's lives. >> you can have of the ship we

look at the biden and the exit from appearances and support for ukraine in the has been for the biden administration and we could go on and what the world should be. at least there was ukraine because the husband so long.

and for the person to go and i thought therefore that guy is we thought we could and they were putting their lives inside when they settled. but nonetheless we think that. the what's his name will the republicans of the fence the money. people are dying, democracy is

that steak. eventually they did it but republicans have that quick and the republican caucus of the house and senate and they have quite a bit and eventually sent the money to ukraine so that was the last one. if you reference the technology and use of it, that's a different argument much for going to go all the way with it is at stake for the administration i think joe biden is a fabulous job working with nato. when i was a girl in school

board kennedy inauguration, it was beautiful and lovely and everybody in america knows that speech he said that's not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. every child knows that, they read in the history books first. next line in the speech, the one that i took away that's what i was studying in school the countries of the world ask not what america can do for you but what we can do working together protects freedom of mankind and that is exactly what joe biden did working together with nato countries and beyond countries throughout the world working

together and the timing related among those people and nato was strengthened, increased welcoming sweden and finland and was a bit of. as it you have very kennedy leadership role to play bringing the people together in the freedom of mankind itself i think he deserves great benefit that so there's hesitation, technology and timing on that he deserves a great deal of credit.

and it was very beholding to donald trump (and people like him i know live like him, i know him. nonetheless there say is that the in the united states? lower than 2%. ...

>> and it wasn't a pretty sight in the departure, but the departure had already been negotiated in the previous administration. now, we could've stayed longer. two days ago i did a presentation with the czech government on women in afghanistan. what a tragedy it is. for all the years we were there to see the advances of women. i visit women in the countryside, the force women in the countryside, the profession limit and cobble, their children in school to see the joy of the girls in school.

the confidence of the young women in the military. and now they may not even be able to speak in public. that is a terrible tragedy. i don't think -- >> i don't think there's anyone here or on my to disagree with you. the question is, couldn't the u.s. have stayed longer with that at stake? and it was joe biden's decision, yes, begun by then president trump but it was joe biden's decision to exit. >> the whole afghanistan situation is a tragedy. we got attacked on 9/11. anybody came together. nato and the rest, to make sure that the country of origin of these terrorists come what the country of origin could be come in every country like osama bin laden and afghanistan. and my book, which were not her talk about the book, but in my book you will read that i say when we went into afghanistan

then, we didn't stay long. and then in his book president george w. bush whom i have the highest respect for but disagreement on iraq, going into iraq, he says we routed the taliban. routed ain't good enough. crush is what we have to do. they routed them. they headed for the hills. they just waited for the opportunity to come back, and they will infiltrating all along. so we should never have left unfinished business in afghanistan when we did then in order to go into iraq. and when i went to iraq to visit the troops, right -- >> you could've made the decision, you mention one thing she picked up in his book which is you say it's not a blow-by-blow political memoir but it is one of the passages you picked out in opposition to. >> when we went into iraq with jack murtha and mr. hopson who

just passed away from ohio, we talk to the troops right with initiation of hostilities. we were in kuwait actually before the way into -- i said to the troops who want to see what, see what their needs were. i was opposed to it but we have to support our troops and that was kind of a conflict in her own caucus in that. but i said to the troops what is your morale like? and they said our morale is high. they hurt us and now we are going to hurt them. i said when did the iraqis hurt as quick a said on 9/11, that's what they were telling the truth. there's a evidence of anything that iraq had anything to do with 9/11. what we were selling a bill of goods that they were on the verge of this nuclear program, nuclear weapon, which they weren't, and that they help, they were part of 9/11, which they weren't.

so again the afghanistan situation as a tragic situation from beginning until now. and sadly, women pay a big price and we cannot let that go ignored or go corrected. >> i'm going to come to questions because there's some really once online. i'm sure the would-be loggia. we've not yet come to china -- >> the middle east. >> we might -- let me ask you about the middle east. what you think the next president of the u.s. should do to try to bring about a resolution of what is going on at the moment? >> i think you see two different visions of there. the former president has said we'll just end it in a minute. what does that mean? what does that mean? if you think of what happened on

october 7th, the anniversary just a few days ago, of terrorist organization, hamas, dedicated to the destruction of the state of israel, 1400 people dead, hostages kidnapped, and the rest. it was a horrible thing. the reaction with the collateral damage to civilians in gaza is a tragedy beyond -- so sad and gets sadder by the day because more people are vulnerable. joe biden and the democrats have for a long time supported a two-state solution. a two-state solution. a solution is the key word, not a state anything. a two-state solution where these countries, people can live in peace. >> do you think that is credible? >> not with netanyahu. no, i don't think he's ever believed in peace or two-state

solution. i just, i am very, very disappointed. we have always supported israel. it is our ally. we shared values within our national strategic interest to support israel. we continue to support israel but not the deaths of so many, so much collateral damage. there are those who say the israelis are taking very great precautions. well clearly, clearly not enough. but we really have to get to a place that is, and the arab world could be helpful, too. they could be helpful, too, and let's hope that they will weigh in, in helping with the economic growth. the palestinians are successful people all over the world. they are entrepreneurial. they're just industrious, hard-working and visionary and

the rest, except not so much of there. now, i visited the small businesses in gaza west bank and the rest of that. that vitality is there but not to the fullest extent that it could be with a two-state solution. you should know this. right before, right before october 7 when we were getting to the year-end last year of our budget, our fiscal date is september 30, the end of the fiscal year. i was asked by rosa delauro who is the chair of our appropriations. will you talk to republicans in the senate and the house about getting some assistance for the palestinians? we need to manage and assistance for unrwa, you know. i go to them and they said well, we will give you more humanitarian assistance as long as none of it goes to the palestinians. this is like the 24th of

september. joe biden had been fighting for more help for the palestinians in gaza west bank and all the rest. and actually in jordan for many of them are, had been, now simon syria, well, the lebanese are going to syria. it is a tragedy. it just, it cannot continue that way. so the new president is going to come in friendship -- excuse me -- in friendship to israel, with respect for all parties concerned have to be very clear about the loss of life. as gandhi said in his statement, really more addressed people who do not get along with each other, but this cannot continue. and again for years we've been talking about a two-state solution. we really have to bring,

although everybody doesn't like the idea, global consensus to help the palestinian people and to help the israelis live in peace. the course we're on is not that course. now, i understand they want to get rid of hamas, and this is what bothers me about netanyahu. when the qataris back were helping hamas -- i recognize that come it'd been -- netanyahu supported the qataris helping hamas because he wanted to counter the palestinian authority. so this is, he said, unless you're from the middle east you can never fully understand the politics and whatever happens there. but can you imagine, he has been recognized as enabling the support for hamas to counter the palestinian authority.

it's a tough neighborhood. >> i'm just going to squeaking one more. do you think any u.s. government would put enough pressure on israel to make progress towards a two-state solution? >> it's way down the road now. it would have been -- the u.s. government had put pressure for two-state solution. this was what, 1991, was that when we had the meeting at the white house? >> ninety-three. >> ninety-three, the handshake, we thought we were on that course then when bill clinton had the leaders at the white house. but i think the leadership of netanyahu all these years has been counter to that. he doesn't believe in a two-state solution. >> and of the debate which we've

had on here. let's go to questions because yes, there's loads and loads of them. >> some women, too, okay? [laughing] >> let's start here, indeed, with the woman in the front row. >> thank you. speaker pelosi, the right t large, the nightly ostrow. kamala harris was really asked who the united states is greatest adversary is. she said iran. what is indo-pacific to take from that if? is china the longer big a strategic threat? is that appear appear with the way. >> no, i don't think so at all. she's talking about immediate, and that immediate is what is happening in the middle east and what would, how shall we say, could some reaction by iran trigger some, larger

conflagration there? i think war should be eliminated as lila curtis said. it should be eliminated as a possibility for the resolution of conflict, and he said, he's a force replaced by the rule of law, rule of law. but no, kamala harris is committed to of course the transatlantic alliance, but also she spent a good deal of time traveling in asia, receiving the leaders from asia, participating strongly in a pack which met in san francisco last november -- aipac. of course where california, so with pacific as well as atlantic in terms of u.s. pirg but no, i don't think that at all. the nato countries are seen it, important for them to become

more involved in the pacific as well. kind of behavior, aggressive behavior in south china sea in what means for trans commerce and the rest is very important. it's important to hong kong. trade issues and the rest, very important. the indo-pacific is very important to the united states, very important to kamala harris. she has demonstrated that. >> thank you that. a bit of china in. james. >> james comer bbc. let me pick up on the previous question. kamala harris it's a bit of an unfinished page i can put it about foreign policy we're all scratch their heads thinking what would a kamala harris presidency be? what would it mean for the of the world? can you give us your sense of her priorities, instincts on foreign policy across-the-board

to sort of fill in some of those gaps? >> you have to just look to the american experience, not as individuals, except for one, except for one. because since made a was created the greatest organization for security for so many years, 75 years, this is remarkable. and that is the commitment of the united states of america and ongoing one from one president to the next, except for one gap, one shocking gap there. so there's no question about that. as i have said, her commitment, her travels, or experience in indo-pacific have been very clear. she understands, she understands america's role in that direction, but not just america's role. how we can, working together,

focus on that region. when we talk about, see, your talk but one person. we are talk about our country. when we talk about our international relations which, and when i as speaker would send delegations to meetings or codels, congressional delegations to meet with heads of state and the rest, we had three principles, pillars. one, security. and you can say it over and over and over again, security security security. and again nato has been the preeminent alliance for security. and she will obviously continue america's commitment to nato. the second, and again, we are talk but the rest of the world as well. second is economics, what is the economic relationship that we

have with the rest of the world? because we want to have our economy succeed but not at the expense of other countries. so how do we address issues like the climate crisis and the globalization, large and what it means and migration and what that means as well? all of the issues that relate to economics and how we can have prosperity throughout the world, not one country at the expense of another. and the third is governance, governance. how do people treat their people? but in addition to that, how ethical and/or corrupt is a government, or when we want investment in a country to help it grow, is it going to be safely there, or is it going to be stolen by a corrupt

government? so those are the elements that we have worked around. and if, you know, take an example of any country if you wish but nonetheless our promotion of our economy, again with the understanding that we're we are all connected in this and that globalization has presented its challenges, and how do we work together on that. on all of those things what of the issues that is affected by all of this is the migration issue. it's an economic issue. it's a cultural issue. it's a governance issue, and it is sad when you see, especially people come from third world countries and the rest, you really don't have the opportunities that we would like them to have. that's why our security has to

have a soft diplomacy as well to have our economics to invest in these countries as well. so i think that, you know, i think, our country's really in a bipartisan way has always -- and by the way in the congresswoman talk about governance issues like human rights and corruption issue, it's very bipartisan. it's like 400 to one, or something, three, or somebody said he might mistake in their vote. it's very bipartisan in the house and in the senate. so i think that people will see strength on the part of kamala harris. i know that she will be well advised that there are strong voices for america's role in the world to keep the world safe, to keep the world democratic, to

keep the economy's fair and the governance just, and we can only do so much but we have to show our values and we have to act upon our values. so i think she has the vision, she has the values, she has the strength, she has the support and she has overwhelming support from people who serve in the previous administration to say that the path that he went down was wrong, was wrong. and that what she will do is more in the tradition of america. but again, with a fresh listening to other countries about how to go forward. i'm very proud of her in this regard. >> thank you for that. thank you for the question from online about immigration which we partly covered. let me ask you one that's come in online.

she says, is there a risk of an insurrection like the one on january 6th again after this election? >> january 6th last year, who could've ever expected that thee president of the united states would incite a violent insurrection of the capital? and then tried to describe it as a day at the capital, a normal touristy at the capital when they were defecating on the floor looking for me to put a bullet in my at ford head, looking for the vice president to put a noose around his neck. and when the president was told about that he said, somewhat? they are going, they're going after mike pence, so what? this year we have, there has been declared january 6th as a special national security event, which means that we won't have to, we had to ask him for the

national guard, which he would not send, but which he misrepresents now. but always represented from the start because that's who he is. but nonetheless, this day will have the security in place, should they try something. now, right now today in the press, in north carolina, rutherford county in north carolina, a national agencies have withdrawn the fema workers and other humanitarian workers from rutherford county because they have encountered trucks of guys you're looking, hunting for fema workers. so your question is well-founded about the mischief that some may want to pull. but we will be further prepared on that day, for that

occurrence, which is really so unhappy, such a sad thing in our country. political violence has no place in our country, and yet what's his name has blessed it. when my husband was assaulted, the sanctity of our speedy has also been the target of assassination attempts two or three times. >> yes, and we sympathize with them -- two times. >> if you're reading the book, nancy pelosi begins with a very personal account of the attack speed on my husband. imagine your own home, the sanctity of your home, this danger of an assault on your husband when they're looking for me at the time we didn't even know if you would live or die, that the president was making jokes about it, as was his son, as was the republican governor of virginia, as was elon musk. they thought that was really funny. and that's terrible. when he was attacked, of course

we're all sympathetic, and again that's a horrible thing in our country for him to have two assaults like that. but the fact is that we should have none of that. but nothing is ever certain. so you has to be protected. but you don't have to become i mean, in other words, we want people to participate in politics. we want more women, people of color, more diversity to participate. they can't be afraid for the security of the family because they may speak out against a certain person who serves as president of the united states. that just cannot be the case. but imagine right now what people are trying to save lives in north carolina, they have had to withdraw the humanitarian assistance because trucks of these people are hunting fema workers. >> lovely.

right here. try to get in a few more. >> you want me to answer -- >> i dread chatham house, such an honor to have you join us again. >> it's my honor. >> it really is phenomenal. my question is about the republican party. many people in the united kingdom and so many people across europe and across the world want kamala harris to win because they could about america's global engagement and consistency. but we do also need in the united states a functioning democracy, and that requires more than one normal political party. so i'm wondering what your perspective is if kamala harris becomes the next u.s. president, what is the prospect that in time the republican party would become normalized and engage in a foreign policy that at some level tracks back maybe not to what the u.s. position was previously, but to some sort of

power and foreign policy that the rest of the world can engage with in a consistent fashion. >> thank you, thank you so much for your question. i've always said and i say this all the time and some of my san francisco constituents are not jumping with joy. they try to must have a strong republican party. there's just a question about that. we've had a great leaders. i made some of the early come two bushes, mccain, bob dole, i loved it so much. i still love his wife so much, where'd your friends. romney and the rest. these are great leaders in, have been great leaders in our country and they have to have a strong republican party. now, i'm the last person as cow that happens, but i will say what they have told me, not the ones i just named but some others. we cannot beat these people in the primary. you have to beat them in the

general, and then we can get back to our fight about the role of government because that's the case between our two parties. on the spectrum of what is the role of federal government role of local government and the rest, and budget priorities and the rest, which is legitimate debate in a democracy. but with the redistricting that is up there, and we have called for nonpartisan redistricting in our legislation, because if we win, when we win but if we can win in the senate and a stronger way that we could, that we could pass that legislation. but anyway, getting back to this. in these highly gerrymandered districts that the other side is saying we can't beat them in those districts, but as we open that up, hopefully then we can peer because i served there a long time. it was never this way. it was always our partisanship.

it was a great kaleidoscope. i i talk about this in my book. say one time it will be all the democrats versus republicans, and then another time it will be half the democrats in half republicans come back to the rim versus the front of the room. you were always a strength to each other so you don't want to diminish the strength of a possible resource to your cause. i think, to your question, there's probably more common ground globally than domestically, globally than domestically. because as i said, the republicans, not a majority in the house but overwhelmingly, have been supportive of, say, ukraine and the rest. there has to, something different has to happen. right now it is a cold. the republican party has turned into a cult. why?

diversity, attitude and big men that want to pay taxes, don't want any regulate clean air, clean water, forget about it. that's not what they are therefore. so but that will always be the case but in terms of people having legitimate differences of opinion on the role of government to existence beginning of our country, but on the global scene i think there's more basis for cooperation. >> there's a storm of hands up. i will take on the aisle here. terrific questions online including from ghana, from cameroon. but on things that we sort of have covered. you have mic, great. >> thank you very much. former ambassador to the transfer hi, peter. >> will come back and wonderful that here.

>> thank you. >> just over two weeks to go what are the things the biden administration are kamala harris can those useful to do between now and then to ensure that what's his name doesn't get over the line in dust balaguer and states that you mention? >> peter, thank you for your question. there is a school of thought that says you've got to be more aggressive in telling people how, what is at risk in this and then there's the other schools thought this as i'm typing about him, i know how bad he is. so what you have to do quite a have to do a combination of that. there is no question, i talked about all the things joe biden did, but bronwen, it's important to know people don't for you for what you have done. they vote for you what you going to do. what you have done demonstrates that you're capable of doing things, but it's never, oh, i did this, you should vote for --

no. this is what is in store for you. >> a really good point. >> when you talk about job creation, education, 2025 their project abolishes the department of education. why? because you know they teach critical thinking in those public schools. the united states of america,, education being central to a democracy. you have say a mountain of things that you can say you have to pick three, boom, and you didn't hear me say that, did you? the three that are just, this is what this means to you. not i'm a woman and i should be president you know, that's self-evident. i have very little attention to pay to politics. what does it mean to me? my job, my pension, the

education of my children, the cost of healthcare, the cost of prescription drugs, my kitchen table issues. and so they have to make that clear. now the other side will misrepresent, he sang i have concepts about -- no, he's a notion monger he doesn't have the faintest idea what a concept is. he's a notion longer. again that doesn't any votes what i just said. again you to show what is at stake. there will be a national ban on abortion in america, make no mistake about that. and women have to know that and their families and women who care about them have to know about that. there will be a reduction of investment, even feeding people who are hungry in our country. the budget priorities. when i was asking the speaker for the money to go to ukraine he said, i have to finish the budget. what the fight was over was feeding wick, women, infants, and children. that was the fight.

they do want to spend money on food for women, infants, and children you know why? it would increase the national debt. okay. we want to be fiscally sound, that's why it's hard to understand why they support what they did and what to set the going do again, a tax cut at the time added $2 trillion to the national debt and the tax cut with 83% of the benefits went to the top 1%. so i think it's important for people to know who's there for you. what is this vote is about you. who cares about you lowering taxes for working families were giving a tax cut to the wealthiest people in america, for not paying their fair share, many of them to begin with, some nothing. okay. so what does this mean to you in your pocketbook? and then again the cost of prescription drugs. so the cost of living and it's hard because inflation was a phenomenon.

we did the best in america on it frankly but that's still not good enough. so who are they therefore? for the rich, trickle-down? it's never worked. it's never worked. and even its proponents have said it's never worked and it's never paid for itself. it's always been a cost to the national budget. so if we're talking about budget, shouldn't we be feeding people with this costing like one hair on my head rather than my whole head giving tax breaks to the wealthy is? i think we will have to show the contrast as to what it means to people in allies. and that is really what it comes down to at this point. -- people in their lives. the whole idea of a national abortion ban, the matter what they say, and then they said leave it up to the states. well, that's the problem for women as well but it's even going to get worse than that. and i say that as a mother of five, five children, six years

and seven days. i keep reminding my archbishop of that. but the fact is that that was good for me and my husband, paul. but not, no politicians business, the size, timing, et cetera, of a person family. and so again i think what they have to do is just show the difference at the kitchen table, show the difference as to what it means in our democracy. at the start of our country thomas paine said the times have found us, the times found us to declare independence. sorry, uk. declare independence, declare independence, the most beautiful document ever written i think, declare independence, declare war on the greatest naval power that existed at the time, when that war, writer documents. our documents were compromised and our constitution immediately

had to have a bill of rights for our freedom. but it had, wisely because our founders were so wise to have the process of amendment. so the history of our country, for the history of our country, freedom had been expanded. abolition of slavery, black men having the right to vote, when you have the right to vote, roe v. wade come all of that, until the tops decision. that's when freedom started to be confined, and they said that day come since we have rejected privacy as a right in the constitution and precedence as a force on the court, everything is up for grabs. so kitchen table democracy. and then again our role in the world i think is a very important issue. not everybody response to that, but we are going, we to be true to who we are as we go for that three to 4% that isn't there. but also to get out the vote.

times found linking to keep us together. the times have found us now proof to the night that our flag is still there. >> we are going to have to stop there. so lots of hopeful hands up, brilliant questions online. thank you a whole lot on the middle east, a lot on migration. thank you from tanzania. what would you like remembered for? we'll have timed at it but thank you for asking. megan richardson why didn't nancy pelosi run for president? looking at the candidate should there be an upper age limit on entering politics? i think her performance has dismissed that one. lots of fascinating questions and we didn't even get on really two out of five children and become speaker of the house. but please, thank you for coming

first and can you thank -- [ae] >> are c-span2 coverage of campaign 2024 continues later today with theebate between the candidates running to ret massachusetts in the u.s. senate. abeth warren and republican cher participate in their second debate this w posted by boston and new england public media. life at 7 p.m. etern. life at nine wyoming republican senator john barss faces off against his democratic challenger scott morrow in a debate hosted by wyoming pbs aired live coverageer on c-span2, c-span or free mobile app and online at c-span.org. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> american history tv saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. starting at 2 p.m. eastern fort

ticonderoga in new york hosted its 20th anniversary discussion of the american revolution. at 7 p.m. eastern want american history tv series historic presidential elections. exploring what made these elections historic. the pivotal issues that different eras and their lasting impact on the nation. this week the election of 1960, democrat of massachusetts senator john kerry narrowly defeated incumbent republican vice president richard nixon. this was the first election which all 50 states participated. at 8 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, austin college communications professor on how baseball connects americans to

their past and culture. exploring the american story. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> c-span issuance of view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including midco. ♪ ♪ >> where are you going? or maybe a better question is, how far do you want to go? and how fast you want to get there? >> now we're getting somewhere. so let's go. let's go faster. let's go further. let's go beyond. >> midco supports c-span as a

public service along with these other television providers giving you a front-row seat to democracy. >> monday roundtable now on healthcare and campaign 2024 are joining us from new york is joel zinberg the director of perricone health institute and here in student is andrea ducas, center for american progress action. ms. ducas we want to start with you. given the candidates policies on healthcare, where you stand on what the government should be doing when it comes to americans and are healthcare? wish to be involved in what should all responsible of individual americans? >> absolutely.ol american progress action we believe everyone should be access to affordable health insurance. health care is a right. the role of the government should be to facilitate the pickup of affordable health insurance as much as possible to make sure that when people go to the doctor they know they're

getting high-quality care and when their purchasing insurance they are getting a good product that enables them to access the providers they need at the government should also be setting the rules of the road, making sure that in the system we have all entities are playing by the rules, doing what they can to look out for the best interests of the american public and again ensuring everyone in this country has access to the best health care in the world. host: is there anything about that you disagree with? guest: i do not disagree with everyone having access to health care. that is what everyone wants. i happen to be a physician and i would want that for myself and my family. i think we differ on what is the best means of achieving that. is it through making sure everyone has some sort of government provided health insurance or is it done through maximizing people's ability to choose what they would need and what they would want? we do that by maximizing choice

and by increasing competition so that the best plans, the best ways of providing health care rise to the top and people have the opportunity to choose that for themselves. host: with that being said, what you see as the faultlines of the health care battles in this election cycle? where are the two parties differing? guest: one site seems intent on expanding government provided care. they do not care if it is done in an efficient way, if it is done in a wasteful way or not. you have one party that wants to expand the marketplaces, and they will do that by increasing subsidies and to do that in a way that induces people to misstate their income and have fraud. at paragon health institute we issued a paper dealing with that , that because of the changes in

the subsidy structure that were included in the american rescue plan and extended in the inflation reduction act, people with incomes between 100 to 150 of the federal poverty line get no premium care. they pay nothing. that is a great incentive for people to misstate their income and we estimate four to 5 billion people are receiving care -- 425 million people -- 4-5 million people are receiving care that they do not qualify for that is costing us $15 billion to $20 billion a year. you also have a party that does not seem to care of people are enrolled in medicaid who are ineligible. we had a program during the pandemic that told states not to look at whether people are enrolled who are eligible or not .

that kept getting extended and extended until just about a year ago. now the federal government is pushing back when states try to disenroll those folks who are eligible. it is a feeling that you need to get as many people on as possible and it is getting people onto plans that are not very popular. the aca marketplace plans prior to these expanded subsidies never topped 10 or 11 million per year. that is about half of what the cbo estimated were going to be enrolled. you only got an expansion when you provided the free stuff. people love free stuff. host: the issues of waste, fraud, and abuse, trying to expand these programs. andrea ducas, you agree that this is the fault line when it comes to health care? guest: it is hard to say because there