this weekend, the c-span cities tour hosted by our cox communications cable partners explores the history and literary culture of santa barbara, located approximately 90 miles northwest of los angeles on the california coast. the city is nicknamed the american rivera due to its ed e mediterranean climate and spanish influence and mission architecture. on book tv, we will learn about the history of endangered species in california. next, find out about rising sea levels and the threat they pose to coastal cities.

>> 3 1/2 million people in california live within 3 1/2 foot of modern sea level. many of them in the bay area. and that's a lot of people to move. >> then we will visit the old mission santa barbara to tour their archives and see items which tell the story of the mission and the surrounding area. on american history tv, we will travel back to the silent movie era and learn about the central role santa barbara played in the industry as we explore the story of the american film manufacturing company. also known as the flying a studios, which produced silent films here from 1912 to 1921. next we will visit the old mission santa barbara outdoor museum and discover how the spanish introduced plants to the native indians who cultivated many and changed the land scape of california. finally, we will hear about one of santa barbara's earliest and most long landing industries,

due to its mild climate, the city and the surrounding area was promoted as a health resort and destination for travellers in other parts of the u.s. as early as 1870. tourism remains a big part of the city's economy to this day. >> the south facing coast gave them all day sunshine. the fresh ocean air and that was recommended in various visitors brochures, doctors would say, come to santa bearbara, fresh ocean air, fresh mountain air. so that was seen as the cure for so many people when we really boomed not as a tourist city but as a health resort. >> watch c-span cities tour, saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv and sunday afternoon on c-span3. working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. a road to the white house

coverage continues this weekend. first we will take you to new hampshire where republican presidential candidate carly fiorina holds a town hall with voters. that's live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. then to new hampshire where hillary clinton holds a campaign rally. that's live at 7:15 p.m. eastern also on c-span. ahead of the new hampshire primary on tuesday, presidential candidates from both parties are in the granite state. on sunday, we will take you to a town hall with senator marco rubio. then donald trump talks to supporters at a campaign rally. live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. now, oral argument in a case to determine how schools across the country deal with transgender students and what bathrooms they are allowed to use.

the case was heard in the fourth circuit court of appeals last month. this is just under 45 minutes. thank you, your honors. may it please the court, my snam is joshua block and i represent the plaintiff. over the past 15 years, the vast majority of courts have recognized that discriminating against someone because they are transgender is a form of discrimination on the basis of sex. under title 9, that means it's perfectly fine for schools to have separate rest rooms for boys and girls but they have to let transgender boys and girls use rest rooms, too. the only way they that can happen if they can use rest rooms consistent with their gender identity like every other student. the school has said g can use the girls room, but it's impossible to take that seriously. it makes no sense whatsoever for

the board to say it's going to protect student privacy by taking a transgender boy who is on tes toss ttosterone and placn the girl's rest room. before g transitioned, girls objected to his presence in the rest room because they accurately per served him to be a boy. no one seriously thinks that having -- >> do the boys object? the girls objected apparently. you are pointing out that that's significant. parentally the boys objected when he went to the boys rest room. is that allowed to be taken into account? >> i'm saying the school board's arguments are inconsistent. if the rational is privacy -- >> you have made -- you made in your brief is that he can't go into the women's rest room because he doesn't feel welcome there. the women ostracize him and don't want him there.

they basically -- some said that they didn't want him in the rest room. my question is if that is a meaningful fact, is is it also a meaningful fact that the boys say the same thing in their rest room? >> your honor, it's a meaningful fact and that privacy issue can be taken into account. but the right way do that and there are wrong way dozen that. schools can and should have privacy protection for everyone urinal stall. what schools can't do is banish transgender students from the rest rooms entirely because students object to their presence. >> if we don't recognize our -- i think that's the way you say it. you can prevail on your title 9 claim in. >> absolutely, your honor. >> how? the plain text of title 9 is extremely broad.

it covers all facilities entirely. it would prohibit separate rest rooms, separate dorm toitorydor. that's why they had that in the text. >> you know, the thing concerns me a little bit is the argument between ambiguity and not being ambiguous. >> your honor, i think that's a great question for the department of education. >> we would like to hear your answer. if it's ambiguous, the decision goes one way. if it's not ambiguous, it goes the other way. >> it would depend on what gender identity they live their lives in accordance with. it's a very accurate point that

there are -- there's an article about the uterus transplants for women born without uteruses. their gender identity is female. they live as women. it's not like the categories of male and female always correspond to everyone's internal reproductive organs. >> which rest room with a person who has undergone a sex change use? >> well, your honor, i think they would use rest room consistent with their gender identity. which is whatever gender they live in in accordance with all aspects of their lives. your honor, i think it's important to remember that the structure of title 9 is that congress wanted the agency to make these distinctions. there's no bfoq exception in title 9 like in title 7. that's because the sponsor said that would be too big a loophole. when people asked what about rest rooms, senator bide didn't

say, don't worry, rest rooms aren't covered. he said, the agency can address those questions in its discretion. so the entire statute is structured so the agency draws the distensions about what sports teams can women try out for, what conditions do you need to have separate sex segregated rest rooms. the courts don't weigh on their own is the volleyball different than the football team? these are agency policy making questions. the agency is the democratically accountable branch and congress can overrule the agency and has done so in the past. even if it applies, the judge's decision is extremely important here. he interpreted the plain text of a different exception that allowed schools to block women from trying out for all-male contact sports. the school argued that means the that contact sports are exempt. the judge said no, you have to interpret that narrowly.

it says it allows women to be prohibited from trying out. once you are on the team, the school can't diskrcriminateaqq] against you then. the baseline here is all forms treatment are prohibited unless there's permission for it. what the regulation that doe passed is it said you can have separate rest rooms. you can have rest rooms for one sex if they are equivalent for the other sex. two things it doesn't address. it doesn't say you can have sex segregated rest rooms but not let transgender people use them. they have to use one of the rest rooms. it didn't say where transgender persons should go if their gender identity conflicts with their sex assigned at birth. >> let me ask you to relate this to a locker room situation. i know the locker room is not at issue in this case. but it's in the policy and it's in the regulation. the regulation says that you can

have separate locker rooms based on sex. where would the intersex person go when a school has a men's locker room and a women's -- >> which one? >> either one. >> they would go to the locker room consistent with their gender identity. the department of education has -- >> they are anatomically male and they oidentify as a female, they would go to the female locker room, even though they have the genitalia of a male? is that your answer? >> yes, it is, your honor. but that's also because it's important to understand there's a lot of privacy protections in locker rooms, too. it's important that -- >> well, i don't know -- i've been in locker rooms my whole life. you have open showers and open

spaces. it's a more exposed environment. >> not at this high school. you have separate shower and changing areas for all the schools. that's actually part of the virginia department of schools guidelines for how locker rooms should be set up. it is important that we're talking about these policy making questions that locker rooms are different than when i went to school. different from when my parents went to school. these issues can and are addressed on the ground in different ways. it's hard -- >> let me ask this question. it's sort of -- these are logically difficult questions. sticking with the locker room hypothetical, which raises the point more clearly, you said that if the person had male genitalia but identified as a female, that person should be allowed in the female locker room.

that's because an aspect of sex is the psychological. there's the physical and psychological. they both make up a person's sex or gender. in most people, the person identifies with his anatomical arrangement. but in some people that's not so. so we have a disparity. you picked in order to give your answer, you picked the psychological identification of the person going into the women's locker room. could the school instead of picking the psychological pick the anatomical criteria as the reason for separating locker rooms and saying, well, since he is anatomically male, he should go the to male locker room? legally under the regulation. >> well, if the department of education hadn't given its own

interpretation -- >> i want you to read the regulation. >> your honor, on its face the regulation doesn't answer that. i think -- >> for us selecting the psychological criteria and opposed to the physical criteria for determining which locker room the student goes to. >> with respect, i think under our deference, the question isn't what the court would select. >> still, we need to know. don't we? if the district court got it totally wrong, we can't make that assessment unless we have some idea to which way we're supposed to go. >> you know, your honor, i think the reality is that across the country transgender students use rest rooms consistent with their -- locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. no one knows they are tra transgender in many instances. they often view the male anatomy as deeply shameful.

they are not going to be -- it's not something that transki kids- they have a sense of privacy, too. you did draw this dichotomy between psychological and physical. >> they are linked. there's a divergence in a transgender child who finds himself or herself with one gender or one sex physical apparatus reproductive organs and identifies with the other. that divergence creates a problem. your answers say the school should be focusing on the psychological, what the person identifies with, as opposed to what a person's physical anatomy is. i'm just wondering what gives you the basis to make that interpretation under the statute as opposed to the school's interpretation to use the

anatomical difference? >> to address this dichotomy though, as a result of hormones, there are physiological differences between g and non-transgender women. >> you are not taking care of my clear question, which is somebody who is physically one sex and identifies with the other. >> yes, i understand. >> the definition as the psychological definition of this. >> yeah. you know, all i'm saying is what someone's physical body is also very much affected by their hormones. there are -- that is a real live physical component. but on this -- what gives me the right to say they should use gender identity instead of sex assigned at birth, you know, what basis do i have for saying that, you know, that's what the department of education says based on its expert agency status. it's the one that's a policy making entity. it's the democratically accountable branch. if anyone disagrees with -- if

the school disagrees, they can file a rule making petition. congress can overrule them. >> i don't read that in the rule. i have the rule before me. it says the recipient may provide separate toilet, locker room and shower facilities on the basis of sex. such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for the other sex. that's the regulation. the regulation says the school can make a decision based on sex. and have separate facilities. now, your argument i gather is that here we have a sex as a complex word and includes both the physical and the psychological. when you have it different, then the question is, what does the statute say. i don't think the statute

addresses that. >> the statute doesn't address it. as you said, at best there are two alternatives. >> if you abate -- you can make a distinction based on sex. so now if you take both the psychological and the physical, we have a third category where that's diververgencdivergence. you could provide a separate facility for that third category like a unisex bathroom. i'm not sure that's what you are arguing. >> your honor, if the regulation doesn't actually address it, then the default is it's prohibited. that's the inertia is in favor of the person enforcing title 9. you need an affirmative exception. the fact that a regulation is silent cuts against the school board. it doesn't cut against our side.

>> you didn't argue for transgender status to be a suspect classification. why not? >> i see my time has expired. >> i will let you answer that question. >> we didn't because transgender status also is discrimination on the basis of sex. there's a big body of precedence saying it gets scrutiny. we don't disagree it's a suspect class. but i don't think you need to find an independent suspect class status. >> thank you, mr. block. you have some time on rebuttal. mr. corrigan? >> may it please the court, i'm david corrigan. along with my partner, jeremy capps, who is the author of the brief we represent for the

school board. we are here to argue for affirming the dismissal of the title 9 claim ordering the dismissal of equal protection claim and firming the decision to deny the preliminary injunction. our position is that there was no discrimination -- >> on that -- as a practical point, the district court explicitly said it wanted to hear more on the equal protection claim. and preserved that for trial. you are asking us to make a ruling before the district court analyzes that, i guess, based n on -- i'm not thinking about jurisdiction. i'm wondering of the wisdom of us doing this. you are arguing we can do it as well as the district court? >> yes, sir. because it's intertwined. >> that's another issue, whether it is. think your title 9 case is with

the ininjunction. >> the injunction is based on -- it seems to me that the trial judge based it on both the fact that the title 9 was dismissed and he got into the balancing of the hardships in deciding there was -- the plaintiff had not carried their burden in establishing the hardship. it's another reason i read the court as eliminating -- >> i didn't mean to interrupt you. >> yes, sir. >> on the question of the balance, i'm a little puzzled by the district court's decision, because things were proceedi proceeding -- the status quo anti was changed by the policy, correct? >> it's a prohibiting

injunction. we agreed that's what it was. >> so i'm not clear why the balance of hardships favors your client rather than the plaintiff. >> even under either scenario with the preliminary injunction, you are looking at a discretion -- abuse of discretion standard, clear error with respect to the facts. so we have -- if we talk first our argument primarily at the low he ha lower level is we should win on both. in getting into the balance of hardship, what i understood the court to say -- this is what's on the record -- is that this plaintiff is a female who has a gender dysphoria condition and identifies male and had significant distress well before anything having do with rest rooms came up and continued to

have that distress. and that there was an insufficient -- the facts in support of the plaintiff's side of that amounted to three paragraphs in the psychologist's report and the self-serving declaration of the plaintiff about the concerns that he had. on the other hand -- on the other side -- >> but the denial of the preliminary injunction changed the status quo, did it not? >> i don't know that it changed the status quo. i think that the -- >> surely, you must know. >> the young man -- g, the plaintiff, had been using the rest room. >> that's the status quo. >> after they passed the resolution, he was no longer allowed to use the rest room. >> so the denial of the preliminary injunction changed the status quo. >> it did.

>> okay. >> i don't quite understand that. i thought -- this is just on the facts. i thought that the school adopted a policy which is at challenge here. >> yes. >> and built three rest rooms, unisex rest rooms. >> correct. >> and that the policy is the status quo. they changed earlier. they had him using the men's rest room. and then because of complaints, they conducted a meeting and adopted the policy which is at issue here. the policy says that the person using the common rest rooms will follow their biological makeup and anybody can use the unisex rest rooms. >> correct. >> that's a challenge. that's -- judge davis is right that the ante before the policy was he was using the bathroom. but the policy was not prompted

by the lawsuit, was it? that was changed before the lawsuit? >> the policy existed before the lawsuit. the policy what occurred with the policy is this. the policy is a statement of existing situation, sch we have two sets of rest rooms. we have female rest rooms to be used by people of the female sex. we have male rest rooms to be used by male individuals of the male sex. then we have a third aelternatie available for all students. that's one of the important facts in the case. the policy doesn't say that. but the plaintiff has pled as -- >> the question is that gg be allowed to use the boys rest room. that's the full scope of the injunction requested. >> and the -- >> which is what the state of affairs was before the policy and before the lawsuit. correct? >> gg was using the boys rest room until the policy was passed. gg is now not using the boys

rest room. >> what harm occurred during the seven weeks that he used the boys rest room? >> on this record, the concerns that were raised -- we go to -- precedent in this court in terms of body privacy, that's the concern. the question is, did the policy in any way discriminate. the answer is it did not. it did not because it put people in the same situation they had always been in, the male going to the male rest room, female going to the female rest room and a third alternative for anyone including gg. >> what was the harm? >> the harm was express -- there was concern expressed by parents of students about the -- the privacy interest of their students. that was the privacy interest was the primary concern of the

school board in enforcing the existing policy of boys in the boys room, girls in the girls room and the availability of the third option. >> the children of any complaining access have access to. >> they do. as does g. >> so i come back to the denial of the preliminary injunction changed the status quo in a way that actually ignores your client's effort to address the challenge by creating these unisex, private rest rooms. >> i don't think it -- i don't see how it ignored the effort -- >> well, if your argument is that there were parents of certain students who were concerned, the board addressed that concern by creating these private rest rooms.

and so any of those students whose parents came to the board seeking redress now have access to the privacy that they claim they need and want. >> the first aspect -- i understand the court's point. the first aspect of a preliminary injunction is whether the plaintiff will win on the merits. >> let's move to that. how do you assess the district court's wanting to hear more about equal protection and yet denying the preliminary injunction? i'm not suggesting definitively that that's inconsistent or contradictory. but the judge wants to hear more of this case. and yet, by denying the preliminary injunction, the judge changed the status quo. >> the standard for -- >> there's -- at least there's a hint of an inconsistency there. >> i understand what your honor

is suggesting. and i understand the inconsistency that you are concerned about. the question is whether or not the plaintiff is likely to succeed. let's use equal protection claim since he ruled on the title 9 claim. our position was and is that all students are treated the same. there are two choices, rest rooms associated with their sex and single stall rest rooms. transgender is not a suspect class. none of the case law that plaintiffs rely on from the price waterhouse area deals with a situation similar to this. none -- all that case law deals with is non-conforming behavior and then some type of employment action primarily undertaken against a male who wasn't acting in a male manner and was punished. the likelihood on equal protection clause is not strong. the question is whether the school board policy providing separate rest rooms plus single stall rest rooms for all students serves the interest in

protecting the safety and privacy of the students. if we get past our initial point there never was any discrimination. there never was discrimination because the same policy was in existence from the beginning, which is boys in the boys room, girls in the girls room and here is a third option. it would be discrimination to say to g, you can't go in the girls room. that would be consistent with the price waterhouse set of facts. you can't go in the girls room. that would have been something that we couldn't do. the notion on other side of the case that you have remained -- you have kept that alive, i don't think the school board had a choice. you have to allow this individual to use the girls room if he so chooses. >> your argument is rooted in this notion that some wise person said biology is destiny. but in fact, it's neurobiology, isn't it, that's destiny.

>> i done have an opinion on that. our belief is that sex equals male and female. >> of course that's your position. but this is 2016. this is 2016. >> yes, sir. >> so the question is, what is the meaning of sex in year 2016? >> our position is that the meaning of sex is the -- based on the person's genitalia, based on their -- what they were born with. could it change? >> do you have expert evidence in the record? >> no expert evidence in the record. sg >> the judge didn't require you to come forward with anything? >> well, you have seen the record. the record is pretty sparse on these points. >> are you going to be able to find a reputable psychologist or neuroscientist or psychiatrist to support your position that in

2016 all sex is is biology? >> i don't -- >> without regard -- >> i haven't looked into that, because we are nowhere near that in this case. i don't think it matters. i think the reason it doesn't matter is the question is whether or not this policy as implemented violates title 9 or violates equal protection clause. it doesn't. >> if we decide that the department's regulation is entitled to our deference, does that change the calculus on the likelihood of success on the merits? >> first of all, we would argue that it's not entitled to deferen deference. the word sex is ambiguous. >> the assumption is we might do that. >> i think we still have a chance to win the case under that even if you give it deference on the basis that the way that the ocr has interpreted this is to replace the word sex with the word gender identity. and that's not a fair reading. and i think --

>> price waterhouse has largely already done that. >> i don't think -- >> and the pricewith waterhousei thought we were past that it means no more and no less than biology. >> again -- >> i thought we were concerned about the stigmatizing affects of stereotypical approaches to gender roles. if you talk about gender roles, it's impossible to talk about -- not talk about gender identity, isn't it? >> yes. the point is though that those cases -- price waterhouse and the cases that follow it, what you are dealing with is a situation where it's a too masculine female, too feminine male and you are dealing with you cannot discriminate on that basis. that's the law. there's no question about that. that's not this situation. our situation here is it's a school board with children from k through 12, age 6 to age 18.

they have a policy of allowing girls in the girls room and boys in the boys room. in their wisdom provide a third option for anyone who is uncomfortable going to either spot. the question is, does that violate the equal protection clause or does that violate title 9. it does not. that's our -- they are our most significant argument is very simply that point. i don't think if you start getting into this complicated where are we today in 2016, i think that's some other case. that's somewhere down the road. the question is today on these facts with this scenario with the concerns -- price waterhouse, those are adults in the workplace. that's different. this is children in a school system. the right of privacy of children in the school system is much more significant than it would be for the bathroom in this courtroom, for instance. that matters. so this school system, the question is whether or not what they decided to do violated

either title 9 or equal protection. our argue is that it did not. that's our best argument. that's our main point coming here before the court today. >> i guess my concern is, you may be right. but again, i'm sort of stuck on the notion that the denial of the preliminary injunction -- in effect, the denial of the preliminary injunction here was a grant of an affirmative injunction to the board. i mean, it's kind of flipped. normally, a party coming in to district court seeking a preliminary injunction is seeking to change the status quo. >> by the time the plaintiff came to court -- >> or maintain the status quo. but by here, district court's action actually changed the status quo. again, with regard -- i understand the policy was the

animating legal action in play here. but down here on the ground, the way people were living with theeach other and the way the school was being operated without any complaints for a good while at least -- i'm not sure there were any complaints by the students to the school officials. this came from the parents. sg >> the record is that at the school there were no incidents. >> no incidents. no disruption. things were proceeding at pace. and then everything changed. for gg certainly. >> for gg, for everyone else everything remained the same there was a boys room and girls room and you had those two options. gg and everyone else then received the third option that's available. i think the court's argument would be stronger if the school

had not given the third option, because i think that you would be then saying you have to go back -- you have to go to the girls room. they're not saying you have to. they are saying you can go to the girls room but you have this other option. for that reason, it remained -- what remained in place was not really a substantial change from the original situation. >> but there's no stigmatizing impact on anyone but gg. in using what you refer to as the third option. >> i disagree. if someone went in there, there could be potentially stigmatizing interest on anyone who went to use that rest room. who knows whether they would feel stigmatized in some way, shape or form for being -- >> what would be the source? >> suppose people were pro transgender use of the boys room and that was the policy and then people who started using that, there might be a stigmatizing

interest, you are against transgender, you are somebody uncomfortable with that. to me that he would be a potentially sta ma adverti potentially stigmatizing record. our major point is the question is whether or not what was done is a violation of title 9 or equal protection. and it is not. >> if gg had a sex change operation, which allould you al to use the boys ref room? >> my understanding of what the position would be -- i'm going to read the policy. >> uses the word biological. >> shall be limited to corresponding biological genders. is what it says. i would say if you change your biological sex, then would you

be all be allowed to use rest room of your new biological sex. that's what it seems to suggest to me. >> my understanding is that that surgery really -- i'm no expert. but that surgery involves a series of surgeries. it's not a surgery. it's a series of surgeries. when does one become a biologic biological whatever. >> i don't know the answer to that question. >> how would this policy apply to someone who was in the course of that surgical therapy? >> i don't know. >> you don't know? >> i don't know how that would -- i would be speculating on what the school board -- how they would interpret their policy. >> they didn't discuss that? >> not to my knowledge. >> did they get expert input -- >> there's nothing in the record about expert input. i don't know if it's in the record. a case in pennsylvania was

informative to the school board certainly in terms of the decision. it felt like it was legally in a solid position. >> thank you, mr. corrigan. mr. block? >> thank you, your honor. two important points i want to clear up. one is the notion that boys were objecting to g's presence. we have no idea what the complaints were. they have never been shown to us, described to us or to the court. from looking at the school board meetings, the vast majority of complaints were about people worried that in the hypothetical future some boy could pretend to be a girl and go into the locker rooms. the notion that these complaints were coming from boys who were uncomfortable with g is not -- it's not in evidence on the motion for one thing. a second point i wanted to make is -- this goes to the issue of what the school board knew and some of the harder line drawing questions.

this was something being handled by administrators on the ground who didn't see a problem. what the school board did is they imposed a categorical rule saying, regardless of the specific facts, regardless of the situation on the ground, school administrators never have the power to do anything but what the school board policy says. so this wasn't like a step by step incremental approach. g didn't come to the school board saying, i want you to pass a new policy saying all transgender kids should use the rest rooms consistent with their gender identity, no exceptions. the school -- >> which is fascinating. because today the best learning tells us that the principal is the ceo. and everything you read these days is what we need in public education are strong principals. this principal was doing it. this principal had the situation under control.

had the school operating from all that appears in the record in a really great way. and then some kind of top-down imposition comes along and disrupts what the principal was managing in a very, very humane and ordinarily way. it's ironic, isn't it? >> i agree, your honor. the principal sponsor of the policy was clear. she said, this isn't about disruption. these students are mature enough to handle it. it's not a disruption issue. it's solely a privacy issue. there wasn't actually some crisis on the ground. there wasn't a mass walk-out from the boys rest rooms. stuff was working. until the school board became involved. your honor talked about the school providing these extra privacy options. they announced that six days before the second school board meeting. obviously, i haven't been able to depose anyone. but my understanding is that

they were hoping that would head off the problem. but then six days later, after parent after parent or random community person after random community person threatened to vote the board out of office, what had previously been three votes suddenly turned into a 5-1 vote. no one gave these alternative arrangements a chance. they jumped from alternative arrangements to a ban without the -- in six days before the rest rooms were installed. if you look at the board meetings, it was never about g. it was always about this will open the door to some future sexual predator could come in and -- they are hypothetical concerns that we know from school districts across the country from l.a. to kentucky never actually materialize. no one is saying that -- there's

plenty of room for policies that ask for some sort of confirmation that this is someone's sincerely held gender identity. g had a carrier letter from his doctor confirming this. no one is suggesting a top-down solution the other way. but in the department of education can obviously issue guidance, too. what the district court ruled is that the regulations -- the regulations mean that g automatically loses. we're not saying the regulations means he automatically wins. we're saying, title 9 means he can't be treated differently on basis of sex. there's not an exception in the regulations that authorizes it. certainly, there's room for additional guidance and plenty of model policies for school boards to look at as well. very briefly, this issue of adults versus schools. title 9 is broader than title 7. schools have a special -- it's important for transgender students, too.

we know that a denial of an equal education is worse than denial of a job. the importance of education cuts in our benefit, not theirs. if your honors don't have any further questions, that's all i have for today. >> thank you. on the next washington journal, arnie arneson talks about tuesday's new hampshire primary. the candidates and what's important to new hampshire voters. jack heath host of new hampshire today on wgir am radio gives his preview of the primary. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. every weekend on american history tv on c-span3, we feature programs that tell the american story. some of the highlights for this

weekend include saturday night at 8:00 eastern, historian matthew andrews of the university of north carolina at chapel hill talks about how racial tensions were reflected in sports. >> rocky is a heavy underdog in the first film. he loses in the first film. he loses in a split decision. no one thinks he will do well. does he remarkably well, but he does not win. in knocks out apollo in the most implausible scene. it's impossible. but rocky wins. these were both very popular movies in 1976 and 1979. these are much more than just sports movies. these are movies about race. these are movies about american history. >> at 10:45, professor christopher beacham talks about his book, arguing that alexander graham bell is remembered as the inventor of the telephone

despite the contributions of others. sunday morning, with the upcoming first in the nation new hampshire primary, we look back at the 1992 presidential campaign and arkansas governor democrat bill clinton's second place finish in new hampshire and his positioning as the co comeback kid. >> the evening is young. we don't know yet what the final tally will be. i think we know enough to say with some certainty that new hampshire tonight has made bill clinton the comeback kid. >> we will feature both democratic and republican ads that aired in the granite state, including those of bill clinton and government h.w. bush. at 8:00 p.m. on the presidency, university of washington history professor margaret omara argues the 20th century was shaped by four elections.

starting with the election of 1912. for the complete american history tv weekend schedule, go to c-span.org. on news makers this week, dr. thomas frieden, director of the centers for sdredisease con and prevention discusses the zika virus. watch news makers sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. this week a donor summit to benefit of syrian refugee crisis raised $10 billion. david cameron and other leaders from across the world spoke to reporters at the end of the summit. from london, this is 45 minutes. >> thank you very much. good afternoon. today's conference has seen the largest amount of money ever raised in one day in response to

a humanitarian crisis with well over $10 billion pledged. [ applause ] today has been and is a day of hope, a day about saving lives, a day about building futures, a day about giving people the chance of a future, the chance of a life. and i want to thank everyone that has come and been so generous with their time and with their resources to help this desperate situation. we have combined a renewed effort to address the shortfall in humanitarian funding with a new approach to provide the education and jobs that will bolster stability in the region. all of this is vital work. vital for those suffering inside syria. vital for the refugees. vital for the countries in the region that are doing so much.

and taken together what we are delivering today can play a crucial role in preventing refugees from feeling they need to risk their lives on the treacherous journey to europe. so first on funding, we have secured approaching $6 billion for 2016 alone. for 2016 alone, and a further $5 billion over the longer term to 2020. and it means millions of people will now receive life-saving food, medical care and shelter in syria and beyond. i'm pleased that britain has played its part, doubling what we committed last year with an additional $510 million pounds for 2016 and taking our total funding to the crisis to over 2.3 billion pounds. second, the leaders of jordan, lebanon and turkey have pledged to ensure all refugee and vulnerable children in their countries will have access to education. and the international community is backing them with the

resources which will allow them to ensure there is no lost generation. as a result, one million children currently not in school will have access to education by the end of the next school year. this is not just morally right. it is vital for long term stability. we cannot have a generation of refugees left out of school unable to get work, vulnerable to extremism and radicalization. third, the countries in the region have also made a courageous commitment to open up their economies to create new jobs. again today, the international community is supporting them with the resources to turn this commitment into reality. along with funding for the u.n. appeals, this includes around $40 billion of loans from international financial institutions and the opening up of european markets to encourage growth and investment in the region. as a result, there will be over one million new jobs in the

region for refugees and residents alike. now, of course, today's achievements are not a solution to the crisis. we still need to see a political transition to a new government in syria that meets the needs of all its people. brave aid workers still need access to the hundreds of thousands of innocent syrians stuck in besieged towns. we must urgently redouble our efforts to prevent the intolerable levels of violence against civilians, ensuring all parties in the conflict bring an immediate end to the ongoing violations of international humanitarian law. and we look to russia to use its influence with the regime to end indiscriminate attacks, especially barrel bombing. russia should support steps towards a cease-fire as envisaged by the process and mandated by the un security council. the difficult negotiations of recent days only show how challenging the road ahead will be. but with today's commitments,

combined with the un's agreement to drive forward planning for recovery, our message to the people of syria and the region is clear. we will stand with you and we will support you for as long as it takes to secure peace in syria, to restore stability to the region, and to give syrian refugees a chance to go back and rebuild their homes and their country. but the crucial point about today is the money raised will save lives, will give hope, will give people the chance of a future. and that i think is a good and vital day's work. secretary general? >> thank you, prime minister david cameron. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. never has the international community raised so much money on a single day for a single crisis. the supporting syria and the region conference has been a great success and i would like

to thank and highly commend the leadership of prime minister david cameron and host sponsors, chancellor angela merkel of germany and prime minister of norway and his highness, emir of kuwait for their strong leadership, engagement and generous contributions. and many other countries, very generous contributions. as of this moment, there is just said by the prime minister more than $10 billion has been pledged. more than half to meet immediate needs in 2016. i thank again all the participants for their generosity and solidarity in supporting syrians who are enduring prolonged horrendous suffering. today's pledges will enable humanitarian workers to continue reaching millions of people with

life-saving aid. the promises of long-term funding and the loan mean that humanitarian and development partners will be able to work together to get children back into school, design employment programs and begin rebuilding infrastructure. the commitment of countries hosting large numbers of refugees to open up their labor markets is a breakthrough. i thank the governments of jordan, lebanon and turkey for choosing solidarity over fear. i'm also encouraged b ed by the commitments to get 1.7 billion children in turkey, lebanon and jordan in school and to increase access to learning opportunities for children inside syria. perhaps most important, i welcome the shared commitment of today's attendees to use their

influence to end sieges and other grave human rights abuses. what will most help the people of syria is not just the food for today, but hope for tomorrow. yet the parties to the conflict remain deeply divided, even on improving the humanitarian situation. i agree with the special envoy that we should not have talks only for the sake of talks. the coming days should be used to get back to the table not to secure more gains on the battlefield. the international community should strive to achieve tangible progress on the ground by the time the talks resume. i thank the british government for hosting us today and thank the co-host again and all participants for their commitment and leadership to the

people of syria and for the peace and stability of the region. i thank you very much. >> thank you very much, secretary general. we are now going to hear from two of our other co-chairs. chancellor merkel of germany and the prime minister of norway who will come to the podium. thank you. >> translator: ladies and gentlemen, dear david cameron, secretary general, i think this has been an important day with an important message for the people in syria, the people who are suffering so desperately, all those displaced refugees within the country but also the refugees that have fled to the neighboring countries of syria but have found a new home or at

least an opportunity to survive and to live. it is an important signal, a signal that over the next years, $11 billion will be made available and it is also very important that we have $6 billion for this year. obviously this means that the work has to start straight away, but before i talk about that, i would like to say thanks, thank you to turkey, to lebanon and to jordan. with their own population, they are now prepared to share with the refugees from syria. this is incredible and for all of those that we are receiving refugees, we know what it means when you have so many new people that are trying to seek refuge in your country. it is an enormous effort. it is an enormous achievement

and what we can do by providing some funds for you, that is one element, but what you do is much more important and we want to help people, not to have to embark on these very dangerous journeys that would take them to europe. we were talking about many things today. we tried to find answers, answers to the humanitarian crisis. we want to secure the programs of the united nations and of unicef. germany has made a contribution for 2016, 1.2 billion euros, and we have very much focused on supporting the nutrition program so that food rations will not be reduced again and obviously, we are also talking about the

education. the education of the school children. david cameron has already mentioned, what we achieved today is very important. we are talking about education for children and work for the adults. education and training for young people and jobs for adults, that is very important people work very hard and i'm very grateful to turkey and lebanon and jordan so that they are now giving work permits because obviously, there is also competition between those that have always been living in those countries and those that have newly come into those countries. european union will do everything possible in order to improve the exporter conditions to give certain trade preferences so that the products can then be sold, because nothing is better for people than having an opportunity to be able to work. all in all, germany will make 2.3 billion available. we will start with that this

year. i think that your message of today is very important. first of all, 2016, we will have the money for the important things, but the projects can be continued. we do have a prospect for the future. that obviously does not replace the political process which needs to be reinforced for the future and we call upon all people involved, we call upon the assad regime and the others to come to a point that we don't create more misery, that we don't cause more people to flee the country, but that we have a political process under way and i think the willingness of the international community to make their contribution is something that should be encouraging for all of those that are participating in the political process in order to make progress on behalf of the people. >> today, all have agreed that we will have no lost generation due to the syria crisis.

we have made access to learning and protx of education a top priority in our response. ambitious tasks -- targets were set for this conference. i have been asked if i really think it's possible to deliver education for all syrian refugees and children by 2016-17. and whether we can ensure safe learning inside syria when and where the humanitarian access. i think we all know that this is not going to be easy. but today's conference has taken us steps in the right direction. a significant amount has been made available by donor countries and private sector to invest in schools, to expand double shifts, to employ teachers, to support non-formal education and much more. and now it's time to start to closing the education gaps, building on the great work already undertaken by the

neighboring countries in partnership with the un and civil society. there's a lot of things that should be done for refugees in the neighboring countries and to help the emergency situation inside syria. but education is an investment in syria's future and in the future stability of the region. hence, it's an investment in all of our common interests. i would like to use this opportunity to thank prime minister cameron and british government for their hospitality and the hard work that they have put into this conference. i would also like to thank the other co-hosts, chancellor merkel and the un secretary general. but not the least, we should all thank the governments of lebanon, jordan and turkey for the big responsibility they take by hosting refugees who have sought protection.

today, we have shown that you can count on our increased support and the rest of the international community in your work, and i think we have made a great step ahead. we all are hoping and pressuring for also a solution politically in syria so that when we are investing in education, the u youth of syria will have the possibility to go back and rebuild their country in not so far the future.4x thank you. >> thank you. thank you very much indeed. for those contributions and your co-chairmanship. we are now going to hear from his excellency, the first prime minister of kuwait and the prime minister davutoglu of turkey.

>> translator: in the game of god most compassionate, it was a great source of pleasure for my country to participate in this very important conference to be alongside the co-hosts of this conference, and in this conference, we heard a confirmation and reiteration of a commitment to put an end to the suffering of the syrian people and to speed up the implementation of the un resolution, resolution number 2254. we have agreed on the working

mechanism to follow up the results of this conference and to seek, to find out what has been already achieved via the work of the un agencies. activities that will be run in the future, amongst which is the first humanitarian summit conference which will be held in istanbul at the end of may next and here, i would like to extend my sincere thanks for all the pledges, the generous pledges that will participate in alleviating the suffering of the syrian people. and i want to point out that there has been a lot of consensus and we must take more consensus in order to bring back security and stability to syria. thank you very much indeed.

>> thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, prime minister cameron and our co-hosts, first of all, i would like to thank, to our co-hosts, all of them, and of course secretary general of the united nations for this very timely, very meaningful conference. it was meaningful because it was a message to all victims of this crisis, syrians, children, men and woman, everybody in the world. it was timely because it was right at the same time parliament -- so syrians were hoping to receive two messages from london and geneva. one is humanitarian message. the other one is political message. humanitarian message today was a message of hope. we are grateful to all those who

contributed to this conference and to the pledges, because this is a message to all syrians that they are not alone. we, the world leaders, are together united to help them. but message from geneva was not promising at all, because the talks did not continue due to the situation on the ground. but we have to know, all of us we have to know if there is no good message from geneva next time, we will be having many more donors conference in the future without any solution, and we will have to spend more. spending is not so significant. more important is the lives of the syrian people. as turkey, until now, we received 2.5 million, exactly two million, 541, 897 syrians in

turkey today as of this time but tomorrow, another 10,000 may be added because of the situation. so every day the number is increasing. we have 700,000 school age children, 300,000 of them have access to educational services. we hope next year we will be providing education for the rest 400,000. around 7,000 babies were born in camps and 300,000 in other cities of turkey. 250,000 of syrians are in camps. 250,000 or ten times more in the cities of turkey everywhere. they have full access to all hospitals in turkey without any need to show any documents. they have full access to any service in education as i mentioned and we will be providing all, and two weeks ago, i declared that they will

have right to access to labor market so they can work in turkey. because we see them as human beings, as our brothers and sisters. the children that are born in turkey, maybe they are syrian children but they are our children, our grandchildren. we will take care of them. we spent over $10 billion only for those who are in the camps. almost same amount of the pledges today, for the rest of the refugees you can imagine what is the total cost could reach. these are not important as today, i mentioned, what will be the cost in turkish dollar, we will be open to all syrians because every week i am visiting hospitals, sometimes every month we are visiting camps, we are seeing the victims of these people, syria, which is the most tragic one after second world war.

we will continue open door policy. we will continue to have -- to help these people, because as i said this morning, our heart is much bigger than our budget. but the message from geneva was negative, was not promising at all, if not negative. i don't want to give a negative impression. we hope next time that will be better, but the most worrying message came from aleppo. ladies and gentlemen, in last three days, russian war planes bombarded aleppo and regime forces on the ground with foreign fighters, usually when we say foreign fighters, reference is to daesh, but foreign fighters on the side of regime, they attacked aleppo and the humanitarian corridor from turkey to aleppo has been cut

off. all the needs, foods, everything, to aleppo where 300,000 people are living, were going from turkey. now i am very sorry to say but at the same time from my heart, i am crying that these humanitarian corridor is now under the invasion of these foreign fighters and regime forces by the support of russian war planes. what they want to do in aleppo today is exactly what they did in my other before, the siege of starvation. when we are talking humanitarian assistance today, middle century traditional starvation siege method is on the ground in syria. before coming here from the morning until now, from the opening session until now, 10,000 new refugees are on our border, 30,000 new refugees

escape from camps where 70,000 are living and they are rushing to turkish border in order to have a safe haven free of the air strikes of russian planes which did not do any strike against daesh in last three days, but they did 351 air strikes against civilians and moderate position in aleppo. if this continues, if there is no core dridor from turkey to aleppo, the un security council will be responsible for the humanitarian disaster in aleppo and nobody will be able to convince people, opposition of syria, to come to geneva table again. in last two weeks we had hard time to convince syrian opposition to come to geneva to support un effort, despite the siege starvation and humanitarian crimes being committed there, but this time, it will be much more difficult our job. i call and i urge all world

leaders to work together to help humanitarian-wise to people in syria like what we did today, but at the same time, to fight against root causes of this crisis, the barbaric regime, barbaric terrorist organization like daesh and those who are supporting them. again, i am grateful to all co-hosts and i hope in istanb istanbul -- secretary general, his initiative, the first ever world humanitarian summit where we will be consulting on syria and all other humanitarian issues around the world. again, thank you very much, mr. prime minister. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. finally we will hear from prime minister salam of lebanon and

the deputy prime minister of jordan. >> ladies and gentlemen, i start by thanking the uk, prime minister cameron, in person for the successful organization of this conference and also the co-hosts for their support to realize what we all expect, the success of this conference. i would also like to refer to our partners in this refugee situation, jordan and turkey,

and i would like to say yes, today was a dynamic day, was a very educated day with all the speeches, all the interventions and all the positions taken to highlight the difficult situation our countries and the refugees are undergoing. we are all satisfied that the result was $10 billion or $11 billion. yes, this seems to be the first time an international pledge of this size is taking place. but i have to emphasize the importance of delivering this

pledge. the necessary mechanism to allow for the payment and the sending of all the funds to the needed countries and to the work that is being done, in education, in economic opportunities, in jobs, in every aspect of this crisis. i have to say we on our part are delivering. we are delivering because we are all engaged in this plight and giving all the hospitality, all the aid, taking all the measures needed to keep the refugees not

only warm in their homes, under shelter, receiving education, receiving food, but also preserving their dignity, preserving their human feelings in a time when unfortunately, atrocities are being committed right and left in the region, in syria in particular, and damage to the people of that region is an ongoing affair. therefore, we would stress the importance of a political solution. for the syrian crisis and for many other situations in the region and worldwide, yes, a collective international genuine effort has to be deployed.

we appeal and request to all, especially the big powers, especially those who have the means and influence and in particular, europe to take care of that situation and find some serious solutions. we will not give up. we will go on handling the situation and look forward for more conferences, more meetings and more sharing the difficulties. thank you, all of you, for all you have been doing and we will keep our promises on our part, keep our responsibilities. thank you. >> thank you very much, prime minister. huge thanks to the government and people of the united kingdom for your hospitality and for the efficient organization of this conference which i believe has produced an historic outcome and it is truly nothing short of

historic. and if there's any conference that translates words into action, we witnessed it today. and thank you, also, to all the co-chairs, secretary general, chancellor merkel, prime minister solberg and of course, kuwait and turkey and lebanon, our partners. let me just say that today was extremely important in terms of the pledges that we saw and felt, but this was a political conference so this was a conference that was designed in my opinion to invest in the security and stability of the region and consequently, the security and stability of many countries, not least of all the security of europe and the rest of the world. it is truly a global issue that we are dealing with.

so having said that, and having mentioned to many in previous discussions that there has to be a holistic approach to the crisis in syria and everything that is related to the crisis in syria, we have seen this week and this week only this hugely important conference, a discussion also on our continued effort regarding extremism and terrorism and how to fight them and combat them effectively but also we saw the launch of negotiations in geneva. yes, suspended for now, but a collective effort and determination to have them resume as soon as possible. ladies and gentlemen, there is no humanitarian solution to the crisis in syria. there's a political solution that will end humanitarian suffering. there's a political solution that will help us all fight extremism and terrorism which is again, a global threat.

so i believe that we are all in this together. this humanitarian crisis, unpress didnun pre precedented humanitarian crisis has spun over to the neighboring countries but the overflow of the spillover has been witnessed by many, not least of all in europe. after six years i think you know the facts and figures, after almost six years of this crisis. jordan today has a population 20% of whom happen to be syrian. this is something that no country regardless of political or economic might, can cope with. our aim is to ensure that jordan will be able to continue carrying the burden of syrian refugees as we have reached our limits because our infrastructure has been stretched way beyond its abilities. let me quote from his majesty king abdullah ii's remarks when

he said by partnering with jordan and supporting our refugee response, you will not only be addressing the urgent needs of millions, you will be helping my country continue to do the right thing, fulfilling a critical role in our region and staying strong for the world, end quote. this is exactly what jordan is all about, ladies and gentlemen. we are there an island of civility in an otherwise volatile region providing an example of stability and security, challenged immensely by this added responsibility of the syrian refugees and as we keep reminding the rest of the world that we are operating as one international community, then i believe that what jordan is doing on behalf of the international community has to be supported by the rest of the members of the international community. let us not, i agree with prime minister davutoglu, let us not forget the humanitarian situation elsewhere in syria. starvation and needless death from disease in different towns and villages in syria, really

must keep us up at night in order to find solutions. let us not also forget palestinian refugees and their plight and the plight of refugees everywhere around the world. let's hope that this is an example of how we can deal effectively with these issues. help us to help the syrians, help us to help you so we can help each other address the syrian situation effectively. just a couple of words, if i may, prime minister and dear colleagues. >> translator: i hope -- i want to reiterate my gratefulness to david cameron and to the government of the united kingdom as well as to the co-hosts, secretary general of the united nations, her excellency, angela merkel, the prime minister of

norway, kuwait, turkey, the prime minister of lebanon. yes, we are facing those challenges as an international community. we are bearing this additional burden as a result of the syrian refugees. as a territory, as a region and as an international community and therefore, we always want to remind that this conference is a political conference, a political conference in a distinguished way and as his majesty the king said this morning, that of course, as far as the priorities are concerned, for him, is the jordanian person so we need solutions in order to enable jordanians to bear this burden, which has no precedent and of course -- were positive, we appreciate them. we have come to a crossroad.

the world should respond so we can find a solution to the syrian crisis. jordan has been a wonderful example, respecting security and peace, having this generosity of heart and hand. everybody who fears for his life has come to us. everybody who wants to find a home has found a home in jordan. so therefore, we give all our thanks to great britain and we have to continue. we have to continue in achieving this political solution because there is no other solution for this basic problem, for this syrian problem. must be a political solution. we have to exert the effort in order to achieve that political solution by coordinating our efforts and our actions. once again, thank you very much, mr. cameron and thank you for the co-hosts. thank you.

>> thank you. thank you very much indeed, gentlemen. thank you. thank you. we have some questions now. i think we will start with the british media. bridget kendall from the bbc. >> prime minister, secretary general, distinguished guests, there have been previous donor conferences for syria and every time it just seems as though the refugee crisis gets bigger and the fighting gets worse. isn't there a danger the same thing is happening this time round and all your impressive pledges will ring rather hollow? if i might just add a very specific question to you, mr. cameron, after your meetings here today, how confident are you in getting the backing of eu leaders for your planned reform? >> all i would say about the conference today is that it will make a difference. it will make a difference in terms of saving lives, in terms of providing medicine, in terms

of providing shelter and food and these are important because we are fulfilling our moral responsibility as countries to those people who are caught up in this terrible conflict. so today will make a difference. but yes, you are absolutely right that what's required is every speaker has said is a political solution. that needs to start with cease-fires and then it moves to a transitional government and in the end what we need in syria is what we need everywhere in the world, a government that can represent the interests of all the people of syria. but before that happens, even after that happens, there are going to be millions of syrians in the region in syria itself who are going to need our help. and what we have done today is raise the money, raise the pledges, now we need to see the money, raise the pledges to make sure those people can at least have the chance of a future because they are able to stay alive and because of the way this conference has been organized, they are able to provide for themselves and their families in the countries

neighboring syria. a real breakthrough not just in terms of money but in terms of how we handle these refugee crises. as for the second issue raised, i have had the opportunity of lots of very positive meetings here but today isn't about britain and europe. today is about syria. it's about syrian refugees and how we help them. i think we have gone a long way to raising the money that's going to be needed this year in advance of what we hope is a political solution. i think the second question we have got from the german media. >> translator: miss merkel, whatever was decided today, is this going to help germany and the germans and is this a kind of liberating coup, where today we saw in a very impressive way how people in syria suffer and

how difficult it is for the refugees to leave their home country and how they find refuge in the neighboring countries and therefore, that's the top priority for me, but nobody leaves the country without thinking about it. there are 6.54 million people at least who have been displaced within syria, who have to move. there are more than five million outside of sere why wyria who h displaced and we do everything possible to make sure they don't need to be away from their home country and the conference here made a significant contribution to this. nevertheless, it does not replace the humanitarian responsibility of europe if we see here what the neighboring countries are making available that are very small in terms of inhabitants who accommodate a lot of refugees, it is important that europe makes a contribution. something we were able to

demonstrate today is that we contribute to the fact that it's not people smugglers and illegality that do business to the detriment of the poor people, but it is about a legal way to fight against the reasons for fleeing and for exodus to offer jobs, to offer prospects for the future and we will also keep working towards making sure that europe can meet its other obligations. >> finally, we have a question from kuwaiti tv. >> translator: is there a difference on the philosophy and the steps that are going to be taken in order to help the syrian people. what do you believe -- what are your thoughts about what kuwaitis have done in previous

years in order to alleviate the suffering of the syrian people? thank you. >> translator: first of all, at the very outset, i would like to thank all those countries which have applauded what kuwait has done and of course, the other co-hosts, especially in the full conference here. now, the position of kuwait as far as its commitment towards its brethren, syrian brothers and sisters, in order to alleviate their suffering of those people, the philosophy of this conference of course, the basic concept is to have opportunity for education, to have jobs which will be created, as far as humanitarian matters are concerned, there is responsibility which falls on us all together, the united

kingdom, germany, norway, to offer those programs. yes, we were capable of submitting those ideas to the conference and he has told you what has been achieved through the pledges, but i want to say that the three conferences held in kuwait, yes, kuwait wanted to go even further. kuwait wanted to go further -- taken by those conferences. the second and third conferences, there was a question of special treatment for the neighboring countries which are bearing a tremendous weight of receiving syrian refugees, and therefore, we earmarked a very large part and a very large percentage from the contribution so that we can help our brothers in jordan and in lebanon and in turkey. but we went even further. we went to egypt and what we

concentrated on was opening opportunities for health and education in order to help those host countries, in order to expand education, for what they are doing to receive these huge numbers. so i believe that this full conference today has taken into consideration the actual needs of the syrian people as far as education and humanitarian aid is concerned and the opportunities of work, and we hope that we are going to find the political solution so it can put an end to the suffering of our brothers in syria. thank you. >> the government and people of kuwait have played an absolutely superb role in bringing together the world for the last three years to raise money for this vital refugee appeal. i absolutely applaud the work they have done. i think it's important this year to build on that work and that's why i was so honored to co-chair this conference with angela

merkel, with his excellency, the deputy prime minister and previously the emir of kuwait because this does not just affect the region. this affects us all. it affects us all as human beings but it also affects us right here in europe. i think it's important to bring the world together and to ask everybody to do what they can to raise the money because that's essential, but also to support the neighboring countries and indeed, to look at new ways of helping with refugee crises such as this by allowing families to sustain themselves in the region because of course, people's first choice is to go back to syria. they can't do that, to go back to the country they love and the homes they built. their second choice is probably to stay in the region and to work if they can and sustain themselves. so i think it's right that this crisis affects us all, that european countries have played such an important role here today. but i applaud the role kuwait has played and continues to play. with that, can i thank everyone who has come so far for this

conference today. can i thank everyone for their generosity in the pledges that have been made. can i thank all those who helped to organize what i think has been a very successful conference raising this record sum of money. i declare this conference closed. thank you. [ applause ] ♪ if you're interested in the process, it all has to begin in iowa and then in new hampshire. we don't set the rules in terms of which state is first or second. we certainly have to cover the candidates where they are. there are a lot of people interested in this election. every four years, the american people make a decision to say

who should be the leader of the free world, who should be our president, and so for those who want to follow the process and do it in a way that is completely unfiltered, we are the only place that does that. the other thing to keep in mind, though, is that as you look at this campaign and you look at these candidates you are able to see how they are able to try to close the deal and during the final days of any campaign there's a lot of attention on every nuance, every news story, every speech, every ad, how is one candidate trying to rebut the other, how are you trying to respond to those in a day and age of social media and twitter, the news cycle is constant. so we are the one place that can allow you to take a step back and watch it. you can get the analysis on other networks, you can certainly hear viewer calls and weigh in on the programming but we are the one place that just allows you to see it as it happens and make up your own decision.

>> road to the white house coverage continues this weekend. first we will take you to new hampshire, where republican presidential candidate carly fiorina holds a town hall with voters. that's live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. then to portsmouth, new hampshire where hillary clinton holds a campaign rally. that's live at 7:15 p.m. eastern also on c-span. one of the things that i saw throughout this entire timeline is that most of the founding fathers and the early presidents knew in their minds that slavery was wrong. they knew it. but they weren't willing to inconvenience their own lives to make that come true. >> sunday night on q & a, associated press reporter jesse holland discusses his book "the invisibles, the untold story of african-american slaves in the white house." >> the majority of the first

presidents, majority of the founding fathers who became presidents, they were all slave owners. so they would bring in slaves from their plantations. george washington did this as well. he brought in slaves to new york city and philadelphia from mt. vernon and they served as the first domestic staff to the united states president. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q & a. president obama spoke at the 64th annual national prayer breakfast in washington, d.c. he was joined by house speaker paul ryan, minority leader nancy pelosi and 2015 heisman trophy winner derek henry. the keynote address was delivered by husband and wife producers mark brunette and roma downy who talked about the challenges of mixing christian themed movies and hollywood.

>> good morning. could everyone take your seat so we can start the program? we want to get started this morning. we have a great lineup here this morning at our head table and we are excited that again, that everyone is here and i just, as i mentioned before, i represent robert adderholt from the state of alabama. i'm privileged to be here with my co-chair for this event. my new best friend, warren vargas from the state of california. just so you know, over the past 13 months, we have been praying and we have been working and we have been praying some more

about what happens over the next 75 minutes. we have prayed this head table together. we have prayed for you that are here in this ballroom. for those that are in the auxiliary overflow room which are probably enjoying an even better breakfast than we are having. some out there are watching it on a computer screen monitor. some are watching by television. we are praying for everyone that's listening or that's in our presence, because we believe that jesus and his reconciling power of prayer is so desperately needed these days. so thank you for showing up and for your prayers. here's the most obvious thing that you will hear and that's we all need all the help we can get. i would like to introduce my co-chair, congressman vargas. he served in the jungles of el salvador as a jesuit missionary and now he serves in the jungles of the house of representatives.

he grew up on a chicken ranch and quite honestly that's a high qualification for government service in my district. he brings great joy and passion to his new responsibilities in the house of representatives. i wish all of you could just spend a couple of hours with him. what's so maddening about the place we work is that there is so much division and it prevents us from appreciating each other and from understanding the wonderful strengths that 435 unique individuals have that we all work with. and if you are not from around here, you might not know that juan here, we call him paco. if i refer to him as paco you'll know that's who i'm referring to, he is a progressive democrat. i'm a conservative republican. and our voting records are probably about as similar to our hairstyles. but i love him. i know he loves me because we

share a common friend, jesus. >> i appreciate it, brother. thank you. that is so true. i do love robert and i appreciate it. compared to robert, i just got here. he served 20 years in the house which seems like 90 dog years, i think. quite some time. prior to coming here, he was a judge and i bet he was a great one. he's good at seeing things from all sides and all angles. it's really a rare gift. i represent southern california and he represents northern alabama. these places are very different, according to most demographics, but they are alike in that both are full of folks with really a very deep faith. one of the landmarks of robert's district is the beautiful 60-foot high sandstone bridge called natural bridge and like that bridge, robert is able to connect people. he brings people together to get work done for america.

robert and i have the responsibility of facilitating the weekly prayer group of members of the house, the house has had such a group for over 50 years now. this group includes republicans, democrats, older members, younger members, women and men and folks from different faith traditions. we have much yet to accomplish but we are making progress by coming together in unity again around jesus. this morning's event is simply a big public version of what we do intimately and privately every week of the house is in session. we hope we all make progress here today as well. one idea we would like to plant in your minds this morning is despite our very busy schedules and all our differences, we make time to come together every week and pray. could you do that in your city? your workplace? your mission in life? if a lefty chicano from california and a conservative judge from alabama can do it, why can't you? [ applause ]

>> now i would like to introduce to you who will be leading this morning and if you could please hold your applause until i introduce the entire head table. way down to my right is a hero of alabama, heisman trophy winner derrick henry of the university of alabama, the national champion university of alabama. roll, tide. he's got some big shoulders so we asked kevin to carry us all the way through the program this morning so he will finish with our closing prayer. you already met major general vance. thank you for being here. next, we have our counterparts from that other chamber that are here with us on the capitol center. tim kaine of virginia and senator dozeman from arkansas. they will be sharing greetings from the senate group shortly. you should know that in about an hour, they will start working on

the 2017 breakfast so gentlemen, thank you for your leadership and as we hand the torch over to you in a few minutes. >> thank you. most important to me, i would like to introduce my beautiful wife of 25 years, adrian vargas. honey, you are truly a gift, you truly are a gift from god to me. i love you very much. next is a distinguished member of the president's cabinet. secretary of housing and urban development which he has dubbed the department of opportunity. prior to federal service, he was a mayor of san antonio, texas. secretary hul julian castro will be offering a prayer for the needs of the poor. next of course is the first lady, michelle obama. and it is impossible to hold your applause for her. it really is. we love her. first lady michelle obama is a

lawyer, a writer and the wife of the 44th and current president, president barack obama. she is the first african-american first lady of the united states and has become a role model and advocate for poverty awareness, higher education and healthy living. >> continuing down the table is our brand new speaker of the house, paul ryan of wisconsin. we haven't even cut the tags off of him yet, he's so new. and he is a great colleague with a lot of energy. he has a lot of knowledge and has a lot of faith. and we are honored to have him with us while he's still fresh. sitting next to him is democrat leader and former speaker of the house of representatives, nancy pelosi of california. she has been a strong and gracious force on so many issues during her time serving in congress and she will offer a roading from the scripture. next to her is my dear wife and best friend, caroline.

we are blessed -- thank you. we have been blessed by trying to put god in the center of our relationship each day and so i appreciate her being here and her support through all this. by the way, adrian, juan's wife and caroline have informed juan and myself that this does not count as a date. >> we tried. next our keynote speakers who will be introduced in a bit. next is the honorable judge robert r. rigstein of the district of columbia superior court. he served our nation in so many ways including service in the united states army for 34 years. his service makes him the first district judge ever deployed to a theater of war. robert and i are blessed to have the judge as a member of the weekly prayer group. he will offer a prayer for national leaders.

next, the discontinuitinguished jack emporat, who is a great hero of ours because he has done about as much as anyone alive to try to bring people together of all the world's great religious traditions to find common ground. he will offer a reading from the scriptures. >> quite a group, isn't it? they will each approach the podium when it's their turn and so thank you all for being here and for leading us this morning. [ applause ] >> i finally would like to introduce a returning favorite artist to the prayer breakfast. andrea bocelli. andrea bocelli's voice and spirit has lifted hearts and souls all around the world. we are pleased to share his

gifts with you this morning as he sings "heavenly bread." he will be singing in italian, of course. but listen to his words in english. they go as this, like this. heavenly bread that becomes the bread of all bread from the angelic host that rjz is the end of all images. all miraculous thing, this body of god will nourish even the poorest, the most humble of servants, even the poorest, the most humble of servants. amen. to share a few, remarks and a song, please welcome andrea bocceli. [ applause ] ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ [ applause ]

>> i'm john bozeman from arkansas, and i can prom you next year, when tim and i are running a show, we won't be following that. simply remarkable. how does anybody do that? it really is a pleasure to be with you all and to be with my colleagues. i greatly appreciate his friendship and have had the pleasure of working with him this last year. as co-chair of the senate prayer breakfast. as the fellows are going to put this event on next year, together we realize we're part of a very, very long great tradition. >> it's humbling to think the prayer breakfast we're part of has been meeting longer than either of us have been alive, and in my case that's been a while. it's exciting also that it's going to go on. we meet, we have personal prayer

reques requests, who would believe that an hour of fellowship per week centered on the teachings of jesus could make such a difference? you should go back to your communities, as you go back to the different countries represented. the example that we have today, the example that we have every week in the house, that's how you change hearts. >> well, good morning. >> good morning. >> what a wonderful occasion. it is truly good to be here with my friend john bozeman. when i was young, i spent part of 1980 and '81 living with jesuits in a small community in

honduras and learned from that experience the power of a small group inned advancing your spiritual life. and it's been my blesseding to have opportunities since in my parish in richmond with a group of legislators when i was lieutenant governor and governor and now in the senate working with john bozeman in the senate prayer breakfast tradition. we're here in a very, very large room. and there's greatness in a large room, but i think a lot of us are here because there's greatness in small rooms and small groups. now a word of introduction. within nine months, the government of the united states shut down. >> when the government reopened,

we had a hard task on our shoulders was that congress was charged with finding a budget deal by the end of the kallcale year. senator patty murray. a person who knows that the american people send us here not to express our opinions are louder than the next person, but to be principled but also respect and work with the principle of others. and we found the deal that enabled us to move forward. in due season, we will reap if we do not give up. ladies and gentlemen, the speaker of the house, paul ryan.

>> thank you very much. first of all, i want to express my gratitude to my friends, robert and juan for hosting us here today. thank you. thank you for what you've dope opinion -- done. and i want to applaud their work to raise awareness of the plight of the persecuted christians around the world. you could not have come here for a better reason. prayer is a part. it goes all the way back to the declaration of independence.

it's only natural. i've noticed you see it in the papers or you see it on twitter, when people say we're praying for someone or something, the attitude in some quarters these days is don't just pray, do something about it. the thing is, when you are praying, you are doing something about it. [ applause ] >> whenever people are in grief, or even when they're about to start some great undertaking, they feel the worst pain of all. they feel alone.