that, bill brock decided to retire. so president reagan turned to clayton for some help. when he became ambassador in july of 1985, the u.s. dollar was very strong relative to other currencies and u.s. exports were suffering. in the midst of that doom and gloom which frankly is not all that unsimilar to the situation we have today, clayton message to those seeking protection from imports was basically, cheer up. this large volume of imports is not the end of the world. it gives us a lot of leverage as we talk to other countries of the need to liberalize to open all of our markets. he was instrument tall in starting in 19786 and then completed the u.s.-canada fta in

1988. after improving the trade picture, he shifted to the department of agriculture where he served two years as secretary for president george h.w. bush and moved onto republican national committee. i am a bit younger than clayton but have been involved in many of the same issues. i have to admit, i am much impressed. given how i tend to follow around in his tracks, i suppose i shouldn't have been surprised at a conversation that i had one fall a few years ago at an oktoberfest barbecue grilling brat worsts in my neighborhood. a new neighbor asked what do you do for a living. well, trade policy mostly. well, you might know my father-in-law. and i did. [ laughter ] i have a hard time escaping clayton's influence.

clayton holds a bs and ph.d. degrees in economics as well as a law degree from the university of nebraska. two other noteworthy items. he serves as a value member of the advisory board for trade policies here at cato. the other is that he was honored by the washington international trade association with its lifetime achievement award in 2014. he concluded his acceptance speech with this exhortation. never give up working toward trade liberalization. never give up. perhaps none of us have completely escape his influence. mr. ambassador, the floor is yours. [ applause ] >> dan, thank you so very much. that was just a wonderful,

wonderful introduction. thanks to dan, and inviting me to come over to participate in this program. i am going to try to do my part fairly quickly to stay on schedule and not take time away from my colleagues up here. i would like to say two or three things in response of what has been said already this morning and then move on to what i am supposed to be talking about here. first of all, in terms of tpp justify congressional approval. you'll discover that my answer is a resounding yes, with more enthusiasm maybe than has been projected by some of the people here thus far this morning. and i say that notwithstanding the fact that we have two presidential candidates who are taking the opposite view,

including one that is the presumed leader of my republican party today. and all i would say to that is, first of all, candidates, you are both wrong, dead wrong. in secondly, to the members of the press who are here, i wish you would begin to do your jobs and ask them the questions that have not yet been asked thus far, and that is, if you don't like the ttp agreement, tell me why. explain your position. what is it about ttp that you don't like? do you just want to tear it up without understanding the consequences? if so, you better defend that. and the fact of the matter is, there have been very few hard questions like that from the press with either candidates thus far and i think that's most unfortunate. with respect to cato analysis here, there are a couple of

items where i would have shaded it a little differently and maybe, dan, you guys are correct and i am wrong. but i was a little disappointed in the market access provisions. i would not have graded them as high as you all did. i thought we were lacking in ambition in market access. i particularly want the agriculture parts of that where we certainly could have done much better with both japan and canada. you know, the same thing is true in other market access. my original demand in that area where i ustr and leading that negotiating team would have been a whole lot higher and more ambitious than it was.

but, never the less, i will always come to the point president reagan made during my ten years which was just applicable here and which derek missed i think this morning in his emphasis. and that is, better moving forward than standing still. better moving forward than moving backwards. and ttp moving market liberalization forward. and the way president reagan used to put it, get all that you can but at the end of the day, remember that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. if you evaluate ttp as half a loaf and most of us would. maybe some of us would make it two-thirds and some of us one-third, but nevertheless, that's better than nothing at all. and i firmly believe that would be a big mistake to have nothing

at all. it is true that in these difficult food safety kinds of issues one can take these cases to the wto because it has excellent sanitary provisions that we put in, as a matter of fact at the insis tans of the u.s. but those provisions move slowly. they're a lot faster than they used to be, but nevertheless dispute settlement of the wto is slower. i don't know how fast it will be in ttp but i hope faster than wto. if so, you are likely to see countries rather using these sps

provisions in the ttp rather than going to the wto. then finally, i want to make two other quick points here and then move on to the politics. one advantage of ttp that got not mentioned until the tail end of the last panel discussion is the advantage of being on the inside of a trade agreement rather than on the outside. the benefits, if you will, of preferential treatment. with ttp the u.s. is going to be on the inside. and that's much better than being on the outside looking in. we should not underestimate that. look at the benefits in nafta which is another agreement that people supposedly want to throw out now. look at what we have done to develop north american business enterprises, not u.s. or canada

or mexico, but north american business enterprises who have a huge advantage in international competition over the rest of the world because they are on the inside rather than the outside of and a half that. my other point here is u.s. leadership. we have not talked about that a lot today. that's really important in the ttp contact. there is only one country that could lead of what we called a western world and that's the u.s. ttp is an opportunity for the u.s. exercise leadership in asia. these kinds of opportunities don't come around often. we need to take advantage of it. we have been sitting on our hands for a number of years now in terms of demonstrating the ability of the u.s. lead internationally. we backed off instead of asserting ourselves and that needs to change and it needs to change badly and we need to get

it done. okay. to politics and i will do it quickly. first of all, if there is to be any chance of getting this done between now and the election, which would contribute to the obama legacy for our president's eight years in government, there are going to have to be some tweaks to ttp as an absolute necessity. my two colleagues are going to talk about the tweaks. i won't do that here in terms of the to ba cocarveout and what we might do on the pharma provisions and biologics. those have to be resolved. this administration in negotiating ttp insisted on some provisions in these areas that troubled a lot of us. and troubled too many people in

the u.s. congress for ttp to be approved in my judgment between now and the election. first, imperative, would be to make those changes. i don't know whether the votes would be there either of those changes were made. but in the absence of fixing those issues -- - and ambassador froman indicated this morning that they're working these issues, and i am not sure what it means. they're going to have to work them harder or there is no chance what so ever that this agreement would be approved by congress between now and the election. i still think the chance is between slim and none. never the less, the administration is really trying to be a part of the president's legacy they need to get off their der reyars and get these

changes done. the next question is can you get approval of ttp in the lame duck session. that's an interesting question, because it may depend a lot on at the election outcome and not only the presidential race but in the senate and the house races between now and then. normally, i would say that there would be little chance at all of approving tpp or any trade agreements in a lame duck session because it's too short. how do you take up of complicated issues in a session that's that short? members of congress have just gone to tough elections cycle, they're tired and they want to go home and they want to do their christmas shopping and they want to spend christmas holidays with their families. they don't want to talk about tpp in the post election period.

but, they might. the reason they might is because there maybe some shifts in control not just executive branch but maybe in the legislative branch as well. you have to say irrespective of how those come out whether members of congress or the administration might say is this a good time for a little bipartisanship in order to get a really tough issue off our agenda and start of the next year fresh? shouldn't we have a clean slate coming into 2017, and if that's so, would it be nice to get these issues off our backs in 2016. and the only opportunity to do that is in a lame duck session. don't ride it off completely because there maybe some interesting bipartisan politics that could emerge in a lame duck session and get it done then. if that does not happen, and i think you have to say the

chances are well over 50/50, that nothing will happen until after the first of the year and you have a new government. then what to you do? one of the risks is that it spills all the way to 2018 or it just dies on the vine, because people get tired of waiting and other countries get totally frustrated with the united states and say, what kind of leadership is this. you know, you asked us to get approval of our government's tpp agreement. politically, we've had to bite those bullets and they have not been all that tasty. you don't even want to do that in the u.s., and therefore, you know, you need to suffer the consequences in terms of asian leadership. i think there will be a lot of that argument made if things spill into 2017 and maybe beyond. it is going to be difficult for the incoming administration which has to put a new government together, which means

probably a new ustr and all the entire tough negotiation team. normally it takes a president a year to get his whole team in place and functioning. if this spills into 2017, it can easily spill into 2018 which is not a happy situation. the answer to that has to come from the people who would benefit most from this agreement. and that would be the commercial entities, agricultural and nonag ch agricultural in the u.s. who have considerable amount to gain from this. they would have to say next january, look, guys, we cannot wait until 2018. this got to get done now. we'll give you all the support. there maybe a good chance in early 2017 if it spills that far.

but, that will only happen if the business community and the agriculture community weigh in in a big way and make it happen. i will stop right there. [ applause ] >> well, thank you. it is a pleasure to be here and especially to speak after ambassador yeutter. i find myself in an agreement on a lot of things. i would like to see the ttp to pass. he gave an excellent description of many reasons why this is important. i am skeptical than him about the prospect of the passage. i guess i would note that we had repeated statements of the discussions of tpp that it is really important that it passes. i agree with that but that's not a plan for getting it passed.

something that's vital is not the same thing than having a strategy. imagine we are on one mountain peak and we see another peak nearby. we really should be over there. great. how do we get there? sol of devalue between them and what do you do. i want to come back to some of the points that the ambassador sketched and say what are these steps and how would this actually happen and use it to justify where i have additional skepticism on this. we know how you pass an agreement like this. it passes through the house ways and means committee, the house floor, senate finance, then the senate floor. if you get everybody approving and you have protections in the senate, you no longer have to worry about a filibuster. if everyone approves, you get your ratified trade agreement. it is a bit of a challenge to analyze the timing on these

things because the tpa lays out often restrictions on the executive than it does on congress. it does some and here is the sort of maximum time period of the house ways and means committee can examine. we have blown way past all of those things. the house and means committee could take up to 45 legislative days. i am not sure we have that left in a year. that's just the house ways and means committee. the other challenge in analyzing of these things, there is a difference between impossible and improbable. if there is a will, if you have the majority that's willing to do something, including ppa, blocking things like filibust s filibusters, they're limited on what they could do should they get it together. here is why it is problematic. one reason we end up on the

focus of the lame duck when we try to imagine scenarios is if you look at the house calendar, and it is available online, you see they're not around that much, that they meet until mid-july and you start having conventions and you have elections, they come back at a little bit in september and the moment our schedule for two weeks, i believe, later in november. now my understanding from people who have worked on the legislative side, if you look over the last decade or so and say, what's the quickest one of these things got done. they'll point to some agreements, less controversial. that we manage to do in one and a half weeks. plus, we are assuming this would be a major focus of what they do. you may have -- frequently in a lame duck session of budgetary issues that people have kicked

down the road that need to be dealt with, just as there might be a reconsideration of whether you should address a trade agreement. if you're looking at an upcoming change. you could have a reconsideration of whether you should put forward and reconfirm a supreme court nominee, depending on what happens. but that's occupying the same legislative body. will congress be around for that period of time and of the time it is around, will it have enough time to devote trade agreements. additional issues. it's worth noting, referring to background, the narrowness, and the last real measure we have of this was the ppa passage a year ago. in the house, i think you had 218 votes. just what you needed for passage. and of those, i think 190 republican votes and 28 democratic votes. this is why i am wondering of bipartisan surge, that'll be a

real novelty in terms of where we have been on this. i guess those are two of the things that i would note as obstacles. one, that you really have not from the democratic side. there was a time when the ambassador was chair when you have a centerist coalition from both sides of the aisle and supported these things and came together to do necessary work. we have not had that for a while, we had a partisan split. on the republican side, you have, as the ambassador pointed out very well, you had a series of objections. when they voted for tta, i see the potential of the agreement that would really do great things, then they voiced a bunch of concerns and i liked the idea that it sort of seemed like a

short stick in terms of the response. it was by no mean of a master class maintaining a congressional coalition. the way that tpp was negotiated, it was clearly an enormous urgency to get it wrapped up and perhaps that was what motivated things. but there seemed to be much more eagerness to proclaim the progressive endeavor than to solidify a narrow coalition and support. that coalition, you can lose people and you can lose some because of things like tobacco or financial services or biologics. if you're doing this in a lame duck, you can lose some to your principle objections. which means, it's not right that congress lose these in the immediate election. i don't know how many you will lose but you have room to lose essentially none. these are some of the major concerns on top of the

question, has the administration even done what it needed to do win back key members. i want to move on then. i have real skepticism. i don't see the path where this gets down in the lame duck. final point on this, have anyone been watching on the house of republicans. honor that speak are, that kind of stuff? it has not been a group that was fallen into line, saluted and done whatever is necessary. which is what comes to mind for me when people talk about, okay, we'll get right past the election and everybody will immediately do what they're supposed to and do what's necessary and they'll support this. it's been a frack chus group. i believe there will be large numbers of republicans who would feel that way, i don't think there is 218 of them.

i think that's a real challenge. i'm noticeably more pessimistic than the ambassador. he's quite rightly noted that more than the presidential election matter but lets start there. donald trump was talking about trades to my mind in a misguided session, saying something should be better is insufficient. but, he does not seem inclined to be advancing this in rapid order. clinton supported the tpp will find herself in a tough position even if we stop the conversation now that i fear that her situation is going to get worse as the campaign progresses. she find herself in a tough situation now because she said she does not support the tpp as it stands. some of the criteria she set of approving it are difficult.

currency manipulation is highly problematic. probably the best you can hope for in terms of restrictions. this gets to the core of what countries do with monetary policy. the best you can hope for is a sort of side agreement that states good intentions on everybody's part and a move for transparency. that's what the ambassador delivered. she declared that's insufficient and i need more. she set herself a much higher hurdle than bill clinton faced when he was going reverse himself. addressing things such as rules of origin on autos, these were key elements to the agreement. that was a big part of what japan thought got out of this agreement. that would involve opening things up. this is not a minor addendum. the other real problem i

think -- two problems that secretary clinton would have of presidency, one of them is that she would likely be told, even if she emerged unscathed from the rest of the campaign, madame president, you have 18 months to get done the big things you want in office. this is your time period to focus on that. does she want to make one of those things a tpp agreement which would alienate labor support and it is hard to say it splits the democratic party right now. it unites the democratic party. so, she maybe facing one or both houses of the democratic control. that's a challenge. the final challenge that i will note on this is as the campaign goes along, i think what you are going to see is donald trump -- we have seen it this week -- pressing her on the sincerity of her opposition and trying to pin her down. and the concern is that we'll

move towards a read my lips no tpp commitment as they fight this battleground on the industrial midwest. that would pose real challenges. as a guide for this, and i will close here, what's the best historical example that we have? i think when president obama was elected in 2008. a number of his supporters who are protrade and multilateralists had visions that three pending trade agreements of columbia, panama and korea would be usher through the lame duck agreement. you would have a clean slate. those arguments sound extraordinary familiar to me. this is late 2008 that were all supposed to slip through. they were passed in the fall of 2011 after a great deal of arm twisting that came later. that's the best and most optimistic model that we have. i will stop there. thank you. [ applause ]

>> good morning, everyone. so i'm standing between you and lunch but i'll trying to make it as pleasurable as possible. thank you very much for the introduction earlier and the opportunity to speak here today. there have been several references tobacco and tobacco carveout. i am going to give a little background of what this is all about and what it means and why is this so important. coming from jti, that stands for japan tobacco international.

so we hear that tobacco industry is abusing the iscs system and that we are stifling government's ability to introduce tobacco control policies. it's also alleged that some governments don't have enough money to pay for the legal fees against tobacco industries. therefore, we are viewed as a big user or, rather, abuser of the isds system. well, what is the reality? tobacco is one of the most regulated products in the world. but, in real life, the tobacco industry has not used isds system very much. actually just in two cases. these two cases are against what can be described as extreme regulations for any sectors but passes down the line for tobacco. we see that these regulations are in general are not based on

science and evidence which are good hallmarks for good regulatory practices. since the commencement of these disputes, one of them have been dropped on procedural ground, the case of pmi and australia. there's only one case left. the remaining 694 cases are against countries by other industry groups. so this 0.3% of the case load that is tobacco related really an abuse of isds system? i don't think so. then the claims that countries don't have enough money to defend themselves against tobacco industry claims, is that really true? let me give you a little background. the tobacco industry pays $15 billion a year in taxes, excise

taxes and vip to the tpp countries, only. $15 billion. a little bit of money coming from the tobacco industry itself that could be used for whatever they want to do, for instance, protecting themselves against those not numerous kids. in addition to that, bloomberg and gates have set up a fund, in case it would be challenged by tobacco industry. on that basis, it is safe to conclude that there is money to mount a legal case against the tobacco industry if a country would like to defend extreme regulatory proposals. the big gain touted by the

supporters of tobacco is public health. now, lets play a little game of where is waldo's trade expert. i will tell you to look at the slide where you have tobacco exclusion in the background. i would like for you to find the words public health or just health mentioned in the tobacco exclusion. they're not there. they have gone to a great length and such as inspection and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. all these activities are practically of such a threat to public health that is not protected by isds. really? it is obvious that the goal has not been to bring about public health benefits but to introduce that giving a lot of headlines and allure that the government

is regulating for the greater good. but in reality, this does not do anything, except excluding one industry from the isds. what does this all mean? the tobacco industry does not have access to isds. there are a number of protections in the tpp which gives the companies an ability to challenge the government directly. we heard from members of cato who are happy about these protections, but they are there. they are fair and in equitable treatments. and tobacco might be controversial, but why -- it is still legitimate in the industry

and bringing about employment, rev view -- revenue and other things. why should tobacco industry not be able to defend themselves by discriminatory regulations? i don't know. i am not sure if you are aware of this. but in certain countries tobacco company representatives are facing jail time and enormous astronomical fines because they're challenging governments' introduction of some not very even-handed customs valuation procedures. these procedures have been found to be noncompliant but the legal challenge goes on against tobacco executives. now, why shouldn't we be able to

protect people work frg the tobacco industry just like any other industry. and if we open the door for this, who is next? food? alcohol? mining? another protection in the tpp is about transfers. the tpp chapter ensures that private companies like ours should be able to transfer profits, capitol and dividends back to the country from where it came from, back to normal business practice, right? performance requirements. this sounds technical and boring, but it has a practical side. performance requirement could be policy whereby a government says all cigarettes should only be made by domestically grown

tobacco. this is not how cigarettes are generally made. they're made from a hodgepodge of different tobaccos coming from all over the world. or you could imagine that the government would say a confectiony can only make chocolate from domestically grown cocoa. this is really not fair. then the ultimate form of government intervention, exappropriation. lets say something of cigarette factory, they invested of tens of millions and you don't want it to vanish at any point in time. you have this protection under

ttp if you happen to produce cigarettes, you don't. why would government expiration is -- a lot of industries are controversial and you see some of them up in the screen here. some of these industries are big users. opening the door to exclude an industry can have ramifications that were not imagined. the government that concluded ttp keep on repeating exclusion of tobacco is not be repeated for other industries. the governments that concluded tpp keep repeating that exclusion of tobacco from the tpp will not be repeated for other industries. but what if other governments look at the tpp and take examples from the tpp saying hey, this is a great precedent. now we can start excluding any industry where your population have a pete peeve against it. >> who's next? and where will it end? i would like to quote senator warren who said the following.

i am glad it is protected from ips but what about food safety laws or any other regulations designed to protect our citizens. the slippery slope is already there. just to conclude, i would like to remind you that tobacco industry is not a big user of isds. the numbers people for themselves. it's a policy based on scare mongering and not facts. this is also a very badly drafted policy. the tpp tobacco exclusion lists all possible activities that the tobacco companies are involved in but includes not one reference to public health. i fail why it would be aloud to export tobacco property. this does not do anything to prevent anyone from picking up the habit of smoking or helping anyone to quit smoking. removing any effective ability only opens the door for

discrimination. is this a goal that fre traders want to promote? and someone will be next. tobacco is always at the forefront of extreme regulations. and it's easy to score cheap points by introducing policies that get a lot of publicity. but the t px p tobacco exclusion does not address the issue that it's supposed to remedy. the tobacco industry is a legitimate industry and ttp tobacco exclusion leaves us of the only industry and no protection. this is not fair. the tpp tobacco exclusion, this is entirely unnecessarily. as a last thing, as we were in the u.s., let's recall that it went against it own legislature when it agreed to this

exclusion. the u.s. congress directing the ustr to, and i quote, protecting the right of u.s. investors without product discrimination and ensuring all u.s. investors. this is in the senate finance committee tpa report. how about that for democratic control of the process. thank you. [ applause ] >> okay. well, when i call on you, please wait for the microphone to arrive so that everyone can hear your question, and identify yourself if you would. lets focus on questions and avoid detailed commentaries. i will take the moderator's prerogative and ask the first question. getting to geir's issue and realizing that the u.s. austria fta does not include an isds provision. in a hypothetical situation

in which tpp was re-negotiated to remove isds, would the u.s. community support tpp in this case? >> ask phil. >> my guess is they would have real problems with it. one of the key character is they all build on each other and served as precedents so you get a lot of pushback to removing isds together. >> even though the business community did support the australia agreement, i do recall. >> i think there is good reason to have isds in tpp because i think there are times when american companies need that kind of protection internationally. i fully agree that where you should not have any discriminatory activity in

there, the tobacco exclusion was wrong. i have no grief for the tobacco industry, i am a non-smoker and i have been a non-smoker my entire life. i don't want anybody discriminating against them any more than discriminating against anyone else. >> questions? >> hello. i'm ed gerwin. vi a question for ambassador yeutter. first of all, mentioning the fact that our friends in the press need to press candidates much more strictly on the implications of their trade positions. there's a lot of rhetoric out there that people don't seem to get challenged on. i would like to ask you a question from your experience of negotiator and agricultural. one of our candidates in the

speech in kansas of the day he was elected he would make sure that we slashed japanese duties on american beef. can you tell us a little from your experience about the practicality of that statement? >> certainly. there has been a lot of commentary about tearing up the nafta agreement and starting all over. you know, all of this rhetoric is really just troubling to me. i think most of it is shameful and it's coming from both sides. some of it from the candidates, some of it from the staffers for the candidates. but there is a lot of loose language and unfortunately it is getting worse rather than better, at least it has in the last few days. it's shameful. the rest of the world thinks we're crazy on these trade policy issues and i understand how they come to that

conclusion. but to be specific in answering your question, you can't do that. i mean we certainly can raise tariffs and following day in japan or anybody else if we want to. we pay a price. there is no free lunch. if we do that, japan will have a right to retaliate against us and they would and they should. so, you know, we need to honor our obligations. we're a signatory to the world trade organization, we're a signatory to nafta. we have a lot of trade agreements in the world. we ought to honor them all. and when we start talking about tearing them up, that's just nonsense. and you know, we could end up -- i was thinking about this last night. you know, if that really happened and we went through all of this carnage, you know, i might not witness much of it in my lifetime at my age, but i

worry about the carnage that would affect my kids, my grandkids and my great grandkids. and i am just appalled with this loose language that is being thrown around today. >> i would just mention that to the best of my knowledge, members of the press present with us today have not had an opportunity to interview any of the presidential candidates. i am sure if they did, there will be elaborations of trade policy issues. another question, please. >> hello, my name is eric gomez. i'm with the cato institute. i follow the tpp for a while. when we are talking about obama administration is going to sell this to congress, it seems like, especially if the last year or so, more emphasis has been

placed on the u.s. needs to be the strategic player in asia. it's not explicitly talking about china per se, but you know, i could probably say, yeah, this is meant to serve as some kind of counter weight to china's economic influence. is this a strategy that you believe will be successful or should it be the way to go or do you think it would play well with congress and have a greater chance of succeeding than focusing more solely on the economics rather than the strategic benefits? >> it is a really good question. personally, i maybe showing some of my political biases here. you know this administration does not have much credibility on foreign policy issues. there have not be very many success stories.

i think tpp may be the most successful of all. nevertheless, as i pointed out earlier, we need to demonstrate leadership in asia. so come -- to some degree, we're in competition with china for the leadership role. i don't see china is an adversary. i also believe that if they are in the leadership role in asia, you will not have principles and rules of international trade that are as effective as they would be if we are in a leadership role. in other words, there are going to be loser and will not have the disciplines that are necessary. so i want tpp to go into effect because that then becomes the

base of which we build. and the point i made earlier being on the outside verses on the inside is so valid here. it is not by accident that you have a whole slew of countries lining up wanting to join tpp already. that's important. i think that's one of the great benefits of this potential agreement. flawed as it may be, it is the best eating on the plate at the moment. and as a consequence, you are finding maybe as many as a dozen countries who would like to be in the next traunch of tpp negotiations. if that happens, that solidifies that tpp is the foundation of trading for everybody else. i think that's good. it gets to the point of a second, and a few years down the

road, ultimately china may see it to its advantage to join. >> i would agree of all of that. i don't think the administration has been that coy about saying either we write the rules or china reitz the rules. i think that resonates with some on the hill with whom i've spoken with. i think they handicap themselves on the economic argument because you have a president who ran for office expressing extreme skepticism about the value of agreements like nafta, he argued that it cost a million jobs. has not actually reversed himself on that which means that their economic argument has to be you didn't like previous trade agreements but vote for this one. that sort of self inflected wound is what leads to moreover into the strategic argument. >> way in the back corner there.

>> thank you. i just want to ask a quick question about -- >> and you are? >> sorry. i'm zeke shoe macker and i guess i'm my >> that's good. >> thank you. with respect though this idea about who is writing the rules of the road primarily, i think that seems to be a stick point from a political perspective about why we should be engaging ourselves in some sort of international trade agreement in the first place. but it seems to me that sparta didn't join the dealian league just because it was the biggest block around. and at the same time you have russia and china creating alternative venues for trading oil and that sort of thing. so why are we expecting china, on the one hand, to sort of step into a vacuum but not executing tpp is presumed to create, and

on the other hand, if they do step into that vacuum, why does it necessarily cause a problem if we're hoping that they might join tpp? what's wrong with us joining with whatever multinational coalition or trading bloc eventually forms regardless? if the ultimate benefit is the economic of the american consumer and business environment. >> so i'll start in on this. i think the -- the u.s. does this because it's in our self-interest. it's in our self-interests to have sort of stable -- stable political situation in asia. we have huge interests there. it's in our interest to get other countries to lower their barriers. i think when you look -- i agree with what was said earlier, it's not that we're opposed to china. there is a different conception of what commercial regulation ought to be. the u.s. has a very advanced economy. a lot of the way we interact

with other countries in the world involves provision of services. it involves investment. it involves high intellectual property content. if this sounds familiar from all the chapter headings you've seen earlier, that's no mistake. how do we succeed and how do we do business. if you look at the kind of trade agreements that china is putting forward, they probably reflect more the way that china engages commercially with the world where they're much simpler, it is just border barriers and it would do a worse job of serving u.s. interests. from an economic standpoint we would be worse off from proving ourselves reliable to keep the peace in the region, it would be very damaging to withdraw. >> phil is so correct in that respect. as you probably know, china already has a regional trade agreement sort of underway in asia, which is viewed by some at least as a bit of a competitor to tpp. that agreement is not really

going anywhere at the moment because everybody -- not everybody, most everybody is putting their attention and emphasis on tpp, which is to our advantage. and the fact of the matter is if you switch and go the other way and follow the chinese lead with their agreement, you end with a lot less effective rule making in the trade arena. in other words, there will be a lot more games played under that agreement than will ever be played under tpp. and it's not to our advantage to give other folks a chance to play games. we like to play by the rules. not everybody else in the world does. >> question right here. >> david orden from virginia

tech. i'm really struck by the multilateralism has barely been mentioned today. when you think back to the nafta and uruguay round, those two agreements pushed forward simultaneously. even two or three years ago i think there would have been more discussion about tpp in the context of the multilateral negotiations simultaneously, or the context between them. i know it's late in the day. i would like to hear some comments from the speakers if you think especially about a tpp process that might roll into 2017-2018, i mean where -- is there any wto window, or is tpp the only trade agreement, the only trade agreement on which the next administration is going to organize the u.s. position on tra trade. are there any windows there or is the wto not on the agenda for

the next five years? again, my apologies to the speakers for raising something that could be a day's seminar, not a five-minute session. it would be nice to hear few comments. >> i'll do the best i can and phil can supplement. i'm probably more biased than anybody from having been such a participant during my days as the ustr, particularly in the uruguay round. i'm sad about that as a matter of fact. since the uruguay round, the wto process just hasn't worked very well. part of that is because there are so many more countries in. it was about 100 when we did the uruguay round. and man, it wasn't an easy task to herd those 100 cats. now you've got to herd a lot more than that, almost double. and the negotiators have found that to be very, very difficult. when we finish the uruguay round, it just gave you a

personal touch to this. i said that i thought it might be the last round of trade negotiations ever. and maybe i will turn out to be correct in terms of successful multilateral trade negotiations. i'm sorry about that. but it's been happening since then. our hope with tpp and with t-tip, or at least the hope of some of us has been that if you could do tpp and then do t-tip, you cover a vast amount of world trade. and if you can then fold those agreements into the wto, you could in a significant way improve the wto and do it without having 180-nation trade negotiation. so i still have some hope for that. but we've got to get tpp right. and we've got to get tpp

approved before we can even think about whether that can be a base for a, you know, maybe a partial wto negotiation that would move a lot of that outcome into the wto. >> so i agree with all of that. what i would add, i like this image of trying to herd 100 cats. one of the things that was available in the uruguay round was you at least had one effective threat. if a country wanted to be recalcitrant, wanted to hold out, you say you won't be a found member of the wto. that was a one-time trick. that's what we found in the doha talks. you do that, now you have 150 some countries in there, maybe 160. and now you got to try to get unanimity. the big split we saw comes back to the big question the u.s. approach versus the chinese approach. do you try for high standards and ambition or try for something less ambitious and

less useful. countries ended up split and it's not clear how you move pass that impasse. just as the ambassador said, there is a path sort of from the ground up where you do tpp and t-tip and come together and others join. it could be nice if you can do it from the top down. a dozen years of trying has not been very effective. >> well, i'm not going to try to herd cats. rather i'll just say we need to conclude now, and i'll provide guidance for how to get to lunch. people will tend to respond well. lunch is served upstairs one level in the yaeger conference center on the second floor. take the spiral staircase up there. are rest rooms on the way. on the second floor at the yellow wall. i thank you all very much for being here, for your participation. please join me in expressing appreciation to the panel. [ applause ]

♪ >> the hard fought 2016 primary season is over, with historic conventions to follow this summer. >> colorado. >> florida! >> texas. >> ohio. >> watch c-span as the delegates consider the nomination of the first woman ever to head a major political party, and the first nonpolitician in several decades. watch live on c-span.

listen on the c-span radio app, or get video on demand at c-span.org. you have a front row seat to every minute of both conventions on c-span, all beginning on monday. republican presidential account donald trump announced earlier today that indiana governor mike pence will be his running mate for the general election. the two are set to appear together at a news conference tomorrow in new york city. we'll have live coverage at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. and later that day, we'll take you to des moines, iowa for the national governors association's summer meeting. tomorrow's session will include house minority leader nancy pelosi talking about the relationship between states and the federal government. you can see that live 2:00 eastern on c-span.

watch c-span's live coverage of the republican national convention, beginning next monday in cleveland. and saturday night at 8:00 eastern. we'll take a look at past republican conventions, including the contentious 1976 republican convention in kansas city, missouri, starting with the rules debate where a proposed rule would require president gerald ford to select his running mate prior to the presidential balloting process. we'll also feature speeches from the convention from president ford and former california governor ronald reagan. >> we have just heard a call to arms based on that platform. and a call to us to really be successful in communicating and reveal to the american people the difference between this platform and the platform of the opposing party, which is nothing but a revamp and a reissue of a running of a late, late show of the thing we've been hearing from them for the last 40 years. >> the 1952 convention in chicago with dwight eisenhower.

>> you have summoned me on behalf of millions of your fellow americans to lead the great crusade. for freedom in america and freedom in the world. i know something of the solemn responsibility of leading a crusade. i have led one. >> known for his military career rather than his political expertise, he was selected as the republican nominee and he later won the 1952 election. and the 1996 republican convention in san diego with former kansas center bob dole. past national conventions. saturday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. house democrats joined community leaders and victims of gun violence for a late evening vigil thursday to show support for more comprehensive gun laws. this gathering outside the u.s. capitol is just under two hours.

[ cheering ] [ chanting ] >> no bill! >> no break!

>> no bill! >> no break! >> what do we want? >> internships. >> what do we want? >> now. >> people over here. >> now! >> what do we want? >> yeah. >> no bill -- >> no break! [ cheering ] >> thank you very much for being here this evening. we have been observing a critical mass of people who are being off-loaded here over to my left, your right. and we'll give them just a few more moments.

to get here. but before we start this evening's program, i think it is fitting and proper as i bring forward for an invocation and hopefully an observance for the people of france who once again are experiencing the wrath of commented beings who are inflicting their notions upon unsuspecting people in such a way that it brings great sorrow. to all of us. so before i ask pastor howard john wesley to return the invocation, let us all please

just pause for a moment of silence for the people of nice, france who are experiencing a lot of trauma as we begin this program. thank you very much. now i would like to call to the podium for an invocation pastor howard john wesley. >> let us pray. >> creator and omnipotent god, god of love and life of justice and peace of grace and mercy, we gather under the sovereignty and protection of thy hand, believing thou has called us to this place to shine our lights

in the midst of these dark times. times when we have seen too many acts of gun violence in our land to remain comfortable or quiet. times when our calling to live as the light of the world is crystal clear. we gather in this place with the laws and legislature of liberty and life are written and crafted to protect your people by those whom you've called to their elected office. and we besiege thee o god to show us a more excellent way. as we petition your thrown so, do we address our government with the grievance of gun violence and the demand that there must be a change that necessary gun reform laws be brought to this congress floor and be passed. we seek your solace and presence with all those who mourn as a result of gun violence in orlando, baton rouge, dallas, minneapolis, charleston, chicago, and virtually every

other city in these united states. we ask that thy wisdom would guide us on the path forward, that thy spirit would lead us as we raise our voices against the violence and death that pervades our land, and that would unite us as a people regardless of color or creed, religion or race, sexuality or salary, politics or preference, with peaceful respect given to all faiths gathered here honoring the different names by which you were called. i pray to you in the name of my savior and my christ, amen. >> thank you, pastor wesley. and now to lead us in the pledge of allegiance to our flag, which all of us can see over in the distance, i call upon the vice chair of the democratic caucus, joseph crowley of new york. >> i pledge of allegiance to the

flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you, mr. crowley. and now, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to introduce to some, present to most of you, the leader of the house democratic caucus, the former and it is my prayer, future leader, speaker of the house of representatives, nancy pelosi of california. >> good evening, everyone. thank you for being here. to light the way to disarm hate. it is an honor to be here with each and every one of you. to be comforted by the words of

the invocation, to be led by mr. clyburn, sharing grief of his state with the nation. leading us in this beautiful ceremony this evening, inspired by our colleague, a national icon, a global hero, john lewis. we are here outside on a day when we're supposed to be in the session of congress, and in session tomorrow. but the majority in congress has decided they had more important things to do than to save lives. they decided that they would not pass, give us a vote, on preventing gun violence. instead, they would go home. we have a message to them. we will never stop until we have a successful vote to say no fly

no buy, and to say, and to amend -- to enhance our gun violence prevention laws. in a number of ways. two in particular, no fly no buy, and background checks. i say to you that we are here really, my colleagues and i, and it's an honor to be with all of them. they have had events in washington, in the capital, across the country, in their districts. they're all committed to the pledge, we will not stop until we succeed in passing the legislation. so i thank my colleagues for their leadership. you'll be hearing from more of them. so often we hear the quote about reverend martin luther king saying he dreamed of a nation where his children would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

if we apply that test to the american people, they come up very strong. because we are a nation of people based on values, compassion, and courage. but that same measure does not apply to the leadership in the congress of the united states when it comes to respecting the dignity and worth and lives of every person in our country. there is no compassion. their judgments are not value based, and they do not have courage. they think their political survival is more important than the survival of little children or people gathered in church or young people gathered on a saturday night. or people in a movie theater across the country. again, we must -- we must all of us be judged by that. beautiful mr. lewis always tells us and reminds us that we all have a spark of divinity in us. all the people we care about are

made in the image and likeness of god. and i say to my colleagues in the congress, the leadership, you, too, have a spark of divinity. act upon it. act upon it in respect for the dignity and worth of every person in our country. so tonight, we're going to hear a little bit from members of congress, a whole lot more from people whose families have suffered through this. we make a pledge to them, as we not only listen to what they have to say, we hear what they have to say. and we will act upon it. they have acted upon their grief to turn their grief into action so that other people will not suffer. we join them tonight, not just to listen, but to hear, to listen, and learn as we listen so that we can make sure that we use their voices to make change

in the congress of the united states. so that congress will have the courage, to compassion, and the values to pass the legislation that will save lives. and with that, i am pleased to thank all of you for coming and yield and thank our distinguished assistant leader for calling us all here together. he is a champion on this issue, a champion on saying to these people, why aren't you funding zika so we can protect lives of people subjected to that? why aren't you doing money for opioids so we can address that concern in a meaningful way? why aren't you thinking of the children of flint, michigan, who also need our attention? what do you have to do that is more important than that? that you had to go home. a person who is keeping us here until the job is done, our distinguished assistant leader, mr. clyburn of south carolina, he's proud to say. mr. clyburn.

>> thank you very much, leader pelosi. and now, we are going to hear from members of congress and the people that they have invited here to speak out on behalf of disarming hate and hopefully lighting the way to commonsense gun reform legislation. so we're going to thank all the members who have come out here this evening. only a few of them who will be presenting speakers. i want to begin by inviting to the mic now representative katherine clark, who will present on behalf of the people of charleston, south carolina.

>> thank you, congressman clyburn, our leader nancy pelosi, and congressman john lewis, who has led us in this effort. my name is katherine clark. i represent the fifth congressional district of massachusetts. on june 17th, 2015, nine prayerful souls gathered for bible study at emanuel ame church in charleston, south carolina. the lives of reverend clementa pinckney, cynthia herd, sharonda coleman singleton, ethen lance, suzy jackson, depayne middleton doctor, the reverend daniel simmons, and myra thompson were snuffed out by a hateful

murderer who was allowed to purchase a gun because of a loophole in our background check laws. i support commonsense gun violence solutions, including closing the charleston loophole, because we can no longer remain silent. speak out on behalf of the emanuel nine. and disarming hate. i am honored to introduce towanza sanders' mother felicia. oh. >> hi. on the evening of june 17th, 2015, i survived the most horrific experience of my entire life. i did so by hiding under a table, pretending to be dead while protecting my grandchild

from gunshots. a hateful domestic terrorist who should not have had a gun was able to get it because of loophole in our background check laws. i am pleading with congress to close the so-called loopholes. charleston loophole. this loophole led to the murder of my son, my aunt, and a cousin. three of the nine faithful worshipers who lost their lives while participating and the furtherance of their religious journey. my son's life was snuffed out as he confronted the killer with a simple question and a statement. why are you doing this?

why are you doing this? we mean you no harm. we mean you no harm. but it did not matter to the shooter because we were all targeted, because of racial hatred. and the color of our skin. the perpetrator of this heinous act should not have been in possession of a gun. i am here today to ask members of congress to help disarm hate and to pass some commonsense gun laws. thank you. [ applause ] >> before we present our next congress person, i would like for all of you to meet and greet

the widow of reverend clementa pinckney, jennifer and her two daughters. thank you all so much for leaving the ame conference in philadelphia and coming down here today. mrs. pinckney? [ applause ] >> clementa pinckney, where are you? because of what happened on that evening, a father, a husband, a loved one is not by our side. clementa was a family man, and he loved the lord. and because of his love, he

invited someone into the church that didn't look like him. because he loved the lord. something has got to be done. you never think about crimes such as what happened to our family and all of our families until it happens to you. never on that day when we left our home that day did i think that my husband would not be returning back with us. for he had promised melana, she asked her father, when we leave church, can you take me to mcdonald's? we never made it to mcdonald's.

too many lives are lost. it's got to stop. think about the love that clementa had, a peaceful person. and because he shared that love and because he was a people person, when this horrific crime happened, charleston could only embrace each other. did we fight? no. because clementa wouldn't have wanted that. because that wasn't what clementa was about. we've got to do something. something has got to be done. no one else should lose a loved one. no one else should lose a husband. no one else should lose a father. just think, the person that's standing next to you, think about your loved ones at home. think about your children. think about your spouses.

think about your parents. what if you get a phone call right now and someone tells you that someone just killed them. someone just shot them. what if that person right beside you was walking away and someone shot them? you never realize the hurt and the pain that the families go through until you have experienced yourself. no one should have to experience what we have experienced. work has got to be done. thank you. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> now, to present our next speaker, from the great city of california, congresswoman judy chu. >> thank you, congress member

clyburn. i'm judy chu, from california. on a peaceful sunday morning, the men, women, and children of the sikh temple in oak creek, wisconsin, were getting ready for their weekly worship. then, a white supremacist armed with semiautomatic weapons burst in, shooting whomever he could. he left six people dead and four wounded. here to talk about the effects of this horrendous act of gun violence on an entire community is dr. bular of the sikh american defense and education fund. a surgeon who, as he says, has operated on too many victims of gun violence. >> thank you, representative chu

for inviting me to speak here today. i want to start by thanking representative john lewis, representative jim clyburn, the congressional black caucus, and the house democratic caucus for organizing this incredible event. my name is gurpal bular, and i'm a proud member of the sikh american community. almost four years ago, on august 5th, 2012, the sikh community in oak creek, wisconsin, was viciously attacked by a white supremacist with a gun. six people who were in the temple that day were shot. and four others wounded. in this sikh house of worship. as an active member of my local sikh, as we call the house of worship, as a surgeon, and as a grandfather of four children, this event hit home for me. but i was proud in the way the oak creek sikh community responded with the spirit of eternal optimism.

in the face of thousands of innocent lives taken by guns every year, we must go with the same spirit. sikh americans like the first man killed in a hate crime after 9/11, are killed across our country with guns because of their identities. it is time to take action now and use the spirit to drive this change. the gun control platform proposed by these members of congress embodies this spirit. it is practical, and it will make a difference. that is why as a sikh american and as a grandfather, i am proud to stand here in support of these commonsense reforms. especially in the form of expanded background checks and the hate crime prevention act

and the no fly no buy act. i stand with you and the sikh community stands with you, enough is enough. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you very, very much. now, to present our next speaker, the delegate from the district of columbia, representative eleanor holmes norton. >> thank you. i am pleased to represent the people who live in the nation's capital. in march of 2010, five assailants, armed with an illegally purchased ak-47 and two caliber weapons opened fire on a crowd of innocent d.c. teenagers.

killing four and wounding six others, in the south capitol street massacre. i support closing the charleston loophole, the district of columbia loophole, the united states loophole. and requiring universal background checks. because we can no longer remain silent to speak on behalf of those in the district of columbia we have lost, i am pleased to introduce nardine jeffries, the mother of 16-year-old rachelle jones, tragically lost to gun violence

in the south capitol street massacre. >> good evening. this was a beautiful, vibrant, college-bound 16-year-old. this is what an ak-47 does to human flesh. my only child was gunned down worse than an animal in a first-world country. this happens every single day, all over the united states of america. this is not the america i grew up in. this is not the america we should be proud of. if we disarmed hate during the slave trade, if we disarmed hate during emmett till, dr. martin luther king, we wouldn't be where we are here now. we have to do better than this. too many are being slaughtered. i don't know what's wrong with

mitch mcconnell. and i don't know what's wrong with paul ryan. but i'm going to tell you, green paper does not value human lives. it does not. we need to have universal background checks on all gun sales. no matter where the guns are purchased. and we need them now. too many children, too many young people, too many human beings, period, are being slaughtered. and i don't accept this. this is an unbalanced society. i should be in a grave. my child should be burying me. i shouldn't have to bury my only child because someone used a weapon that my father used to protect this country. this is not acceptable. too many of our young people are being killed, and i am standing here with so many other parents,

so many other loved ones, and i'm going to keep on fighting, and we're going to keep on coming. if you're not going to do your jobs, speaker ryan, then guess what? it's not a single issue vote. we're going to get you gone. simple as that. you don't want to do your job, then go home and stay where you are in -- i can't even say -- wisconsin. so i'm just -- i'm very emotional because this shouldn't be our life. and it doesn't feel good to know that i have to go home to an empty home. my child should be graduating college. but instead, she's dead. and that's only because the nra controls the republicans. and we're going to disarm all of them because this is not going to continue to happen in our city, in our country.

thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you very, very much. and now to present our next speaker, the chair of the congressional black caucus from the state of north carolina, g.k. butterfield. >> thank you very much, congressman clyburn. reverend william j. barber ii is senior pastor of green leaf christian church in goldsburg, north carolina. he's state president of the north carolina conference of the naacp, the second largest conference in the united states, and serves on the national board for that organization, but today, he's here in his capacity as a pastor. dr. brasher is nationally known or the his advocacy on the battlefield for racial justice. over the years, he has organized thousands of people, black, white, and brown, for historic marches, protesting discrimination and bigotry. we are honored this evening to

have the reverend dr. william j. barber ii, and i present him to you at this time. >> america today is in deep need of pastoral and prophetic care. the son of our brother sterling killed by police in baton rouge said his father was a sacrifice, so the whole world could see what was going on. the lawyer for our brother castile in st. paul said this time, it was a black man in every area doing the right thing, trying to do the right thing. and the moral question before is us how many more sacrifices, how many more times before killing of black mothers' sons and fathers and daughters is as important as others, and forces the changes necessary? how many more tragic sacrifices, how much more death needs to be seen lying on the concrete?

dying in front of a camera, dying in front of us before those in america who don't want to deal with the deadly data driven reality of racism stop fighting the truth and deal with it. we must deal with it now, and we must use every nonviolent action to declare it's time now to address how racial antagonism stuck to our imagination and who we see as enemies, but for some, black deaths seem to mean more than black lives. also, we must end the proliferation of guns. our love of weapons constructs a false sense of independence and freedom. the unholy power the nra has on congress and state legislatures and electoral politics is insane. it's easier to get a gun than a voting card. that's immoral, and that's insane.

when there is more concern about protecting assault weapons than assuring affordable health care, that's immoral and insane. when there's more interest in the free sale of guns than insuring free public education, that's immoral and insane. when there's more interest to get guns in the hands of people that puts lead in people's bodies rather than get the lead out of the water that's killing people, that's insane. the great moral question is, how much more blood must be shed before lives mean more than loyalty to the nra and the gun lobby? the other day, the nra said it was the oldest civil rights organization. tell the truth. the nra is neither civil nor right.

how much more blood, mr. speaker? how much more blood, senate leader mcconnell? 20 first graders laying dead in newtown, between 6 and 7, is that not enough blood? nine souls in mother emanuel. they deserve more than a flag to come down. they need gun laws to come up. how much more blood? 49 souls in orlando. blood in temples. 11 times the president has had to be pastor in chief as opposed to president in chief. and now, five officers of the law who were actually performing their jobs well and right. how much more blood will it take for leaders in this congress to say no to the nra and stop the proliferation of guns and strengthen our gun laws and strengthen background checks and declare no fly no buy? how much more blood?

i come by as a lowly preacher to tell you the blood is crying from the ground. the blood is crying from the schoolhouse, the blood is crying from the church, the blood is crying. how much more blood will be necessary to scare us to life? god help us if this congress hasn't seen enough blood. >> the chair of the house democratic caucus, chairman becerra of california. >> how about that reverend barber? it's been a pretty warm day, but i think you'll agree with me. we could take the heat. and we are ready. we're ready to build this

movement, but there's some who couldn't take the heat. they decided to cut out of town for seven weeks without finishing the work of this congress. i think this movement is ready to tell them when they come back in seven weeks, it's going to be a lot hotter here in washington, d.c. so brothers and sisters, we got work to do. we got to turn up the light, get a little hotter, and make it so that every single person who could not be here today because they were gunned down, our brothers and sisters, someone like shannon johnson, my constituent, who died in the san bernardino mass killing, and all the people of america who cannot be here, we're here to stand up for them and speak out. it is time to turn up the heat. and so let me introduce to you someone who represents some

600,000 americans who work every day on our behalf in our federal offices, doing the work of this federal government, taking on the courage to be there for us whatever the conditions. someone who is fighting for us every day. let me introduce to you the president of the american federation of government employees, j. david cox sr. >> thank you. congressman. good evening brothers and sisters. i'm grateful to join together this evening with friends committed to doing everything in our power to end the bloodshed from gun violence in this country. i like millions of other americans am shocked and disgusted by the violence we have experienced. all of our hearts are broken when we think of the lives cut short and about the bereaved

parents, children, wives, and husbands. our hearts cry out for all lives that are lost. one of our members, a border patrol agent in texas, was killed right in front of his family by two men who should have never had a gun in their hands. another member, a correctional officer, was shot in his own front yard in california, and yes, one of our transportation security officers in the l.a.x. airport was gunned down in the middle of the los angeles airport while he was just doing his job, protecting the american citizens. the time is over. it's time to act, brothers and sisters. it's time to bring the suffering to an end. we're fortunate, very fortunate to be with this brave group of lawmakers and families that we have here today.

are you with us, brothers and sisters? are you ready to act, brothers and sisters? on behalf of the federal and d.c. government workers that we so proudly represent, i stand with you, with the committed supporters that you see before us, for all american citizens to end the gun violence. we owe it to the memories of all of those lives that have been lost, to their families, to use the power that has been entrusted to us to make communities safe for everyone. the time is now, brothers and sisters. now, for the congress of the united states to vote for these bills, to help reduce gun violence. let's show our children, let's show our families that we will take a stand to make our country much better, a much better country for all american citizens. our country that we love. thank you, brothers and sisters.

>> thank you very much. all of those people over here, please come on around so you can get a better view, and we can see you better. thank you so much. now, from the great state of connecticut, elizabeth esty will present our next speaker. >> thank you so much. my name is elizabeth esty, and i represent connecticut's fifth district, which includes the brave community of newtown. since the tragedy at sandy hook elementary school in 2012, 100,000 americans have lost their lives to gun violence. 100,000. brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, and grandchildren. and in that time, the house of representatives has done nothing. the american people are calling

on this congress to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, and it is time for this congress to heed the call of the people. it is my honor to introduce one of the incredible, amazing citizen leaders of that effort, my good friend, chairman of the newtown action alliance. paul murrry. >> thank you, elizabeth. an armed society is not a polite society. one gunman, my neighbor, used an ar-15 to gun down 20 innocent children and 6 educators in an elementary school that my four children attended. after the horrific incident in

sandy hook, where it devastated 26 families, 27,000 community members, and over 300 million americans, the members of this congress, who are in the pockets of the nra, refused to take action. shame on them. shame! shame! shame! shame! shame! shame! shame! shame! shame! shame! shame! shame! i urge -- i urge my fellow citizen activists to rise up and demand action. stand with these champions of change. we are on the right side of history. take this challenge. those of you who came from ohio and pennsylvania and new york,

together go back to your districts during recess and demand change. hold your congressional members accountable. we are just as culpable if we do not stand up to demand change. we cannot have any more mass shootings, and we cannot have any more killings on our streets. sandy hook proved that no one is immune from gun violence. we are all touched by gun violence. we must take action. fellow activists, please take the message back to your district and in your state, and work with us to demand action for change that is needed. we don't want to be remembered for the tragedy that occurred in

sandy hook. we want to be remembered for the change that occurred on that horrific day. come back on august 13th. there will be a rally here in washington, d.c. and then, there will be in-district action for two weeks. national disarm hate 2016, weeks of action. i challenge all of you to hold an event, a sit-in, march, rally, all across the country in every city and town in every single state. and then, disarm hate, disarm hate. disarm hate! disarm hate! disarm hate! disarm hate! and then -- and then on august 27th and 28th, join national action network and american federation of teachers.

join us again in washington, d.c. to rally again for change, to end gun violence once and for all. thank you. [ applause ] >> to present our next speaker, representative of maryland. representative donna edwards. >> good evening. i'm donna edwards. i'm from maryland. i represent maryland's fourth congressional district. i'm here tonight to speak out for commonsense gun violence solutions, including hr-1217, the public safety and second amendment rights protection act. this bipartisan legislation would expand and strengthen background checks for all firearm purchases to make it harder for abusers to get a firearm than it is to buy cough medicine.

to speak out on behalf of domestic violence gun victims, people who die every day in this country in their homes, not by strangers but by people who know them, i'm pleased to introduce mrs. kim lee. >> good evening. my name is kim lee, and i'm from laurel, maryland, and i'm here to speak about universal background checks. for firearms purchase, because i don't want another family to go through what i did. as a teenager, my parents were estranged due to domestic violence. my mom had a protective order against my dad, and while i was a sophomore in high school, my older brother was shot and killed. no fault of his own. two years later, i became a

victim of gunshot violence. my father, who was a convicted felon and should not have had a legal handgun, shot me three times. when i answered the door, my father bum rushed in the door and dragged me around the house, looking for my mother with the intent to hurt her or myself or both of us. gun violence is an issue, and convicted felons should never have the right to purchase a gun or have ownership of a gun. i was shot three times, and i still have a bullet in my leg to this day from that incident. i was shot in the chest, the leg, and the hand. while i was recovering in the hospital on christmas day, my father ultimately was in a gun battle with the police officers and was killed.

he died in the hospital. but that just goes to show that gun violence is everywhere. it's in the home. it's not just an act of someone with an ak-47 as well. it's not just an act of someone with an ak-47 as well. we have to protect our young people. we have to protect our families, our women. we have to protect the police officers. because he was willing to get into a shootout with the police as well. and he had no right to have a gun. i thank you for listening. [ applause ] >> thank you. i'm told that all those over here who would like to walk down, the police officers have told us you may come on down in this area. come on down. they're opening up a walkway for you. thank you. come on.

and now, to present our next speaker, from the great state of illinois, representative robin kelly. >> thank you, mr. cliburn, and thank all of you for being with us tonight. we really, really, really appreciate and need your support. i am from the chicagoland area. and i'm so tired of coming back to d.c. every week and telling my colleagues how many people were shot and how many people died in the chicagoland area. 2100 people have been shot this year. and 344 have already died. we are on pace for 700 deaths this year. more than last year. it is my honor to have with me tonight, a young warrior in the gun violence prevention fight. danielle. she lost her father when she was 8 years old to gun violence. children should not grow up without their parents because of gun violence. enough is enough.

please don't forget that. enough is enough, and we need your help. dani? [ applause ] >> good evening, everyone, and thank you all for being here. thank you, congresswoman robin kelly. i love you so much. i lost my dad when i was 8 years old. he told me he was going to come get me but never showed up. only to wake up the next day, while i was jumping on the bed with my little brother. my mom came in the room and sat me down and told me my dad was shot and killed in roseland in 1996, while he was washing his car. we often talk about parents losing their children to gun violence. but i am here today to talk about children losing their parents to gun violence. and no, my dad was not a thug. he wasn't in a gang. my dad worked two jobs to raise five children. he was an innocent bystander.

like i said, that was 20 years ago. all i can think about is the little girl in the back seat with philando castile, watching as he was gunned down. all i could think about is alton sterling's son on national tv crying his heart out because his dad is gone. all i can think about is reverend pinckney's two girls, around the same age as i was when my dad was killed. we need to start thinking about the children. we need to start thinking about mental health. i'm 28 years old and today i still struggle with the loss of my father. today i am getting help because no one ever asked me if i was okay. that's what we need to do. congress, you need to step up. what if that was you and what would your children do? think about the children. not yourselves. think about the children who lose their parents. not everyone is a thug. not everyone is out here for ill

intent. children need their parents. or the cycle will continue. children will grow up in broken homes because they don't have their fathers. girls will be promiscuous and out in the streets looking for love. boys will join gangs because they don't have a father there to tell them right from wrong. so we need to take action. and i will continue to take action as the advocate for children who lose their parents to gun violence and also an advocate for young girls growing up without fathers. thank you. [ applause ] >> to present our next speaker from the great state of ohio, representative joyce bailey. [ applause ] >> yes, i'm congresswoman joyce beatty from the great state of ohio. and tonight, as we light the way forward, i want to introduce to you a mother who knows all too well the pain of losing a child

to gun violence. on june 6th, 2015, ebony crosby and her family's lives changed forever. that night, italy, 13 years old, was sitting at the kitchen table when shots rang out. in the blink of an eye, ebony crosby had lost her child. a tragedy experienced by far too many families in ohio and across the country. please join me and those in orange shirts from the great state of ohio. and across the country, to welcome ebony crosby to the microphone. [ applause ] >> hello, everybody.

i'm honored to be here. i wish i didn't have to. but i'm here. italy was a beautiful little girl who could bring a smile to anyone's face. she had a smile like no other. she loved her family, was real tight with her siblings, and her nephew. we would sit around for hours and talk about any and everything with her siblings and her friends or whoever was around. she always wanted to know something, anything, everything. her school loved her. students, teachers. as a 13-year-old girl, she was just finding herself and what

she wanted to do and become. she loved to watch me cook, to take pictures. and she loved to run. i used to call her speed demon, because she was so fast on her feet. she was fast like her father. she used to say to me or him, mom, dad, time me, watch me. we talked about her trying out for track at her school. but that never got to happen. because on june 6th, 2015, bullets tore through my kitchen, striking italy in the heart. and my other daughter, yanobi, in the shoulder.

it took me a minute to even realize that both of them were shot. it seemed like forever. but i looked up and i saw a cop. and i just screamed out, please, help me, help us. [ applause ] >> we love you! keep talking! >> by then, the police had drug italy out of my room and yanobi to start helping me work on them. that was the last time i saw my baby alive. now my family is left with empty

spaces and loss and love in our hearts and lives. i feel that we need our community. we also need to make sure people who shouldn't have guns, don't. [ applause ] that means expanding background checks. we need that village back, people. we need it. we can't do this on our own. if the violence doesn't stop, there won't be no next generation. i, like families up here, families across the globe, are losing children every day.

that is our next generation. and we're losing them. we need more mentors for the youth. we need more outlets. parents need to know each other. the world is moving so fast, we're losing our babies. slow down. take a look around. meet somebody that your children play with. they might need you one day. from your next door neighbor to the person sitting next to you, to congress, to the president. whoever will listen.

we need to get a hold on gun violence. if not, if not, it's going to wash away a generation of children that will never see their dreams come true. please. i am begging you. president obama and first lady. the federal government. congress. anyone. we need you. these guns have got to stop. the violence has got to stop. harder laws are what is needed. thank you. [ cheers and applause ] >> our next speaker is from the great state of new jersey, their representative. >> we thank you for being out

here this evening and bearing with us for what is a hot evening. we thank you for sacrificing your time. there is perhaps nothing more painful to losing your child to a senseless act of violence. two years ago, that's exactly what regina tompkins jenkins endured. they is comforted by the fact that she knows her son died saving the lives of two young women. but that doesn't change the fact that she can't hold her son anymore, that she won't see the man he would become. she can't even go into his bedroom anymore. this is another face of why it's time for change, why we need reform and why congress must do its job. ladies and gentlemen, i present to you ms. regina thompson jenkins. [ applause ] >> thank you, congresswoman coleman for the invite to d.c. today.

i know firsthand about gun violence and the lasting impact it can have on a person, a family, a community, even a nation. my name is regina thompson jenkins and i am the mother of 19-year-old tre lane, who was the 15th murder in the city of trenton, 15th. i can't get that number out of my head. tre was killed on september 22nd, 2012, by sacrificing his life to save two young ladies to avoid a bigger tragedy. he was my only child. tre died a hero. but that doesn't take away my pain. this is personal for me, because my story today can be any one of your stories tomorrow. i feel like i'm always defending

my son's character or his honor. not everybody black and brown child wears their pants hanging down. not every black and brown child stands on the corner selling drugs. not all black and brown children are in gangs. my son was not affiliated with any of those things. yet he was killed by a senseless act of gun violence. and i stand before you as a grieving mother. tre was in college. yet i will never see him walk across the stage. i will never see my son get married. so i will never know the feeling of that mother and son dance. i will never have grandchildren. i will never know the reason why we chose -- why someone chose to shoot into a crowd of people and

take the love of my life, my pride and my joy. what i do know, that we have to make the gun laws stricter so another mother doesn't feel the way i do. [ applause ] i remember the moment i heard the gun violence that took place in sandy hook elementary school. my heart froze. instantly my thoughts went towards the mothers. i knew what they were going to feel. so i started to pray. they were never going to be able to hug their children again or tell them that they loved them. i knew that pain. guns are currently being used in our society for murders, hunting, and gang activity. guns take lives. there is no doubt about it. but there needs to be much stricter gun control laws that prevents criminals or people who have signs of mental illness from getting these deadly

weapons. jordan davis, trevon martin, south carolina shooting, orlando nightclub shooting. all of these people died from someone who had access to a gun. if there is even one thing we can do, one step we can take to save another person, prevent another mother from feeling the grief i do today, then we must act on it. so today, i urge you, we the people, we have the power. in november, take five people to vote. let's change. let's change 1600 pennsylvania avenue. so today, in memory of my son, tre lane, cornelius bokai, brielle childs, benjamin davila whose mother is standing to my left here, ira charles, james

austin, and all the other victims in the city of trenton that have died at the hands of a gun, all lives matter. change spares life. change spares life. in the words of pastor mark roach, not in my neighborhood. one, two, three, hard work, four, five, six, together. thank you. [ cheers and applause ] >> our next speaker from the great state of connecticut, rosa delauro. [ applause ] >> thank you. my name is rosa delauro. and i represent the third district of connecticut. i am honored to introduce to you tonight nakia dawson from my hometown of new haven, connecticut.

nakia knows the impact and the pain that gun violence has on families, friends, and the community. she lost her cousin and her best friend to gun violence. i admire her courage. she is an inspiration. she founded the bereavement care network which reaches out to all families of homicide victims in new haven. she has made it her life's work to help families heal at a time of unspeakable personal tragedy. she turned that pain into something positive to help others. for nakia's friends and family and for everyone here who has suffered because of gun violence, we are here tonight to say enough is enough.

we need to pass gun violence legislation, support universal background checks, no-fly, no-buy, the assault weapons ban, increased mental health resources, and gun violence research. we come to this institution to vote, to vote to protect the families in this great country. each of us in our own districts. we will not stop this effort to get a vote. we will continue. and for those who say we can have no vote, we say, step out of the way, give us the opportunity to vote on behalf of the people of this great country. it is now my great honor to introduce to you nakia dawson. [ cheers and applause ]

>> first of all i would like to thank god for allowing all of us to make it safely and to tell our stories. on the morning of june 24th, 2011, i lost a very close friend that was near and dear to my heart. dinel david. dinel was gunned down. this was tragic and hard for myself, his friends, family, and the new haven community. he was such a people person, likeable person. and to have known him, you would have loved him. darnell was the 21st homicide in the city of new haven. all together there were 34 in that year. i was never a funeral person or could handle death. i was not mentally nor physically prepared to handle the death of a good friend or a

family member. but i did. i found myself become stronger as the day went on, as i helped his mother, his family, his siblings, and some of his friends give him a proper burial. the loss of my loved one that i unfortunately endured i would not wish on anyone. once again, i will say, i will not wish on anyone. gun violence. this has to stop. it's taking a toll on our families, our community. death we know, and hopefully understand that we cannot control it. but what we can control is gun violence. it's killing and taking away too many of our loved ones, leaving us to fill that gap. and it's also leaving us a financial burden and hardship on those families. we need to end this and end this now. our families are suffering. we need to take a stand to make

gun violence the thing of the past. and not allow it to become our future. it starts with you. if you don't make the first move to end it, when will we take a move to stand? thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you. now for our next speaker, also from connecticut, john larson. >> this is henrietta beckman. when they asked us why we sat down, it was so america would stand up to the senseless violence that's cast a plague over this nation.

henrietta beckman lost her son, randy. she, like everybody else here, carries in her heart that unrelenting love that demands not only that we sit down, but that we speak out and that congress does its job! they may leave -- >> do your job! do your job! do your job! do your job! do your job! do your job! do your job! do your job! do your job!

>> they may leave today, but this issue is not going away, and neither are we! henrietta is the president of mothers united against violence from the capital city of connecticut, hartford, henrietta beckman. >> thank you. well, every time i have to tell this story, it just, you know, gets me so emotional. but there's no pain like the pain of a mother who loses her child. we should not be burying our children. our children should have long lives, because that's the way

god planned it. randy was 20 years old when he was shot. he was just around the corner sitting in his car, minding his own business, when an suv pulled up. i was still at work, but i was told that the person got out of the car, they had some words, and they shot my son in the head. >> we're with you! [ applause ] >> i stayed in that hospital for three days with hope, hope that he would make it through. so on that fourth day when they knocked on the window, we were

all in the waiting room, they're like "we lost him." i'm like what do you mean you lost him? you just said you upgraded him? so the devastation that guns have on families and on the community is devastating. it's been 14 years since my son got shot, but as you can see, the pain never, ever goes away. and for it to still be continuing today, young people keep losing their lives to guns. when are we going to wake up and stand up? i don't understand the congress that's not supporting the laws that we're trying to get passed. i'm sure they got kids and families that they care about. it's not about the money. it's about the lives. our lives matter. our kids' lives matter. when my son passed away, he had a 4-month-old son.

[ applause ] he's 14 now. he wants to be something. he tries to stay out of trouble. he say, grandma, i think i'm a pretty good man. i said, yes, you are. and he wants to be a good man. he wants -- his goal is to be basketball player. he thinks he's going to be a superstar. if he keep going, he will be. i have eight other grandkids and it's sad that you have to live in a city where you have to fear -- i mean constantly reminding the kids, don't go here, don't go there, stay away from this person, that person. they should be children. live to have a happy life. and us parents should not ever, ever have to go through what we mothers have been going through. and fathers. because my husband hurts just like i do.

because, you know, it just ripples -- has a ripple effect. it goes through the community. right now today, even after 14 years, the kids that are dying in our streets, their friends, a lot of them know me, i knew a lot of kids that have passed. and it's just sad that, you know, no one's doing anything about these guns. get these guns out of our neighborhoods. put that money somewhere where it needs to be. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you. >> thank you very, very much. and now from the great state of florida, representative corinne brown. >> god bless america. and he has blessed america, because you are here. give yourself a hand. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you. i will never forget waking up

that sunday morning when i found out that 49 of my constituents had been killed, and 53 wounded, by senseless attack on them with these assault rifles. and then, we came back to congress and what did we do? one minute of silence! one minute of silence! to whom god has given much, much more is expected. it is my honor to introduce the next speaker, a combat veteran, an author, political advisor, and military advocate, and his father is a marine, mr. tarron sims. [ applause ] >> good evening, everyone. my name is terrell sims, ii. former captain u.s. army and a proud veteran of "operation

iraqi freedom." [ cheers ] as a veteran and proud american, it is an honor to be here today, alongside true heroes in our u.s. congress, and so many others who are fighting to make our community safer places to live. leader pelosi, assistant leader clyburn, and congressman lewis, you are true champions for common sense and champions for the responsible change our country so desperately needs. i thank you for the opportunity to stand alongside you and through your leadership in standing up to the gun lobby and acting to help build our safer communities. as a proud veteran, i currently serve on the advisory committee for the veterans coalition for common sense. the initiative founded by captain mark kelly and congresswoman gabrielle giffords. through their gun violence prevention organization, americans for responsible solutions. the veterans coalition for

common sense is a new national and non-partisan initiative of america's veterans who have come together to urge our elected leaders to do more to make our country safer from gun violence. we've come together to say that it is time for elected leaders to do more to address the gun violence crisis that is tearing our communities apart, which is making our country stand out in the worst of ways. we are men and women from every branch of the armed services who served our country from vietnam, to the wars in iraq and afghanistan. after graduating from west point, at entering our army, i swore an oath to serve and protect the constitution of the united states. this includes our second amendment right to bear arms. like so many of our brothers and sisters in our armed forces, throughout my service, i never forgot that oath. and basic training, soldiers

received in-depth training in firearm safety. we are taught to respect the truly awesome power of our weapons, and quickly learn why they must only be placed in the hands of responsible, trained, and law-abiding people. today we far too often see the tragic results that come when guns fall into the hands of dangerous, irresponsible people. like most americans, i am heartbroken and outraged by the tragedies in sandy hook, orlando, dallas, and so many other communities. and by the tragedies that do not make the headlines. the americans taken in orlando and dallas were among the approximately 33,000 americans who will die this year from a gunshot wound. 33,000 of our fellow americans. gone. let's be honest. this is a national crisis. we know that our gun violence crisis has many causes. thus, there is no single

solution. but, what we do know is that our current laws are riddled with dangerous loopholes that make it far too easy for dangerous people to acquire guns and bring terror to our communities. we know that in many states, dangerous persons, career criminals, domestic abusers, known terrorists -- have the ability to purchase guns without something as simple as a criminal background check. we know that dangerous people, even al qaeda or isis operatives exploit these bad laws to gain access to firearms and we know our elected leaders can do more to keep guns out of the wrong hands. we know that our elected leaders can do more to save some of those 33,000 lives. that is why i'm here today. i'm here because i believe that our constitution affords responsible americans the right to own guns, and i'm here because i know that with our

freedom comes the responsibility to keep dangerous people from having any -- from having easy access to guns. faith without works is nothing. it is now time for congress to get to work and finally do something about the gun violence that is tearing our communities and our nation apart. i know that we can do better. we're americans. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. now to present our next speaker from the great state of kentucky, representative john yarmouth. >> thank you, jim. i'm from louisville, kentucky, the hometown of muhammad ali who spent his life preaching non-violence and would have definitely thought that this event was the greatest. republican congressional leadership has adjourned for the summer, but we're still here calling for action to combat our nation's gun violence epidemic.

we've seen mass shootings on our college campuses and our movie theaters, in shopping malls, night clubs and office buildings, in our elementary schools, at peaceful protests, and even gathering in a church basement during a moment of prayer. we've also experienced mass shootings on our military bases. almost three years ago, about a mile from where we stand tonight, at the washington navy yard, a mentally ill man with a gun took the lives of 12 innocent individuals. one of the lives lost that tragic morning was sylvia frazier, an information assurance manager at naval sea systems command. she was a dedicated public servant and a beloved family member, friend and neighbor. to tell you more about sylvia and what she meant to those who loved her, i'd now like to introduce her siblings, dr. wendy edmonds and mr. bobby frazier jr. [ applause ] >> thank you, congressman yarmouth. 64 years ago, my parents, james

and eloise frazier, loved each other so much that they got married and started a family. they had seven children. marvena, bobby lindley, wanda, maria, sylvia, and me. all productive citizens. on monday, september 16, 2013, one of their children, sylvia rene frazier, at the age of 53, was murdered, brutally murdered in the washington navy yard massacre. along with 11 of her other colleagues. sylvia was doing her job. sylvia was serving her country.

sylvia was where she was supposed to be. now this tragedy joined us to a new family. the survivors of gun violence family. we didn't ask to be a part of that family, and to be perfectly honest with you, we'd rather not. but the choice was not ours. but what we realize is that there is a paradigm shift. in a traditional family, we celebrate births because births are growing our families. but unlike tradition, our new family, the survivors of gun violence family, it's growing, but it is not growing by the number of births. it is growing by the number of deaths. this is sad.

it is tragic, and we are traumatized. it is time for this country to understand that we need gun reform. not yesterday, not hopefully, but now. [ cheers ] >> thank you. platform guests, members of congress, and my fellow americans, i am sylvia's big brother, and any of you have a big brother, you know they're there to protect you, look out for you, and help you make that way through life. but i want to tell you something that i know. that is, america is the land of the free and home of the brave as stated in our national anthem. but i ask you, where are those who are free and brave to stand against those against gun

violence? we love our guns in america. they give us a false sense of power to protect us against our fears. the second amendment of our constitution has been interpreted to guarantee each individual in america a right to own a gun. the constitution in the 14th amendment also says i have an inalienable right to be safe and free in the pursuit of happiness. that has been taken away from all of those murdered and us who live in fear. those at columbine high school. 20 babies at sandy hook elementary school. many at the movie theater in aurora, colorado. 49 in the nightclub in orlando. and those serving their country state side in washington, d.c. navy yard and at ft. hood, texas. et cetera, et cetera.

who are not here with us physically, who are dead because of our love affair with guns. where are the brave to stand against the nra bully? and stand for social accountability for those who want to own guns but must be vetted to own a gun. [ cheers ] >> these two pieces of legislation in the house of representatives are a step in the right direction. we do need increased background checks to ensure -- you and i can't drive a car without being vetted. gun owners know that they have a social responsibility to our society. a gun owner's personal rights should not negate our freedom to be safe and wherever we go in the pursuit of happiness. we are greater than i.

we, the american people, matter. thank you. [ cheers and applause ] >> now from the great state of new york, representative gregory meeks. [ applause ] >> i'm congressman gregory meeks from the fifth congressional district in new york. i've got to tell you, i'm not happy to be here. i'm not happy that you have to be here. i'm not happy that any of us have to be here. because we're here, it means that folks who supposed to be doing their job has left! without making sure that we make our people safer. we're here because we have to listen to the stories and

the hurt and the pain of people who have lost loved ones. this is not a good day for america. we're here because young black folks have to remind people again that black lives do matter. [ cheers and applause ] to speak out on behalf of those that have lost their life in new york, one who has took her pain and anger and turned it into action when she lost her son, andrell. she started an organization called not another child, incorporated. this provides support to families and communities who experience gun homicides. she, like all of us here, supports most -- like most americans -- expanding

background checks and gun safety laws. let me present to you someone who i wish would not be here, did not have to be here. arissa knapper williams. [ cheers and applause ] >> good evening, and thank you, congressman meeks. we are at war! if you don't know it or not, we are at war. the war is dividing those of us who want gun violence reform from those that are establishing their first amendment right. like the speaker said previous to me, we're not asking you to take back your right. we're asking you to be responsible for where these guns end up at. to be accountable for these guns ending up

in our communities. for these guns ending up in those that are mentally disabled. the 15-year-old that pled guilty to my son's murder did not go to a gun show and purchase a gun. but it ended up in his hand. so i, like others, can get up here and show the emotional side, can show the torment that we go through day after day, missing our loved ones. it's almost ten years for me and it feels like ten minutes ago someone told me my son was murdered. that is the anguish that we go through on a daily basis. and although i'm glad to be here and present and meet all of these politicians and elected officials, i'd give every one of them back to have my child with me. [ applause ] and i am offended at the republicans walking out at a time like this! the blood is on their hands!

the longer they do it, the blood is on their hands! those that we lose, those that are murdered, whether mass murders, whether individuals in inner city communities, it does not matter! all blood is red! the hardest part of my life was not having a son my last year in high school, nor turning around and having my son, justin, at the age of 20. but the hardest part of my life has been living without my child, has been waking up every day realizing that someone that i brought in to this world is no longer here. congressman meeks didn't get a chance to tell you that my son was a double victim of gun violence. while in high school, changing

classes, walking to his class, doing what he was supposed to do, he was shot in the third vertebrae in his back. when another student walked out of a side entrance and brought a gun back in looking for someone. the fatal incident that took my son's life was when he went to visit a family member and waiting downstairs, as we often do, gunfire erupted in front of the building. august 7, 2006. hot. 10:00 at night. they made it where there's nowhere to go any more in housing authority, to any parks. so they're waiting in front of the building. he hears the gunfire and runs, not knowing they're shooting in the direction of the building. bullet to the back of his head. so that right there has prompted

my fight and my quest to not let another child become a victim of homicide. not let another child become a victim and be put and have a gun put in their hand as the 15-year-old perpetrator did. [ applause ] so in my closing, like cancer and other deadly diseases, those that guns affect has no respect to person. you can be black, white. it's not gender-based. it's none of the above. yet, unlike cancer, and other deadly diseases, this is something we can control. thank you. [ cheers and applause ] >> and now to lead us in our lighting ceremony and to present our final speaker, the

democratic whip of the house of representatives from the state of maryland, steny hoyer. [ cheers and applause ] >> thank you, jim clyburn. thank you, every mother and every father, every young person, every brother and sister, every friend and neighbor who lost somebody to gun violence. we thank you for being here. we thank you for your courage. we thank you for remembering your loved one and making this a very real issue, not a theoretical issue. i particularly want to recognize bobby frazier and dr. wendy edmonds. my constituents. as was their sister, sylvia. who lost her life in gun

violence, as you heard, at the washington navy yard. the republican majority has decided that in the house chamber tomorrow and for the next seven weeks, the lights will be out. the microphones will be turned off. and no debate will take place on common sense gun safety legislation, even as the american people demand. people, thank you for being here tonight! [ cheers and applause ] so ladies and gentlemen, we may not be able to turn the lights on in the dark chamber of the house, but we can shine. we can shine, we can shine a

bright light across the nation to signal our determination for change. everyone here, everyone here, has either a candle or a flashlight or a phone. put your lights on for justice. put your lights on for common sense. put your lights on to make a difference. dr. martin luther king wrote, "darkness cannot drive out darkness. only light can do that. hate cannot drive out hate. only love can do that." let us shine a light for the victims of gun violence, from aurora, to newtown, to emanuel nine, to orlando 49, and to all those other places where people ought to be, where people ought

to be, and they gave their lives being where they ought to be. from alton sterling, to philando castile, to the five fallen officers in dallas, and all the many thousands whose stories we didn't read about on the national news. and let us shine the light of our common resolve to see this work through to disarm hate! disarm hate! disarm hate! disarm hate! disarm hate! disarm hate! and now, ladies and gentlemen, it is my great privilege and honor, not to introduce -- because you know him -- but to present a hero of the civil

rights movement, who faced down a wall of oppression and resistance in selma, and so many other places, and nearly lost his life. demanding only the right to vote. the right to vote. as you listen to john lewis, resolve to yourself -- i will never, when given the opportunity, not vote. it makes a difference. he led our sit-in last month that called for common sense gun violence prevention measures. and he's here with us tonight to join in remembering gun violence victims and calling for action. ladies and gentlemen, you know this. john lewis embodies the conscience of our country. [ cheers ]

he embodies the striving of our founders to create a more perfect union. and john lewis is the essence of non-violence and the beloved community. i give you my brother, your brother, john lewis. [ cheers and applause ] >> thank you very much, my friend, my brother, steny hoyer. i want to thank our leader, nancy pelosi, assistant leader, jim clyburn, for bringing us here tonight. i want to thank each and everyone of you for being here. tonight. tonight. in a sense, i must tell you, it

saddens me that we have to stand here and plead with members of the congress, those men and women that left washington before considering doing something about gun violence. the speaker of the house, the republican speaker of the house, told us if we want a bill, win the election! so let's go out and win the election! let's go out and win! [ cheers ] i must tell you, we have it in our power. we can do it! some people said we would never make it from selma to montgomery. some said we would never make it in washington in 1963 and get a civil rights bill passed. but we did it.

and the marching beat, the talking tones. i just want to thank all of you here tonight bearing witness to the truth. and we never, ever, ever give up! we will not leave! we will not be satisfied! we will not be patient until we get legislation passed to deal with gun violence. we can do it. so i say to you, on election day, all across our country, we must get out and vote like we never, ever voted before! we can do it! [ cheers and applause ] the vote is precious. it's almost sacred! it is the most powerful non-violent instrument of true we have in our democratic society and we must use it!

use it. don't stay home. get up and take someone to the polls with you. we can do it! and we will win. i tell you, my colleagues and my wonderful friend, my brothers and sister here, we're not going anyplace. the sit-in, the sit-in was only the beginning. some of us have suffered too long. some of us have seen too many of our sisters and brothers, our mothers and our fathers, our uncles and aunts. some of us have seen too many of our little children, our babies, taken from us by gun violence. we're tired. we don't want to see it anymore. and i tell you, my colleagues, as long as i have strength in my body, i'm going to do my part to

do what i can, not just in my state of georgia, or my native state of alabama, but all across america! we can do it! we can win! let's win! don't give up! keep the faith! thank you very much. [ cheers and applause ] >> as we raise our lights, we invite to the mike singers from the baptist street church. to lead us in our closing song. one that all of us know so well. ♪ this little light of mine, i'm gonna let it shine ♪ ♪ oh this little light of mine yeah i'm gonna let it shine ♪ oh this little light of mine

yeah ♪ ♪ i'm gonna let it shine ♪ let it shine let it shine let it shine ♪ ♪ everywhere i go yeah i'm gonna let it shine ♪ ♪ yeah everywhere i go ♪ oh yeah i'm gonna let it shine ♪ ♪ i said everywhere i go you know i'm gonna let it shine ♪ ♪ yeah let it shine let it shine let it shine ♪ ♪ all around the world yeah i'm

gonna let it shine ♪ ♪ oh all around the world ♪ all around the world yeah yeah i'm gonna let it shine ♪ ♪ all around the world ♪ all around the world i'm gonna let it shine ♪ ♪ i'm gonna let it shine ♪ let it shine let it shine let it shine ♪ [ cheers and applause ] >> do your job! do your job! do your job! do your job! do your job! do your job! do your job! do your job! do your job! do your job! do your job!

c-span's "washington journal," live issues that impa you. coming up, ed keith will join us and donald trump's vice presidential pick. >> and then frank holloman listen talking about the world of lobbyists and korcorporation. be sure to join us beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern saturday morning. join the session. >> c-span tour in the world. what issues do the next president need to address? >> i would like the next

president to address jobs, i want to make sure we have a secure future of the next eight years so we are not in the state that obama was in when he first got into office. job and unemployment and first and for most for the middle class. all the status quo, keeping our country safe, black lives matter, all lives matter. all the things that we already have issues with. >> what i think the next president needs to focus on is national defense. we are looking at a time of a lot of threats for america. we are worried of threats in the states. we have threats from north korea and china. we need a president to make sure that our best interest taking out of the priority and home and abroad and making it safe for us to travel anywhere where we need to.

>> make sure that america is number one because that's the most important job as a president. >> i think the next president needs to address the lack of information that the general public goats frets from the nom due to people getting out there saying the same thing over and over and the general public is not informed on what's actually going on. >> i would say probably environmental issues, climate change and renewable energy as well as keeping up good relations with international affairs and other countries. get everybody on the same page and lets make a difference. >> voices around the world on c-span.

preparations are under way for cleveland which starts on monday. we'll bring you every minute live on c-span. you can listen on the c-span radio act. here is a look at what the city of cleveland has done to get ready for the four days event. people in city leadership will tell you that they have been working for ten years. the fundamental things that city needss basically have the capacity to handle it. cleveland is not the political convention in the past. they came maybe -- they called them at the time of lacking toll le rens. you need to have 16,000 hotel rooms and enough near by venues. other than that, i mean the big factor as well as fund raising

and local communities are expected to pay for these things. we fell short in 2008, the number of hotel rooms close to the convention site, what they have done then waycross bs a bi. >> they used a sale tax hike to pay for it. this is the major event that's going to be hosting. that was a big one. i found in july 2014, i think we got a phone call after reince priebus went on tv. one of the things you guys will see is there is a public square downtown which is a public park that's made more than a park than it used to be. there is a lot of road paving and where they want to look nice. this is the convention of the economy. there is been consultants here for the better part of 18

months, getting restaurant s on board with them. i think they're sort of flying blind a little bit because of road closures recently announced they don't know what security and restrictions are going to be in place. i think that a lot of the places downtown are already, they're expecting very busy with private events and stuff like that. it is hard to know what to expect until it actually gets there. >> a big part is recruiting police officers, they need to get here. they have been secretive about that. there is been obvious signs of setting a hard time of getting police to do it. some of that could get blown up. a lot of the entry around and stuff like that, clearly they're having trouble and meeting some of those early numbers they are trying to reach. it seems that it is quiet down and we think it will be all right and one of those things at the end of the day, people may

not notice it was an issue, but it was a challenge for them. they have been recruiting officers and training officers to be ready for it. >> on equipment on things like vehicles and personal detective equipment and riots here and medical supplies and things like that. we had a lot this year that was filed on the aclu of some of the people that planned to be here. but p we expect that there is going to be a number of groups that's going to be following official parade route that's going to pass downtown and pass the cleveland pal park. other than that, it is hard to know because they're estimating how many protesters are going to show up. there is going to be a lot of interests in this year's election of the presumptive nominees are controversial. cleveland is an easy spot to get

to. in tampa of 2012 a quarter of america. i expect the next president is going to be setting u up -- cleveland has said that there is no barriers of people, they want to approach the physical security perimeter themselves. we could see people throughout the streets. again, i guess we'll find out when it comes. >> the cavs had a victory parade here in downtown and things were backed up and closed down. one of the big things that will be nice is that we do have a rail system here. so rather than super backed up of the cavs parade, we should be up and running with a anc. a lot of people should be avoiding downtown because there will be city wide street bans. police assets or media or whatever, honestly, i expect a lot of people are spending time

here as much as they can. because of cleveland's reputation, they don't think they'll see much when they get here. it does offer a walk of urban style and really good restaurants and bars that's near the convention space. i see people -- cleveland is a pretty fun place. the republican national convention from cleveland starts monday. watch live, every minute on c-span. listen live on the free c-span radio app. it is easy to download from the apple store or google l play. watch live or on demand any time at cspan.org on your desktop or phone or tablet, you will find all of our convention coverage and schedule, follow us on cspan on twitter and like us on facebook to see videos. don't miss a minute of the 2016

republican national conventions starting monday at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. the c-span radio app and cspan.org. before next week's national convention, this weekend's city tour along with our charter communication will explore the history and life of cleveland, ohio. we'll talk with author john cabosky as he talks about his book in cleveland of "history in motion." >> it was essential -- he was introduced the the work and walt wittman to his teacher and miss

wiemer and he also composed a poem that's kind of famous. >> on america history tv, we'll visit the cleveland history center and take a tour of politics with chief curator. then we'll tour the crawford aviation with derek moore and hear why cleveland was nicknamed motor city before detroit. >> cleveland, we are on lake erie which was one o f the great lakes. great shipping routes. we also have the railroads in the area and a lot of shipping rou routes that could be taken. we have a steel industry here which is very important. also, there is a lot of lumber that all came together. this weekend, watch c-span

cities tour to cleveland. >> sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span 3. working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. the former u.s. ambassador to iraq and afghanistan was part of a recent discussion on u.s. policy twor policy towards syria. >> what needs to be done with syrian president. this was hosted on our interest and it is an hour and a half.

well, good morning everybody, thank you for turning out on a brutally hot day in the middle of july on a friday afternoon when you should really be some where else. we do have some important things to discuss and my name is jeffery kemp, i am the director of regional security programs here of the center of the national interest. i am joined by two speakers and one commentator and paul pillar and demetrius let me talk

about the format that we are going to have this morning. a fascinating book that was just written called "the end void." my journey to the turbulent world to afghanistan, iraq and the un and had a distinguish academic record as well. he brings both academic to the project. paul pillard, covering in southeast asia, i don't know what it is called today. clearly critical part of the wo world. he also published a book which i

do not have a hand out to show the krcameras. it is called "why americans miss understand the world." which is a country kritique of unique -- demetrius here is the president of the center for the national interest and expert on russia as you will hear in a moment. here i must put in a plug for the magazine of the national interest of this month. demetri -- fascinating essays, one by demetri and one on jacob on "stalling diplomats."

they are both worth reading and you should do that. >> now, as you know we advertise today's event focusing on the crisis in syria. um -- reaching new levels of intensity and particularly diplomatic interest as we speak secretary kerry as i understand it meeting in moscow. we'll get to that issue in a moment. first before we do anything else, we thought it would be interesting and relevant to ask our three speakers to take 30 seconds two-minutes to give their first impression of what the tragic events that happened yesterday in nice leaning

towards the war on terrorism and the responses that europe, russia and the united states and the middle east itself how those responses may or may not change. they should change of this event. i am going to ask to do a comment on the nice issue and we'll turn to syria. what do you think of nice. >> first of all, thank you for that on my book. i appreciate that very much. as far as nice is concerned, we don't know enough to make definitive or semi definitive judgment. was this person tunisian and

french having any relationships to terrorist groups or not, we don't know that yet. second, was he self radicalized or was it driven by some extremi extremist ideology, which one? given what has happened of the use of the truck against sif n civilians on the street is a difficult challenge that it imposes and what do you do about the method that he uses in some way that you and i talked, it is the worse case you can imagine. i am sure all of us given our

two big events that are coming of the republican convention and the democratic convention are going to extreme measures just to think all kinds of scenarios and added to it -- this potentially use of a car to deal where it but i do think self radicalization or related to that, it makes the issue of syria and iraq and counter terrorism and what do you do domestically and of these groups of the season that we are in of these groups >> thank you very much, the interpretations and analysis are out there, out strips the fact as we know them.

there is not much that we know so far. and, he also correctly points out if our concern is particular message of operation, really, there is no limit. you don't need anything high-tech the kill a lot of people. i would put this incident in the same general category as basically what we have seen over the last month or so and the others in that collectively there is no one simple explanati explanation. the actual explanation if we knew everything about each one of those incidents, probably spans and ranges of some sort of connection with the events we are going to talk about later in the hour. others that matters of people having their own agenda who latch onto the isis name or to some of our other concerns of terrorism and do what they're going to do anyway. i would commend of your reading

of the best interpreted round up of these events of the last several weeks that my friend brian jenkins had earlier this week of the hill. brian concludes quite correctly although we had an appetite of simple explanations on these things, it is just isis or something else, more likely it is a messy set of very different circumstances with each one of these independencidents. >> demetri. >> okay, now syria. this is a terrible subject here. i am skimming through this as i came here this morning. one source suggest already since

2011, 6.6 million internal refugees and 4.8 million refugees who left the country primarily to join lebanon, turkey and europe. by all accounts, anything between 300 to 470,000 deaths and counting. and, on top of that, an administration policy towards syria has gone through many, many zigs and zags and i guess it is right in the middle of a zag or zig right now as we speak. demetri has more to say thaabou that in a moment. syria is going to be one of the key issues with the two

candidates and their spiraling p partners are comiing up in the presidential debate in the election for november. i am going to ask for the views of what's on earth is going on in syria. is it any good news? do you see a solution and dealing these issues in the region and we look forward to hearing what you are going to say. >> well, thank you again. >> i thought i would do two things. one is ask of what you did in terms of additional consequences of syria besides this terrible

humanitarian of civilians have s suffered. then to talk about kind of the policies and what's going on and where the wroprocess is. the process is saying something of u.s., russian and corporation. this as we know has many national security implications, well, not to us to the west, to the region and to the world. first, i think it is unquestionable that the growth of isis has a terrorist guild organization and has a unique terrorist organization with a set of base, with a concept for

how to organize the world in office and with the worldwide appeal and recruitment in the thousands from all over the world. and with virtual information in many languages reaching to the world. and, them being inspired individuals and other parts of the world. i think brutality is slightly unique than others but not by much. it also generated a population movement because of the areas

and factors. at times because of actual policy of something of the intent of push population out to other places is having an effect on europe in particular. of the increase of the fear and the reality of islamist and terror globally, it brought russia back in the region and away it was not a case for a while. it becomes a kind of a proxy feel. it is a risk -- some probability

of that. you cannot exclude it. it maybe draw and even help redraw the map. this is a heart wrenching. it is the crisis of many serious implications already and even the potential to produce more. so what do we do? first, i think that the urgency of dealing with the terrorist groups is one. i will talk about what our objective should be and how we prosecute it and two, what do we do about syria itself and the

two are related and there are some questions of you know of what sequence does one pursue it and which one is more important and what time frame of short and longer term. i think it is very important to think positive and immediate and longer terms. what we have done has reached some progress of the 45% of the territory not only in syria but iraq is liberated. second is the number of foreign citizens and individuals are coming to join. the group has declined. it has declined to 75% compare

to the hike of the period. there are efforts to push a case both -- and we'll come through the tactic of russian american corporation strategies to deal with it. my sense is that we need to look at and i advocate that we do to how to take the area back and to do it with a specified time frame of six months seem to be with the reasonable goal and my and for the united states and this could be done by the coalition path or russia that we

pursue or use the afghan model that we did with the taliban and a meth od of combination and of local forces and regional forces with heavy u.s. air power and with special forces with the forces to take over territory that remaining territory and -- >> administration is moving towards some of that and we refer the deployment of 500 additional special forces in iraq intended for that. we have such a model of

intelligence of extremist that relatively working. afterward of the -- i would recommend that. for a longer term, i think we face a huge challenge even if he succeed. in the short term assuming that we follow the model. what you do of the people who are apart of the group, particularly the foreigners that are there. a range of 2,000 to a high of 25,000 you get the range. and given the experiences that they have, this could be a huge security terrorist problem to places that they go to.

what you do with liberated territory? given the structure of fallujah and mostly damaged in the process of liberation. if we don't have a post strategy of getting in the syria part of the problem as dealing effectively of the government then as we saw in the case about al-qaeda and iraq which we liberated the areas defeated more or less. what succeeded by something called -- it is a lot worse in some way of a bigger problem. we face a potential of something, a group exceeding of

these issues. whether it could be even worse. we need to think about not only deliberation of what to do but what to do with the people and what to do with the area area -area -- i think the establishment of the legitimate government in syria is vital for a longer term strugg struggle -- from syria and associated to syria. the absence of the political settlement that produces a more legitimate government can play into the hands of terrorists and

extremists. and, it should be our goal of terrorists and many extremists. there is a lot of ideas how this could come about. how long of the stay and transition and the structure of the state that might come. come would argue starting in the middle eastern empire or super state that existed and federal structure is a lot about our economy locally of the notion of centralized and relatively recent. it will be apart of the solution of what you have shared in the center and how they compose off

and what you do otherwise to sacrifice our allies in syria as well as others could be part of the solution. now, i do want to take a lot more time of how we perceive. i have been in favor of seeking common ground with extremist an terror. i think it is important taking a clear understanding of the goals. the goal is not only of terrorism but the broader --

[ inaudible [ inaudible ] my fear is that we'll not solve the problem but at the same time it will be costly for us as we to be moving away from this destabilization of syria which is a legitimate political order and caught more problems between our allies in the region would feel and uncomfortable and ready there is a lot of mistrust and distrust in the u.s. in part of how we have dealt with syria and iran and that would make that problem much worse. i would hope that why we should perceive and going and

corrobora corroborate. the issues of terrorism requires a regional understanding so that we can help facilitate regional settlement as well. i don't believe that we'll succeed of the twins objective without an understanding among key region power particularly syria, iran and saudi arabia. those three powers are involved in a proxy war and given the risks they are already facing

and future risks, they're in a room joined diplomacy by us and russia two -- facilitates settlements can be accepted. if we and russia reach an agreement first and then with arab and turkey and iran being more workable and may reduce results and therefore we can prepare strong relations that we have and i hope that we keep our allies in confidence and making sure that gap that existed of the mistrust gap does not widen.

we have to have a regional balance but also a structure. this is a union which is the most under institutionalized and the players have changed. now we have two other external regions that's very important and iran and turkey. you need a structure and this is something that we and russia and china also to talk about this and architecture for the region that feels confidence and regulate and facilitate future acceptance and rules that can in addition to a balance of power

can make this region progress of our greatest ability. >> thank you very much indeed. >> some of the major realities that's been saving with these problems are the following three. one, isis is losing. some of the metrics on that regarding to territory law and recruits and so on. that's a reflection of a number of things of the laws and the support and their absolute lack of allies and in the fact in the end they have a message that simply does not appeal. this trend was at the front post of how isis are preparing itself

and followers losing all of their territories in iraq. second reality is that a significant moderate arab opposition in syria has not materialized in the way that many expected or hosted to. this was punctuated sometimes back when poor general austin had to admit to a congressional committee -- our defense department had going for training them. most of the gains on the grounds against isis have not come from such elements, they have come from the regime back in recent launch by russia. that reflects a wider trend that we see and other civil wars which of the more extreme elements can shove out the moderate ones. fighting an internal war of an extreme way to pursue political objectives as oppose to a

peaceful way. that does not surprise us. the group that sometimes use to hand out the list supposedly moderate opposition groups are not really all that modern. the very fact that they have become so closely on the ground, which is the al-qaeda affiliate in syria. third, i want to high is the assad regime is not going anywhere, any time soon. this is a reflection of the internal settlements of sources and support among many syrians who don't like the assad, look at the feasible alternatives and decided they would be even worse. of course, it reflects external

sources of the iranians playing a role that made a different military over the past years. >> one of the problems of our discourse along has been a lack of clarity of goals. and trying to pursue more than one thing at a time. the common terror side of things and the as separation for regime change. how the regime has made a use of prominence of extremest on the other side. the fact is the positive regime change in this situation is in compatible in ways of being able to counter disabled terrorist groups including but not limited to isis. again, we slit in our overall

discussion and this is included in the obama administration into the assad -- after the syrians broke out some five years ago. i would suggest of a matter of habit and reflection of the same general tendency -- this realization has set in some other important relevance of the government. it makes it all pertinent for us. one of them is turkey. they made a statement that talk about the need for his government to have some sort of improvements of relations with the syrian government. that'll represent white a

reversal of what turkish policy have been the last couple of years. and the one with russia has a lot to do with syria and indeed, it may in fact could be a preliminary to more active turkish innovation -- a couple of days ago there is a report of national security sent to the damascus -- i think president obama has realized these

realities that i just described even though so far the administration have not officially announced the assad must go idea. it has backed away from us. he seems to realize that the war itself rather than any particular political or ideology coloration of regime damascus has been responsible. the assad has been a powerful decade. it was only after the syrian civil war that isis got the great boost that it did by moving from iraq into syria and taking advantage of the violence and the care. i think our president realizes that the escalation of this war is likely to do more r harm than

good. the one new development and that's what's being negotiated right now with the russians. we'll hear more from demetre on that. i should lay out the facts. based on what was leaked on this proposal was to provide a joint impliati implementation group layed id be jordan. which i would suggest of a target of such efforts in addition to what could be done to isis. isis maybe losing but our -- we cannot say the same thing of its position on the ground. if anything, it is to solidify

the solution. the country is working closely with some of those opposition elements mentioned earlier. the russians have complained with some justification that contrary of assurances that we try to give them in connection of -- we have not managed to per sway other opposition groups with al nusral. this proposal may help to over come partly of the problem of physical close quarters between other groups. i would suggest to our advantage of russia to do more dirty work against al-qaeda affiliate. so it probably makes sense to do something like this in the way of corroborations even if it falls short of the further goal of getting russia to lean

heavily on assad with final political arrangements in the syrian settlements. we heard resources of proposal and surprisingly they seem to be powered mainly by a reluctant to let go of the assad -- and an inclination of russia doing things like mugging our diplomats and we still have major differences with them and other places like ukraine. >> obama also realizes that to take out isis and using the term that he uses so much does not solve the terrorist problem. what do you do with the liberated territory. there is implications of nation i would building after military

operation seized. t terror under any label is not to our advantage and we can expect for it to persist if there is chaos and disorder left afterwards. >> the problem for our policymaker until january 2017 is continuing erosion of isis and doing something more that we have been able to do, particularly of understanding what the russians can pan out. the longer term issues on syria quite briefly are one that is the next president will be facing and we'll be talking about next january. we are going to have to get used to the idea. there will be terrorism and including such as what we saw in

the east and including attacks claim under the isis label as the brand name of choice of people of that. this whole fact is going to be the idea of what we do with liberated territory, we'll increase the pressure to accelerate the diplomatic track and trying to talk more seriously of an event -- a couple final points. i think we have to be conscious and the next administration will have to be conscious. the stability compares to what we have seen the last five years that we had with most of the time with the assads in power. this is included relatively quiet on the goal line front, i have to think our israel friends are looking at mix sediments.

assad has been the definitely they know. and his representative of uncertainty of security in the area and the devils there are not quite familiar with and controlling the grounds over the last five years. we should be conscious of the overall, lets be frank of the result regime change and before with tunisia -- this does not mean that assad is going to stick around for a long time. i do not see ex terternal supporters. his longevity in office is not a necessary condition for those external supporters to make things of other objectives that are pertinent to syria.

>> you heard a lot of dewilhelmsd decentralization of power and i agree with that -- two or five years from now is going to involve some formulas that's looking like that. it is not a matter of who controls a powerful central government in damascus. finally, i think we have to be ready for scenarios over the next few years of which the syrian civil war is some what of the war of the 70s and 80s which is almost a decade and a half which there is more exhaustion than they have in syria today. >> thank you very much indeed. >> now, we'll turn to demetri for comments.

>> thank you very much. the second term this year so mr. trump would say something really good. i have to say that after looking at what is being discussed in moscow and of the written reports, it looks like -- let me say first this here in march of 2011, it lasted more than five years. it is a horrible human tragedy for the syrian people. it was discussed by lost of

powers. >> it creates a challenge that -- [ inaudible ] >> we do not quite know what motivates different terrors or lo lone wolf or not so lone lone wolves -- the problem of anti-terrorists -- in order to focus on this, lets remember how we got here. >> syria started five years ago. it is clear that -- just to

start with iran. >> how to put it delicately, he was not a nice man. in the 1982, i was writing a column for the christians at the time, they have destroyed most of it. president assad sr. was in a

brutal time. he also was as man who was respected by many major powers of their leaders including the united states. i yet to find anyone who truass. i yet to find anyone who works like him who says this is a man that can constructively conduct

business. this is a leader. we have of a plan to how to get rid of him. >> we always find a way to work with him and a formula to ease him out of power in ways that is we cannot accomplish by -- but some kind of creative diplomacy back in 2011 when hillary clinton and the secretary of state -- [ inaudible ]

negotiations would lead to conclusions and there will be elections. a senior associate told me at the time assad is a master in butchering. we are not interested in keeping him in power. the russians did not control assad and they did not want to create an impression giving up one of their clients. they wish to go to geneva. then he decided to interpret of

the geneva conference. i don't want to put thos those -- clearly, she demanded that as a precondition for the confidence there would be an agreement that assad would be during in power. first of all, we'll try to defeat it first. second, can you defeat it? the relationship at that time was more problematic than today. the iranians were supporting assad. >> moscow said, well, listen, it is not only we don't want to do it. that's what we can handle.

he was under a much greater pressure of today of the kind of talks -- and for his departure. that did not quite that did not quite work out. here we are today. we are clearly -- we have a mutual interest with moscow to settle the conflict in syria. it is dangerous to the united states and our allies, it is clearly a present threat to russia. quite a few isis fighters came from russia or theure asia region so they see isis as a serious challenge. and they don't quite like al-nusrah. and they attack any -- any destruction of al-nusrah is considered very much in the

interest. here our interests coincide. but the devil is in the details. we want not just isis and some extent al-nusrah, we want to do it in a way that would not benefit bashar al assad. the russians won't mind at this point for the destruction of the terrorist groups to benefit bashar al assad and they don't want the local people surrendering to assad. we have to understand where we stand in our relationship with russia. the relationship is bad. the administration is talking about transsectional diplomacy within moscow meaning we don't have any linkages, we get moscow corporation where we have mutual interests but where we don't believe we have mutual

interests, we'll continue with sanctions and we'll move infrastructure into baltic states and we're talking about an adversarial relationship with russia as far as nato is concerned. the administration was more successful in this transsectional diplomacy than i thought was possible because putin and his foreign ministers lab rov agreed to play ball on those terms. they took a position that their open to cooperation with the west first and foremost with the united states and while they are blaming the united states for the confrontation, they basically were saying, we're open for business. and, yeah you have sanctions against us, but we, out of pride, do not demand the end of sanctions as a precondition for

any diplomatic relations and they are very interested in cooperating on the army with syria and sharing intelligence information and russia is under pressure because they want to be a good friend of israel and they don't want to be an opponent of major gulf states, particularly saudi arabia, as russians have their own reasons to be cooperative. the problem starts when our interests are not the same. and can you have at the same time more and more adversarial relationships as a general background of the relationship, and to get russian cooperation that are clearly not in interest and most difficult for them, like giving up president assad. and the proposal which secretary kerry allegedly brought to moscow, the way it is being

described by the washington post on the basis of the social administration and the basis of what i was told by this morning by a russian official, there were two components of this proposal. one, cooperation with the united states against isis and al-nusra. that proposal was met, from what i understand, with almost an unqualifieden sho unqualified enthusiasm. that is what they want, and it would show putin and russia is not isolated and still a great power, perhaps almost a super-powerme super-power, and the other proposal is russia should ground the air forces. and you know this is a very difficult idea for russia because there is a battle for l

aleppo and russia is playing a major role and this is a battle that is determined not just military, but political dynamics in syria. and for russia to tell assad, ground your air force at this critical point, this is very difficult for moscow. particularly because, as paul mentioned, it is not just the question of iran, but also the iraqi government essentially telling the russians, you are doing a good job supporting the osad regime because it is companied by shiites and we're asking moscow, to put it mildly, heavy lifting, in the context of the general deterioration of the american-russian relationship. there is another problem here. the problem with russian elections. they will have parliament

elections in september and what is the connection? well we now how the elections are going to end. putin's party and the united russia is going to prevail. but putin decided this -- this time to have a relatively honest elections. now relatively. but that, they don't mean that if somebody is a real enemy of putin they would be allowed to take part in the election. they will regulate heavily who is allowed to take part in elections. and of course federal tv channels would support the pro-putin party. what they allowed to do, however, this time is to have relatively almost completely honest counting of the votes. and they brought a new chairman of the federal election commission who is considered a real liberal and a person of

integrity,el ga, and she moved against all regional governors who are expected of falsifying the results. why is it relevant to syria? because putin would have great difficulty explaining to the russian people after all of the poll picks a politics and rhetoric, how is president assad losing ground in syria and to replace their air force with russian air-strikes which would mean casualties for russia, that would not be popular either. i think for this reason it could be very difficult for the administration to get to use putin on the basis of the current proposal. another problem with this proposal is that there are a lot of people in washington who don't quite believe sergei lavrov and there are people in

moscow who don't believe kerry. and some are saying love rov is a russian foreign minister and charming and we do not believe in our basis of experience that lavrov has the power and the knowledge to have influence over russian military actions in syria or in ukraine. in moscow, there are are a lot -- are a lot of people around putin, particularly from so-called power agencies. john kerry, he does not have the real ability to deliver on his promised to moscow. he negotiates deals but if doesn't look likely that the military would quite cooperate with him in terms of providing full assistance to russia in terms of any joint military action against any groups, rebel groups associated with al-nusrah

and the way the united states would likely define who are legitimate, that would exclude a lot of groups, which russia considers terrorists. and that maktakes me to my fina point. so i think for the negotiations between the united states and russia to have a chance, we have to make our own choice. what is our priority in syria? is our priority isis or al-nusrah or to remove osad from power? this is not an easy choice. because again, we are not a free actor. the gulf states, turkey, there are a lot of countries in the region who are friends who do not want to see an arrangement, which would benefit president assad. but in the end of the day, my

review of the leadership is to make difficult decisions. my assumption is this will be a job for the next administration. >> thank you very much. all three of you. and now we're going to open it up for 20, 25 minutes of questions and comments. because we're on live tv, there are some ground rules. first, when you are called upon, wait for the mike, because without the mike we won't be able to hear you around the world. secondly, even though i may know who you are, please state for the record who you are and where you are from. and then thirdly, please be relatively brief in your cue or your comment. so i'm looking out. >> patet pet oouf former u.s.

ambassador to syria. i agree with almost all i've heard hear today but i've also talked to people who wouldn't agree. so let me put myself for a moment in their shoes. even allowing that osad could hang out to power with russian support in american acquiescence, how does that stabilize syria in that, as was pointed o pointed out, you have 11 million refugees or displaced people and perhaps dimitri could comment but it seems russia might not mind many of the 4.8 million syrians that are in turkey and europe remaining there to trouble nato countries and the like, but how do you put humpty-dumpty back together

again since what we would consider the legitimate opposition seems so weak, particularly as was pointed out in terms of military forces on the ground, which are not united in any way. so you commented on that a bit, ambassador, but what you said is all correct, but how do you do it? >> so, zal, would you like to say a few words or all of you? putting humpty-dumpty back together again. >> it would be very hard, clearly. but i think diplomacy, the job of diplomacy in my view, sometimes it is tough to make choices like dimitri said. sometimes you have to find common ground where you can address the problem. and i believe that -- that is why i didn't get into the issue

of bashar and when he goes -- the issue of constituting a legitimate government in syria that has broad support, has got to be part of the diplomatic conversation. if it isn't, in my view, then an exclusive focus on going after the terroristic opposition would be very difficult to sell, but which is one could risk it, but it isn't going to solve the problem ultimately of terror in my view from syria. it is going to only lead to more terrorist groups. i've experienced this first-hand. we did indeed with ending the civil war in iraq in an enduring way. we defeated al qaeda in iraq by

the time 2008, they were largely neutralized. but because the political problem was not resolved, in fact some steps were taken backwards by prime minister maliki the second term, it led to, in come bbination with syri to a bigger terrorist problem. and my discussion with the russians would be, unless they have a convincing alternative argument that addresses the issues, how are we going to solve this problem of sunni and arab extremism by area if we don't address this issue. there should be creativity as how do we sequence it and the process for doing it and geneva framework may have been a good way to do it. there may be alternative ways to

proceed. but my judgment is if you are serious about counter-terrorism not only in the short-term, but in the longer term, there has to be a political settlement that establishes a legitimate order that allows the refugees to come back and -- it will still take a lot of effort and cooperation to rebuild the state and it wouldn't be easy, it would be difficult phases and there will be violence and i think without that -- we will have this problem maybe in spades down the road. >> paul, dimitri? >> certainly humpty-dumpty is not going to be put back together the way it was before all this started. >> that is a good point. >> and we have to resist the tendency to think of this in

black and while, all or nothing terms. some of the things we alluded to earlier, more than one of us, about decentralization of power, of recognition of who controls the real estate and in various parts of the country is going to have to be part of the formula. i think something that recogn e recognizes and gives appropriate weight to the fears without necessarily bashar al assad being the guy on top is part of the formula. and four, say the next presidential term, and if -- and this is what i understand to be the tenure of your question, we need a modicum of stability to take care -- to at least reduce if not end the killing and enable refugees, some of them to move back, we might have us a more realistic goal during the next few years, not so much a

final settlement but something described as a frozen conflict. we don't say nice things about frozen conflicts but they are better than the kind of conflict we have now and that might be a weigh station toward putting a new humpty-dumpty back together. >> well, in my book part of the solution may be sitting at this table, and i'm talking about am b bass dor, i would send him to damascus to talk to president assad because it is a remarkable situation that we have no serious contact with a maimer party to the conflict. and when we allowed the russians, who we don't exactly view as our friends, and rightly so, we allow them and the iranians to have a monopoly on the negotiations with osad. after five years of this war, that should end. and you obviously have an

experience of how to deal with rather unpleasant characters in afghanistan and iraq and how to induce solicitation when you could not get rid of them or easing them out as your objective. i think we should talk to assad. and second thing we need to do is have a broad conversation with russians about our relationship. this transactional diplomacy where aim is on one issue and our allies on another, that can work but it takes you only so far. when you have real difference in interests, it doesn't work. in order for this to work, a country like russia, they need to feel that a real improvement in relations with you is also in their interest and it is feasible as long as they are willing to talk about fundamental and realistic

priorities. the third thing, in my view, is you need to start the negotiating process in geneva and make clear we don't have unrealistic demands like assaad making the commitment to leave at the outset but at the same time, we are firm, like you said, a noble settlement in syria and that is the way we will say we believe it should work and we should suggest a structure of the process in which that would lead to assaed's leave of power and it may be an element of decentralization or an element of giving more power to the communities and evidence, whatever would allow us not necessarily to get rid of assad altogether but when he is a huge

polarizing factor in iraq. i think our problem in iraq -- or in syria should not be assad, it should be as him as a dictator and that we should folk on. >> well, congratulations. >> we look forward to that. >> dimitri has appointed me. >> and i would have to just adhere that it seems to me that to -- if there is to be any return of the 11 million from either inside syria or outside of syria, they are not going to come back unless there are very clear security measures to make sure they are not butchered again or kicked out again and that has to be part of the formula no matter what we do with bashar al assad. >> steve. >> yes. thank you. >> could you announce who you are, please, for the world. >> steve weather maker, at the

stage department in years past. i certainly take the point that these two goals of removing osad from power and defeating isis may be compatible but we do have another -- and perhaps the overriding objective of ending the war. and let me just ask in a fairly pointed way whether the goal of ending the war is compatible with assad remaining in power. and in asking that question, i'll draw an analogy to iraq. we spent a lot of time in washington talking about what went wrong in iraq after 2008. and i think it is virtually unanimous today what went wrong in 2008 was prime minister maliki. he shifted his government and started governing in a sectarian manner and what you have in iraq was the shiite minority giving

rise to what we have today. and very few in washington disagree with that. and if someone were to say let's restore maliki to power, i admit that was a bone-head suggestion to bring peace to iraq. why is it that in syria anyone thinks that assad could bring peace to the country? there are a couple of differences, in syria we're talking about an ollo-white and maliki didn't create 108 million refugees and kill hundreds of thousands of people, but assad has. how is that man going to be able to restore stability and the war in syria? >> well, tell us, ambassador.

[ laughter ] maliki was prime minister was 2006 through 2014, if i'm not mistaken. and there was maliki one and maliki two. maliki one, when we were there, in the surge and the reconciliation took place during that period and a unity government took place and he moved against bashra and another city. and we need to look at how maliki one behaved one way and why maliki two behaved in another way and i think the key factors were -- were two. one, the withdrawal, and he became fearful that the sunni

officers might carry a coup and absence military presence so he started purging the professional officers and putting political loyalists in their place. and second syria, because he also saw this sunni uprising as he saw it and he thought the combination of sunni -- iraq and syria make it together and change the map. so -- and maliki two, as you described and i wouldn't think of bringing him back, so you are right. so conditions also matter in other words. but i would think -- that is why because of what points you made, i think we need a political settlement. and we need a political settlement that is has legitimacy to it which means the facts of complexity of ethnicity and sectarian factors have to be taken into account and new dispensation. and as to when bashar goes, does

he become the head of the alloite region and there are issues you would think about but there has to be -- there has to be a political settlement that gives a new order legitimacy and that everyone can work with because it will be difficult, even with that, to establish stability and order and without that certainly it will be very difficult, i agree with you. >> right. and the history of middle east dictators moving through an amicable province is not particularly -- >> promising, yes. >> this gentleman here. >> new precedence. >> i'm david johnson. the first part of this is for zal. i was -- took note of your comment about needing to have a post-liberation strategy as isil was pushed out.

and with the global -- the ie in ramadi so i'm getting personal experience with this so do you view this as something that is a u.s. government responsibility or something turned over to your former colleagues at the u.n. and told to have a nice day. and for dimitri if i could, while i have the microphone, a lot of ink has been spilled about the russian desire to maintain its base in syria and do you think that it would be useful or necessary for the u.s. to say some things positive about the longevity of that publicly or privately in order to facilitate a greater degree of cooperation in syria? thank you. >> i could say -- on the first one i could quickly respond. first, i think we should accept the russian -- not have a problem with the russians having access to the facility, making

it easy for you. and on the first one, i think it has to be a plan that the u.s. plays in, but for the liberated areas. but it shouldn't be exclusively ours -- others should play as well and could be orchestrated by us and russia, if we do this together, or by us and russia through the u.n. and us and russia with regional players. there are alternative ways but i wouldn't want to take exclusive responsibility on behalf of the united states for the liberated areas. >> now it is always the case in events like this as we approach the witching hour hands keep going up. so i've got four people on the list and what i'm going to suggest now is we take two questions from the floor and then have you answer and then the last two and we will wind it up. so the first person i have now is rob -- >> yes.

>> thank you, gentlemen, really fascinating presentations. just two brief comments. >> name. >> i'm sorry, rob satlof. the washington institution. and first, i do think it bears repeating, i think everybody appropriately referred to the tragedy of syria in the last five years, that the assad regime is responsible for about 90% of the deaths. >> right. >> there is a sense in the conversation that oh, assad, oh, isis, civil war, a lot of bad guys, we should recognize that there is a massive imbalance in responsibility for deaths, which just doesn't -- of course, it doesn't ease the burden we should have against isis. but in terms of looking at this case, we should recognize that. second, i guess it is related to this, it is not self-evident

why, as isis loses, if we are going to say that we are positive that isis is losing, why is it self-evident that at this moment it becomes less of an opportunity to bring about the end of assad. which one could make the argument that as isis was rising and we needed to focus more on the battle against the territorial control, you could make the argument that we needed to focus our energies there but if indeed we have on the horizon the end of isis, as a control of territory in syria and we deal with groups that don't have any coherent territorial control, wouldn't it logically make sense that we could entertain going back to what our prime directive was when this started in 2011 to address the fundamental government issue which triggered this massive humanitarian crisis which is assad.

my question derives from an important comment that you said which is what john kerry doesn't bring to the table and i thought you were going to say something else, that what john kerry doesn't bring to the table, which is -- which is a legitimate fear on the part of the russians that the americans might do something about it in case the russians don't live up to their end of the bargain which the russians haven't done, i would argue, throughout all of their arguments vis-a-vis syria. and mainly it is the question, when you think about the next administration, you hinted at this briefly, do you recommend or would you recommend that the next administration be willing to invest more in terms of men, material, resources, whatever, to affect this strategic balance? i think it is reasonable to argue that the russians affected the strategic balance quite impressively through their deployment relatively modest deployment of force.

is this a model for the united states in the next administration? should the u.s. be willing to invest to effect the strategic balance if only -- if only the goal is to compel a political outcome and i agree completely with the political outcome that you described as the appropriate objective. >> excellent question. hold it, guys. because i want jacob to go forth and then you could answer both. >> jacob hall gren, from the natural interest. jeff and to panel, when i go to these washington meetings as we're here today, i was at a national intelligence council meeting a few weeks ago and it first popped in my head there. if donald trump were at this meeting, what would he think of it? and i think he would say the word -- missing the elephant in

the room here. that we started and we've gotten into an abstract discussion of syria's future, but the question that i think trump would want to have answered, or the average american is, as this syria conflict grinds on, and you have these events in france and elsewhere, as isis is being, i think -- it is obviously taking severe losses on the battlefield. are we going to confront more terrorism, are we going to become less safe at home and is there anything we can do about it or are we just going to have to suck it up? is it going to be a constant litany of bloody events that take out 50 to 100 people that are not mass casualties.

>> those are two rather set of similar questions. so who would like to go first? >> let me address rob's question first. of course, one thing, as long as isis is still there, then of course the regime has the big talking point between us and the terrorist, so that is the point. but let me say a couple of other things. your question, rob seemed to presuppose, what was your prime directive and presupposes regime change -- it will always be there. and i say where exactly to u.s. interests lie. it is a lot easier to argue when you have a beast like isis or like nussra and getting into what jacob raises which i'll comment on in a moment, there are clear interests that we share with the russians and a lot of others that are very defensible, whereas the political coloration of the

regime in damascus doesn't rise to the same standard. and you make a point about the -- the balance of -- well the fighting started five years. it wasn't a matter of this assad regime, and dimitri gave us earlier regime, but butchering people for the last 46 years, a war has started and it has been a very destructive war as a result of an insurrection. and i just have to make a couple of other points. you know, jacob asks, what would trump think about this. one of the things going through my mind is what president would say in response to the -- to your question, we're almost there with beating isis, so let's divert our attention to this regime change business and i think of all of the criticism that is launched against obama

about iraq and the whole line of argument that, well, we took our eye off the ball when -- when then isis or whatever called it -- >> al qaeda in iraq. >> al qaeda in iraq was almost defeated but we took our eye off the ball and now we have isis. it seems the same criticism could be made against what you are saying here. and finally, in terms of effecting strategic balance, in favor of whom? who is the alternative? al sham or the five guys that the general recruited? that is the question we have to ask. on jacob's question. i've written repeatedly on the theme that we shouldn't equate terrorist threats to us in the west, whether it is in washington or new york or nice or wherever, with bad guys controlling real estate on the ground in some distant sandy

place like syria or iraq or afghanistan. it simply does not work that way. so the bad news is that even when the caliphate is no more, and there isn't this many states in iraq, we're still going to have a lot of this stuff. only kind of off-setting good news is that in so far as isis is seeing more unequivocally as a loser, and maybe that is the way mr. trump would put it, they will attract fewer semi-radicalized people to do terrorist acts in the name of isis. but i have to balance that with some bad news again, that even if you don't have the isis name out there, even if it loses its appeal as a brand that it has had the last few years, you still have the radical behavior. and the guy who drove the truck in nice still might have driven the same truck. >> briefly, gentlemen. >> sure. >> we have two more people to

go. >> oh, well, on rob's question, i would say that we need to have -- first we have to go after al qaeda -- i mean daesh and al-nusra. the sooner they lose territory, the better from my perspective. but for the table to be set for political legitimacy to come, i would -- i would agree with you, we haven't played our cards in a way that would incentivize the bashar side or even the russians and the iranians to be more flexible. therefore, i would, for example, favor taking down bashar's helicopters and planes if they threaten population centers. i would -- i would do that.

i would put that on the table. i think then you will get more cooperation. and because right now, john kerry is in a relatively -- i'm sorry to say this, he's not in a very good position. we have threatened a few times that this is the last chance and if this doesn't happen, so his credibility is -- it problematic right now. so on that -- on mr. trump, i would think that he probably would favor the first part of what i said, to accelerate the move against the terrorists, the afghan model that i mentioned and set a time table for liberation of territories within six months of my presidency and mosul and raqqa and all of these places will be done, will be finished. and second, that you obviously -- that since the threat will go on, we'll have to

review some of our -- our dollars situation policies to see whether we are hardened enough, what do we do when we know that someone is interested in daesh, but he hasn't done anything or she hasn't done anything yet, what do we do in that environment? what do we do on the issue of guns in what do we do on a whole range of other things. short of either we do something and we move against you, but other things we don't do anything, i think we need to review what the set of steps are, consistent with our constitution and laws, what else could be done. because this problem isn't going to go away any time soon. even if we make progress on syria and progress in syria would be helpful. >> to answer your question, if we had powerful positions which we could easily identify and arm, i would certainly be in

favor of that. but if you are talking about groups associated with al qaeda, being a likely beneficiary of our assistance, that for me would be much more problematic. agree with the ambassador on everything except our option to attack bashar's forces and particularly his air force and his helicopters. >> when he threatened population centers. >> when you threaten whatever -- unless you don't threaten the united states and american allies. because russia s -- has 400 missiles which are there and russian made 300 missiles which have already been provided to the bashar al assad regime, and they would not be concerned about our motives and what the russians would do if we exercise this option. when you start thinking about

what kind of an escalation it could start, whether it is something that we really want to experiment with in this situation with assad and there is nothing i can say positive about assad whatsoever except that he so far has never attacked the united states, unlike isis. now for me, it is not a preferred solution. the preferred solution for me is a different solution. the preferred solution is to look at our historical experience, at how the nixon and kissinger administration has outmaneuvered the russians in the middle east and specifically in syria, making deals with local leaders and with president assad and with egypt and with president assad of syria and if you start the process, we're all i think is the right way to go, the political process in syria,

and that political process in syria cannot work without very strong economic assistance which can be provided only by the united states and our allies in the gulf. that would provide us -- that process starts with the very powerful leverage not only to avoid future attacks on civilians, but frankly on reducing russia's role in the region because in that kind of a competition, when economic factor is important, russia is not a friend of the united states. >> we have a question here. >> i'm kerry lee early, an attorney in washington, d.c. and my question in some ways follows the -- is suggested by what dimitri just said. i have been wondering for some insight on the internal political possibility of life

after assad. and that also invites the question about the possible role of the military. and i'm going to leave it as an open-ended question as general insight and facts about what you see. >> thank you very much. and the last question here. >> paul sanders with the center for the national interest. my question was about the use of american military power, which i think ambassador already addressed and dimitri simes also somewhat addressed. so we could probably skip that. >> okay. >> unless paul would like to -- >> well, you all have an opportunity to ask -- answer any questions you feel like. but particularly this issue about the military would be an interesting comment. paul, do you have any insights into the syrian military? >> i don't have detailed into the insights.

i'll make the general, not very helpful response, that in the whole set of permiations of different forms of military settlement, even if it is over a piece of damascus or the piece in the northwest, yes, the military forces that have been fighting this war on assad's side can have, like military forces in much of the rest of the region, a political role. it is not -- we don't think of our military that way, but i think we're going to have to think of it that way as far as anything approaching a political settlement in sear is concerned. and i would allude to my previous comment that there had been ample indications of discontent among a lot of the aloites doing the fighting with assad, so there is daylight that could be used there and negotiated in political

situations. >> do either of you two have last-minute comments? >> [ inaudible ]. -- and political exploitation and i'm talking about something longer-lasting and some kind of equilibrium or something that could settle the area down for -- for a period of time. >> in 30 seconds, you could have a crack at that. >> want to go back to what dimitri said, that is my last resort option because you have to set the table for a negotiation that incentivizes. and even if the -- as you correctly point out, that the nixon and kissinger maneuver, there was a military dimension to their maneuver. and i would also look at a broader understanding with russia as another way to deal with this issue. but i wouldn't exclude -- if you are serious about that

objective, exclude some road for u.s. -- [ inaudible ]. right. now under syrian military, i think it depends on what the settlement is. it may be the settlement will have a significant central force. it may include some -- if it is a con federal arrangement, they will have their own security forces to deal with. and in kurdistan and the federal constitution that i helped negotiate, the peshmerga was recognized as a regional response for local security so i think we need a consensus politically both among iraqis and other key players as are we restoring a military tastate, where it would be a large military force at the center or is it a decentralized system and the security forces are -- maybe

there is a national army but a lot of local security forces to maintain order. >> thank you all very, very much. this is -- this has been an extremely, i think, informative and well-articulated session by our three speakers and by the commentators. i have to confess, though, that i -- i leave here not particularly optimistic that there is going to be any resolution of any of these issues any time soon. and therefore can confidently guarantee that we'll be back in this room or another room with a new administration going over much the same ground in 2017. thank you all very much. >> thank you. [ applause ]

[ session concluded ] [ session concluded ] coming up this weekend on american history tv on c-span, a look into organized crime in the south during the 1950s. >> the final report was issued in 1951 and it concluded that organized crime syndicates did exist. we are not myths and that they

depended upon the support and the cooperation of public officials around the country. >> saturday evening at 7:00 eastern author tammy ingram discusses her upcoming book. and at 8:00 on lectures history, peter cuss nick argues whether the atomic bomb was needed to end the war in the pacific. >> former japanese prime minister hirota meets with the soviet ambassador in tokyo to discuss the possibility of ending the war. malic, the soviet ambassador writes back to the soviet union saying the japanese are desperate to end the war. it was becoming clear to them. american leaders knew that too. >> and at 10:30, the 50th anniversary of the national organization for women. >> in the 1970s, we got the fair credit act which meant women could have credit cards in their own right. until then, a woman lost her

credit card if she were divorced or if her husband died. the fair housing act, a landlord could say i don't rent to women. that became illegal. title nine, which finally prohibited sex discrimination and education. it is a lot more than sports, it is women's promotion and women's advancement. >> and on sunday at 10:00, on road to the white house, rewind, the 1964 democratic and republican national convention with lyndon johnson and barry goldwater accepting the republican nomination. >> i would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. and let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of

justice is no virtue. >> over the last four years, the world has begun to respond to a simple american belief. the belief that strength and courage and responsibility are the keys to peace. >> for a complete american history tv schedule, go to c-span.org. the hard-fought 2014 primary season is over, with historic conventions to follow this summer. >> colorado -- >> florida. >> texas. >> ohio. >> watch c-span as the delegates consider the nomination of the first woman ever to head a major political party. and the first nonpolitician in several decades. watch live on c-span, listen on

the c-span radio app or get video on demand at c-span.org. you have a front-row seat to every minute on c-span, all beginning on monday. well, we are outside of the quicken loans arena and this is the facility where the 2016 republican national convention is going to take place. >> we're standing on level four of the quicken loans arena and we're in one of the suites, normally a hospitality suite which is converted for broadcast purposes for c-span and on this level there are some hospitality suites for guest but about 30 broadcast media suites and i was involved in the early in-fighting, you might say, to get the suites more the media and get that share. which is about normal. it is about what we normally do. and while we get the total number, they are actually

assigned individually through an intermediate process through the house radio television gallery and they did well by c-span with you in this location. the delegates will be seated facing -- facing all of them -- all of them facing the stage, which we call the podium. we call it the podium complex. and while the seating chart has not been announced, it is usually kind of a fan shake with people all facing -- as you move out, they face inward toward the complex and we have aisles, a center and side aisle so people could move and media that have floor passes could move and what not. so we'll see that next week when the plan comes out and when the seats go down and when the state -- that shows where the state seating will be and all of the color will come in and take place and you really get a view of it. there are a number of stand-up broadcast positions.

and some of those are at floor level on each end, on the end zones, and then two huge network anchor booths at the far end for cnn and nbc. they opted for those positions. it cost them more to build obviously than the others. three others, fox, abc and cbs, are in upper -- a level up in what were handicapped seating areas where they had built on them and we have other -- ample handicap seating elsewhere of course, after they take those positions. so you have the broadcasters up here that -- we call them nonnetwork but that means they are not one of the five. they may be affiliates of those, in other words. and then we have those same groupings with stand-up positions on the floor and some up on the level in handicap broadcasting areas too. so they are everywhere. down on the floor, if you could see them, there are two major

side camera stands. and those will have television pool camera on the front tier and still photographers on the upper tiers. the same way the big center camera stands, if you could see it from here and it faces the podium. it will have two pool television cameras and our house production camera on the front tier and then the upper tiers are still photographers. the print press seats are in. they are fixed positions, with tables and electrical and internet capability built in and they are decorated with the red, white and blue and the stars and they look real fine. >> the stage reflects a trend that started in 1996 in san diego with steps in the front. and those steps were put in and the podium that we call the stage was lowered somewhat to give more of a feeling of openness, not like a ten foot

high battleship approach where you look down on the delegates. and that is endured. we have had steps in every design since then. this particular design was brought to us by our executive producer phil along and his company and the designer joe stuart from los angeles and eddy nassy from new york and they have done this for us before and they are experts at it. you could see it has large screens and it has lighted steps and what we aren't seeing today are the tremendous way we can -- we can vary the look of this with lights. not just on the steps, but everything. the lights can change many colors throughout the stage. and as you will see, people will enter from one side and make their speech out at the point and then they will exit from the other side. and there is a small bandstand to one side where a house band will keep the flavor and there could be some other

entertainment. we mentioned the lighting grid and other things that hang. i think the lighting truss itself was 140,000 pounds which reminds me of when we went to the houston astrodome in 1992 and it had been built very rapidly. and there were to records to show what the ceiling would hold. and most they had ever hung on there was 40,000 pounds to 50,000 pounds and we were going to hang at least 125,000 pounds. so we had to do major studies to see that it would hold our weight. and we did. and it was also an acoustical disaster for a convention-type thing. because it wasn't built for spoken word at floor level and there was an echo in there that if you said something loudly at floor level, it echoed throughout the place in some capacity for 17 seconds. sound would go into crevices and come out with an echo chamber,

louder than when it went in. and we had to deal with that, too. and that brings us with the fact that the sports arena are more modern and this is more modesh and we had -- modern and we had some acoustical improvements to make from our particular sound from floor level and they are going to work fine. but we've been -- i think this is our fifth straight convention in a sports arena of approachly this size. prior to that, we were in two dome stadiums and that was the superdome in new orleans in '88 and then the astrodome in houston in 1992. but for now, at least, this has become the standard of what you see. >> well, we are in what is known as media row and media row is an extension and variation of what has been known as radio talk show row and this time it was the idea of the communication director to vary it and enhance it and make it more than just radio talk shows and it will have broadcast positions in here and also the digital media, the

new angle this is the digital age and that will all be in here. and there will be defined spaces of different variations. and we have quite a scenic design that will be in here to spruce this place up. you could see a few the initial panels but they've just started. this is a very beginning of that. it will be a popular hub of activity during the convention, with interviews going constantly all of the time. and it is a good place to come by and see and be involved in. the republican national convention from cleveland starts monday. watch live every minute on c-span. listen live on the free c-span radio app. it is easy to download from the apple store or google play. watch live or on demand any time at c-span.org, on your desktop,

phone or tablet, where you will find all of our convention coverage and the full convention schedule. follow us on twitter and like us on facebook to see video of news worthy moments. don't miss a minute of the 2016 republican national convention starting monday at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. the c-span radio app and also on c-span.org. now a look at anti-poverty efforts in the u.s. panelists discuss what the federal government can do and the role of the labor market. this was hosted by the american interprize institute and it is about two hours. good afternoon, everyone and welcome to the american enterprise institute. my name is robert dore and i'm

the mortgage fellow and poverty studies here at aei and i'm very pleased to welcome you to this important discussion of our nation's anti-poverty programs. for some time now, the leadership of aei has felt that greater attention needs to be paid to helping those at the bottom of the economic scale. move up and out of poverty. there is a deep frustration that despite the fact that we do a lot as a country to improve the material well being of struggling americans, we are not helping them achieve a station in life where they no longer are in need of ongoing government support. this frustration, i know, is felt in a lot of places. at the white house, in academia and other think tanks, in neighbors and communities around the nation and in congress. and to offer some ideas on how we can move forward, the republican study committee of the house of representatives earlier this summer produced this report -- strengthening our

safety net to empower people. which will be the topic of today's seminar. and we are very pleased to have three members of the house here today to talk about their report and to hear reactions from two notable experts on these programs. but first, and perhaps most importantly, we are going to start outside of washington and hear from experts in the field of helping low-income americans move up. they work in places far removed from the halls of congress. but their work has informed some of the ideas contained in the steering committee's report. i have a special affinity for those -- these outside of washington experts, because that is where i worked prior to coming to washington. i spent 19 years working in social services agencies, in the state and city of new york, and i have some idea of the dedication, heart and wisdom of people who work in these programs and i also love to be

among them. so i'm very pleased to welcome and introduce to you our first panel which feature three leaders of community-based organization. first up, will be o dell cleveland, from mt. zion baptist church of north carolina. he was the president and ceo and co-founder of the welfare reform project and began as a ministry of mt. zion and became the first faith-based community activity and developed a brought range of partnership on national and state and local levels and including faith based partnerships and the north carolina aarp and the north carolina medical society administration. we're glad to have you. but don't start yet. because i'll introduce roberta as well. and roberta keller is from a

poverty agency in dunkirk, new york. she fostered opportunities for low income individuals to help them gain economic opportunities. they have been awarded several different shuns since she's been director, including the department of housing and urban development homeownership award and best practices agency status by the state department and the new york state community action technology award. in 1999 miss kerl was awarded the director award by the new york state childcare coordinating counsel, a council i at one point was a member of so i'm happy to have you and she received the new york state senate women of distinction award. dean hammond has worked in low income housing for more than 30 years including founding a company focused on hud housing, management software. he joined the board of the foundation for affordable housing in 2004. served as the chairman and was contracted act as president before stepping down in 2012.

he's now a consultant to the board. dean is a retired army major and was awarded the purple heart and distinguished flying cross during the vietnam war and the defense service medal as chief of aviation of a military training mission in saudi arabia. after these three presentations, we'll have the congressman come up on present on sections of the report and the professor and the doctor come and make comment on the report and during parts of this and in at different times we hope to have a good dialogue with the audience as well with questions. i have one other person to introduce and she's here somewhere and that is nichol noise and she's the timekeeper and she's over there and she will give signs to keep everybody on schedule. i'm sorry to say that, but that is part of what happens when you try to run a well-run seminar. and i want to say one last thing about seminars, because roberta is from chit aqua county, some

may know it is one of the earliest institutes of good thinking and sharing of ideas in the united states, and when i -- when president johnson was president, he would get frustrated with things, he would say we're going to have one of these gosh darn chit aqua semibbars -- seminars. that didn't get the laugh i wanted but the point is, this is something like that. a free and open discussion. and with that, i'll start with odell. >> i want just to say thank you for coming. when sme talked about time, everyone looks at the baptist preacher. than where you need to keep the time for. first, we're just glad that this discussion is on the table in a form that goes on both sides of the aisle. when i read the book of conservative heart and look at the other reports, it is interesting because 20 years ago when i got into this business, i

was in divinity school and i was doing my masters's thesis when the 1996 welfare reform act came out and the thesis was the black church's response to the 1996 welfare reform act and in that piece of paper we talked about how could we do this and then ten or 15 years later we were able to move people off the welfare rolls to the point they have about $11 million in earnings. what we didn't do a good job is to document how much saved us from if odell was on the system, when you look at that number line of zero and you start looking at the negative part, how much savings did it come to the bottom line. but when you start looking at the human impact in folks' lives and how all of a sudden people start feeling good about themselves because they are working and being successful, all of a sudden you had the faith community and in particular the black community, the faith community that so many people believe in is still on the front lines of helping

people and giving them a hand up, not a hand out. and being the cheerleader and helping and going into the community helping business owners say, hey, listen, you don't have to go half way around the world on a mission trip. i have a mission for you right here on the corner. come on, exercise your faith. and get involved and let's help create jobs and help with these kind of things and that's how we became so successful. but you have to understand, one of the things that we did is the fact that people who don't want help, we left them alone. you cannot make somebody want to change. and i think in part of discussion when i read the papers, and a lot of it, you will make someone oren courage someone to get married or someone who has been married for 31 years who i love my wife who is wide open and all of that good stuff, that is for the young guys in the group, you have to want to be married. no form of legislation is going to make someone get married.

but i was so disappointed when i read that the current administration took the work requirements out. the work requirements must be put back in and they must stay in because that is a big driver that helps make all of this work. because if you are asking the social workers in the dss system, the department of social service, that is what we refer to it in north carolina, that is not going to work. that is not their forte. so when they partner with us, usually they give you the hardest to serve. because no one is -- people understand the game. they usually give the faith community the hardest to serve, how are you going to get this person employed and that is when we do our miracles. no hocus-pocus, just going and building relationships with business owners and getting them to buy in. and making a success. and when you get through having them buy in, you go back to the individual and get him or her to buy in. and so believe it or not, the

baptist preacher is going to push the time on because i look forward to the discussion. and i'm just so excited that we have this conversation. because in spite of people's biases, prejudice and stereotypes about poor people, especially poor black people who look like me, a lot of your stereo types are not accurate.